Confederate Yankee
April 07, 2008
MSNBC Games McCain Speech with Irrelevant "Breaking News"
As has sadly become commonplace, Amanda at Think Progress missed another story today, even though this one slapped her right between the eyes.
Her post,
McCain's Speech On Progress In Iraq Interrupted By News Of Mortars Hitting The Green Zone, notes that MSNBC interrupted a John McCain speech about progress being made in the Iraq War with the breaking news story that four mortar shells hit Baghdad's Green Zone, an unremarkable development as Sadrists and insurgents have used mortars for harassment and interdiction (H&I) fires frequently throughout the war, usually to little effect.
There were no known casualties at the time the story was reported, and there was no known targets of importance hit. What Amanda did not grasp is the utter lack of a legitimate reason for MSNBC producers to break into McCain's speech, other than to try to undermine his message.
MSNBC needs to justify this "breaking news" event by proving that they have broken into other live events on their network to cover minor Green Zone mortar attacks during the campaign season.
Somehow, I doubt they can.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
01:42 PM
| Comments (26)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
The press coverage of Iraq, the WoT, and conservatives generally seems to be getting worse almost by the day. I see an analogy between hunger and the story the lefty press is hankering for - the one that busts the "we're making progress" idea wide open. Imagine a small animal in cover that would have to leave the cover and risk predation to get food. The species has evolved a sensible moderate fear of being in the open - too willing to leave cover, the animal gets eaten. Too unwilling, it dies of starvation. Over generations, a roughly sensible degree of willingness to leave cover evolves. But now suppose food becomes scarce. The value of staying in cover rapidly drops as starvation threatens, so the animal becomes more willing to leave cover in search of food - becomes reckless, even, if food is scarce enough. Recklessness in search of food becomes a better bargain as hunger increases.
The reporter looking for the big story that finally, finally gets Bush - the story Chimpy McHitlerBurton cannot escape - that reporter is facing an increasing threat of starvation. 10 months and counting down. Time is running out. The animal must leave cover. The press must dispense with even the pretense of objectivity and go out into the open. I predict more and more recklessly open bias in reporting between now and January. They're getting hungrier and hungrier. They're staring starvation right in the eye...
Posted by: Hyperpotamus at April 07, 2008 08:13 PM (STkWr)
2
Hyper, that was a superfine treatise.
In the best tradition of Chinese businessmen everywhere, I will now steal your words and use them as my own.
Actually I simply plan on saving your post in Notepad form because it's cool and RIGHT ON THE MONEY.
Posted by: Pillbox at April 07, 2008 08:49 PM (MQVqX)
3
Hyperpotamus, you just described the end of Dan Rather's career!
Posted by: Kevin Baker at April 07, 2008 10:20 PM (apIl/)
4
That small animal sounds like it could be a snake, and I hope that snake sees the shadow of the eagle that gets it.
Posted by: sherlock at April 07, 2008 10:24 PM (ojW85)
5
Your comments are pithy and accurate. I wonder about the term they cover. Can the time period go back to Walter Cronkite, or even Walter Duranty?
Posted by: P Kovchok at April 07, 2008 10:31 PM (9cpAC)
6
As I see it the press has its work cut out for it:
It has to keep attention off Rev. G D AmeriKKKa. It will have to cover up rioting at the D convention in Denver and the R convention in St. Paul (if the guys rioting at the D job can get out on bail in time). And it will have to cover up for BHO's inability to think on his feet or mouth anything but platitudes.
Hungry? They are starving.
Plus you hear the rumors. Reporters on the McCain bus are having fun. On the BO bus not so much.
Posted by: M. Simon at April 08, 2008 12:10 AM (+oI3L)
7
The disdain for objectivity has been overt for a number of years now. The ethically corrupt Geneva Overholser, high priestess of the MSM, had this to say a few years back when the media decided to declare all-out war (i.e. relentless slander) against Bush:
"[2004] was the year when it finally became unmistakably clear that objectivity has outlived its usefulness as an ethical touchstone for journalism."
- Geneva Overholser (Hartford Courant) justifying partisan journalism
As usual, we can turn for real insight to Orwell. Until recently I falsely believed that the Ministry of Truth was modeled after TASS and Pravda. Not at all. The inspiration came from the BBC and the British press:
" . . . and I saw newspapers... retailing these lies and eager intellectuals building emotional superstructures over events that had never happened. I saw, in fact, history being written not in terms of what happened but of what ought to have happened according to various 'party lines'... This kind of thing is frightening to me, because it often gives me the feeling that the very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world. "
- Orwell
Posted by: William White at April 08, 2008 12:36 AM (mSX6M)
8
Fortunately the American People have many many sources for their news. Americans are free to choose to their own tastes.
Unfortunately some do not like the choices that Americans make in their news sources.
Posted by: John Ryan at April 08, 2008 06:42 AM (TcoRJ)
9
John Ryan, the news is supposed to be unbiased. Editorials are, of course, a different matter.
What we're talking about is "truth in advertising," or perhaps "truth in labeling" would be more accurate. If you're going to label something "news," it needs to be unbiased--just like something labeled "milk" had better not contain orange juice.
What you appear to be defending is putting orange juice (opinion) in a container labeled "milk" (news). Are you sure you wanna do that?
Posted by: C-C-G at April 08, 2008 08:31 AM (5m1ld)
10
I don't watch MSNBC, because I don't want to double their audience.
Posted by: Bill Smith at April 08, 2008 08:40 AM (Up4Is)
11
...Watch 'em, Bill, but keep one eye closed.
Posted by: Dave Dudley at April 08, 2008 10:48 AM (MdmUg)
12
Starvation indeed and quite nearly literal. It is a smashing good thing that the pretenses to objectivity are being blown to the winds. The rejoinder for Foxies has never been that they are unbiased, rather that they are a "meager" corrective to existing bias. Not incidenctally, they are able to be "fair and balanced" because they need engage no deceptions unlike the predatory, Alinskoid operatives that have wormed their slimy way into trusted institutions, consuming credibility built over decades like so much coal in a tender. Time's up, coals gone and with it, um, advertising revenue... who knew? We are fortunate indeed that the necessities of business act as a brake on endlessly corrupt practices. And as always the radicals have expensive tastes. Pity those in thrall to the BBC, media slaves is not too dire a description.
Posted by: megapotamus at April 08, 2008 11:54 AM (LF+qW)
13
All praises to hyper- and mega-potamus. It certainly appears that the MSM is breaking cover to attempt defeat at all costs in Iraq and to emplace Senator Present in the White House. Said media might be well advised to consider that hysterics in wishful-thinking reporting are counterproductive. But I have confidence that said media doth take scant advice from lowly potamus blogs, and will serenely (oh heck, hysterically) continue toward the precipice at ever-increasing velocity. Jeeves, more popcorn!
Posted by: Micropotamus at April 08, 2008 12:12 PM (YeWPs)
14
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 04/08/2008 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 08, 2008 12:44 PM (gIAM9)
15
Britain makes America look like a paradise of press freedom and honesty...I have to watch fox here to even get an idea of what is happening.
Posted by: Thud at April 08, 2008 04:58 PM (CqkCY)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
MCCain: Dem Positions Evidence of a "Failure of Leadership"
He would, of course, be right:
Addressing the Veterans of Foreign Wars, McCain criticized Obama and Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and insisted that last year's U.S. troop buildup in Iraq brought a glimmer of "something approaching normal" there, despite a recent outbreak of heavy fighting and a U.S. death toll that has surpassed 4,000.
"I do not believe that anyone should make promises as a candidate for president that they cannot keep if elected," McCain told the crowd.
"To promise a withdrawal of our forces from Iraq, regardless of the calamitous consequences to the Iraqi people, our most vital interests, and the future of the Middle East, is the height of irresponsibility," he said. "It is a failure of leadership."
The Democratic position on Iraq is one of diligent ignorance and the studied avoidance of reality.
National Democrats, including both Democratic presidential hopefuls, long ago invested their individual political futures and that of their political party in the gamble that the Iraq War would be a defeat, and they then positioned themselves politically to take advance of the expected loss.
They did so with reckless disregard, and did precisely what they'd accused Republicans of doing: they "went to war" without an exit strategy of any kind at all.
Now that the war has turned for the better, al Qaeda has all but admitted defeat, and Sadr's Iranian-controlled militia is on the verge of being dissolved under a united front of Sunni, Shia, and Kurdish leaders, Democrats have no choice but to continue to advocate for defeat. They continue to do everything in their power to salvage a loss, from trying to influence the media as Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid have repeatedly done, to promising a defeat by calendar dates as Barack Obama has done time and again in campaign stops.
General Petraeus' COIN doctrine, the "surge," the Sawha "Awakening" movement, and even Prime Minister al- Maliki's poorly-planned raids into southern Iraq against Iranian-controlled militias have tilted the conflict strongly against al Qaeda and Iran. Democratic politicians find themselves in the unenviable position of having to lie to potential voters and their fellow travelers alike to retain votes and relevance, sharing a delusion that things have not gotten better in Iraq.
To give up the delusion of a static unchanging conflict, an endless stalemate that can only be changed by our loss, is to lose a key element of their community-based reality.
Both Democratic Presidential contenders Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton continue to pay lip service to the virulent and vocal fringe that are convinced that the war was irrevocably lost before the battle was joined. They make promises that
no responsible military or foreign policy strategist in either party or on the international stage will support, promising defeat, championing genocide, cheerleading for disaster to garner votes... without any intention of actually following through and letting such a disaster happen on their watch.
Clinton and Obama recognize the passive-aggressive bloodlust of the "progressive" fringe of their party, radicals that do not mind thousands of Iraqis being killing in a genocide, or seeing the Middle East sucked into a violent conventional regional war or nuclear arms race if they can only blame the blood-stained streets on Republicans.
Obama and Hillary follow their supporter's fickle whims. They will pander to the torches—and—pitchforks base, but as their own strategists have made clear, they will not honor the calls for genocide by apathy. They'll lie to them with a smile on their faces, and then enact the exact same policies that McCain has the political courage to vocalize publicly.
McCain rightly criticizes his opponent's positions as failures of leadership. Neither Hillary nor Obama have ever led anything of consequence before.
It is too much to expect them to display leadership now.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:30 PM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
You'd think the America Is Evil fringe would have figured this out from the Pelosi/Reid '06 promises vs their post-election actions. maybe they still will and vote Nader or McKinney.
Great post, Bob.
Posted by: Pablo at April 07, 2008 08:17 PM (yTndK)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
ISM
Via the headlines at Hot Air comes a breathtaking Joe Klein entry at the TIME blog Swampland:
Pete Wehner, former chief White House propagandist for the Iraq war, has taken me to task for claiming that liberalism is more optimistic and therefore inherently more patriotic than conservatism. That takes some nerve. He would compare my statement to the constant drumbeat of right-wingnutters questioning the patriotism of those who do not support the Bush Administration's foreign policy foolishness. But I didn't do that at all. I didn't question the patriotism of conservatives: I simply argued that it is more patriotic to be optimistic about the chance that our collective will--that is, the best work of government--will succeed, rather than that it will fail or impinge on freedom.
In others words, it is more patriotic to be in favor of civil rights legislation than to oppose it...to be in favor of social security and medicare than to oppose them...and to hope that the better angels of our legislators--acting in concert, in compromise--will produce a universal health insurance system and an alternative energy plan that we can all be proud of.
Klein can on occasion be astute, but his grasp of the affect of government on the human element is achingly weak from someone who writes about the subject for a living. Government is
never comprised of merely the best intentions or has the best work in mind. It is at best a necessary evil, and is often done with the accrual and consolidation of power the goal of lawmakers, their campaign idealism either false from the outset, or leached out of them over time as they succumb to the seductions of power.
Someone posted this Youtube video to a comment thread of one of my Pajamas Media articles several weeks ago.
I do not care for the the purposeful misspelling of Obama's name at the end, but the "ISM" cartoon that comprises the bulk of the video neatly diagnoses Klein's disease.
Government
always impinges on freedom. It is government's inherent nature, and for Klein not to understand it's congenital condition is sad to behold.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:30 AM
| Comments (14)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
You're certainly a big advocate of MY freedom of speech.
Posted by: chris lee at April 08, 2008 10:26 PM (qTV/d)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 04, 2008
Rep. McHenry Calls Green Zone Security Guard "Two-bit"
Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC) has referred to a "two-bit security guard" in the Green Zone in Baghdad who would not let him into the gym without having the proper ID.
What a jerk.
His political opponent Lance Sigmon is
capitalizing on the statement, as he should, but I think those who are claiming that McHenry belittled a soldier are probably not accurate, or are at least jumping the gun.
The Green Zone certainly has American personnel, but many are Iraqis or foreign security personnel.
Somehow, I don't think the liberals at Think Progress who have built a reputation lately of getting the facts wrong would care
nearly as much if McHenry had uttered his comments to a security guard contracted through Blackwater, even though they face many of the same risks.
Update: Yep, Amanda at Think Progress screwed up again. The guard in question was not a soldier, but instead was what liberals like to refer to as a "hired killer," or as the rest of us call them, a security contractor.
Amanda either needs a break, a new fact-checker, or a new career.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
01:59 PM
| Comments (26)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I took a quick perusal of the lefties covering this, and none of them have updated to reflect the proper information.
Just barking moonbat insanity.
Posted by: William Teach at April 04, 2008 03:12 PM (GRSha)
2
McHenry showed a total lack of class, and I'll be telling his office how I feel about that.
Contractors- "two-bit security guards"- are working hard, at risk in a foreign land, just as soldiers are. Many of them ARE ex-soldiers.
What was McHenry trying to prove with this story, anyway? That there are people in Iraq who don't recognize his thunderous political glory?
Posted by: DaveP. at April 04, 2008 03:15 PM (6iy97)
3
Look, this guy is from my district, and I don't really like him, but he has a good voting record, and this is a spin distortion of what his whole message was.
It is my understanding that the "two bit security guard" line was ironic reflection embedded in actual praise for the system, that apparently includes self deprecation by my representative.
Believe me, I was totally ready to flame this guy when I saw the first reports. But don't fly off too fast based on an MSM report, that's just what they want you to do.
Disdain the man if you want, but make sure of your target before you squeeze the trigger.
Posted by: Gus Bailey at April 04, 2008 03:42 PM (LZarw)
4
Yeah, it isn't quite so bad since the guy actually IS a security guard but these elitist tendencies in our elected scrum are to be denounced when they arise. You won't get consistency from the other side, ever. The transgressions in this field by the Clintons, Kerry and other Dem bigwigs are lengthy and nauseating. Let's keep the fire under our own guys feet as well. But this guy is a bench warmer at best. Try again, TP.
Posted by: megapotamus at April 04, 2008 03:44 PM (LF+qW)
5
As his story about the "two-bit security guard" [not a soldier] unfolds we learn that McHenry was denied entrance to the gym and escorted back to his room. Shortly thereafter, the gym was hit in a rocket attack.
Only goes to prove that it's the "little" "two-bit" people out there that make your life worth living.
Posted by: Neo at April 04, 2008 04:01 PM (Yozw9)
6
So the whole point of McHenry's story was that this "two-bit security guard" that he looked down upon actually saved his life.
Out of context, anyone?
Posted by: Roy Mustang at April 04, 2008 06:05 PM (yy3Ju)
7
For some people, there are human beings who, by virtue of their occupations, can be disregarded as "two bit."
Posted by: Dennis M at April 04, 2008 07:32 PM (96Tnt)
8
I am ashamed to have such an arrogant, pompous individual represent those of us here in Hickory, NC that respect the military and civilian contractors.
Posted by: Mary Schuerkamp at April 04, 2008 08:56 PM (80K/P)
9
You know, it doesn't matter who it is. Patrick McHenry insulted someone- even if it's the smallest child in Baghdad, it matters because it shows how McHenry sees the world.
The important thing here is to remember that this isn't about hating on Republicans, it's about realizing that his competitor, Lance Sigmon, is trying to show flaws in the system that can be made better, voting record or not. See his press release and video (Sigmon was the one that released the video in the first place):
http://sigmonforcongress.com/pressrelease/mchenry-calls-sentry-two-bit-lies-about-death.html
Posted by: Kurt Melloncamp at April 04, 2008 11:29 PM (XW3q2)
10
Please remember - his opponent is also a Republican. - and a military veteran. Sigmon clearly stated that McHenry was "belittling a security guard" - as in - it doesn't matter if the guard is active duty or not - he was doing his job and McHenry thought that because he was a Congressman, he didn't have to follow the rules. Yes, he may vote the "right" way in some peoples opinions - but does he really deserve the respect he believes he is entitled to?
Posted by: joyfulrunner at April 05, 2008 05:27 AM (XW3q2)
11
I didn't know the guy was from Hickory. I live in Monroe, about an hour and a half from Hickory. Don't think the people there will take too kindly to McHenry's comments.
Oh, and is it any surprise that a left wing nut site is wrong again?
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at April 05, 2008 07:19 AM (kNqJV)
12
McHenry's "Two-Bit Security Guard" Remark
LT Nixon blogs from the IZ.
Posted by: Cannoneer No. 4 at April 05, 2008 09:08 AM (Xezx9)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Dear Shrieking British Media Harpies...
The bulletproof hoodie that has so many of you up in arms today is more than likely a cynical fraud by a company that obviously knows how to play up the easily excitable U.K. press, but who doesn't have much of a chance of following through with a product that can do what they claim.
According to the
company's web site:
Bladerunner have now created " The Defender Hoodie " which is BULLET PROOF throughout the main body area.
This Hoodie is rugged and tough just like a normal Hoodie but this one has a removable Inner Shell that gives you Balistic Security at Level NIJ STD 0101.04
Number 1: Never trust your "Balistic Security" to a bunch of over-zealous fashion designers that can't spell "ballistic."
Number 2: There is
no such thing as "bullet proof," just bullet resistant, a fact that any responsible armor designer will tell you that Bladerunner blows right past in a bit of self-promoting puffery.
Number 3: NIJ STD 0101.04 is not an armor level. It is a
testing specification published by the U.S. Department of Justice's National Institute of Justice to determine the classes or types of armor protection.
Type I body armor--which I suspect the "bulletproof hoodie" will be if it meets any NIJ standards at all--will only stop low-velocity ammunition, and is generally regarded as being obsolete for all practice purposes. Types IIA, II, and IIIA provide increasing resistance to penetration from handgun bullets.
Types III and IV are designed to protect against rifle rounds.
Of course, if the edgy fashion designers at Bladerunner want to put their products up for real-world testing, I can easily find some police officers and civilian shooting instructors here in the United States that would enjoy helping test these claims with common .22LR, 9mm, .38 Special, 40 S&W, .45ACP and .357 Magnum ammunition.
My email address is in the right column of this page under "email me." I look forward to hearing from you.
Via Ace,
who isn't buying this, either.
Update: I sent Bladerunner an email leading them back to this blog post. Barry Samms of Bladerunner responded via email with a curt "who are you to be calling me a fraud, I suggest you choose your words a bit wiser before emailing us."
I suppose that was meant to be intimidating, but you'll note he didn't refute a single point I made, nor did he seem willing to offer his product up for real-world testing.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:27 PM
| Comments (19)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
In 1981 I was assigned to a Central American country in civil war. My Mom bought me a "Second Chance" vest. The most interesting part was the book that came with it, featuring pictures of policemen who had been shot with handguns or shotguns. The impact mark was a dark purple welt surrounded by a round brown bruise.
The guy that owned the company would visit police departments and do a live demo. He would don a vest and invite an officer to shoot him at point blank range with his service revolver. At one dinner, someone asked about an ice pick. He sent a waiter to the kitchen to fetch one and asked a female officer to do the honors.
The vest provided zero ice pick protection. The owner fell on the floor dead.
Spontaneous product demonstrations proved to be 90% of a good idea.
Posted by: arch at April 04, 2008 01:35 PM (4zISc)
2
Arch, are you sure of that story? Last I heard Armor Holdings bought Second Chance, but Richard Davis was still alive.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at April 04, 2008 02:15 PM (xNV2a)
3
Fashionista ballistic gear = bad idea.
Consider this a Darwin seperator and leave it at that.
Posted by: Dave P. at April 04, 2008 03:17 PM (6iy97)
4
Yeah, I've heard that story but it seems to be basically an urban legend. Certainly the guy would know the vest would do squat against a piercing attack like that. But the prodcut in question, even if serious, is no breakthrough. You have been able to velcro in protective panels to any garment since the ballistic vest was first marketed.
Posted by: megapotamus at April 04, 2008 03:48 PM (LF+qW)
5
My ex-brother-in-law when he was a deputy, was looking to buy a lighter vest for use while he was on escorts and such on motorbike duty.
One of those he considered buying looked for all the world like a t-shirt with mesh sleeves and tails. It was a bit lighter than my sister wanted (she'd have had him in IV at all times, of course) but like he told her, He was unlikely to get shot at escorting a funeral. I forget the brand (He did have a Second Chance catalog, but I can't say for sure that was the one we were looking at) but I recall it had some edged weapon resistance.
A "bullet proof" hoodie would be rather easy to make though. Be a touch warmer than a regular hoodie, but then so is any vest under a regular hoodie. But like you point out, no legit manufacturer is going to call it "Bullet Proof". The company's lawyers would soil themselves in reaction to the claim.
Posted by: JP at April 04, 2008 05:15 PM (Tae/a)
6
I'd suggest sending one to the box of truth! http://www.theboxotruth.com/
I'm sure they'd test it out really nicely!
Posted by: Scott at April 04, 2008 09:10 PM (ST8vV)
7
CY:
No, I'm not sure. A cop in New York told me.
Arch
Posted by: arch at April 06, 2008 01:03 PM (4zISc)
8
Well I suggest that you offer the company a way of saving face by recommending an independent, unbiased real world tester, such as the Box of truth guys or those clowns on myth busters.
Either should be able to do a good test and let the world see the results.
Posted by: nosmo at April 06, 2008 07:40 PM (FsIge)
9
I Britains urban youth beleive this tosh and happily shoot each other we all win...plus mummy and daddy(optional) get to sue the company...happy days!
Posted by: thud at April 08, 2008 05:02 PM (CqkCY)
10
As one who owned 2nd Chance armor in the 80's, I can say the company made clear that edged and pointy weapons were not stopped by soft armor, so I find it hard to imagine that Richie Davis (who on several occasions DID model his armor while being shot) would ever be that foolish. Last I knew, he was still alive, and his son had started another body armor company.
2nd Chance was acquired by another firm just a few years ago, when they went bankrupt. They had switched from Kevlar to Zylon, and unknown to them Zylon deteriorated over time much faster than does Kevlar. A really, REALLY bad idea when you are making body armor. NIJ issues a "recommend replacement" advisory, and Armor Holdings bought the remains.
Posted by: 1charlie2 at April 10, 2008 06:28 AM (pDkg5)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 03, 2008
The "New Math" of Fox News
Here is the screencap of a link from an extremely misleading link on FoxNews.com this morning.
The link to "U.S. Warplane Launches Massive Airstrike in Basra" goes to the
following story where you would presumably expect to read abut a serious escalation in U.S. bombings in Basra against Mahdi Army targets, which would likely prompt attacks by followers of al Sadr against U.S. military targets around Iraq.
What you learn from clicking the link, however, is that just
two bombs were dropped in Basra, and they were small munitions that targeted militants hiding in specific houses.
Massive = 2.
It's nice to know.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:31 AM
| Comments (34)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Sheesh! From the headline you'd think it was Dresden.
Posted by: RiverRat at April 03, 2008 10:44 AM (ybWKw)
2
Yikes - and here I thought "Shock and Awe" was back!
Posted by: Mark at April 03, 2008 11:04 AM (4od5C)
3
"slowdown" == "depression" too.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at April 03, 2008 12:09 PM (tvnQf)
4
Devastating != massive... at least, not necessarily.
Posted by: Russ at April 03, 2008 12:26 PM (9X0tX)
5
It is "massive" in the sense that the projectiles were not quark or strange matter munitions but contained a measurable mass of explosives. Come on, you Rightwing nuts know what we're talking about here!
Posted by: megapotamus at April 03, 2008 04:41 PM (LF+qW)
6
The whole coverage of the Basra fight has been a disgrace. Newspapers have basically delared a consensus victory for Sadr based on... feelings, I guess. I'm surprised you haven't covered it more, CY. Does anybody have any idea how many casualties the Iraqi govt took? I just want to know, one way or the other.
Posted by: tsmonk at April 04, 2008 08:39 AM (j1orm)
7
I'm surprised you haven't covered it more, CY.
Frankly,I haven't covered it because my access to sources in that that part of the country is extremely limited and so much of the reporting being done is contradictory.
The Iraqi government forces, the best I can tell based upon anecdotal evidence, took low casualties during the operations in Basra, Kut, Baghdad, etc. I've seen no firm numbers, but I would estimate far less than 100 KIA, perhaps half that. The Sadrists got their clocks cleaned, with estimates of over 400 KIA , twice that wounded, and more than 100 captured, with more on the run.
Based on casualty numbers, it appears to be a clearcut victory for GOI forces, even though it remains in doubt if the mission's objectives were filled. The Sadrists seem to have won the media, but standards were low for them. All they had to do was avoid being utterly wiped out.
If you want to know who won in the eyes of the Iraqis, go to the yahoo.com news photo streams for Iraq, and note the huge crowds of men in southern cities such as Basra flocking to join the Iraqi Army.
How often do people voluntarily join an army they expect to lose?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at April 04, 2008 08:50 AM (xNV2a)
8
Yeah, I saw that. This whole thing, IMO, is the most blatant con-job by the MSM to date. It's as if the correspondents were leapfrogging each other to get their Cronkite moment. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.
Posted by: tsmonk at April 04, 2008 09:44 AM (j1orm)
9
Remember ya'll. We won every battle in Vietnam and lost the war here in America. If they tell lies often enough without challenge, it will become accepted as truth. And just kickin' their asses don't work. You have to fight lies with TRUTH.
Posted by: Tonto (USA) at April 04, 2008 10:54 AM (GAL+4)
10
The operations in Basra have not been won or lost yet, they are ongoing. The brief Sadr uprising in response has been soundly put down with massive special group casualties and a call by sadr for his people to stop fighting.
Posted by: grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr at April 04, 2008 11:37 AM (gkobM)
11
How often do people voluntarily join an army they expect to lose?
I blame the Democrats. If we were more irrationally exuberant we'd have a flood of able-bodied, bright, young conservatives like CY or any of the board posters here who would be more than willing to enlist. Sadly, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have scared off the wingnut hordes with their talk of "the new GI Bill", "investigating the VA", and "insisting on troop deployment rates that follow recommended Army guidelines". How many of you would be over there right now if you didn't think your right to fight for 15 consecutive months would be infringed upon. Really, this is all about the military-funded government sponsored medical coverage. If we just gave all our soldiers Blue Cross / Blue Shield or Aetna, people would be lining up around the block to join up.
Of course, if John McCain takes the White House, he'll change all of that. I bet you recruitment will skyrocket if he takes office. Nothing restores confidence in a military invasion like the promise of 100 more years on the ground.
Posted by: Zifnab at April 04, 2008 12:03 PM (Usaah)
12
Hey, zifnab, care to explain why that statement was relevant? Also, speaking of 100 year occupations, are the Democrats going to end this pointless war against Japan? After all, we have had trops there since 1945, and we are no closer to winning than when we started....
Posted by: Grey Fox at April 04, 2008 12:25 PM (tBDYW)
13
Hey, zifnab, care to explain why that statement was relevant?
Just that we all know where CY is leading with this bemoaning of the death of troop morale. It's yet another verse in the song that never ends entitled, "It's the Democrats' Fault". CY has been very... liberal... in expressing his opinion on that front.
Also, speaking of 100 year occupations, are the Democrats going to end this pointless war against Japan? After all, we have had trops there since 1945, and we are no closer to winning than when we started....
That's an excellent question. We could just as easily ask the last 5 Republican Presidents as we could ask the last 4 Democrats. And I'm in total agreement with you. Military bases in Japan are a giant waste of resources if you're not looking to build a global empire. Fortunately, America's been in Empire Building Mode since about 1945. Of course, we don't lose 30 soldiers a month fighting it out on the mean streets of Tokyo either. We also don't hemorrhage $12 billion / month in upkeep costs. So comparing Japan to Iraq is rather ignorant.
If McCain were to announce we should spend the next 100 years in Japan, I think he'd still raise some eyebrows. He'd be resurrecting a point of contention that died with the Ron Paul campaign. Why do we have this global military network of bases? We're spending a fortune in tax payer dollars to protect ourselves from a military that's been little more than a police force for the last half a century. Why do we keep military bases in the Philippines or in Germany or in Saudi Arabia, for that matter? But that talk strays perilously close to a discussion on "national security" which immediately invokes the GOP bugbears of creeping global communism and the trans-continental terrorist menace.
It's a discussion Republicans haven't been interested in having seriously since Nixon. Much better to just throw slurs - hippie, commie, terror-lover - at your political opponents than to engage in a rational discussion of what global military presence America actually requires.
Posted by: Zifnab at April 04, 2008 01:52 PM (Usaah)
14
Though the weapons used where J-DAMs, I think we would all agree that two MOABS would be a massive airstrike.
Posted by: David at April 04, 2008 03:30 PM (kjXZC)
15
No one blamed the Dems but you Zinfab. You make a strong case though. Count me convinced.
Posted by: megapotamus at April 04, 2008 03:52 PM (LF+qW)
16
Zifnab,
McCain's comment about 100 more years was in reference to Japan and Germany, something he made quite explicit in his speech. That was my point. He was saying that if things go right, we might very well have troops stationed there for a very long time indeed, not that we would still be fighting there.
As for "empire building," we can either play global policemen (because nobody else can), or we can let the rest of the world (Sudan, the Balkans, Kuwait, Taiwan, etc.) shift for itself. Do you really want to do that?
I suspect the reason why conservatives don't try to reason with you is because you don't come across are particularly rational. Your first post is a case in point - even with an explanation it doesn't make any sense.
Posted by: Grey Fox at April 04, 2008 05:11 PM (tBDYW)
17
Zifnab, I am sure you can provide links to the post where CY said he blamed the Democrats.
Oh, and as for commenters going down to their local recruiting office, as I have pointed out twice recently, I am disabled and cannot join. You have, therefore, proven that you either can't or don't read or comprehend well, and in the process have made yourself look like a durned fool.
Congratulations.
Posted by: C-C-G at April 04, 2008 06:10 PM (5m1ld)
18
Of course, we don't lose 30 soldiers a month fighting it out on the mean streets of Tokyo either. We also don't hemorrhage $12 billion / month in upkeep costs. So comparing Japan to Iraq is rather ignorant.
Of course, we never lost hundreds of thousands of troops in Iraq. That they're not exactly the same doesn't preclude drawing parallels, and suggesting otherwise is utterly ignorant.
Posted by: Pablo at April 04, 2008 08:16 PM (yTndK)
19
We haven't even lost as many soldiers in Iraq as we lost in one single battle on the way to Japan... I speak, of course, of Iwo Jima.
Shall we continue with the comparisons? I think we shall.
Our efforts in Japan have helped make them a stabilizing force in Asia, one of our staunchest allies, one of the largest and most vibrant economies in the world, and one of the freest societies as well. If we can do that in Japan, why can't we do something similar in Iraq?
You sure you wanted to compare Japan and Iraq, Zifnab?
Posted by: C-C-G at April 04, 2008 08:53 PM (5m1ld)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
It Also Gets Dark At Night
I don't see why Jane Fonda's endorsement of Barack Obama qualifies as being newsworthy:
Jane Fonda, the actress and ardent anti-Vietnam War advocate who visited North Vietnam during those hostilities, has endorsed Democrat Barack Obama for president.
Actress and anti-war advocate Jane Fonda at a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft battery in June 1972 singing an anti-war song with soldiers during her visit to North Vietnam in the Vietnam war has just endorsed Democrat Barack Obama of Illinois for president
There were no formal ceremonies for the endorsement. In fact, the Obama campaign may just be learning about the actress's approval now as word spreads like lit gunpowder via the Internet.
Fonda was eating out last night and exited the restaurant, ignoring as celebrities often do the assembled press contingent.
But a video camera was rolling as she approached the street and someone, perhaps just trying to get her to turn around for a picture, shouted out at her back, "Who are you going to vote for?"
There was a moment of silence. Then, the actress did turn around toward the cameras, paused and with a smile said simply, "Obama!" Then she got into a car and drove away.
A radical anti-war activist has decided to vote for a radical anti-war candidate. Why, exactly is this newsworthy?
If Fonda had blurted out "McCain!"— as her candidate of choice, a man who was being brutally beaten by the North Vietnamese as Fonda was doing photo ops for them on anti-aircraft guns being used against McCain's fellow aviators—
that would be news.
If Obama's terrorist friend Bill Ayers renounced his involvement in bombings of the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon, and his group's attempting bombing of a soldiers dance at Fort Dix (the plan went awry when his girlfriend blew herself up by accident, instead of the U.S. Army soldiers and their civilian dates that they were targeting), and then shouted out that he would support McCain after targeting servicemen with bombs throughout the time McCain was being tortured,
that would be news.
If Rev. Jeremiah Wright, emerged from his
million-dollar mansion to "God D__m Barack" instead of America, or to even simply apologize for exposing his congregation to bigotry and conspiracy theorizing,
that would be news.
But none of those things happened.
An aging actress who wanted America to lose one war has announced her support for a candidate who wants America to lose it's current conflict.
It is sad. It is predictable. But it isn't news.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:35 AM
| Comments (22)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Obama is already on thin ice and this endorsement just crystallizes a lot of people's thoughts about the man. If you think Hillary hate is rampant, you ain't seen nothing like the seething hate many feel toward Fonda. When Obama's true loyalties are already in question, having an enemy collaborator endorse does not inspire. Those of us who were in Vietnam or had loved ones in combat there when Fonda was getting off on that anti-aircraft gun, will never forget or forgive. So when you get the endorsement of the most hated woman in America, it is news, news that should be shouted from the rooftops.
Posted by: Sara at April 03, 2008 02:40 PM (Wi/N0)
2
That speaks the same for Jeremiah Wright, why are the pro-war communist neocons such as yourself getting uppity over a negro acting uppity? That wasn't news.
Posted by: I see Yankee But no Confederate at April 03, 2008 03:33 PM (kq2Cy)
3
^^^^^^My dear troll:
Obama's race matters nothing to us conservatives and libertarians. The fact he is wowed by the rantings of a racebaiting nut who's theology is Marxism with god added, thereby making him the communist, and is more liberal than even a socialist who runs as a Democrat, concerns us. The leftists seem involved over the fact he is an Actual African American (Daddy is from Kenya, Momma from USA). And 75% of his supporters simply give Change and his oratory skills as reason for supporting him. Pol Pot was change for Cambodia. Was it good change?
Posted by: JP at April 03, 2008 04:19 PM (Tae/a)
4
I am heartened, quite frankly, by this faddish quirk that causes Lefties to denounce "Commies". Only a metaphysical level of ignorance and stupidity could conspire to produce such a witless burp but more importantly we now have a point of agreement Left to Right that Communism IS BAD. Of course anyone who cares to know knows the Marxist roots of Barack's Liberation Theology as well as a baroque family of similar perversities that infest the minds of our Left leaning citizens. This tick demonstrates the utter ignorance of these mutts of the intellectual (forgive the expression) foundation of their own positions. As a wise man said, to be ignorant of what happened before your birth is to remain forever a child. Any political contest is like playing darts with a blind man WHO DOES NOT KNOW HE IS BLIND; mildly hazardous but the outcome is inevitable. The hilarity just keeps a-buildin'!
Posted by: megapotamus at April 03, 2008 04:48 PM (LF+qW)
5
The only reason the lefties are denouncing "Commies" is because their focus group results indicated that was a good way to win votes.
Government by weather-vane, brought to you by the Democratic Party.
Posted by: C-C-G at April 03, 2008 10:38 PM (5m1ld)
6
I'm kinda wondering what the Messiah could do, or have happen, that would worsen his general election situation. Fonda endorsement: check. Lack of life/work/executive experience: check. Goofy and infantile positions on national security matters: check. Strong association with race-baiting anti-American pro-fascist conspiracy-whacked lunatics: check. Generally mindless lefty voting record: check. Hilariously clumsy dishonesty and disengenuousness on anything he's busted on: check. Borrowed trouble on gun-control issues via position on concealed-carry: check. Repugnant, ignorant, arrogant, obnoxious spouse: check. And the list goes on.
McCain is largely a train-wreck of a candidate, on both substance and personal matters. Yet he looms like some Reaganesque one-man juggernaut against Obama, who's a thoroughly unimpressive and uninteresting twink.
McCain will likely be the worst presidential candidate ever to win more than 40 states in the general election.
Posted by: IceCold at April 03, 2008 11:58 PM (aOan8)
7
I read that Hanoi Jane found Jesus, via her limo driver, after she and Ted were divorced. I did not read that she found a brain, a heart, or a soul. Jesus doesn't have much to work with there, but He does Know what to do with a bad example.
Posted by: twolaneflash at April 04, 2008 10:27 AM (05dZx)
8
Well, Ice Cold, perhaps this will do it.
I'm about ready to go Moby on the moonbat sites, posting refernces to that, Tony McPeak and to Pelosi and Reid's 2006 campaign mendacity over a soundtrack of "Won't Get Fooled Again." Oh, and with a Vote Nader tagline.
YYYYEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!
Posted by: Pablo at April 04, 2008 10:29 AM (yTndK)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 02, 2008
Obama: The Baby-Killing Candidate
I found Saint Obama's view of pregnancy as a "punishment" quite repulsive when he uttered the words earlier this week, but I was not exceedingly surprised, considering his actual political record (not his empty presidential campaign promises) has typically been that of the left-wing radical.
I did not know how extreme his ideas were regarding abortion, however, until today. Writing in a Washington
Post op-ed, Michael Gerson demonstrates that Obama's record borders on
quietly favoring infanticide.
Obama has not made abortion rights the shouted refrain of his campaign, as other Democrats have done. He seems to realize that pro-choice enthusiasm is inconsistent with a reputation for post-partisanship.
But Obama's record on abortion is extreme. He opposed the ban on partial-birth abortion -- a practice a fellow Democrat, the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan, once called "too close to infanticide." Obama strongly criticized the Supreme Court decision upholding the partial-birth ban. In the Illinois state Senate, he opposed a bill similar to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which prevents the killing of infants mistakenly left alive by abortion. And now Obama has oddly claimed that he would not want his daughters to be "punished with a baby" because of a crisis pregnancy -- hardly a welcoming attitude toward new life.
That Obama opposed a bill similar to the
Born-Alive Infants Protection Act—a law, that states, quite simply, that abortionists cannot murder a child that manages to escape the womb alive—is beyond macabre.
It is profoundly disturbing, to think that a man who would be President, a man who is the father of two young children himself, would oppose a law that protects the weakness and most vulnerable members of our society, babies born alive and defenseless.
Sadly, his leanings toward infanticide mesh rather consistently with his plans for a headlong retreat from Iraq that most experts suspect would help trigger a genocide.
As President, Barack Obama won't mind if people die.
They just have to be the
right people—infants and Iraqi civilians—instead of terrorists.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:32 AM
| Comments (60)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Yeh, no guns within miles of a school - but adult entertainment just across from it, next to a Planned Parenthood facility... Smart fellow.
Posted by: DirtCrashr at April 02, 2008 12:03 PM (VNM5w)
2
Being inured to death, as long as it doesn't affect your supporters, is a characteristic of the left, and its underlying philosopy of materialism..The NYT, in its editorial urging immediate withdrawl from Iraq, basically said some "genocide" (they used the term) was ok under the circumstances they envisioned. But,if it ever does happen in Iraq on an Obama watch (heaven forbid) he, and they, will first most likely deny "true" genocide occured, by redefining genocide as murder on a scale larger than what actually happened, calling it instead "sectarian violence". Then they will blame Bush for its occurrence, saying it was inevitable given the circumstances he, Obama, had to deal with. The other MSM will cover them, and the American people will have limited interest.
Posted by: mytralman at April 02, 2008 12:14 PM (k+clE)
3
Yuck, thoroughly disgusting human being.
Posted by: grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr at April 02, 2008 12:54 PM (2wI6h)
4
Unfortunately, I've found that baby-killing views of Harvard-educated Obama are shared by many other Ivy Leaguers, particularly scientists and Ph.D. types who are followers of Pete Singer.
Posted by: ER at April 02, 2008 01:28 PM (ZLS30)
5
Gentlemen, I wonder just how long before someone grows tired of the Left and the state of this country and the opening shot of the next Civil War is fired? This Obama will run this country and the lives of many innocents straight to hell. (with a little help from a limp-dick congress) We cant drip some water on Mustafa's head but we can crush an unborn child and suck out his pulverized body?
Posted by: Samuel at April 02, 2008 02:16 PM (Jcu9H)
6
Pro-Torture, pro-capital punishment, pro-war, and pro-life. Solid, guys.
Posted by: Zifnab at April 02, 2008 03:14 PM (Usaah)
7
Pro-infanticide, pro-terrorism, pro-surrender!
Solid, Zifnab
Posted by: SShiell at April 02, 2008 03:26 PM (8UXyu)
8
There is an article by Amanda Carpenter which will eventually be a larger part of this campaign...
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18647
He did vote for infanticide in the Illinois Senate.
His record on abortion is plain radical and that makes me wonder what sorts of judges he would choose. Of course, that is a question that he will likely not be asked anytime soon.
Posted by: Mike Volpe at April 02, 2008 03:39 PM (86F5q)
9
Who says there's no such thing as reincarnation.....Hitler is in the house again
Posted by: quietriot at April 02, 2008 03:49 PM (grFLU)
10
I lived in Chicago until 2005 and this was actually a pretty big deal at the time. Most media tried to cover it up but it got out and it made many people disgusted with the guy. If memory serves me right it came out when Obama was running for Senate against the guy who had to drop out.
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at April 02, 2008 04:21 PM (kNqJV)
11
Much agreed, CY.
This loon seems to favor killing innocents and protecting the guilty....
http://sailorette.blogspot.com/2008/03/hey-folks.html
Posted by: Foxfier at April 02, 2008 04:55 PM (s2ydv)
12
Obama also voted against a bill (twice, once on a floor vote, and once on a cloture vote on the conference report) that was designed to stop abortions from being performed on minors who reside in states that first require parental notification but try to get the abortions in states that don't require it.
There isn't an abortion this guy won't support.
Posted by: SteveIL at April 02, 2008 06:04 PM (LAf3D)
13
I find it rather humorous that the ones who are the biggest supporters of abortion are also the biggest opponents of capital punishment.
Now if capital punishment were called post birth abortion they would be all for it.
Posted by: Nahanni at April 02, 2008 07:58 PM (ziNAi)
14
Lefties think there are too many people so they want death. As long as it is someone else.
Lefties think there are too many resources being used so they want conservation. Not they THEY conserve, just us.
Lefties think taxes are too low so they want them raised. Just don't mess with Teddy K's trust fund. Don't mess with a lefty's tax professional.
Posted by: Peter at April 02, 2008 08:05 PM (AiJXe)
15
Oh, before some moonbat tries to jump all over me for my comment about capital punishment using that it is "killing the innocent" argument.
Tell me exactly what are the children who are killed by the Obama supported partial birth abortion guilty of? Keyword being birth-meaning that they are fully developed children. You can spare me the moonbat semantics on this one.
Posted by: Nahanni at April 02, 2008 08:07 PM (us00P)
16
Wow...just...wow. *Clap clap clap*. This board has truly outdone itself this time, and is awarded an average of 9.9 from the judges for hysteria, 9.8 for shrill baseless invective, and 10.0 for complete absence of critical thought.
Do you guys ever get tired of being so thoroughly manipulated as to believe half your country is demon possessed? Chrissakes, guys, abortion and gay marriage and terrorism are just wedge issues used to turn you against the other half for the sake of party politics. Once your GOP vote is cast, no one gives 2 craps about you until the next election unless your name is Bear Stearns, or General Dynamics. There really is only one America, and it's taking on water, so why don't we try to focus on rational discussions on how to get back into the black?
But, if the GOP wants to make this a cultural values election, be my guest--it's a sure loser in a down economy. Many/most can't afford to vote based on abortion, and they'll vote for the person who they think will help pull the country out of the crapper. (Hint: it ain't the guy who sung Bomb Iran to the tune of Barbara Ann and says economics isn't his strong suit). Tell me I'm wrong and why.
Posted by: Craig at April 02, 2008 08:22 PM (0MZfd)
17
Craig, your basic concept is wrong. The economy is not down.
Unemployment is lower than it was during the last Democratic administration... I don't want to mention the name of that President lest I be accused of "bashing." Anyway, during that Democratic administration, unemployment averaged 5.2%. It is currently 4.8%.
The inflation rate is currently 2.7%. Under Clinton, it averaged 2.6%. 0.1% does not a recession make.
Speaking of recessions, the economic definition of a recession is two consecutive quarters of negative growth. We haven't even had one negative quarter yet. The fourth quarter of 2007 had slow growth, but it was still growth... national GDP grew 0.6%. And in the third quarter the GDP increased 4.9%. So, two quarters of growth... no recession.
However, it's been proven statistically that the news likes to carry more "negative" economic stories during elections with a Republican incumbent than they do during those when the incumbent is a Democrat, so it's no wonder that they're spinning furiously to convince those, like you, Craig, who don't look closely at the numbers that things are bad.
Congrats, you're a perfect Democratic voter... you believe whatever the media tells you, and parrot it whenever possible... nevermind that the facts are far far different.
Posted by: C-C-G at April 02, 2008 08:55 PM (5m1ld)
18
My wife and I found out back around Thanksgiving that our 15 1/2 year old daughter was pregnant. She is a very bright girl who was/is college bound - her two older brothers have already gone to college. She made a wrong choice and now is in a major life altering circumstance. We are very active in our church and community activities. I can personally say that as much as an abortion might "reset" the circumstances to the way it was before she got pregnant, an abortion was NEVER a consideration for any of the three of us. It is going to be very tough for us and for her, but this child will be loved and cherished as a gift from God. Maybe it sounds immature, but when you walk through the situation, the intellectual arguments don't mean much and you react to the situation according to your basic moral views. Either you value life or you don't and all the invective and polemics on either side seem to be just noise and so much posturing. Over the past four weeks, my daughter has felt the baby move and we have seen it move - all arguments to the contrary, it is a life and therefore miraculous and worth preserving, even at great cost.
Posted by: DavidR at April 02, 2008 09:10 PM (zLN21)
19
C-C-G-
Actually, I said "down economy," not a recession. Nevertheless, you can go out into the world with your charts and graphs on GDP growth and pedantic explanations of just what constitutes a recession, but you will change very few minds that (1) the economy sucks and the country is headed the wrong way, and (2) it's tougher economically now than 4 years ago. Believe me or don't, but you know who was the last one to get burned by precisely this? George HW Bush. During the last quarter of '92, the economy actually grew by 4+%, but voters went for Bill based largely on pocketbook leanings.
The take-away is this: Perception rules at the polls, but it's based in reality to some extent. It IS tougher now for many, many people than it was 4 years ago. The housing crisis and resulting credit squeeze has made it tougher for business and individuals to borrow money, and consequently there is a lot of insecurity. So, yap about wildly exaggerated stories of candidates' abortion stands from now till next year if you want, because it will net you nothing. Again, you're allowing yourself to be completely used, and for what?
Posted by: Craig at April 02, 2008 09:14 PM (0MZfd)
20
From one David to another... my prayers are going out for your family, your daughter, and your new grandbaby.
Posted by: C-C-G at April 02, 2008 09:19 PM (5m1ld)
21
Yeah, yeah, yeah, Craig, I knew that you'd not accept it when I accepted your challenge to prove you wrong.
Thanks for confirming my low opinion of Democrat supporters. You ask for us to prove you wrong, and when we do, you spin it furiously.
To quote a famous movie, "you can't handle the truth!"
Posted by: C-C-G at April 02, 2008 09:22 PM (5m1ld)
22
Thanks C-C-G!! - Your prayers are appreciated and much needed.
Posted by: DavidR at April 02, 2008 09:25 PM (zLN21)
23
I see no inconsistency in being Anti Abortion and Pro Death Penalty. It has something to do with a little words called " Innocent". You cannot be more innocent than an unborn baby.
Posted by: Dennis D at April 02, 2008 10:22 PM (EbvWp)
24
Well it all makes perfect sense, don't you see. He doesn't want his daughter(s) to be "punished" with a baby, so if said baby/punishment happens to survive the, um, medical procedure, it CAN be punished with the death penalty.
Only in the mind of a liberal democrat -- Craig -- is a live baby a punishment, but killing one not. And, one thing that libs never seem to think about is the effect that having killed their child does have on the girl/woman for the rest of her life. I have first hand experience of it with a young friend of mine.
Posted by: Bill Smith at April 02, 2008 10:30 PM (bJ9FB)
25
Bill Smith - you are exactly right - the psychological and emotional aftermath would destroy my daughter - that is another major reason we would not even begin to consider an abortion for her.
Posted by: DavidR at April 02, 2008 10:35 PM (zLN21)
26
Sadly, I know a bit about the subject as well. Female friends have had a total of four abortions. Every single one of them was psychologically scarred to some degree by the experience, and one, frankly, snapped. She hasn't been right since.
Two women I know got pregnant early, one at 15, the other at 25. Both considered abortions briefly, and both decided to keep their children. Both are thankful they kept their children.
Come to think of it, I don't know of anyone who regrets bringing a child into this world, and most I know who decided not to, regretted the decision later.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at April 02, 2008 10:48 PM (HcgFD)
27
DavidR -
Thank you very much for making the right choice.
I have friends and dearly loved relatives who "should" have been aborted, either because they were caused by a rape, the mother was too young, they were at the "wrong time." (twin children of my mom's first cousin, their mom found out she was preggers the day after the divorce, and she is-- sadly-- an utter loser. Her parents adopted them; the girl figured it out at about 15; the guy had to be told at 18....)
Posted by: Foxfier at April 02, 2008 11:08 PM (s2ydv)
28
The effects of having an abortion on women are devastating. From my personal experience file:
My ex-wife had an abortion before we met. In fact, I was the 'next' relationship she had. We dated seriously for 4 years before getting married. During that time, I told her all of my secrets. It wasn't until late in year 3 she told me about the abortion. And, she was very ashamed of having it. She rationalized and rationalized it to a point she could believe she did the right thing.
Her mother was her rock in making the decision to have the abortion. What her mother never told her, until just about 3 or 4 years ago, is that she too had gotten pregnant as a teenager. She carried the baby to term and gave it up for adoption. When ex-mother-in-law told her daughter about this baby it was because the baby had grown up and was looking for her real mother. Not that she didn't love her adoptive parents, but that she just wanted to know where she came from. My ex now has a loving 'older' sister and has had several break-downs over her abortion - 17+ years ago. All because she never truly came to grips with, again in her words, "killing her baby". The interesting thing (maybe scary is a better word) is she is a staunch abortion supporter to this day.
Posted by: Mark at April 02, 2008 11:19 PM (KDHro)
29
Fox, I've mentioned before that I have a hidden disability... I often wonder, if I'd been conceived in these days, when they can test for things like that, if my mother would be "counseled" to abort me.
That's a thought that will send a cold chill down your spine.
Posted by: C-C-G at April 02, 2008 11:20 PM (5m1ld)
30
CCG- my sister's baby has club feet.
It's easily treatable-- one small surgery that won't even leave a visible scar, and wearing booties on a bar for a year or so.
She was "counseled" as you suggest.
She's much sweeter than I am, but her response...well, was what you'd expect from a mother when someone suggests they kill their child.
Mark-- and Our Host-- do you know if they've looked into the Abortion Recovery groups?
Many of them are staffed by people who know exactly where the women are coming from; I've been told it's very effective.
Posted by: Foxfier at April 02, 2008 11:30 PM (s2ydv)
31
Well, after a child is born, it ceases to be an "abortion" topic. I don't know quite how I feel about abortion, but I sure know how I feel about killing babies after they are born.
After a person is born, it ceases to be gray in anyone's eyes. That's flat-out murder. Literally. By anyone's measuring stick.
I knew that liberals were crazy, but I had never heard they were advocating this.
I gotta read this bill.
Posted by: brando at April 02, 2008 11:36 PM (rDQC9)
32
Foxfier - my ex refuses to. Much in the way an alcoholic refuses to admit "I have a problem". This problem she has - and, believe me, I have/had been supportive of her before, during and after our marriage (we are still very good friends) - she simply tries to 'get over it' but it keeps coming back. Each and everytime I suggest counseling, support groups, etc she goes off on just how "horrible they'll make me feel". You see, I'm anti-abortion in almost every instance and made my beliefs very well known to her. The reason she waited so long was because she thought I'd kick her to the curb after I found out. My response was along the line of "that's something you will have to deal with and I'm here to help you". She has always been rabidly pro-abortion even though having had one makes her a basketcase on occasion. I simply don't understand it myself. Maybe it's the 'female mind' thing or simply someone who has lied to herself so convincingly there's absolutely no chance of fixing it. I simply do not know 'why', but I see and have seen the effects on her for 16 + years.
Posted by: Mark at April 02, 2008 11:43 PM (KDHro)
33
I understand it; it's a defensive thing.
I've been known to do similar things when I know I messed up big time, but *technically* didn't break "the rules." She's using the legality of the act as a mental defense-- I don't know if it's more common among women or what, but I know a LOT of women who react to abortion in that way.
Good luck to you both.
Posted by: Foxfier at April 03, 2008 12:32 AM (s2ydv)
34
Mark - You are exactly right, she will never heal from it unless she quits the rationalizing and faces what she has done. We as humans are all so good at trying to rationalize our wrong choices and bad behavior and we get so locked into them and so defensive that it is a major emotional event to truly face them and admit we were wrong. In the "Magician's Nephew" by C. S. Lewis, Aslan the Lion says, "Oh, Adam's sons, how cleverly you defend yourself against all that might do you good!" It is true - we defend ourselves against the very things, truth and real forgiveness, that would heal us and do us good. I am very sorry for your ex-wife and hope she eventually will go see someone about the issue and get healed. My daughter did not want to have an abortion, but if she had, there is no way I could have let her go through with it and then have to face that kind of emotional devastation the rest of her life.
Posted by: DavidR at April 03, 2008 06:42 AM (zLN21)
35
Whenever anyone uses the word "abortionist," I stop reading. In my experience, use of this word indicates an unwillingness to dispassionately listen to the other side of the debate. It's like when someone drops the word "imperialism" in a discussion of the Iraq War. As soon as you hear that word come out someone's mouth, you know that they're unwilling to change their position or listen to the other side. Just a thought...
Posted by: Juan Manuel de Rosas at April 03, 2008 08:00 AM (ozyeq)
36
Juan:
Nice way of showing that you've not been paying the slightest attention to the conversation.
David:
I forget where I read it, but one of my favorite quotes has always been, "Man is a rationalizing creature, and needs training to become a rational one." Indeed, we spend a lot more effort rationalizing what we do than engaging in truly rational thought about what to do... and I include myself in that, though I am trying to change.
Posted by: C-C-G at April 03, 2008 08:28 AM (5m1ld)
37
Juan:
You are a classic case. Here's what you said:
"Whenever anyone uses the word "abortionist, "I stop reading."
THEN you said:
"In my experience, use of this word indicates an unwillingness to dispassionately listen to the other side of the debate."
I don't expect that you'll get that, so how about your faulty logic. You pretend that it's OK to dismiss calling an abortionist by his/her proper name on the incorrect premise that this is equivalent to someone else calling our motive in Iraq by a dishonest, incorrect name.
It's all about lying, Juan. In your case, you lie to yourself.
Try this. There are many things we have the ABILITY to do, like murder.
Some of these things we have a legal RIGHT to do, like being an abortionist, Juan.
But having the ability, and the legal right to do something doesn't make it the right thing to do. Does it? The nazis thought it did, Juan. Were they right? Were we closed minded in fighting them?
Liberals have raised always, and constantly having an "open mind" to some sort of golden, exalted status it doesn't begin to deserve.
Juan, you have the right to say that two plus two is twenty two, but I am not morally deficient in lacking an open mind if I decline to listen to you. What's funny is that you, having declared not listening a crime, feel yourself entitled to stop listening to what you don't like to hear -- an abortionist being called by his right name. Seems your open mindedness is quite situationally labile.
Why, if abortion is OK, Juan, do you have a problem with its name? Why do you need to call it something else? That is, why do you need to lie to yourself? We seek no empire in Iraq, but abortionists do perform abortions, Juan.
It's because you know it's wrong, but you don't want to know it, so you play these mental games with yourself. Like David's ex does.
It's kind of like the massive denial that goes on in an alcoholic household: "There's NOTHING wrong here, and don't you DARE tell anyone!!"
David's ex is wracked with...... problems (she won't call it guilt), because she is a basically decent person. The minds of decent people are hardwired to accept only truth. When their owners keep cramming them with falsehoods, the mind becomes dysfunctional. It has to do awkward, painful, nutty things to keep holding on to this indigestible, unviable thought mass, to just keep hobbling along, making do. Or, it just rebels, and goes on strike.
It's just like the bus driver who had terrible back problems for years until a new doctor noticed that his wallet, which the driver kept in his back pocket, and sat on all day driving, was almost 3 inches thick!!
And, think about this. Adults can rationalize abortion, but kids know it's a baby. "Mommy's going to have a baby. The baby is kicking! The baby is getting so big! The baby's coming in June."
Kids know it's a baby because adults tell them it is -- until adults tell them it isn't. The adults somehow convince themselves that it isn't a baby, and also convince themselves that they've also convinced the kids that it isn't.
And we wonder why so many kids kill; why they value life so cheap; why they don't value their own lives.
We taught them well, Juan, including you, apparently.
Posted by: Bill Smith at April 03, 2008 10:06 AM (bJ9FB)
38
And what was the nazi's greatest crime, Juan?
Doing to adults, and children what you have convinced yourself is OK to do to a being just like the one your mother called a baby from the first moment she knew you existed.
Posted by: Bill Smith at April 03, 2008 10:11 AM (bJ9FB)
39
Ugh. Sorry David. I meant Mark's ex.
Posted by: Bill Smith at April 03, 2008 10:34 AM (bJ9FB)
40
Maybe to Juan and Craig, the only diference between a murderer and an abortionist is timing. Susan Smith killed her two small boys by drowning - but was she guilty of murder? Not by their standards. She was just guilty of poor timing. Had she aborted both of those children during her pregnancy, there would not have even been any charges made against her. So those guilty of murder should not be threatened by the threat of capital punishment, they should just be charged with improper time management.
Simple!
Posted by: SShiell at April 03, 2008 10:44 AM (8UXyu)
41
Now as to Improper Time Management - would that be a misdemeanor or felony?
Posted by: SShiell at April 03, 2008 10:46 AM (8UXyu)
42
Foxfier - That's how I think it works for her. "Because it's legal" is her fall-back position. She has other 'reasons' to support abortion, but it all basically falls back to that. Thanks for the wish of luck.
DavidR - Thanks for your hopes for her...I'm not going to hold my breath though
. The subject came up just the other night again and you wouldn't really believe her new rationalization. Also, since your daughter is NOT an adult yet, you have the right to tell her what she's going to do, IMO. The courts, however, don't think very highly of parental responsibility/rights anymore. Thank you for being willing/able/supportive of your daughter and her child. I hope your futures are only filled with joy and happiness.
Bill - slight correction for you: DavidR and his wife are still married and, I hope, happily. The 'ex' you are referring to is mine
Other than that, you are correct. Perhaps Juan has a problem utilizing specific or technical terminology? Perhaps he would prefer to call medical professionals who perform abortions "Freedom from motherhood practitioners" or "Ball-of-cells-ectomists" or "Personal-responsibility-absolvers"? At least Juan read CY's post until the 3rd paragraph (5th if you count the block-quote portion) - that's where the word (abortionists) that causes his attention to wander appears.
CCG – good quote.
Posted by: Mark at April 03, 2008 10:54 AM (4od5C)
43
Bill - you got your correction up before I got done
. Thanks from both DavidR and myself for catching it.
Posted by: Mark at April 03, 2008 10:56 AM (4od5C)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Chinese Provide IAEA With Info on Iranian Nukes
No detail at all in the report, but I think it logical to assume that if the news was that "there's nothing going on," then China would not have bothered to contact the IAEA. The assumption must be that Iran is progressing with their nuclear weapons program, and that China is growing uncomfortable with that progress.
It will be interesting to see what slips out about the details of the Iranian program provided by China to the IAEA. Have the Chinese now determined that Iran has become a threat to their national security as well?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:46 AM
| Comments (14)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Two additional points.
The Iranians are buying from the Russians. This pokes the Russians in the eye and also reminds Iran that they do not have only one choice for their nuclear purchases.
Posted by: Chuck Simmins at April 02, 2008 11:01 AM (Xfgxs)
2
One thing to always keep in mind about China is that the sheer volume of their exports to us means that they are just as wedded to stability in both economics and the US-China relationship as we are. (One is reminded of the saying: If you owe me a thousand dollars, you have a problem. If you owe me a billion dollars... *I* have a problem.)
So they see just as clearly how one loose nuke, or even the capabilty of Iran to have one, could upset the whole applecart.
Worth keeping in mind on this and a host of issues concerning China.
Posted by: Andrew X at April 02, 2008 11:03 AM (mxg4A)
3
Now we know the NORKS are exporting factories and expertise to the like of Syria, I hope US intelligence is looking under the sand in every other Arab country.
Posted by: davod at April 03, 2008 07:41 AM (llh3A)
4
Make that Muslim country. Imagine how difficult it would be to find a factory being built in Malaysia or Indonesia. Then again, what about Iranian friendly Venezuala.
Posted by: davod at April 03, 2008 07:44 AM (llh3A)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 01, 2008
Alice Walker: Race is All that Matters?
Writing in the Guardian, Alice Walker claims that Barack Obama is America's Nelson Mandela, and if you are a white woman who can't see that, you're a racist.
Or something like that:
I am a supporter of Barack Obama because I believe he is the right person to lead the United States at this time. He offers a rare opportunity for the country and the world to do better. It is a deep sadness to me that many of my feminist white women friends cannot see him, cannot hear the fresh choices toward movement he offers. That they can believe that millions of Americans choose Obama over Clinton only because he is a man, and black, feels tragic to me.
When I have supported white people, it was because I thought them the best to do the job. If Obama were in any sense mediocre, he would be forgotten by now. He is, in fact, a remarkable human being, not perfect but humanly stunning, like King was and like Mandela is. He is the change America has been trying desperately and for centuries to hide, ignore, kill. The change it must have if we are to convince the rest of the world that we care about people other than our (white) selves.
Like other Obama cultists, Walker finds it impossible to detail
why Obama is remarkable for anything outside of his race. His rhetorical skills, while impressive, are not unique. His legislative accomplishments on the state level in Illinois were exceedingly modest, and his accomplishments as a U.S. Senator are not only uninspiring but troubling; his voting record there so extremist that no other sitting U.S. Senator has as radical or one-sided a liberal voting record, or as poor a record of bipartisanship.
Barack Obama is, in every meaningful way, a quite mediocre candidate except for his ability to deliver a speech, and the biological fact he is half-black.
Walker, however, has stars in her eyes:
I can easily imagine Obama sitting down and talking to any leader - or any person - in the world, with no baggage of past servitude or race supremacy to mar their talks. I cannot see the same scenario with Clinton, who would drag into 21st-century US leadership the same image of white privilege and distance from others' lives that has so marred the country's contacts with the rest of the world. But because Clinton is a woman and may be very good at what she does, many people (some in my own family) originally favoured her. I understand this, almost. It is because there is little memory, apparently, of the foundational inequities that still plague people of colour and poor whites.
Barack Obama:
Merciful Healer.
Except, of course, for the fact that Obama is half-white himself, meaning that he has the baggage (to use Walker's language; I do not buy into this argument at all and just wish to take the comparison to it's mind-numbingly illogical conclusion) of both past servitude on his father's side for being African, and race supremacy on his mother's side for the crime of being white. Doesn't this mean that according to Walker's logic, Obama is precisely the
worst person to lead America?
Walker exists in a fantasy land, where America has "marred contacts" with the rest of the world because of some "image of white privilege and distance from others' lives".
Yes, we're fought wars to liberate countries from tyranny, sough the establish and support democracies around the globe, spend billions every year in foreign aid to help developing countries, provided massive amounts of aid for treating AIDS/HIV in Africa, raised hundreds of millions of dollars for tsunami victims ($950 million in government funds, more than $515 million in private funds), and Walker actually thinks that an image of "white privilege" exists, and it is this image hindering our relationships with the rest of the world, a world that exists in her fantasy as blameless, with no history of oppression, bigotry, tribalism, or despotism prior to July 4, 1776.
That both Barack and Michelle Obama are the Ivy-League-educated, self-absorbed, mansion-living poster children for privilege never seems to flitter through Walker's misfiring nuerons.
I've rarely seen a feminist unashamedly prostrate herself in front of a politician as Walker has here, fawning over a very pretty man of very little substance like a blubbering schoolgirl, seeking to infuse in him qualities in which she so fervently desires, qualities that he so obviously lacks.
I feel ashamed for her, the author of
The Color Purple reduced to florid, empty, unsupportable ejaculations of "hope" and "change" based on nothing more than heartache and desire... Just words, and empty words at that.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:19 AM
| Comments (36)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Posted by: Dan Collins at April 01, 2008 10:56 AM (eNTGR)
2
Why are liberals so obsessed with race? Why do they label everyone? The perfect example was the Super Bowl last year. When the Colts beat the Bears. I only saw two great coaches. All liberals saw were two black coaches. I expect the coaches in the super bowl to be great coaches. Liberals were amazed by the fact. They talked endlessly about it. Now.....tell me who the racists are?
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at April 01, 2008 11:00 AM (kNqJV)
3
UC Cappy - the problem is that you can't understand their racial obsession because of your white privilege of not acknowledging their race only except when you do you see it thru the filter of your subconscious race consciousness of the unconscioues conscience of a conch shell. Or something like that.
Posted by: bandit at April 01, 2008 11:29 AM (/R+6i)
4
Yes.
To people like her race is all that matters.
It is the same at Obama's church, too. All that matters is the color of their skin.
Martin Luther King must be spinning in his grave. it was he who said "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
In Alice Walker, Jeremiah Wright and Barak Obama's America all that counts is the color of your skin.
Congratulations Alice, Jeremiah and Barak! You have proven that racism is an equal opportunity employer.
Posted by: Ennis at April 01, 2008 11:37 AM (FaEdH)
5
It is so convenient for the Obama faithful to ignore the realities about him: the uninspiring legislative record, the lies, the acquiesence to being surrounded by racists and haters, the family that mouths the same racism and anti-American feelings as his pastor. His unwillingness to make a principled stand on issues - voting present or ducking the roll call completely tells me volumes about his unpreparedness and ability to lead.
I'd happily vote for a black Presidential candidate - when a truly QUALIFIED one comes along. Could I be proud of and trust this man in the White House? Nope, and that is why he isn't getting my vote.
Posted by: in_awe at April 01, 2008 11:45 AM (CuvFw)
6
That sage of sages, Michael Jackson wrote ..
I'm Gonna Make A Change,
For Once In My Life
It's Gonna Feel Real Good,
Gonna Make A Difference
Gonna Make It Right . . .
I'm Starting With The Man In The Mirror
I'm Asking Him To Change His Ways
And No Message Could Have Been Any Clearer
If You Wanna Make The World A Better Place
Take A Look At Yourself, And Then Make A Change
I wonder why Obama doesn't use Jackson's song for his campaign ?
Posted by: Neo at April 01, 2008 11:53 AM (Yozw9)
7
"I've rarely seen a feminist unashamedly prostrate herself in front of a politician as Walker has here, fawning over a very pretty man of very little substance like a blubbering schoolgirl, seeking to infuse in him qualities in which she so fervently desires, qualities that he so obviously lacks."
I was going to comment on the obvious sheep mentality of liberals in regards to Obama,but this
statement by CY sums up Walker's over the top drivel pretty well.
This constant drama from democrats about how the
only chance we have to save the world is to elect
Obama used to be funny but is starting to become
scary because I think they actually believe this
nonsense instead of it being just a political narrative to get votes.
Here is some more drooling by the "Elites"
Best of the Web Today
By JAMES TARANTO
March 21, 2008
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080317/MEDIA02/80317029/0/MEDIA03
Remember John Kerry? He was the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, lauded by his supporters for his intellect and his nuance, as compared with the simpleminded George W. Bush. Having lost the election, he decided to sit out the 2008 contest. He recently endorsed Barack Obama, and earlier this week he sat down with the editorial board of the Standard-Times (New Bedford, Mass.) to make the case for his candidate.
"Kerry was asked what gives Obama that credibility."
"Because he's African-American. Because he's a black man. Who has come from a place of oppression and repression through the years in our own country."
An African-American president would be "a symbol of empowerment" for those who have been disenfranchised around the world, Kerry said, "an important lesson for America to show Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, other places in the world where disenfranchised people don't get anything."
"One obvious question: What do the events of this week, involving Obama's own church, tell us about his ability to "stand up against" a "radical misinterpretation of a legitimate religion"?
Nothing very encouraging in this columnist's view, but many observers view Obama much more charitably in this regard than we do.
What is really striking about Kerry's case for
Obama, though, is that it rests on what may be the crudest stereotyping we have ever observed.
Commentary's Abe Greenwald has a chuckle over Kerry's racial stereotyping of Obama:
"Where is this "place of oppression and repression" in which Obama has suffered "through the years"? Hawaii? Harvard? The Senate? We should find out immediately and do something about this horrific crisis."
Pass the popcorn please. Sheesshhhhh....
Posted by: Baxter at April 01, 2008 01:44 PM (5NHPy)
8
That is some serious White Guilt. Maybe The Right Reverend Wright can assuage and absolve her of that.
Posted by: Conservative CBU at April 01, 2008 02:27 PM (La7YV)
9
Since The Color Purple is one of the most racist books published, I'm actually surprised that Alice Walker is supporting Obama. How can I say it is racists? Every black male character in the book is either cruel or stupid. If you've seen the movie, you've seen just an inkling of how horrible black males are portrayed in her tome.
Posted by: PurplePeephole at April 01, 2008 03:01 PM (eBfCE)
10
Wait, I'm only voting for Obama because of his race? All this time I thought I was voting for his health plan, his anti-war stance, his pro-net neutrality position, his economic white papers that encourage responsible business regulation, his eco-friendly energy policies, and his support of public education.
Well damnit. If I'm going to vote on race, I'm just going to vote for a whitey like I do every year. You've got me sold, CY. McCain gets my vote.
Posted by: Zifnab at April 01, 2008 03:56 PM (Usaah)
11
Since The Color Purple is one of the most racist books published...
WOW! Have you ever even read the book? Let me guess. You're one of those guys who insists "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" is also on the "most racist books published" because it uses the n-word. And "The Invisible Man", I'm betting that's high on your list too, right?
Better stick to the NRO, flip on some O'Reily, and keep the radio tuned to Rush lest all that evil racism drown out support for segregation, displays of shock in the cleanliness of Harlem restaurants, and "Barack the Magic Negro" in high fidelity.
You guys wouldn't know racism if it knocked you into the back of the bus with a fire hose.
Posted by: Zifnab at April 01, 2008 04:03 PM (Usaah)
12
I know racism alright,here is a fine example:
In a set of "talking points" on the church's Web site, Wright proclaims himself an exponent of "black liberation theology." He cites James Cone, a distinguished professor at New York's Union Theological Seminary, whom he credits for having "systematized" this strain of Christianity.
Here is a quote from Cone, explaining black liberation theology (hat tip: Spengler, a pseudonymous columnist for the Asia Times):
Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community. . . . Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal.
Obama's church pushes controversial doctrines
Margaret Talev | McClatchy Newspapers
last updated: March 20, 2008 06:50:02 PM
WASHINGTON — Jesus is black. Merging Marxism with Christian Gospel may show the way to a better tomorrow. The white church in America is the Antichrist because it supported slavery and segregation.
Those are some of the more provocative doctrines that animate the theology at the core of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, Barack Obama's church.
Wow, talk about bringing people together,nothing
does it better than wishing for the genocide of
another race.
just makes me want to hold his hand and sing
"lean on me" as loud as I can.
I know lies and propaganda to:
The Religious Wright
James Taranto March 18, 2008 Wall St. Journal
Wright's sermons have included suggestions the U.S. brought the Sept. 11 attacks on itself and that the government had a role in spreading the AIDS virus in the black community
In addition to damning America, he (wright) told his congregation on the Sunday after Sept. 11, 2001 that the United States had brought on al Qaeda's attacks because of its own terrorism.
"We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye," Rev. Wright said in a sermon on Sept. 16, 2001.
"We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost," he told his congregation."
I know that Obama heard a lot of these or similar statements even thought he stated before
he had not:
Obama heard controversial comments
By: Politico Staff
March 18, 2008 12:51 PM EST
Contrary to his earlier suggestion, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) acknowledged in his speech Tuesday that he had heard “controversial” remarks by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
“Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy?” Obama said. “Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely — just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.”
I know hypocrisy when I see it too:
Obama: Fire Imus
Obama First White House Contender to Call for Imus' Firing Over Racial Slur
By JAKE TAPPER
April 11, 2007—
In an interview with ABC News Wednesday afternoon, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., called for the firing of talk radio host Don Imus. Obama said he would never again appear on Imus' show, which is broadcast on CBS Radio and MSNBC television.
"I understand MSNBC has suspended Mr. Imus," Obama told ABC News, "but I would also say that there's nobody on my staff who would still be working for me if they made a comment like that about anybody of any ethnic group. And I would hope that NBC ends up having that same attitude."
Obama said he appeared once on Imus' show two years ago, and "I have no intention of returning."
FERRAR-OVER
By GEOFF EARLE Post Correspondent
March 13, 2008 -- WASHINGTON - Geraldine Ferraro abruptly resigned her post in Hillary Rodham Clinton's fund-raising team yesterday, days after touching off a racial furor by saying Barack Obama was ahead in the Democratic race because he's black.
Obama went on the attack yesterday on NBC's "Today Show." After calling Ferraro a trailblazer, he said she was participating in "the kind of slice-and-dice politics that's about race and about gender and about this and that, and that's what Americans are tired of because they recognize that when we divide ourselves in that way, we can't solve problems."
Apparently supporting a church that believes in
the genocide of the white race,tells it's members
that America caused 9/11 and the government started the aids virus and planted it in the black
community is "A okay" with the hope and change liberal sheep and their leader Obama,but you call
a girl basketball team a bunch of"nappy headed hoes" and it's time to draw the line and lay down
the law.
How brave.
Posted by: Baxter at April 01, 2008 05:53 PM (5NHPy)
13
Mandella is a Terrorist.
He OKed the bombing of places that killed not only his hated whites, (some of who may have supported the ending of Apartheid) but also killed blacks who were simply trying to live some kind.
But that bit of silly comparison aside. . .
Notice the right side politically here. . . Obama is wrong for the country because he has horrid policies and bad ideas and is lacking over all in experiance.
The large part of the Left feels his Color is one of the things making him great.
and they call us the racists.
Posted by: JP at April 01, 2008 06:28 PM (Tae/a)
14
Personally, I wish Condi was interested in running. Some of her points I disagree with, but overall she is very intelligent and would be someone I would be happy to support and vote for.
I also can't wait till Bobby Jindal has some more experience under his belt and goes for national office.
And I am pretty sure that there are lots of conservatives that would agree with me.
Now, let's watch the racist left tear apart this black woman and Indian man.
Posted by: C-C-G at April 01, 2008 06:43 PM (5m1ld)
15
Aging diva enamored of beautiful boy. That story has already been told. Ends in tragedy.
Posted by: Zhombre at April 01, 2008 09:21 PM (DDprV)
16
>Why are liberals so obsessed with race?
Because it alleviates them from having to focus on objective factors, like competence, ethics, credibility, experience, etc.
We were talking about Obama at work yesterday, regarding whether he'd even get an interview. My area (information risk management) isn't a fair one as it's rather specialized, but we talked about whether Obama would be interviewed for an entry-level telephone sales position which is one of our Fortune 500 firm's most basic, least qualified positions. The conclusion is that it wasn't likely. He just hasn't done anything. Oh, our corporate counsel people (even the liberal ones) have pointed out that Obama wouldn't be even considered for an interview there.
It's a real puzzle for the Democrats. Obama isn't qualified to manage 8 people selling on commission at a Fortune 500 firm. Hillar can't manage paying for the health care insurance for her staff, let alone manage a nation's health care program. These people are among the least qualified of all of us, yet they're considered the best of the best Democrats.
Remarkable how far that party has fallen.
Posted by: redherkey at April 01, 2008 11:11 PM (kjqFg)
17
"Personally, I wish Condi was interested in running. Some of her points I disagree with, but overall she is very intelligent and would be someone I would be happy to support and vote for."
Please. She was in over her head as National Security Advisor, and even more so as Secretary of State. You think she can handle even more responsibility as President? I'd rethink that one.
Posted by: Arbotreeist at April 02, 2008 12:46 AM (6I6OG)
18
>>>The conclusion is that it wasn't likely. He just hasn't done anything. Oh, our corporate counsel people (even the liberal ones) have pointed out that Obama wouldn't be even considered for an interview there.
Obama taught at the University of Chicago Law School, did any of your "corporate counsels" even attend schools half as prestigious?
Moron.
Posted by: Jacob at April 02, 2008 06:54 AM (A9dni)
19
Yeah, similarly dissappointed with Rice here. Girl's gone native at State and I didn't want to believe that. She is follwing now the tired old line that the Jews are the problem, not those detonating Jews in their cribs, oh no. But as always it must be said that the worst Rep you can name is preferable to any Dem on offer. But SoS could be a good outlet for Joe Lieberman; that's not a very original thought but still tempting. Whatever folks are left in the Dem party worth worrying over would find that appealing and Joe's socialist core would be isolated from domestic mischief.
Posted by: megapotamus at April 02, 2008 12:23 PM (LF+qW)
20
Jacob,
I would put money on he got the position;
1) He knew somebody at the School
2) They had a position open,
3) It was getting close to starting the class and they had no instructor
4) He happened to be a semi-warm body who walked through the building
I've seen this happen at more than one College and University. While on vacation in Oregon I and my wife visited three different Colleges and were both offered jobs on the spot. Obambi quailfied? Lets not jump to silly conclusions.
Posted by: Azygos at April 02, 2008 03:40 PM (87HTO)
21
Megapotamus, I said I disagreed with some of her views, and you just named the biggest disagreement I have with her. Notwithstanding that, she'd be far preferable in the Oval Office than Barack or Hillary.
Arbortreeist, did I see you say something bad about a black woman? RACIST!
Posted by: C-C-G at April 02, 2008 06:08 PM (5m1ld)
22
Osama's speeches are on are par with Al Gore. No Dooze anyone?
Posted by: Thomas Jackson at April 03, 2008 02:13 AM (LHaZf)
23
Question,If jesus spoke of total forgiveness and
so did Martin Luther King what is it that the
Rev.Wright and Osama,I ment Obama preach????
Posted by: Gator at April 06, 2008 07:28 PM (uaTZE)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Kettle Lectured by Kettle Over Pot Relationship
Over at Patterico's, Mary Mapes rips into the L.A. Times for falling for forged documents.
Yikes.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
06:36 AM
| Comments (19)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
At first I thought it was an April Fools joke, but no, Mapes is still trying to justify her TANG story on Bush.
Posted by: daleyrocks at April 01, 2008 09:40 AM (0pZel)
2
Who in the world would give Mapes a forum?
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at April 01, 2008 11:01 AM (kNqJV)
3
Heh. She believes that the "right wing bloggers" that brought to light her 'creative journalism' are controlled by the Bush Administration.
Still beating the drum. And no one cares.
Posted by: Penfold at April 01, 2008 11:54 AM (lF2Kk)
4
Enduring the burble of loons like this dreadful liar is not the highest price liberty claims. But it's plenty high.
Posted by: megapotamus at April 01, 2008 02:05 PM (LF+qW)
5
I suspect that Mapes has crossed the line to where she now believes her own lies.
Posted by: C-C-G at April 01, 2008 06:44 PM (5m1ld)
6
I think it's reprehensible that people like The Nation continue to exploit Mary.
In our family, we occasionally refer to a former female student of my wife's as "The Deer Rider." This poor girl would tell fantastic stories to her classmates and teachers of how she regularly rode a deer to school, had remarkable magic powers, etc. She was a regular target by all the kids, and no matter how much the teachers and counselors would try to help, she would not budge from her amazing stories. It didn't help that her parents though she was a remarkably creative student who the teachers and students "just didn't appreciate her gift." With lack of correction at home, she was screwed.
Mary Mapes is a deer rider. Dan Rather encouraged her imagination and led her to believe the only way she'd be appreciated was for her special sort of creative powers. Competence was never attainable for mediocre Mary, so the capacity to believe in her delusions became her substitute.
If you have some pity on the unfortunate, say a prayer for Mary. I have to believe she only wanted love and respect, and apparently never had parents nor peers to showed her the correct way those items are attained.
Posted by: redherkey at April 01, 2008 11:22 PM (kjqFg)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 31, 2008
Obama Doesn't Want Daughters "Punished" With a Baby
I goess we could call these his "terminating the family" values:
"When it comes specifically to HIV/AIDS, the most important prevention is education, which should include -- which should include abstinence education and teaching the children -- teaching children, you know, that sex is not something casual. But it should also include -- it should also include other, you know, information about contraception because, look, I've got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at the age of 16. You know, so it doesn't make sense to not give them information."
And how is that information
working for the community so far?
Obama is stating publicly that if his daughters can't keep their knickers on when they become teenagers and they get pregnant as a result, he encourages them to get an abortion. Pregnancy is a "punishment," according to Obama, the man who tries to convince people he's not a radical, but just like one of us.
It was bad enough that Barack Obama wouldn't remove his daughters from exposure to Jeremiah Wright's unhinged rantings, and that he continues to have them attend a church where the current pastor is no less radical in his doctrine.
Now He's informed his chldren via the media that daddy will drive them to Planned Parenthood if they get knocked up.
Once again, Barack Obama is making me question not just his ability to lead this nation, but even his ability to be a marginally-responsible father.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
04:09 PM
| Comments (66)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
it's too bad his mama and her parents didn't feel the same way.
Posted by: redc1c4 at March 31, 2008 05:29 PM (4qOXU)
2
On what basis is it not "punishment" to force people to have babies? It's painful. There are health risks involved. If the state says that they must unwillingly accept that pain just because they chose to have sex, then of course that's punishment.
And since only extremist America-hating wackos think that having sex is inherently immoral, I hardly think he's on the fringes by saying that the state shouldn't be subjecting women to forced pregnancy just because they chose to have sex.
To review: a baby = a baby. Forced pregnancy and forced childbirth forced on people at gunpoint by the state just because they did something that wasn't wrong to begin with = punishment. Simple?
Posted by: Persoon at March 31, 2008 05:57 PM (JGJFa)
3
Confederate Yankee, respectfully, you wouldn't vote for Senator Obama if he said he was pro-life. As your tagline says: "Because liberalism is a persistent vegetative state". And Obama is a liberal so done deal.
Am I wrong?
Posted by: T-Steel at March 31, 2008 06:28 PM (YvBPe)
4
Obama should take his problems up with God. The Creator's design was to bring about babies. First, he hated the USA, then...
Posted by: OWE at March 31, 2008 06:32 PM (+5ORu)
5
Since His Obamaness won't let the country at large in on his beliefs, it's up to bloggers like CY to put the information out there.
This has nothing to do with whomever CY will vote for come November. This is CY doing the job the MSM refuses to do.
Posted by: Conservative CBU at March 31, 2008 06:43 PM (La7YV)
6
T-Steel, by that logic, since 90% of the reporters at the New York Times won't vote for McCain no matter what he says or does, they shouldn't be permitted to write articles or editorials (which are basically the same thing for the NYT) on him.
Do you see how absurd your assertion was now, or do I have to put in even shorter words?
Posted by: C-C-G at March 31, 2008 06:48 PM (5m1ld)
7
A baby is more than a baby. Even Obama later on called them "miracles." Quite a few Americans don't think getting pregnant is "punishment."
Posted by: Sean Hackbarth at March 31, 2008 07:00 PM (w6/NO)
8
I would venture to say, Persoon, that the majority of women (can't speak for men or those too irresponsible to have safe sex in this day and age) do not look at their children as punishment, even those unplanned. Sex isn't wrong to begin with, unprotected, irresponsible sex is if you are so shallow you won't live up to the consequences and consider murder to be a viable option.
Posted by: Sara at March 31, 2008 07:01 PM (Wi/N0)
9
Did I say CY wasn't entitled to an opinion? What I'm saying is by reading this blog, regularly I may add, if a liberal makes a statement, regardless of the intent or non-intent, it will be micro-parsed to "slam" that candidate (and I use "slam" in a rhetorical sense). I don't support McCain, Obama, or Clinton. I'm pointing out partisanship since I'm an anti-partisanship type of guy. Personally I didn't see Senator Obama endorsing abortion. I see him endorsing information. But I'm not stupid to not see how if you are of a particular faith and/or hold a particular value system you will be repulsed at the statement Senator Obama made.
Quite a few Americans don't think getting pregnant is "punishment."
I don't think so either BUT I work with teenagers everyday (I'm a high school football coach that works in the school also). When I see girls get pregnant, they are "punished" by the "high school order". Frequently they are shunned, talked about, and ridiculed. And they frequently say and feel punished by getting pregnant. I find that very unfair.
So in a nutshell, I don't find Senator Obama's words offensive.
Posted by: T-Steel at March 31, 2008 07:34 PM (YvBPe)
10
T-Steel, if you don't have a problem with CY having and expressing his opinion, why even comment?
By the way, when you find yourself in a hole, the wise thing is to stop digging.
Posted by: C-C-G at March 31, 2008 08:02 PM (5m1ld)
11
Peckerhead keeps runnin' his mouth and diggin' a deep hole at the same time don't he?
Posted by: Tonto (USA) at March 31, 2008 08:27 PM (GAL+4)
12
Digging what hole? The only holes I see the openings my offensive linemen are making on the film I'm watching. And comments don't necessarily have to be made to agree or disagree. They can be made as an observation. Nothing more, nothing less.
Peckerhead?? Why all the hostility? I'm not calling people names around here. Oh well.
Posted by: T-Steel at March 31, 2008 09:00 PM (YvBPe)
13
The guy just equated a baby with an STD.
This is not relivant...how?
I do find it HIGHLY important to know that Obama hasn't changed any from his murder-supporting ways.
Posted by: Foxfier at March 31, 2008 09:02 PM (s2ydv)
14
Ahh, I see, T-Steel is looking down upon us poor benighted partisans from high in his ivory tower.
Of course, he seems not to be up on his history... since Presidential campaigns have been vicious since 1796.
The campaign was a rough and tumble affair. The Republicans sought to convince the electorate that their opponents longed to establish a titled nobility in America and that Adams–whom they caricatured as His Rotundity because of his small, portly stature–was a pro-British monarchist. President Washington was assailed for supporting Hamilton’s aggressive economic program, as well as for the Jay Treaty of 1795, which had settled outstanding differences between the United States and Britain. The Philadelphia Aurora went so far as to insist that the president was the source of all the misfortunes of our country.
The Federalists responded by portraying Jefferson as an atheist and French puppet who would plunge the United States into another war with Great Britain. They also charged that he was indecisive and a visionary. A philosopher makes the worst politician, one Federalist advised, while another counseled that Jefferson was fit to be a professor in a college . . . but certainly not the first magistrate of a great nation. Newspapers such as the Gazette of the United States and Porcupine’s Gazette asserted that Jefferson’s election would result in domestic disorder.
Oops, guess I shattered an illusion that all this rancor is a "modern" thing and that if we just returned to the horse-and-buggy era everything would be as kind and peaceful as is portrayed on PBS.
Posted by: C-C-G at March 31, 2008 09:20 PM (5m1ld)
15
I am very conservative and very anti abortion. But lets be perfectly honest here, a 13 yr old having a baby would most surely be a punishment. Her youth would be taken away the responsibilties of adulthood coming at a very young age. Yes of course everyone would love the baby but.
Posted by: Dennis D at March 31, 2008 09:21 PM (EbvWp)
16
C'mon C-C-G. I'm not looking down upon you or any partisan. I am (and I emphasize "I") not a partisan man. Plain and simple. I like the notion of bringing politics together instead of separating (and Senator Obama is a partisan no matter what he says in his speeches and town halls). And did I mention anything about "modern politics". I simply stated that I was anti-partisanship. Regardless of how new or how old it is. I understand. You just picking a fight by associating notions/ideas with what I said. I won't play that game with you.
So far I've called a "peckerhead" and now I'm "looking down" at partisans even though there is NOTHING in my words that are condescending. Feels like Daily Kos over here with a conservative slant. Same type of games over in that crappy site.
Yes of course everyone would love the baby but.
And that's the issue. The "but". Look I would like nothing more than ALL conceptions to be look upon as the miracles that they are BUT frequently teenaged girls are "punished" by society. If information can prevent those type of pregnancies, then I'm all for it. Not once did I hear Senator Obama advocate aborting a baby after a teenage girl gets pregnant.
Posted by: T-Steel at March 31, 2008 10:03 PM (YvBPe)
17
Dennis D -
You can give up the kid.
Choice: murder your flesh and blood, or take six months MAX out of your childhood-- which you presumably already gave up when you agreed to screw someone-- and let the kid grow up with folks who want them.
Even in the tiny town I grew up, there are five families advertising for young women who don't want their children, so that the families can adopt the kid.
Posted by: Foxfier at March 31, 2008 10:16 PM (s2ydv)
18
A baby is more than a baby. Even Obama later on called them "miracles." Quite a few Americans don't think getting pregnant is "punishment."
A baby IS more than a baby. A baby is a 24/7 responsibility for at least the next 18 years of the parents' lives. When the "parent" is 12 or 13 or 14 or 15 or 16 years old, *that is a punishment.* And when Obama "later on called them miracles," he was *talking about his daughters,* who were obviously wanted by parents who were old enough and mature to care for them. He was NOT making a general statement about all babies in all circumstances.
Dennis D at least has the common sense to know that having a baby when you are still a child yourself is extremely punishing. I do take issue with his last sentence, though. There is no "of course" about a baby born to a 13-year-old being loved. It depends entirely on the girl's particular circumstances. You might be talking about a girl who has no loving family herself. You just cannot make these sweeping generalizations.
Posted by: Kathy at March 31, 2008 10:40 PM (wWPI1)
19
Dennis D & T-Steel: What's wrong with societal pressure to do the right thing? 50 years ago, having a child out of wed-lock was a 'bad' thing...so was being a slut...so was being a dead-beat dad. Granted, there were lots of 'bad' things that were also hidden those 50 years ago as well like spousal abuse and such.
I had a classmate in high school who married as a senior, then got pregnant, and was not allowed to walk with us for our graduation because of those 'old rules'. That was a mere 22 years ago. However, teen pregnancy percentages were extremely rare in my neck of the woods at that time. Approximately 5 years later they were through the roof...upwards of 25% of 16+ year old females in that high school. Of course, the "powers that be" reversed many of their rules about teen pregnancy after my class graduated. Connection to the pregnancy rate? I think so.
Posted by: Mark at March 31, 2008 10:43 PM (KDHro)
20
Kathy-
I say again:
A woman need not KEEP the child when she chooses not to kill a human.
http://www.adopthelp.com/adoptiveparents/faq.html
I've been "unwanted" in various places-- though not by my parents. None of those people had a right to kill me to make it so they didn't have to put up with me.
As my mother puts it: what if you only want babies, but not children? Is it alright to kill them after they go past the "baby" stage?
Posted by: Foxfier at March 31, 2008 11:28 PM (s2ydv)
21
It's amazing how far people who love slaughtering babies like Kathy will go. As Foxflier said, there's always adoption. The adoption list is long enough for all the unwanted children.
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at April 01, 2008 02:15 AM (kNqJV)
22
Geez, maybe if Obama doesn't want his daughters to catch a parasite, Vagina Warrior speak for fetus, he should educate them to keep their legs closed or have safe sex. The abstinence route is obviously not politically or socially popular.
Posted by: daleyrocks at April 01, 2008 02:30 AM (0pZel)
23
Obama endorses information? Not for parents, though, right?
Posted by: Pablo at April 01, 2008 05:12 AM (iqeYx)
24
Pregnant a reward not a punishment. He is out of touch with the teenage pregnancy issue. Lower income desire pregancies it gets them housing food stamps welfare etc. The more kids the more money its a living for them. That's their "job". That's the reality and goals of 13 and 14 year olds getting pregnant its a ticket to an all expensed paid apartment.
Posted by: Itsaprilimnofool at April 01, 2008 07:26 AM (grFLU)
25
Am I the only one who read that Obama quote and thought he was referring to birth control and condoms?
I know CY loves to dive off the deep end and label Barack a baby-killing sociopath, but is it possible that he was not - in fact - openly encouraging his kids to get stabbed in the uterus by rusty coat-hangers? Is it possible that he was encouraging his daughters to have safe, protected, responsible sex if they felt the need to have sex at all?
I know rock-ribbed conservatives think they can through off several billion years of breeding instinct with a stern lecture and a set of Hail Marys, and I'm sure CY doesn't know any true-blue Christian families who have ever had to deal with their children getting pregnant. But for the rest of us sinful, heathen masses who have not the will power to "keep their pants on", doesn't it make sense to provide accurate sexual education? I remember my Texas High School trying to scare the hell out of us with statistics a quick internet search proved to be totally bogus. Needless to say, a bunch of people still ran off and got laid on prom night.
Was it better that we were all told how condoms fail 40% of the time? Or that one-in-four of our classmates had chlamydia?
Barack is going to educate his two daughters. You guys call that "baby killing". I don't know what to think of that.
Posted by: Zifnab at April 01, 2008 08:51 AM (Usaah)
Posted by: daleyrocks at April 01, 2008 09:03 AM (0pZel)
27
Zifnab - I'm not inclined to be an Obama supporter, but you are right on the money here. I read the quote from Obama the same way you did. This piece is massive over-reaction.
Posted by: Formerly known as Skeptic at April 01, 2008 11:53 AM (91XRk)
28
zifnab,you from texarkana,aint you?
Posted by: tj at April 01, 2008 12:20 PM (0JFRo)
29
I had a classmate in high school who married as a senior, then got pregnant, and was not allowed to walk with us for our graduation because of those 'old rules'.
Wow! And she was MARRIED! Imagine how a teenage girl who was pregnant and NOT married would have been treated in those good old days. It's so good to know that back then having a baby when you're only 16 was considered a blessing, and not a punishment. And it's wonderful to know that today we live in more enlightened times, when no one wants to bring back those terrible days when teen pregnancy was considered a crime punishable by public shunning.
Posted by: Kathy at April 01, 2008 01:30 PM (wWPI1)
30
As my mother puts it: what if you only want babies, but not children? Is it alright to kill them after they go past the "baby" stage?
Apparently it is, because full-term pregnancy and childbirth is much more dangerous for a 12- or 13-year-old child than abortion, especially a first-term abortion. Pro-lifers, however, prioritize the unborn baby's life higher than the life OR health of the child who is obviously no longer a baby.
Posted by: Kathy at April 01, 2008 01:37 PM (wWPI1)
31
When I saved the Obama quote concerning the sanctity of all life, I thought that the filename was appropriately shortened to reflect his view, i.e., I don't want them
Posted by: denise at April 01, 2008 01:50 PM (yyPIt)
32
Kathy --
Hello, non sequitur. Passing, for the moment, on your assumption that it's more dangerous to give birth...that is not the parents of the child killing the child once it has passed the "baby" stage.
IE, the question was: does the desire of the parent outweigh the life rights of their progeny at all stages, if we assume it does so prior to birth.
As to your assumption:
http://clinmed.netprints.org/cgi/content/full/2001030003v1
http://www.pregnantpause.org/safe/stakes.htm
An aborting 13 year old child would be more likely to commit suicide, and the only study based in a country where decent records are kept on abortion indicates that it's far more dangerous than childbirth.
Also: the only study--as opposed to self-referencing page-- that I could find as to risks of young motherhood was this:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/m3ek04pcnbpmy8l5/
Pregnant teenagers appear to be at increased risk for poor maternal weight gain, abortions, hypertensive disorders and delivery of low birthweight infants.
Posted by: Foxfier at April 01, 2008 02:51 PM (s2ydv)
33
babies are not a punishment they are the result or in this case consequences of people being irresponsible in having unprotected sex especially outside of a relationship stable enough to have a family. abortion has become a form of birth control in these times which it should not be.
Posted by: hobbs at April 01, 2008 03:05 PM (ZPCqS)
34
Kathy - Have you ever met any prolifers?
Posted by: daleyrocks at April 01, 2008 04:02 PM (0pZel)
35
Kathy - Have you ever met any prolifers?
Yes.
Posted by: Kathy at April 01, 2008 05:04 PM (wWPI1)
36
does the desire of the parent outweigh the life rights of their progeny at all stages, if we assume it does so prior to birth.
To the first part of your question: Does the desire, [and health, welfare, or life] of the parent outweight the life rights of their progeny at all stages after birth?
No.
To the second part of your question:
Does the desire, [and health, welfare, or life] of the parent outweight the life rights of their progeny prior to birth?
Yes.
Posted by: Kathy at April 01, 2008 05:12 PM (wWPI1)
37
Okay, Kathy, name for us, please, the precise medical conditions during which pregnancy constitutes a risk to the health of the mother, and for which aborting the fetus represents the best or only means of improving the medical condition.
Then, since you know so much about it, tell us how often those conditions arise in the United States of America.
I anticipate either spin, or an echoing silence.
Posted by: C-C-G at April 01, 2008 05:54 PM (5m1ld)
38
Maybe AlGore, His Obamaness and these baby murdering libs could get together and write a book, they could call it, "An inconvenient birth".
Posted by: Conservative CBU at April 01, 2008 08:12 PM (La7YV)
39
Kathy - Would the prolifers you know agree with the way you are describing their positions? If not, why would they disagree?
Posted by: daleyrocks at April 01, 2008 10:31 PM (0pZel)
40
Would the prolifers you know agree with the way you are describing their positions? If not, why would they disagree?
I don't know, to both questions. Since I have not spoken to any pro-lifers except the ones here about whether an unborn baby's life takes priority over a 13-year-old girl's life, I can't say what they would say.
However, if I had to guess, I would guess that if I put this question to a pro-lifer, the pro-lifer would say, Of course not! All life is sacred. The girl's life is sacred, too. Because of course no one wants to admit that an argument they cherish leads to the conclusion that the life of an unborn baby comes first, and the life of a 13-year-old girl, second if at all.
Posted by: Kathy at April 01, 2008 11:28 PM (wWPI1)
41
I anticipate either spin, or an echoing silence.
Then why should I bother answering?
Posted by: Kathy at April 01, 2008 11:31 PM (wWPI1)
42
Since I have not spoken to any pro-lifers except the ones here about whether an unborn baby's life takes priority over a 13-year-old girl's life, I can't say what they would say.
Kathy, you have yet to show that there IS a risk to the life of the mother.
You just assume it is so, and that anyone who opposes abortion wants a dead 13 year old.
So far as I know, the only time I'm familiar with that the mother's life is threatened directly is a tubal pregnancy.
Even the Catholic Church allows for the tube to removed in that case, thus saving the mother and indirectly causing the death of the child.
Now, unless you can prop up your strawmen, please stop throwing insults and accusations.
Posted by: Foxfier at April 02, 2008 12:31 AM (s2ydv)
43
Foxfier - I presume you are including making up arguments of opponents, e.g. strawmen, in your admonition of Kathy, such as those of the prolifers she claimed to know, but now admits she never talked to.
Posted by: daleyrocks at April 02, 2008 12:54 AM (0pZel)
44
“I goess [sic] we could call these his ‘terminating the family’ values… Now He’s [sic] informed his chldren [sic] via the media that daddy will drive them to Planned Parenthood if they get knocked up.
I'm questioning your ability to spell without spell checker.
Posted by: fh at April 02, 2008 02:15 AM (KRWx7)
45
daleyrocks-
Honestly? I'm MOSTLY offended by her amazing lack of reading comprehension of what has actually been said here; some folks know only very, VERY strange folks, so I tend to avoid the views of people who someone on the internet says they know. (if they spoke to them or not)
Posted by: Foxfier at April 02, 2008 02:18 AM (s2ydv)
46
Well, I am afraid you will have to grapple with the question of whether pregnancy and childbirth are dangerous for a 13-year-old on your own, because Bob has his filter set up so that information about teen pregnancy cannot get through.
If you are so inclined, you can google the terms "health risks teenage pregnancy" (w/o the quotes) and you will find all the information you could want or need.
Having tried to provide the "proof" you claim you must have before you will even begin to seriously consider the *shocking* proposition that full-term pregnancy and childbirth is more dangerous for a young teen than a first-term abortion, I have to say that I find it horrifying that anyone could be so -- either ignorant or blinded by ideology, or maybe both -- that it would come as outlandish news to them that 13-year-olds are not physically or emotionally ready to go through pregnancy and childbirth, and that children born to 13-year-olds face severely compromised health outcomes themselves.
You need proof that a 13-year-old girl's body is not mature or developed enough to have a baby w/o incurring serious health risks? And absent that "proof," you will refuse to believe that pregnancy and childbirth is traumatic in every way possible for teenagers, especially young teens under 15?
That is terrifying. I want to put my arms around every preteen and young teen in this country and protect them from the likes of you.
There is nothing wrong with my reading comprehension. I am comprehending just fine. The physical and emotional and psychological health and well-being of a pregnant child means nothing to you. And come to that, the postnatal health and well-being of the unborn baby mean very little to you as well. All that matters to you is that single moment when a baby emerges from the womb. Human life to you means *only* being born. Everything after that is unimportant.
Posted by: Kathy at April 02, 2008 01:16 PM (wWPI1)
47
Ah. I see. You're Pro-teen-pregnancy then? Teen-pregnancy is a gift it would seem? A reward? Interesting position for conservatives to take.
Posted by: heresjohnny at April 02, 2008 01:42 PM (dsolN)
48
...
Kathy, I posted evidence that abortion is more dangerous.
All we have is you standing here, yelling that having a kid is more dangerous, vs actual studies that disagree.
Johnny-- I'm betting our host is pro-don't-screw-around.
Amazingly, you can graduate high school without screwing.
Posted by: Foxfier at April 02, 2008 04:58 PM (s2ydv)
49
"The physical and emotional and psychological health and well-being of a pregnant child means nothing to you."
Kathy - Do you believe that they are prepared for the physical, emotional and pschological health consequences of humping their brains out that liberals seem to encourage even if they manage to avoid getting pregnant or can get abortions?
Posted by: daleyrocks at April 02, 2008 05:24 PM (0pZel)
50
Then why should I bother answering?
Maybe in order to show us just how many abortions are medically necessary?
Of course, you won't... you can't... there are a handful of conditions where abortion is the best or only treatment, and they occur very rarely... but still you tried to ride that old canard about "the mother's health" all the way to victory.
Oh, and the spam filter permits TinyURL addresses... so quitcher whining about Bob's filter.
Posted by: C-C-G at April 02, 2008 06:05 PM (5m1ld)
51
Want to live in a country that outlaws abortions ? Move to Saudi Arabia or Iran
Posted by: John Ryan at April 02, 2008 06:54 PM (TcoRJ)
52
Or Ireland, Kenya, Venezuela, Lebanon, Mexico and dozens of others. Saudi Arabia allows abortion to "protect a woman's health" though.
Posted by: Pablo at April 02, 2008 09:19 PM (yTndK)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Running From His Record: Obama's Lies Confirmed by His Own Hand
I ripped into Barack Obama's utter disdain of firearms and his desire for blanket bans on entire classes of firearms in a post for Pajamas Media back on February 22. The article, Obama Shooting Himself in the Foot with Anti-Gun Stance, noted:
In his answers to the 1998 Illinois State Legislative National Political Awareness Test, Obama said he favored a ban on "the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons."
By definition, this would include all pistols ever made, from .22 target pistols used in the Olympics to rarely-fired pistols kept in nightstands and sock drawers for the defense of families, and every pistol in between. Obama's strident stand would also ban all semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, whatever their previously legal purpose.
Obama's desire to ban all semi-automatic firearms (including those most commonly used for hunting and target shooting) and all handguns are positions well to the left of mainstream American views, as are many of the other political positions he took in the 1998 survey.
Running as a moderate and inclusive presidential candidate a decade later, Obama has tried to explain away his leftist positions on that survey, and an earlier 1996 survey, as being the work of campaign aides who misstated his positions.
The
Politico bursts that explanation this morning, in a report that notes that Obama himself answered questions in an interview with the group that created the 1996 questionnaire, and even included the candidate's hand-written notes on an amended version of their questionnaire.
Some members of IVI-IPO, the group that authored the 1996 survey, are not happy with Obama's changing views.
The group had endorsed Obama in every race he'd run — including his failed long-shot 2000 primary challenge to U.S. Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) — until now.
The group's 37-member board of directors, meeting last year soon after Obama distanced himself from the first questionnaire, stalemated in its vote over an endorsement in the Democratic presidential primary. Forty percent supported Obama, 40 percent sided with Clinton and 20 percent voted for other candidates or not to endorse.
"One big issue was: Does he or does he not believe the stuff he told us in 1996?" said Aviva Patt, who has been involved with the IVI-IPO since 1990 and is now the group's treasurer. She volunteered for Obama's 2004 Senate campaign, but voted to endorse the since-aborted presidential campaign of Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio) and professed disappointment over Obama's retreat from ownership of the questionnaire.
Other members of the group still support Obama, but it frankly doesn't matter.
Barack Obama has tried to package himself this time around as a uniting, moderating force in American politics, but his dozen-year long record from 1996 through his current Senate ranking as America's most liberal Senator shows him to be well to the left of mainstream positions not only among Americans in general, but even within the Democratic Party.
Instead of running on his liberal views, Barack Obama is trying to minimize the public's exposure to them without refuting his still-held radical beliefs, just as he's tried to run away from his relationship to a radical Marxism-inspired church with a bigoted, America-damning pastor without quitting the church or severing his relationship with Wright, just as he has no refuted his dinner-party friendship and board of directors relationship
with a proud terrorist who lost his girlfriend in the group when she
blew herself up trying to create bombs to target a dance for American soldiers.
Far from being a uniting force in American politics, Barack Obama has shown himself time and again to be a shifty radical attempting to lie his way into higher office. Unfortunately, his hope of surviving the general election un-vetted by the media and his opponents is falling apart.
Amusingly, the superdelegate system that Democrats created to avoid another embarrassing McGovern-type landslide defeat is primed to fail in it's primary mission by
nominating another left-wing radical with little chance of winning, and a real possibility of of suffering another embarrassing landslide defeat once the gloves come off in the general election.
I can hardly wait.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:29 AM
| Comments (51)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
It's almost like everyone is waiting for the Obama lie of the day to be revealed now. Yesterday it was the WAPO finally connecting the dots on the Selma/Kennedy myth, although others had already done it. Today it's Politico puncturing previous lies about a 1996 survey. Friday, it was moonwalking about his Wright position with the hags on the views.
And people have a hard time understanding why Hillary won't quit? Go figure.
Posted by: daleyrocks at March 31, 2008 10:44 AM (0pZel)
2
Make that the hags on The View.
Posted by: daleyrocks at March 31, 2008 10:46 AM (0pZel)
3
I'm not sure a rep for deception is going to adhere to Barry well enough to hand Hillary the nod, especially because she excels in this area and has for years. Can a Clinton call ANYone a liar? Ha! Folks on the Right snort, and quite rightly, at JSMcCs "StraighTalk" but as a political asset, his "truthing" puts him far past the two empty garment bags in opposition in this particular area of character. As with so much bearing on McCain he looks pretty bad until you hold him up to the competition.
Posted by: megapotamus at March 31, 2008 11:37 AM (LF+qW)
4
Obammy is baaaaaaad, baaad I tell ye..he's a commie an' he hates Ameriky.
Posted by: chris lee at March 31, 2008 11:45 AM (6x0Nb)
5
Chris - He's just an empty suit. No one really knows what he believes because he votes present or refuses to reveal it until the media spotlight gets too hot. Even then, his statements are noncommittal. He's the Rubberband Man, the Gumby candidate.
Posted by: daleyrocks at March 31, 2008 11:53 AM (0pZel)
6
I need to understand this attitude. Clearly the issue is not the responsible gun owner or collector. In all honesty, I don't know why any rational person of good taste would need to own an uzi or any other semi-autimatic. Clearly the issue is the problem of gang violence and gun toting psychos , why do you frame his position in such a disingenuous way?
Posted by: chris lee at March 31, 2008 12:03 PM (6x0Nb)
7
In all honesty, I don't know why any rational person of good taste would need to own an uzi or any other semi-autimatic.
Beclown yourself, much?
The overwhelming majority of firearms sold in the United States to responsible gun owners are semi-automatics, from pistols purchased for self defense and many kinds of competitive shooting, to semi-auto rifles purchased for target shooting, hunting, collecting, and plinking, to many models of shotguns common in both hunting and target shooting.
When you don't even know the difference between a machine gun and the nearly ubiquitous semi-automatic action (your obvious intent, even though Uzis are made both ways), you should probably simply not comment, and thus keep your ignorance hidden.
It is Obama who has a dishonest position, counting on ignorant fools such as yourself to swallow it reflexively, without the first bit of knowledge about the subject.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 31, 2008 12:14 PM (xNV2a)
8
chris - Ir would be nice if you tried to educate yourself before opining on a subject, but whatever.
If your concern is gang gun violence, do you think the members of the gangs purchased their weapons legally, Chris?
Posted by: daleyrocks at March 31, 2008 12:58 PM (0pZel)
9
[[Obammy is baaaaaaad, baaad I tell ye..he's a commie an' he hates Ameriky.]]
Well hes said as much! But you know, actually Barry is a great American who loves his country, he just claims its an evil, s### hole (despite the fact that Barry and his lovly wifey earned more than one million bucks last year.) You never know, had he stayed in Kenya he could be making more.
Posted by: grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr at March 31, 2008 01:00 PM (gkobM)
10
Chris
CY probably used too many words for you to understand. Allow me to simplify:
The Uzi you are thinking about (and I use that phrase advisedly) is generally envisioned as an AUTOMATIC weapon. Which means if you hold the trigger down--the trigger is that little thingy under the back of the barrel (the part where the bullet thingy's come out)--bullet thingy's keep coming out of the hole at the end(known by people of poor taste as the muzzle).
A SEMI-automatic means that the person shooting the gun has to pull the trigger thingy for each bullet to fire. People have been using semiautomatics for target shooting, hunting, and home defense since they were introduced at the turn on the 20th century.
Keeping up?
An automatic weapon is (effectively) illegal to own for private citizens. This has been the law of the land since--wait for it, drumroll please--1934.
I guess good taste means never having to inform oneself. Or defend oneself. Which explains a lot...thanks for the insight.
Posted by: iconoclast at March 31, 2008 01:03 PM (8EflB)
11
Something tells me Chris probably believed this...
http://antiprotester.blogspot.com/2007/08/propaganda-of-week.html
Posted by: Lamontyoubigdummy at March 31, 2008 01:14 PM (RWKPy)
12
Chris wants to ban my gun? That's a "semi automatic"
Are liberals really so stupid they don't know the difference between a semi automatic and an automatic?
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at March 31, 2008 01:23 PM (kNqJV)
13
Obammy is baaaaaaad, baaad I tell ye..he's a commie an' he hates Ameriky.
Actually, he is. A commie. His mother was one, his mentor in his teenage years was one, he hung out with communists at college, he worked for them in Chicago, he was mentored by leftist activists in Chicago, he forged alliances with them, he still receives support from them and supports their initiatives in the UN.
I've pulled together a few details from his past on my blog that sketch out the picture.
Nobody familiar with Obama's background was the least bit surprised by Rev Wright's extremism. Nobody familiar with his background is surprised that Obama has the most liberal voting record in the Senate. The surprise, for those of us who know who he is, is that he's gotten away with pretending to be centrist for so long. Obama is a closet radical. Really.
Posted by: Plumb Bob at March 31, 2008 01:53 PM (nVK2J)
14
You are all such heartless, cynical shills for the gun lobby. The general public can get behind people owning pistols for self defense, a rifle to hunt and so on. Obviously, we have an issue in this country with certain types of weapons getting in the hands of gang members and psychotics like VT and Columbine, You KNOW that's the issue. Your outrage is.. "HOW DARE HE TAKE AWAY "OUR" MACHINE GUNS." You know we have to find a solution to this, presumably none of you fall in the category of psychos and crips.
Posted by: chris lee at March 31, 2008 01:55 PM (6x0Nb)
15
I need to understand this attitude.
Then shouldn't you be asking questions instead of making asinine, ignorant comments?
Posted by: Pablo at March 31, 2008 02:11 PM (yTndK)
16
FYI, Chris, I live in one of 21 states that allow civilians with proper permitting to own fully-automatic weapons, sawn-off shotguns, suppressed firearms, disguised guns (AOW's)... care to guess how many of them are used in crimes every year?
That's right: none.
And since I am NOT a "psychos or crips" , why shouldn't I have a Class-III or DD? Why should I be responsible for the crimes of another?
If we were to follow YOUR logic we'd have to have YOUR computer confiscated: There is a higher likelihood that you're using it for illegal purposes (pr0n, digital property rights violations, et cetera) than there is that I'm using my guns to commit crime.
Posted by: DaveP. at March 31, 2008 02:12 PM (q6tuN)
17
Your outrage is.. "HOW DARE HE TAKE AWAY "OUR" MACHINE GUNS."
No, you blithering idiot.
Our "outrage" (more like disgust on the level of stepping in something unpleasant) is that you aren't bright enough to figure out that semi-automatics ARE NOT machine guns (nor, for that matter were any of the firearms used at NIU, VT, or Columbine).
As I stated quote clearly above, semi-automatics are the most common type of pistol for self defense, are the most common type of rifle in many kinds of target shooting, extremely common in hunting, plinking, etc.
You are either too dumb, or too lazy, to learn the difference between "semi-automatic" and "automatic."
I've never banned anyone for being mindlessly stupid, but I'm considering making an exception in your case.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 31, 2008 02:12 PM (xNV2a)
18
chris - Do you have a solution which helps prevent gangs from getting their hands on guns without prohibiting everyone else from owning guns?
Posted by: daleyrocks at March 31, 2008 02:12 PM (0pZel)
19
Poor Chris, no doubt when the SCOTUS rules in favor of individuals and their constitutional right as such to own and bear arms, he'll cut his wrists in protest.
Make sure to get clear video of the event, and post it on your myspace page!
Posted by: Conservative CBU at March 31, 2008 02:14 PM (La7YV)
20
The general public can get behind people owning pistols for self defense, a rifle to hunt and so on.
Every pistol manufactured today is a semiautomatic. Every one.
You are a shill for the gun grabbing communists.
Posted by: Pablo at March 31, 2008 02:14 PM (yTndK)
21
That's it.
Chris Lee, be she a purposeful moron or an accidental one, had uttered her last stupidity here (at least under her present IP address).
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 31, 2008 02:34 PM (xNV2a)
22
Obama is trying to hide his looney left-ness and for the most part he is getting away with it, and when it comes to the general he'll get away with even more, the public at large doesn't pay attention to anything that isn't jammed down their throats by every media outlet in the country, over and over again, but the MSM, as everyone here knows, is in the bag for Obama and they will not allow his halo to be sullied, and we haven't seen anything yet, in October merely mentioning that you don't like his tie will get you life in front of a firing squad, hate to be so negative, but that's what's going to happen..
Posted by: shoey at March 31, 2008 03:07 PM (IRh55)
23
to elaborate;
the liberal media is getting all this stuff about Obama out now because they know that ppl aren't paying attention yet, most voters won't start to really pay attention until october, but by then all the networks will say that all this stuff is "old" news and ignore it, they may be freakin' a-holes but they aren't stupid and they have a plan...
Posted by: shoey at March 31, 2008 03:22 PM (IRh55)
24
Pablo
From the website, it appears that S&W at least still manufactures revolvers. Not that it changes anything....
Posted by: iconoclast at March 31, 2008 03:46 PM (M+wD9)
25
I don't think all of the MSM is in the bag for Obama. There are enough who fear a McGovern-style or favor Hillary, or just want to increase circulation/viewership so that this bad stuff will leak out. All it takes is one defection to kill a cartel, after all. And there are enough MSM reporters to badly damage Obama (or Hillary).
What might be very interesting is an open floor fight in Denver. After the first vote, I believe the delegates become uncommitted. There is a possibility--which people recognize given the comments about AlGore stepping into the race--that D delegates and party leaders might recognize the challenges posed by nominating either Hillary or Obama. Fear of offending the black voters and fear of offending the feminist voters might drive them to consider a "none of the above" approach and hoping to to defang the hard feelings that would occur were Obama or Hillary to be nominated by the superdelegates.
Of course, done wrong might result in BOTH blocks not getting out there in sufficient numbers.
Posted by: iconoclast at March 31, 2008 03:59 PM (M+wD9)
26
Is there a Mumia/Obama connection?
Have Mr. or Mrs. Obama made any comments (or any contributions) regarding Mumia Abu-Jamal, the infamous Philadelphia cop killer?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Posted by: Jec at March 31, 2008 05:20 PM (d/RyS)
27
iconoclast,
From the website, it appears that S&W at least still manufactures revolvers. Not that it changes anything....
Indeed. One round per trigger pull, with the next round automatically available, right? Pity that we won't be able to explain it to chris.
Posted by: Pablo at March 31, 2008 06:06 PM (yTndK)
28
Pablo, the difference is that a revolver is a manual repeater: it requires mechanical energy from the firer to bring up the next round in the firing order; as opposed to semiautomatics, which do so themselves with no intervention by the firer, using residual energy from the shot just fired.
Besides, there are several nonrepeating handguns out there: Derringers, single-shot hunting and target pistols, et cetera.
It is fair to say that both revolvers and semis are repeating weapons though.
Posted by: DaveP. at March 31, 2008 07:21 PM (3Aj1g)
29
Pablo is trying to redefine "semiauto". He is wrong to try and do so since his redfinition will never be accepted, and even if it were, could lead to problems with defining the limits of handgun acceptability. In that sense, therefor he is "dangerous". Chris is just a moron.
Posted by: mytralman at March 31, 2008 07:49 PM (k+clE)
30
Mytralman, Pablo isn't the one trying to redefine terms, you are.
According to this site as well as others:
A semi-automatic firearm is a gun that requires only a trigger pull for each round that's fired, unlike a single-action revolver, a pump-action firearm, a bolt-action firearm, or a lever-action firearm, which require the shooter to manually chamber each successive round.
Therefore, since a double-action revolver (by far the most common today) fires one bullet for each trigger pull, and subsequently moves the next round into position, it is by definition "semi-automatic."
This is as opposed to "automatic" firearms, which continue firing bullets as long as the trigger is held down (and the ammo holds out).
Posted by: C-C-G at March 31, 2008 08:37 PM (5m1ld)
31
Huh. I wouldn't call any revolver, even a double-action, a semi-automatic -- I'd reserve that terminology for the guns that use the energy from the fired round to chamber the next round. So if it uses a magazine, it's a semi-auto; if it has a wheel, it's a revolver.
Under this definition, which would include double-action revolvers under the term "semi-automatics", what would you call the type of gun I consider a real semi-auto -- the type that uses a magazine and has a slide? Can't call it a "semi-automatic" anymore, so what would you call it?
Posted by: Robin Munn at April 01, 2008 12:38 AM (Ji1Ec)
32
I think DaveP is using the same definition I am, since he mentions a revolver using "mechanical energy from the firer to bring up the next round in the firing order," whereas semiautomatics use the energy of firing the round. That's true whether the revolver is a single-action or double-action: the energy that rotates the chamber and cocks the hammer can be felt in the increased weight of the trigger pull. But the extra energy is being supplied by the shooter, not by the round being fired.
To me, a semiautomatic has always been a gun with a slide and a magazine. To classify double-action revolvers in that category just feels wrong.
Posted by: Robin Munn at April 01, 2008 12:46 AM (Ji1Ec)
33
He is wrong to try and do so since his redfinition will never be accepted, and even if it were, could lead to problems with defining the limits of handgun acceptability.
Well, let me make myself perfectly clear: law abiding citizens should be able to own any damned handgun they like. And unless I miss my guess, the SCOTUS is about to agree with me.
Everything's going to be fine, mytralman.
Posted by: Pablo at April 01, 2008 04:28 AM (yTndK)
34
To me, a semiautomatic has always been a gun with a slide and a magazine. To classify double-action revolvers in that category just feels wrong.
It isn't something I'd do with someone who knows what the heck they're talking about. But it's accurate enough to illustrate a very basic point for the simpleton.
Posted by: Pablo at April 01, 2008 04:30 AM (yTndK)
35
We need about 100,000 Americans to go before a judge and publicly declare
that their middle names are their legal names for all public purposes.
And they should also declare themselves as supporters of the Hussein
for Imam--whoops I mean president coalition. Hussein will be the
first Muslim president. Free Burkhas for everybody! Hussein's first
act will be to replace the flag with the red crescent. Hussein has
always hated that other flag with every fiber of his being. Which is
why he won't pledge to it and won't wear a flag lapel pin. But Hussein
will proudly salute a flag representative of a non European religion!
When Hussein takes office every child will be required to attend a
Madras just as Hussein did when he was a child. It is so good to be
able to use a candidate's middle name and talk about his formative
years and his education. Because if you couldn't that would mean
that the candidate is ashamed of what he was and what he has become.
Welcome to a pork free world with no ham or pizza. You must not offer a pork chop
to Hussein. You must not put pork grease on your hands or your money
and certainly not hallowed ground. No pork anywhere!
Alice Jones, tinfoil hat wearing saucer nut recently came out of the closet and
revealed that she is a radical Muslim and a supporter of Hussein for
for president. Alice, who had previously grown famous for taking Klan money
for bringing up black people exclusively in conjunction with disease, violence,
and/or poverty, surprised everyone by endorsing a black candidate for president.
---coming to you from under the straight talk express.
****Hussein '08 !!!*****
Posted by: zed at April 01, 2008 06:02 AM (xsPCH)
36
Mmmm... taste the crazy.
Posted by: Zifnab at April 01, 2008 08:55 AM (Usaah)
37
For once, Zifnab, I agree with you. We have our crazies on the right side of the aisle too.
Posted by: C-C-G at April 01, 2008 05:50 PM (5m1ld)
38
I've been saying, since it looked like he was going to run, the Obama was a commie. Now, I was being a bit hyperbolic, but not overly so, using the stances he had taken on those occasions he actually stood SOMEWHERE. Then the Rev Wrong stuff came about, Hannity had whined about him for most of the campaign, and got the man on tv, etc. . .and Black Liberation Theology came out as Wright's message that Obama took to heart and "Brought Him To Christ". Based on Liberation Theology, Black Liberation and standard Liberation Theologies are simply MARXISM add god.
Egad, I was right.
He really is a damned communist.
Posted by: JP at April 01, 2008 06:13 PM (Tae/a)
39
Hey all, kind of new here.
I am guessing that Chris is the village idiot?
Posted by: Eric at April 03, 2008 06:31 PM (9V6Vj)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 29, 2008
Yon on the War
Michael Yon is in Mosul, where we thought the bulk of the fighting in Iraq would be over coming weeks as Iraqi Army units supported by American forces are preparing to route out the last of al Qaeda's significant urban presence.
I shot him an email yesterday to see what he may have heard, and he got back to me this briefly this morning to point me to telephone call he recorded with Glenn Reynolds. You can hear it
here.
He's also got a new book coming coming out, and you can follow the links to pre-order it at the link above.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:09 AM
| Comments (15)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Consuming War:: www.burtonwoodandholmes.com
Posted by: chris lee at March 31, 2008 09:31 AM (6x0Nb)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 28, 2008
The Pitiful Josh Marshall
I don't typically go after other bloggers directly, but this particular combination of smugness and idiocy got under my skin.
Perhaps if one intends to publicly
attack a political figure for the craven act of extending a deadline when things start getting dicey in combat, one should actually verify that such an extension has been made.
It hasn't, according to the AP article appended to the very NPR story he linked to.
Al-Maliki's office also announced it has given residents in Basra until April 8 to turn over "heavy and medium-size weapons" in return for unspecified monetary compensation.
The deadline is separate from the three-day ultimatum announced Wednesday for gunmen to surrender their arms and renounce violence or face harsher measures, government adviser Sadiq al-Rikabi said.
The move instead appeared to be aimed at noncombatants who may have weapons like machine-guns and grenade launchers either for smuggling purposes or to sell to militants or criminal gangs.
Two different deadlines have been set down, the original being a deadline on small arms, and the second, separate deadline for "heavy and medium-size weapons." The small arms deadline has not been changed, and it is the deadline on larger weapons that takes effect on April 8th.
On the bright side, he can always find work
among his peers.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:38 AM
| Comments (60)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
The left is absolutely desperate, desperate beyond all rationality, to see a US defeat in Iraq. Nothing turns on the spigots like any possible setback.
The word a year ago was that the Iraqi government wouldn't fight the Shia militias, therefore why should the US help stabilize the country? Now they start fighting the Shia militias and the usual suspects are in a high state of animation, running around flapping their wings like a bunch of old hens, shreiking "disaster" at the top of their tiny lungs.
A hundred men desert out of over 12,000 troops deployed and the liberal media makes it sound like the whole army went over to the other side. The entire initiative is less than 72 hours old and we are already being bombarded with enemy propaganda -- quotes from angry Sadrists, and dire predictions of doom. And most of it is being written by those who echo uncritically whatever the Jihadists spew out.
I admit I slapped my forehead and said "oh no" when I read Josh Marshall's poorly researched hit piece, wondering if we were going to see failed resolve by Maliki. Well, maybe not.
Thank you Confederate Yankee for being on top of this one and puncturing another defeatist hot air balloon. Nice job!
Posted by: DaMav at March 28, 2008 12:44 PM (X2qWM)
2
"Saddam has no ties to terrorism"
- lame, false, leftist cant
Posted by: mishu at March 28, 2008 01:25 PM (3zDID)
3
It's a freaking POWER STRUGGLE between Shiite Muslims in Iraq... why is America involved with this crap???
Quagmire.
Posted by: David at March 28, 2008 01:39 PM (UEoYe)
4
Nice catch Bob.
Yglesias' analysis has been almost as bad, claiming this was just a brawl between militias when the Iraqi Army is 90% of the force.
Posted by: TallDave at March 28, 2008 01:49 PM (oyQH2)
5
Yeah, Maliki's resolve has not failed. He called in the US to do his work for him.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23788065/
Posted by: Twodox at March 28, 2008 01:51 PM (nh6Nh)
6
David, you are right on one part. It is a power struggle. However, it is between the democratically elected Iraqi government and Shia militias. I pray the government wins in this case.
Posted by: Mark at March 28, 2008 01:53 PM (4od5C)
7
Shockingly, Reuters has it wrong too.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/iraq_dc;_ylt=AlcKDra92wDhJgVJXEF5T1dX6GMA
In Iraq's second-biggest city Basra where he launched the crackdown on Tuesday, Maliki extended a 72 hours deadline he had given militants to surrender, saying they had until April 8 to turn in their weapons for cash
Maybe they already hired Josh.
Posted by: TallDave at March 28, 2008 02:25 PM (oyQH2)
8
Yeah, Maliki's resolve has not failed. He called in the US to do his work for him.
Iraqi Army units are routinely supported by U.S. airstrikes. It's pretty much SOP.
Posted by: TallDave at March 28, 2008 02:27 PM (oyQH2)
9
The fact that Iraqi Police are deserting shouldn't surprise anybody. They've always been unreliable and far more loyal to their tribal connections than the government. I'm certainly hope the Iraqi leaders took this into account accordingly.
I always get a kick out comments such as "It's a Civil War, what are we doing there" as if we didn't have anything to do with it and can absolve ourselves of any responsibility. It's certainly a long way from the "We shall pay any price, bear any burden..." of yesteryear.
Posted by: mindnumbrobot at March 28, 2008 02:31 PM (d5LvD)
10
Did they remove the second two paragraphs from the story? I can't find them when I followed your link.
I did find them from other news sources on the web, although it is was unclear whether the deadline for the original order was extended, as well as adding the new compensation for medium to large size weapons.
Too bad they can't be more clear on the issue. Anybody know Arabic?
Posted by: DR at March 28, 2008 02:34 PM (pZtEm)
11
Allies help allies. Iraq is our ally, yet they don't have much of an air force... so we send ours to assist the Iraqi Army.
I thought this was the kind of "war" that lefties loved... wasn't the "war" in Bosnia supposed to be just fine, because it was just us using our planes to bomb people.
Or, could it be something else? Could it be that airstrikes and wars are just fine when started by a Democrat President, but when started by a Republican, they're evil and bad and terrible?
Double standard, anyone?
Posted by: C-C-G at March 28, 2008 02:35 PM (5m1ld)
12
"David, you are right on one part. It is a power struggle. However, it is between the democratically elected Iraqi government and Shia militias. I pray the government wins in this case."
Will you change your tune if Sadr's party wins the upcoming election?
Posted by: scarshapedstar at March 28, 2008 03:26 PM (+wDyr)
13
One of the remaining benchmarks is disarming of militias. Are we supposed to see them disarmed or not?
If so, did they imagine it would happen without a little coercion? If not, isn't it an admission the benchmarks were a sham from the beginning?
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) at March 28, 2008 04:40 PM (OLufA)
14
My nephew is over there, somewhere. According to him the Iraqis seldom need backup anymore, and he and his men get a plenty of respect from the local citizens when they have to deploy.
Stuff like that makes the people in Berkeley go berserk. I love it.
Posted by: tyree at March 28, 2008 04:54 PM (hvR/f)
15
Uh, Charlie... that's what Maliki is trying to do, disarm the militias.
Did that little bit of logic escape you?
Posted by: C-C-G at March 28, 2008 04:55 PM (5m1ld)
16
Bill Roggio says the U.S. military told him the Iraqi cops aren't deserting their posts.
http://tinyurl.com/2b5ta6
The MSM appears to be lying its collective butt off again, just as it did in 2003, when it claimed the war was a "quagmire" (How original!) after three weeks.
Posted by: Tom W. at March 28, 2008 04:57 PM (UUp3o)
17
Zell Miller wrote a very funny piece some years ago, early in the war, writing a dispatch from Iwo Jima, as reported by the modern media. Someone should try it again - I would suggest the Battle of the Bulge...
Posted by: Grey Fox at March 28, 2008 07:31 PM (bnsbQ)
18
"Zell Miller wrote a very funny piece some years ago, early in the war,..."
Guess he showed THEM!
It's only five years into this war - what's the big deal?!!
Posted by: Babycakes at March 28, 2008 10:42 PM (AtIcF)
19
Exactly, Babycakes: wars come with a time limit, and if you go over, you need to quit so people don't get bored...
...oh, wait.
Posted by: DaveP. at March 28, 2008 11:25 PM (3Aj1g)
20
Democrats find thier resolve and tenacious perserverance in raising taxes, supporting "undocumented immigrants", defending the right of women to dispose of bothersome embryos, and defending politicians who enjoy the occasional "Lewinsky". They have little to spare after that.
Posted by: Joel Mackey at March 28, 2008 11:49 PM (pd6PP)
21
Regardless of whether the extension was reported correctly or not, your post does not change the fact that the violence is increasing and the surge was what Bush hoped it would be. A way to leave it for the next President to clean up his mess.
The same thing he is doing for the economy.
He is our worst president ever, and nothing you can do will change that fact.
Posted by: Nixk at March 29, 2008 01:05 AM (iO6Ju)
22
Regardless of whether the extension was reported correctly or not, your post does not change the fact that the violence is increasing and the surge was what Bush hoped it would be.
Should these militias be defanged or not? That is the question. Doing so will be violent, as they are not willing, and that is the purpose of the surge. Or, Surge 2.0, if you will. Failing to do so also leads to violence.
So, yes or no: Should these militias be disarmed by the government?
Posted by: Pablo at March 29, 2008 01:19 AM (yTndK)
23
Bob, did you see the bit where our progressive friends at Think Progress accused McCain of plagarism only to have the campaign point out that McCain was the plagarised, not the plagarer? You can't make stuff like this up.
Posted by: Pablo at March 29, 2008 01:24 AM (yTndK)
24
scarshapedstar: Sadr already has a nicely 'large' block of democratically elected loyalists. If you noticed, they boycotted and/or left their administrative posts quite awhile back. Maliki is heading his coalition government without their support right now. Hence, destroying Sadr’s supporter's ability to contravene the Iraqi Federal government's power is in the best interests of Iraq (IMO, for Maliki). I expect Maliki to be fairly ruthless in this current operation and eliminate Sadr's armed power-base. Not only is it good for Iraq in general; it is in Maliki's political interests to do so. (Of course I'm trying to read Maliki here and might be completely wrong.)
I fully expect Sadr-ists to have a block of representation and to perform as they have in the current system. Yet also expect their total numbers to be decreased in the next national election. If they are elected to THE majority, then I will be more than happy to support a complete pull-out of US support (inclusive of troops/money/prestige) since Sadr is anti-USA.
IOW, yes - I would happily change my stripes IF Sadr-ists gained majority power in Iraq. However, since they have an in-built counterbalance (I forget the other Shiite moniker off the top of my head), then I highly doubt they will be able to gain such a vast majority. In the next round of elections for the Federal side of Iraq, I fully expect a significant minority of Sunni representation to be elected. Any PM elected after that election will have to consider that large block of Sunnis and their potential for revolt. Couple that with a decreased amount of Sadr-loyalist and there will be a stronger Fed Gov't in Iraq.
Does that satisfy your curiosity on my resolve or do I need to go even more in-depth in my personal analysis?
Posted by: Mark at March 29, 2008 01:32 AM (KDHro)
25
Babycakes, why don't you look up how long the US occupied Germany after the war before it was considered peaceful enough to turn over to the German government?
The answer will probably surprise you, since you seem ignorant of history.
Once you've looked that up, perhaps you'll have a bit more perspective on the length of counterinsurgency campaigns.
Posted by: C-C-G at March 29, 2008 08:11 AM (5m1ld)
26
DaMav,
The US has already lost the occupation in Iraq, after arming all major terrorist groups. I doubt the US Army can even defend the new embassy.
Posted by: IntelVet at March 29, 2008 10:22 AM (YvWfq)
27
Riiiiiiiight, Vet... that's why violence in Iraq is way down.
What color is the sky in your world?
Posted by: C-C-G at March 29, 2008 10:42 AM (5m1ld)
28
oh, pablow. you're so missing the point. tp actually copped to it; something unknown to republicans who just lie and lie and lie.
and, back ot -- ooops:
It appears that Prime Minister Nouri Maliki's ultimatum to Shiite Muslim militiamen to surrender to the Iraqi government might not be working precisely as he had intended.
When nobody had turned up by Friday, Maliki gave members of radical Shiite cleric Muqtada Sadr's Mahdi Army militia 10 more days to turn in their weapons and renounce violence.
Instead, about 40 members of the Shiite-dominated Iraqi army and National Police offered to surrender their AK-47s and other weapons this morning to Sadr's representatives in the cleric's east Baghdad stronghold of Sadr City.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2008/03/iraq-not-quite.html
Posted by: linda at March 29, 2008 12:28 PM (oJC+h)
29
That the MSM is spinning like mad the very early reports in this conflict surprises no one. They will always seize on each fragment of bad news during conflict--of which there is always plenty in supply--as evidence we are failing and have to retreat to Okinawa, Hawaii, or California.
This way, trolls can beclown themselves with pathetic posts about violence increase despite the surge--despite the fact that the surge was envisioned TO INCREASE the violence in order TO WIN. The success against AQ and Sunni terrorists has enabled this fight. And this violence was initiated by the Iraqi government in order to regain the monopoly of power in the country.
Posted by: iconoclast at March 29, 2008 12:39 PM (TzLpv)
30
Linda, tell me, did Laura Bush ever claim to have dodged sniper fire in Bosnia?
Talk about people who lie and lie and lie... Pot, meet Kettle.
Posted by: C-C-G at March 29, 2008 04:52 PM (5m1ld)
31
Linduh, I know this is gonna sound crazy, but you should read the frigging post.
Posted by: Pablo at March 29, 2008 06:02 PM (vvT36)
32
She'll never do it, Pablo. To do so might shake her conviction that she is always right and any conservative is always wrong. She'd sooner lay under stampeding elephants than allow even the hint of the possibility of that happening.
Posted by: C-C-G at March 29, 2008 09:13 PM (5m1ld)
33
The analysis at the link below has a compelling argument that Iran is the one pulling the strings. Honestly, as none of what we are hearing in near-real time has any solid intel behind it, I don't think that the average joe will know what happened for awhile. Hopefully, those that depend on more informed sources than chatrooms for intel have a better handle on this. I just hope it's not State or the CIA.
http://threatswatch.org/rapidrecon/2008/03/iran-not-alsadr-leading-shia-a/
BTW, what we DO know is that the surge worked beyond expectations. It was the lack of security around Basra with the Brits throwing up their hands that created the environment for this. It was worrisome at the time for-this-very-reason.
I cannot believe that our military are waiting for the Iraqi troops to fail. That would be a compelling reason for us to stay, and that does not make sense. The U.S. military leadership must have confidence in the Iraqis or they would not let them bear the burden.
Sorry, Linda.
Posted by: NeoCon_1 at March 30, 2008 07:42 AM (OtImV)
34
More bad news for Linda:
BAGHDAD - Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr offered Sunday to pull his fighters off the streets of Basra and other cities if the government halts raids against his followers and releases prisoners held without charge.
....
Al-Sadr demanded that the government issue a general amnesty and release all detainees. The statement said he also "disavows" anyone who carries weapons and targets government institutions, charities and political party offices.
"Because of the religious responsibility, and to stop Iraqi blood being shed, and to maintain the unity of Iraq and to put an end to this sedition that the occupiers and their followers want to spread among the Iraqi people, we call for an end to armed appearances in Basra and all other provinces," al-Sadr's statement said.
"Anyone carrying a weapon and targeting government institutions will not be one of us," the statement said.
This is what's known as negotiating terms of surrender, coming just about the time the 72 hour deadline ends and on the 5th day of battle.
Doesn't anyone know how to run a quagmire anymore?
Posted by: Pablo at March 30, 2008 09:18 AM (yTndK)
35
Doesn't anyone know how to run a quagmire anymore?
The Dems keep trying, but darn it, Dubya keeps thwarting their efforts to create a good quagmire!
Posted by: C-C-G at March 30, 2008 09:45 AM (5m1ld)
36
Sadr is an extremely popular leader in Iraq.
The ultra right is trying to somehow spin the fact that Maliki was not able to meet any of his goals.
Sadr will not surrender his heavy arms. He will remain in control of Basra
Posted by: John Ryan at March 30, 2008 06:52 PM (TcoRJ)
37
The leftist MSM has outdone its self (and that is saying a lot) in it biased party line reporting of as-Sadars recent defeat in Iraq. Mookie has backed down, pulled his thugs off the street and (according to Bill Roggio) lost at least 70 JAM killed per day over the last five days).
Maliki on the other had is continuing operation Knights Charge in Basra. al-Sadr looks weak. Malikis government looks strong. Things will slowly improve in Basra as the ISF take control.
Posted by: grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr at March 30, 2008 08:19 PM (2wI6h)
38
Ahh, yes, now we hear from the Nattering Nabobs of Negativism.
I'll get the crow started for you, John Ryan.
I guess the lefty miscalculation on Anbar Province didn't teach you a durned thing. Not that I should be surprised, you've been re-fighting Vietnam for decades. Remember "10,000 bodybags" from the first Gulf War?
Posted by: C-C-G at March 30, 2008 08:40 PM (5m1ld)
39
Sadr will not surrender his heavy arms. He will remain in control of Basra.
Are you gonna tell him before he finishes rolling over? You'd better hurry if you want to get him to pull the white flag in.
Posted by: Pablo at March 30, 2008 09:42 PM (yTndK)
40
Mr. Ryan - Questions for you.
If "Sadr is an extremely popular leader in Iraq" as you claim, then why isn't his physical presence leading IN Iraq instead of playing student in Iran?
Is it possible he is only an "extremely popular leader" in a few enclaves located in Sadr City, Basra, Haditha, and possibly a few others instead of "in (all of?) Iraq"?
I eagerly await your clarification.
Posted by: Mark at March 31, 2008 10:25 AM (4od5C)
41
Well, the latest news is that the conflict is quieting down, but it looks like Al Maliki has been utterly humiliated:
Vali Nasr, an Iraq expert at the Council of Foreign Relations, said al-Sadr had emerged stronger from the battle, which killed more than 300 people. "He let the Americans and the Iraqis know that taking him down is going to be difficult."
Al-Sadr's militia stood strong, forcing the government to extend a deadline for them to disarm.
"Everything we heard indicates the Sadrists had control of more ground in Basra at the end of the fighting than they did at the beginning," said al-Nujaifi, the Sunni mediator. "The government realized things were not going in the right direction."
There's also this:
Iran has close ties with both al-Sadr's movement and al-Maliki, who spent several years in exile there. Al-Nujaifi said the agreement was brokered by the commander of Iran's al-Quds Brigade, which the United States considers a terrorist organization.
Who exactly are we fighting for again? Seriously, other than the Kurds, it's looking more and more that we don't have any friends at all in Iraq.
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20080331/1a_offlede31_dom.art.htm?loc=interstitialskip
Posted by: pinson at March 31, 2008 01:26 PM (RUyaF)
42
Yah, it's always utterly humiliating when your adversary lays down their arms.
Bummer.
Posted by: Pablo at March 31, 2008 02:01 PM (yTndK)
43
Pinson, from your own source, USAToday:
BAGHDAD (AP) — In a possible turning point in the recent upsurge in violence, Muqtada al-Sadr ordered his Shiite militiamen off the streets but called on the government to stop its raids against his followers.
Pulling in your own soldiers is commonly called a "retreat," and is frequently (though admittedly not always) a precursor of "surrender."
Welcome to the real world. Please check your rose-colored glasses at the door.
Posted by: C-C-G at March 31, 2008 06:13 PM (5m1ld)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Barack Obama: Lying Again
Break out your shovels, kids. It's getting deep:
"Had the reverend not retired, and had he not acknowledged that what he had said had deeply offended people and were inappropriate and mischaracterized what I believe is the greatness of this country, for all its flaws, then I wouldn't have felt comfortable staying at the church," Obama said Thursday during a taping of the ABC talk show, "The View." The interview will be broadcast Friday.
Jeremiah Wright has never publicly apologized for any of his rhetoric, from his racial bigotry to his conspiracy theorizing, or his anti-Americanism.
Even with Wright gone, Trinity United Church of Christ still practices Black Liberation theology, a bastardization of Marxist socialism, racial victimhood, and Christianity—and pretty much in that order of importance—as Karl meticulously detailed in a post at
Protein Wisdom. Wright's replacement, the Rev. Otis Moss, will not deviate from those teachings in any significant way, and Moss shows little signs of even toning down the rhetoric, as he compared criticism of Wright's comments to a lynching and
compared Wright to Jesus in his Easter sermon.
Note well:
The criticism surrounding Wright has not softened the services at Trinity United Church of Christ, where Obama has been a congregant for 20 years. Instead, Moss defiantly defended their method of worship, referencing rap lyrics to make his point.
"If I was Ice Cube I'd say it a little differently — 'You picked the wrong folk to mess with,'" Moss said to an enthusiastic congregation, standing up during much of the sermon, titled "How to Handle a Public Lynching."
Barack Obama is lying when he says that Wright apologized, and lies by implication when he tries to convince America that Trinity has somehow changed with Wright's retirement.
The quarterback may have changed, but Trinity is still playing the same game, using the same playbook based upon radical victimhood, and Barack Obama is still apparently the head cheerleader.
If Obama was truly offended by Wright's vitriol, he would have walked out on Moss as well, a pastor mentored at Wright's knee and apparently cut from the same cloth, preaching the same shop-worn victimhood at the same church.
Barack Obama was not offended at the radical messages of hate being preached at Trinity, he was just offended that they was exposed.
Update: Comments whacked before. Now working.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:26 AM
| Comments (31)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
He can break out the shovels for his campaign. His 'irrepressible' (ABC's words, not mine) spiritual mentor is at it again, only this time Italians are the victims of Wright's seething rage. I'm sure you all caught the garlic noses refrences, among many other standard colorful rips that are all over the web and now the news (funny how that seems to be the trend cycle now).
So count the Tony Soprano voters among the Coalition of the Highly Offended, along with Jews, typical white people, veterans, families of 9/11 victims, etc, etc, etc. Can't wait to see who he slanders next, LOL!
"I wasn't in church. I would not repudiate the man." Remember these Famous Last Words.
Posted by: JohnnyT at March 28, 2008 12:41 PM (C8A81)
2
Fascinating how the fact that Obama claimed to not be in the room during the very worst sermons (but, presumably, around for the merely bad ones) is enough to absolve him in the eyes of liberals.
One wonders whether they would be similarly willing to absolve persons involved in other scandals--say, Iran-Contra--who claimed not to have taken part in some meetings.
Since Obama still belongs to the church and, presumably, still attends, it would be salient to ask him whether he approves of the message of the new pastor. Specifically: whether he believes that Rev Wright was in effect lynched by the media; if he does, how he thinks the media mis-reported those comments and why it isn't extreme to compare it to a lynching; but if he doesn't, why he would stay in a church that makes such inflammatory commentary after he said he would resign from a church that did.
Posted by: deus at March 28, 2008 01:57 PM (cXWnh)
3
It is said that you can determine the character of a man by his actions when no one is watching. The fact the Obama is NOW saying he would have probably left his church had not Pastor Wright retired speaks volumes - that he will say or act differently when he knows people are watching.
Posted by: Grandmago at March 28, 2008 02:06 PM (IGKS8)
4
A reader of NRO's Campaign Spot offered this comment:
So he is allowed plausible deniability by saying he didn’t hear this or wasn’t there when that was said. But this ignores the fact that parishioners in a house of worship do talk with one another outside of worship. Our local parish priest was caught up in a financial/sex scandal and the phones among the congregation were busy for weeks as they all discussed the latest news, views, etc. In less sensational times, we often discuss the latest sermon if it was not worthy in its content, positive or negative.
So, did Obama simply not talk to his fellow church members, or did none of them find anything wrong with Wright's comments?
Posted by: C-C-G at March 28, 2008 02:41 PM (5m1ld)
5
Would your “church,” if you fellowship with one, put on it’s bulletin board hateful articles from the anti-semitic, terrorist group Hamas? Barack Obama’s CURRENT church, Trinity United Church of Christ, did just that.
We just found out in the last 48 hours that Wright, while giving a eulogy in 2007, said that “(Jesus’) enemies had their opinion about Him… The Italians for the most part looked down their garlic noses at the Galileans.”
Now comes a report by NBC News that while Wright was in charge at Obama’s CURRENT church, reprinted anti-Israel writings, including one column by none other than Hamas leader, Mousa Abu Marzook, appeared on the bulletin board there.
The column by the Hamas leader, Mousa Abu Marzook, asked: “Why should any Palestinian recognise the monstrous crimes carried out by Israel’s founders and continued by its deformed modern apartheid state?”
The question becomes one of judgment, character, integrity, honesty and intelligence.
If I were to believe Obama’s defense that he didn’t, and still doesn’t, know what was, and still is, going on at his church for 20 years, then, in my opinion, he must not be very observant nor intelligent, and does not possess sensible judgement. Therefore he cannot be qualified to be the POTUS, in my opinion. If I do NOT believe Obama, then his integrity, character and honesty is woefully insufficient to be the POTUS, in my opinion.
Obama went to Harvard Law School (they don’t let just anybody in), where he became the first African-American president of the prestigious Harvard Law Review. He graduated magna cum laude in 1991. Now do you think he is NOT aware of what his church and ex-pastor are all about? Be AFRAID! Be VERY AFRAID!
Barack Obama’s political FRAUD against the American People continues…
Read the rest of this article here...
http://777denny.wordpress.com/2008/03/28/barack-obama-reverend-wright-trinity-united-church-of-christ-and-hamas/
Posted by: Denny at March 28, 2008 04:38 PM (BMbb4)
6
Several of you above have expressed essentially the same point I've tried to make elsewhere.
with regard to his knowledge of the incendiary sermons, his apologists are requiring either that (1) we accept the stereotype that blacks have an inferior level of intelligence (and I won't), or (2) he's the singularly most uninformed "active" member of a Christian church in 2,000 years.
I just heard that on "The View" he said he didn't read all the bulletins and see all the videos.
As for that speech, he's a great speaker, but all he did was perform a classic rhetorical technique--he just changed the issue from anti-Americanism and lies (HIV, crack, and bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki) to race. And his apologist are treating him link Lincoln giving the Gettysburg Address.
Somebody has to slap this guy down.
Posted by: SAM at March 28, 2008 07:17 PM (d/RyS)
7
I don't see McCain disavowing his endorsement of the preacher who called Catholic religion, "The Great Whore."
Double standard?
You bet. Republicans on the verge of losing the White House scrambling for anything.
How's that Ann Coulter type message working for you now?
Why aren't you fighting in Iraq?
Posted by: Nixk at March 29, 2008 01:16 AM (iO6Ju)
8
Ooooh, the chickenhawk ploy. Damn, who could have seen that coming?
Devastating. Simply devastating. I think I'll go do 20 years in the Church of Hate Whitey as penance.
Posted by: Pablo at March 29, 2008 01:27 AM (yTndK)
9
Nikx, I attempted to join the Navy, but was turned away because of a hidden disability (i.e. one that is not obvious to the naked eye).
I'd imagine my calling the Navy recruiter is more than you've ever done for your country.
Would you like to try the chickenhawk ploy on me again, thus proving yourself to be anti-disabled people, or would you like to try to find a real, logical argument?
Posted by: C-C-G at March 29, 2008 08:13 AM (5m1ld)
10
I served. And I even deployed while on IRR. And I was in the infantry. And I was in the Triangle of Death.
Looks like the chicken-hawk ploy fell flat again. How embarrassing for you.
Posted by: brando at March 30, 2008 08:10 AM (rDQC9)
11
Brando, on behalf of those who wanted to serve but couldn't, thank you.
Don't ya just love it when the one calling others chickenhawks turns out to be just plain chicken?
Posted by: C-C-G at March 30, 2008 09:09 AM (5m1ld)
12
Jeremiah Wright did not retire. He was PROMOTED to Rev Emeritus, which means he owns that pulpit till he dies and can take it at will. I see a lot of black churches doing some hasty paddling as senators like Chuck Grassley (and the IRS) take interest in their political activities and finances. Oprah herself may be looking for a shovel to bury her association with this bigotted, America-hating, demagogue. It is imperative that America retire "traditional black" institutions which are divisive in nature. America's many "black" cultures achieve a creative nature that are by nature inclusive, like music and art of various forms. This tolerance America has for such intolerant groups has never been resolved without significant suffering by the innocent. One day the infection of hate will be recognized when it boils up in the seat of Love, but not at TCoC in Chicago. Obama is infected, and his wife has a double-dose, it seems. The Obama children have known nothing else their whole lives, now are claimed by this hateful group in baptism. Sweet Jesus! So much borrowed rage and stolen insult in one small building, its almost like a mosque.
Posted by: twolaneflash at March 30, 2008 01:39 PM (05dZx)
13
Odd, you're not equally obsessed with Bush/Cheney's gaps in credibility?
Wmd, last throes of the insurgency, greeted with flowers and praise, oil revenue will pay for the war, we are not interested in nation building, if anyone in my administration leaked Plame's identity they will be fired, global warming is junk science..etc
Posted by: chris lee at March 30, 2008 09:41 PM (qTV/d)
14
I smell red herring.
Oh, it's Chris.
Carry on, everyone. Just the neighborhood troll, trying to change the topic.
Posted by: C-C-G at March 30, 2008 10:09 PM (5m1ld)
15
Don’t miss this selection via Christopher Hitchens‘ piece ..
“If Barack gets past the primary,” said the Rev. Jeremiah Wright to the New York Times in April of last year, “he might have to publicly distance himself from me. I said it to Barack personally, and he said yeah, that might have to happen.”
Pause just for a moment, if only to admire the sheer calculating self-confidence of this. Sen. Obama has long known perfectly well, in other words, that he’d one day have to put some daylight between himself and a bigmouth Farrakhan fan. But he felt he needed his South Side Chicago “base” in the meantime. So he coldly decided to double-cross that bridge when he came to it. And now we are all supposed to marvel at the silky success of the maneuver.
Perhaps Obama didn’t hear those contraversal statements, but he certainly knew of them. What’s better is that we get to see how a “might” from a year ago slowly became he “would” a year later. That’s real decisiveness, a true mark of a leader.
Posted by: Neo at March 31, 2008 08:16 AM (Yozw9)
16
I want to be clear about this.
Just for the record, I wasn't bragging about my service. I was just stifling the chickenhawk meme. He brought it up, and I put it down. I'm surprised that he tried for it, given the number of servicemen that read this blog. If you're going to pull the "chickenhawk card" then you'd better have a pretty darn good battle resume, because someone's always better.
My experiences do give me some insight on some topics, but not this one. Having served, (or not served), has no real bearing on the current topic of BHO's church.
For example, I have neither the physical or mental aptitude to be an astronaut. Therefore I don't dictate how NASA does it's job. I simply don't know anything meaningful about it.
That's why I'm surprised that Liberals declare how combat operations should best be performed, as they have so little knowledge about it. Knowledge doesn't transfer to all fields. Being a expert chef isn't a qualification to be an NFL defensive coordinator.
Posted by: brando at April 01, 2008 01:25 AM (rDQC9)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 27, 2008
Great Moments in Military Procurement History. Or Not.
I have a pistol made in 1927, and have owned battle rifles and carbines made from 1945 to the Vietnam War-era. In these firearms I've more often fired modern ammunition of recent commercial manufacture, but I've also used surplus military ammunition, decades old. For many collectors of military firearms, shooting aging surplus ammunition is a commonplace proposition, and the results are generally acceptable.
There are however, several wars on, and civilian shooters in the United States are having to compete with government contractors who scrounge up that foreign surplus ammunition in large quantities to provide to U.S. allies under contract. The result is higher prices for quality surplus ammunition, or in some instances, little serviceable ammunition at any price.
The New York
Times, God bless them, actually broke an
interesting story today about one of those ammunition contractors, a 22-year-old Miami man who now seems to be in a great deal of trouble for selling Chinese ammunition he scrounged up on the world market and repackaged, which is a violation of federal law and his contract.
The relevant parts of this story are how the man in question, Efraim Diveroli, slipped through the cracks of the procurement system to become a supplier, and how some scrap-worthy ammunition was shipped to our allies. I'm sure as details of that SNAFU become available, they'll work to make sure that similar unvetted characters responding to vague RFPs can't game the system again.
I would take minor issue with the
Times and other
news outlets, however, for suggesting that older ammunition is inherently flawed or obsolete ammunition.
Ammunition can degrade over time based upon the chemical compounds used in its construction and the environmental variables under which it is stored. Ammunition manufactured to high standards and stored in specific, controlled conditions, however, can last almost indefinitely. Ammunition manufactured in the 1960s and properly stored can certainly still be viable and reliable, while ammunition created last week using substandard components may be scrap before it leaves the assembly line.
The author of the NY
Times piece who broke the story, C.J. Chivers, deserves respect for some excellent investigative journalism.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:26 PM
| Comments (29)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Some years ago during a drought a fire began on the West Point Military Reservation and burned out to a NY State Park. When State Rangers and others attempted to fight the fire they were driven back by explosions.
It eventually turned out that the "park" land that the Federal Government had conveyed to the state in the early 1900's had been a "range impact area" dating to the Civil War (The Parrot Gun was manufactured in Garrison - across the Hudson River during the Civil War) and "proofed" by firing it into the impact area.
The "Civil War Vintage" ammunition was still viable and deadly.
When the fire eventually burned out, it cost the Fed's a great deal of money to have contractors remove and dispose of this ordinance.
Posted by: Ed at March 27, 2008 05:31 PM (AiJXe)
2
This does raise an interesting question, however. Who the hell was responsible for giving a 22-year-old Miami Beach resident responsibility for arming the Afghan military when he is clearly not up to the task?
Someone needs to explain A) why heads aren't rolling for this debacle and B) why the national obsession with outsourcing public work to private contractors is continually tolerated. How do career military personal and Pentagon bureaucrats get off hot potatoeing the people's business like this? How much did our nation drop in taxes to shower this guy with cushy government contracts he was incapable of fulfilling? When are we going to get some better guys in office? 2009 can't come soon enough.
Posted by: Zifnab at March 27, 2008 05:33 PM (Usaah)
3
Don't bless the NYT. The article fits tidily with the Left's contention that the administration is unnecessarily risking American lives.
Posted by: Bleepless at March 27, 2008 07:52 PM (6ZDfg)
4
God bless 22 yr old Miami Beach jews.
They sure know a heck of a lot about capitalism.
What a bright, enterprising young lad doing his country a great service against the gay-rights denying drug-banning Islamonazis.
Posted by: Onward Christian Soldiers at March 28, 2008 03:39 AM (kq2Cy)
5
I thought this was a post about con gressiona; appropriations and profiteering.
Posted by: chris lee at March 28, 2008 06:59 AM (qTV/d)
6
I thought this was a post about military contracts, congressional appropriations and profiteering. The don't call the Pentagon, "Versailles" on the potomac , for nothin'.
Posted by: chris lee at March 28, 2008 07:01 AM (qTV/d)
7
Dear 'Onward xtian Soldiers,'
1) Why do you think he's Jewish? "Efraim" sounds like a Cuban or maybe a Dominican name. I suppose if his name was "Jesus" you would feel even worse? And the last name sounds more Italian than Jewish. Hispanic people often give their kids what we would call funny names. OMG, who was the last American named Ephraim? You gotta be talking Civil War stylez.
Ah, the glorious American melting pot. It's tough being a racist on the Internet when you don't know who you're trying to race-bait. He's probably either Chinese-Greek...or your brother.
2) "Jews" (and all forms thereof) is always capitalized, exactly like "Christians." Funny, I bet you never spell it "christians."
3) Why you such a troll, troll? You give Christians a bad name. We don't really care that you are a gay drug addict but it really comes across in your writing.
Ninjas indeed. Troll. Why don't you go inject yourself with a nice turkey baster full of your favorite heroin-sperm cocktail.
Posted by: nichevo at March 28, 2008 06:07 PM (Ak+g8)
8
OMG, who was the last American named Ephraim?
I've only known one, a guy I was in the Air Force with. He's black. The name is Biblical in origin.
Posted by: Pablo at March 29, 2008 08:38 AM (yTndK)
9
I love trolls. I'm serious. I'm guessing that nichevo is a liberal. I'm not sure, but where in the world would someone get the idea to inject themselves with a mixture of heroin and sperm? With the volume of a turkey-baster no less!
That is just off-the-charts weird.
I'm certainly going to bring this up later.
Dusk orbs, Che, cannibalism, slavery, and now turkey basters of heroin and semen. What are libs going to think of next?
The topic is repackaging old ammo. Can't we just bring the weird level down a notch?
Posted by: brando at March 30, 2008 01:49 PM (rDQC9)
10
I'm guessing that nichevo is a liberal.
brando, you are mistaken.
Posted by: nichevo at March 31, 2008 05:22 PM (Ak+g8)
Posted by: brando at March 31, 2008 07:36 PM (rDQC9)
12
Whatever you choose to call yourself, your Heroin/Semen Imperative is messed up on so many levels.
Is that a common thing with you people, or is it something you invented yourself? I'd never heard of that before. I'm shaking my head at the very concept. Ugh. That would be very counterproductive. Don't try to argue it, or mealy-mouth out of it. You're not going to convince me. I'm not mistaken. You can keep that nonsense to yourself.
Posted by: brando at March 31, 2008 08:05 PM (rDQC9)
13
I've got 8mm Mauser ammo and .303 British ammo made during WWII, that still works quite well. Quality components and storage make a BIG difference, as you say.
Posted by: Firehand at April 01, 2008 11:35 AM (O+fhn)
14
Whatever you choose to call yourself, your Heroin/Semen Imperative is messed up on so many levels.
Is that a common thing with you people, or is it something you invented yourself? I'd never heard of that before. I'm shaking my head at the very concept. Ugh. That would be very counterproductive. Don't try to argue it, or mealy-mouth out of it. You're not going to convince me. I'm not mistaken. You can keep that nonsense to yourself.
It's part of the neocon individual rights and "freedoms" we are bringing to Iraq.
Posted by: Neoconservatism is Jacobinism at April 01, 2008 11:35 PM (kq2Cy)
15
He admitted to it!
Now, you're literally injecting Iraqis with entire turkey basters of heroin and semen, and blaming it on neocons?!
You're wrong. You're a bad person.
Posted by: brando at April 02, 2008 11:20 AM (qzOby)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
What Change?
His Vacuousness made an appearance at a townhall meeting in Greensboro yesterday, which was duly recorded by our local media.
It may come as a shock to some, but the candidate of "change" offered precious little of that miraculous substance during his appearance, instead relying on standard liberal doctrine that is
far older than the candidate himself.
"We're at a defining moment in our history," Obama told a packed house at the Greensboro Memorial Coliseum. "We can't wait to fix our schools. We can't wait to fix our health-care system. We can't wait to bring good jobs and wages back to the United States of America. We can't wait to bring the war in Iraq to an end."
But how fresh are Obama's ideas,
really? Does he represent change, or just recycling? Let's dissect the excerpts of his speech above.
Fix Our Schools
Hardly a revolutionary idea. As Obama was speaking in NC, perhaps we should look to Charles B. Aycock, North Carolina's first "progressive" governor, who became North Carolina's "
Education Governor" during his term from 1901 to 1905. Aycock's role in some other historical moments are probably better left undiscussed, but the fact remains that Obama is recycling an argument almost 110 years old.
Fix Our Health Care
Refresh my memory... didn't the
other Democratic presidential candidate work on this a decade ago? Such rhetoric has been standard fare from "progressive" reformers for more than 90 years, and even President Harry Truman had his national health care plan
shot down in the 1940s. Obama is recycling ideas between 60-100 years old.
Good Jobs and Wages
Obama is sometimes credited for being a powerful speaker like William Jennings Bryan, and he doesn't mind borrowing rhetoric that echoes down through history from Bryan's 1896 and 1900 presidential runs, either. Change? He's offering rhetoric more than 100 years old.
End the War
Historian Henry Littlefield suggests that Bryan's anti-imperialism phase, which in some ways mirrors Obama's desire for a headlong retreat from Iraq, inspired L. Frank Baum's character of the Cowardly Lion in
The Wizard of Oz. Going back a bit further, Obama's rhetoric sounds even more like that of the "
copperhead" Democrats of the U.S. Civil War, a faction of "peace" Democrats who were strongly opposed to the war from the beginning, demanded immediate peace regardless of the consequences, and railed about how that the conflict cost too many lives and too much treasure. Obama's recycling the ideas of abandoning a people struggling for democracy because things are just too hard, an argument more than 140 years old, and just as bad then as it is now.
* * *
Barack Obama's campaign is perhaps a campaign for "change," but it is change rooted in revolutionary politics from the 1860s to the 1940s. He echoes "progressive" promises of "change" heard by our great-great-grandparents, great-grandparents, and our grandparents (in their youth). He is a new salesman, offering old merchandise.
If he's lucky, Barack Obama can still convince folks that he's "retro," but the fact remains that most of his political ideas are older than the Model T Ford, as relevant in this modern world, and as just as costly to repair.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:05 PM
| Comments (26)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Actually, I wouldn't mind if he was spouting old ideas about the relationship between people and their government. There were some great ones in the late 1700's - a few even were written in an obscure little document called the Constitution.
What's wrong with Obama isn't that his ideas are old, but that they're wrong. What's worse is that because the ideas have been known to be wrong for so very long, he ought to know better.
.
Posted by: Joe Doakes at March 27, 2008 12:14 PM (w4eku)
2
McCain is the only way to go in the general election seeing as both Hillary and Obama give nothing but false hope to America. Check out McCain's recent speech on foriegn policy!
http://campaigncircus.com/video_player.php?v=8849
Posted by: berly22 at March 27, 2008 01:49 PM (igi2o)
3
The Copperheads were some 60,000 strong, armed and claiming a willingness to march on the capitol to hang Lincoln in the street. Sound familiar? The world coudn't wait then, either. Not that today's rancor is not bad enough but for those who claim our divisions are the worst in history or, as above, that their ideas are unprecedented and therefore unmoored to the disasters we have seen such sentiments bring in the past, distant and not, this is yet another corrective.
Posted by: megapotamus at March 27, 2008 03:00 PM (LF+qW)
4
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so."
Ronald Wilson Reagan.
Posted by: C-C-G at March 27, 2008 04:01 PM (lueVj)
5
What's wrong with Obama isn't that his ideas are old, but that they're wrong. What's worse is that because the ideas have been known to be wrong for so very long, he ought to know better.
Amazing. After Roosevelt's New Deal, the country entered unparalleled growth and prosperity. After Johnson's Civil Rights Act, a new era of equality and social justice dawned in America. After Reagen deregulated Savings and Loan practices we got an economic crash. After Bush 43 cut our taxes we watched debt and income inequality skyrocket in America.
Remind me again which party has the ideas that never work.
Posted by: Zifnab at March 27, 2008 05:50 PM (Usaah)
6
Only a fool would think the New Deal was beneficial to this country in the long run. That, or a brain dead liberal.
Of course, the two are interchangeable.
Posted by: Conservative CBU at March 27, 2008 06:47 PM (La7YV)
7
When did the Civil Rights Act become Johnson's?
Posted by: Pablo at March 27, 2008 06:49 PM (yTndK)
8
As one who works in health care, I can assure you that it is the Federal government that broke the system. Actually, it is so far gone that little can be done to restore it to what is was 20 years ago. I would strongly suggest not getting sick and definitley do not loose your insurance.
As to jobs, wages and the whole specturm of our financial system, we are in a depression and don't know it. Sure we have not reached 30% joblessness yet, but that is just a matter of time. What we need is someone who is going to "fix it". That will assure us that we are going down hill just like FDR "fixed" the economy he inherited from Hoover and resulted in 10 years of agony only relieved by WWII.
Our schools are also the result of the Federal government and the teachers union.
Do you see a common thread? We need a new government. Like the one we had before 1860.
Posted by: David C. at March 27, 2008 08:09 PM (Kz54+)
9
Since Obama has been labeled as anti-Jewish, all good Americans should not vote for this person who would dare to place America's concerns ahead of Israel's.
The next president should make his/her decisions first as to what is good for Israel, then think about the U.S.
We might need to go fight some more wars in the ME for Israel, but that's what's good for Israel, so toughen up.
If another 30 or 40,000 of our troops come home in caskets, killed fighting whichever enemy Israel tells us to, we should consider it a blessing that we get to spill American blood fighting Israel's wars.
After all, we're the "United States of Israel" and by gosh, we'll fight for Israel to the last drop of American blood.
Posted by: Greg Bacon at March 28, 2008 02:17 PM (VcN9m)
10
Mr. Bacon, that's not kosher.
Posted by: Pablo at March 29, 2008 09:46 AM (yTndK)
11
Sewage never was Kosher.
Posted by: Paul at March 30, 2008 11:00 PM (dWav/)
12
As if this needs to be re-explained: Our interests and Israels are largely congruent in the ME because they are the only free nation and nearly the only free market in the area. Our new ally Iraq is an exception and keeping it that way, yes, certainly benefits Israel. It benefits us too. I think it was a Kurt Vonnegut character who said of all grand "isms", Yes, yes, but that sort of thing always ends up killing Jews and then others, so, ya know...
Posted by: megapotamus at March 31, 2008 11:43 AM (LF+qW)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 26, 2008
Misreporting the Second Recent Iraqi Offensive
One of the wonderful things about modern communications technologies is that just about anyone can comment about popular culture and breaking news events as they happen. The downside? Just about anyone can comment about popular culture and breaking news event as they happen, and some of them work for news agencies.
The best examples of why this isn't always a good idea are the short-sighted, knee-jerk reactions of some journalists and pundits to the recent crackdown by the Iraqi central government on rogue Shiite militias and criminal gangs supported by Iran that have been operating in Baghdad and southern Iraqi cities.
For months and years we've had critics of the Iraq War whining that American forces would always be forced to take the lead in combat, that Iraqis were lazy and untrainable, and that Iraqi security forces were too corrupt to ever be regarded as a competent stabilizing force against rogue militias, Iranian infiltrators, and criminal gangs.
And yet as Iraqi security forces moved into Basra and elsewhere to combat criminal gangs and militias extorting profits from the nation's oil industry meant for distribution to all Iraqi's by the central government, do we hear anyone critical of U.S. and British involvement in Iraq praising Iraqi government forces as they mount their own major operations with limited U.S. involvement?
No.
Instead we get McClatchy's Washington "Truth to Power" Bureau
running a headline that the attacks were "threatening success of U.S. surge." The truth, of course, is the
exact opposite of what McClatchy reports.
Because the surge was successful and coincided with the Sawha movement among Sunni tribes, al Qaeda has been pushed into Mosul and the surrounding Ninevah province, where Iraqi security forces took the lead weeks ago in an operation that hopes to surround, cut off, and kill the last significant Sunni terrorist strongholds in Iraq.
Because of the success of the surge and the increasing competence of Iraqi security forces, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki decided that it was time to lead an offensive in Basra, a city long controlled by competing Shia militias that are often little more than criminal gangs. Maliki has given the militias
72 hours to lay down their arms or face "the most severe penalties."
Iraqi-led missions are targeting both Sunni and Shia extremists in hopes of asserting the monopoly of force any country must have for stability, moves that should be seen as encouraging for Iraq's long-term future.
Sadly, most reporters and (
like-minded bloggers) seemed bogged down in viewing the still-breaking news stories in Sadr City, Kut, Basra, and other Iraq cities through the prism of short-term U.S. domestic political consumption, an arena in which they would hope to exert a corrupting influence.
For many of these people, success is not an option, initiative is to be panned, and gains made are to be spun away or minimized until a Democrat wins the White House and the war can be properly lost.
Unfortunately for them, the Iraqis seem to be taking an acute interest in determining the future of their nation on
their terms, not those terms dictated by the media, Iran and others championing defeat.
The Prime Minister of Iraq is all but publicly daring Muqtada al-Sadr and his Iranian allies to engage Iraqi government forces to determine the future of Iraq, a battle that the Iraq government's forces would win convincingly.
These are moments of growth for Iraq's fledgling democracy worth celebrating... providing of course, you want the nation to succeed.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:28 AM
| Comments (70)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
That's why I was scratching my head - this is a Shiite-led government with Shiite servicemen, taking the fight to Shiite thugs. And the downside is?
Posted by: tsmonk at March 26, 2008 10:48 AM (j1orm)
2
asserting the monopoly of force any country must have for stability
The Maliki government is finally showing that they really are a government.
Posted by: Neo at March 26, 2008 11:24 AM (Yozw9)
3
Shorter Confederate Yankee: decreased violence proved that the surge is working. Increased violence proves that the surge is working. Everything that happens in Iraq is great.
What we have here, of course, is simply more civil war: since the Maliki government is not considered legitimate by the Iraqis, and Sadr has way more legitimacy among Iraqis than Maliki does, we simply have one faction of thugs battling another faction of thugs.
Except that Sadr's cease-fire caused violence to fall after the surge failed (the surge killed more Iraqis; by calling a cease-fire, Sadr made up for Petraeus's failure), so the end of the cease-fire means more bad news for Iraqis, just like the surge which killed more Iraqis, wrecked their infrastructure and walled them off from each other. And CY celebrates this inter-Shia civil war (in addition to the Sunni-Shia civil war) because...
Posted by: T.B. at March 26, 2008 11:29 AM (JGJFa)
4
That's why I was scratching my head - this is a Shiite-led government with Shiite servicemen, taking the fight to Shiite thugs. And the downside is?
The uptick in violence, maybe? Maliki is trying to crush the al-Sadr militias in Bagdad now that the cease-fire has expired. Of course, the Surge was designed to impose a forced end to violence in order to engage a diplomatic solution. The militia cease-fire by al-Sadr also designed to facilitate brokering a peace deal.
But no peace deal emerged. The Surge quelled the violence just long enough to accomplish no political progress. i.e. The Surge failed.
Now you have Maliki storming Basra to break the back of the rogue militias because he couldn't broker a non-violent solution. And you've got Sadr, no longer restrained by his cease-fire, ready to retaliate. That civil war we tried to quash last year is going to break out again like a full blown case of really bad herpes, because it was never really resolved. We just put a lid on it for a while.
McClatchy was able to read between the lines and see the shit storm coming before it hit. In a month or two, we're going to see all out war on the streets of Bagdad and Basra - and I wouldn't be surprised if it spread from there. And you're going to be right back here claiming McClatchy news service wished the violence into being by reporting the activities of the various groups.
You can scream about "fifth columnists" and "terrorist sympathizers" all you want. In the end, this clusterfuck is on the heads of the neo-cons and war cheerleaders in the House and Senate that involked it.
Just in time for the '08 elections. You can draw conspiracy theories from there.
Posted by: Zifnab at March 26, 2008 11:55 AM (Usaah)
5
Replace "Sadr" with "Iran" and you're slightly on to something. But in essence, it's no longer a civil war, now is it?
http://threatswatch.org/rapidrecon/2008/03/iran-not-alsadr-leading-shia-a/
Posted by: tsmonk at March 26, 2008 12:16 PM (j1orm)
6
Your theory would work, Zifnab, if the cease-fire had expired. It hadn't. The Iraqi government was conducting raids on the Mahdi Army before this news report came out. It was those raids that largely caused Sadr to "expire" the cease-fire.
Keep rooting for the tyrants, man. That's always been a winning position, right?
Posted by: Jimmie at March 26, 2008 12:19 PM (bofTB)
7
"Prime Minister of Iraq is all but publicly daring Muqtada al-Sadr and his Iranian allies..."
Errmmm... isn't this the same Prime Minister who was so budy-buddy with the president of Iran only a few weeks ago?
...The president of Iran who was able to announce his arrival in advance, land at the airport and make his way through Baghdad on the public road. A feat which no US politico has been able to achieve. They have to sneak in and out with no advance publicity, like thieves in the night.
A strange state of affairs.
Posted by: Max at March 26, 2008 12:23 PM (VRb5p)
8
So does this mean we can finally kill "Firebrand Cleric" Muqtada Al Sadr already? Please?
Posted by: Tim at March 26, 2008 12:29 PM (3Wewy)
9
Does it bother anyone else that in our endless 24 hours new cycle circus of talking heads and pundits you NEVER..or I never, see..any Iraqis talking, Iraqi-American or otherwise. Does that bother anyone else? Am I wrong in raising the issue?
Posted by: chris lee at March 26, 2008 12:34 PM (6x0Nb)
10
Bill Roggio is reporting on Operation Knights' Assault from Iraq. His dispatch is up at The Long War Journal.
He has a different perspective from the one offered by McClatchy, or by the L.A. Times (see LWJ's comments).
Posted by: AMac at March 26, 2008 01:15 PM (Djzc+)
11
Keep rooting for the tyrants, man. That's always been a winning position, right?
Horray for shooting the messenger. Only in a FOX News world does the simple act of reporting a story make you a proponent of one side or the other.
Errmmm... isn't this the same Prime Minister who was so budy-buddy with the president of Iran only a few weeks ago?
...The president of Iran who was able to announce his arrival in advance, land at the airport and make his way through Baghdad on the public road.
Shhh. Mentioning this just proves how much you support Ahmadinejad and it emboldens our enemies. If you love the dictator so much, why don't you run off to Iran and marry him?
Posted by: Zifnab at March 26, 2008 01:39 PM (Usaah)
12
Its good to see the vast improvements in the capability of the Iraqi military and the fact that they, under the direction of Iraqs democratic government are now capable of maintaining internal security. Iraqs future is looking a lot more secure, I think Irans window of opportunity to establish a Hizbulla puppet state has passed.
Although Bushes surge has been a tremendous success I think that the pre surge strategy of building up the ISF would have worked as well, just on a slowe time scale.
Posted by: grrrr at March 26, 2008 02:04 PM (gkobM)
13
"a tremendous success " wow a "tremendous" success?
Posted by: chris lee at March 26, 2008 03:39 PM (6x0Nb)
14
Al-Sadr has publicly admitted defeat in Iraq.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120596796160950147.html?mod=rss_opinion_main
Posted by: Grey Fox at March 26, 2008 03:49 PM (CbGDe)
15
Timely quote, Grey Fox. Only a week old and it predates the recent outbreak of violence. We can only conclude from this WSJ article that violence in Sadr City isn't really happening - or at least doesn't matter.
Thank goodness. I was really worried for a moment when I read
The usual teeming traffic in Sadr City, Baghdad's Shiite enclave, vanished Wednesday. Buses stopped running and shops closed. Only the intrepid motorist or occasional scurrying resident ventured out on streets patrolled by Moqtada al-Sadr's militiamen and marked by burning tires and roadblocks.
Posted by: Zifnab at March 26, 2008 04:01 PM (Usaah)
16
As always, time will tell. I am encouraged that one of our friends above actually makes an actual claim, that Basra and Baghdad will be in flames in two months time. We shall see. But the trends are in the Bush/McCain direction, the direction of increased liberty and improved conditions in Iraq. Naysayers, neigh on but we shall see you in November and if you manage to elect either of the two non-entities that threaten instant surrender in Iraq we shall see the impact of that as well.
Posted by: megapotamus at March 26, 2008 04:02 PM (LF+qW)
17
[["a tremendous success " wow a "tremendous" success?]]
Well yeah, given the huge fall in violence and the shredding of al-Qaida. It going to bite the lib-dems who voted against it in the ass come election time.
Posted by: grrrrr at March 26, 2008 04:11 PM (gkobM)
18
I might also add that casualties rates in and of themselves don't indicate much. At the beginning of the Surge casualty rates went up simply because troops were in danger's way more often. As they continued active operations, casualty rates fell as al Qaeda and co. grew less capable of inflicting damage - lower casualties were a sign of progress. Now, as the Iraqis move in to deal with this problem, their casualties will go up again and the usual suspects will proclaim that this is a sign of regression. In fact, all it will mean is that there is fighting - whether it is a sign of progress or not depends on who is winning.
As an analogy, Allied casuaties skyrocketed between the beginning and the end of June 1944, but that did not indicate that the Allies were losing WWII - quite the opposite, in fact.
Posted by: Grey Fox at March 26, 2008 04:13 PM (CbGDe)
19
Although the war against AQI is not yet over, the final outcome is clear. The last battle in the fight to bring law and order to Iraq was always going to be against the anti-democracy Shiite Militias.
Notwithstanding the "never say win" bleating from the clueless and unpatriotic left it's good to see that Maliki now has enough confidence in the inevitablility of the forces of democracy defeating the forces of chaos that he has decided to give the green light for Iraq forces to initiate the final battle.
It is most welcome that this comes well in advance of the seminal elections in November 2008 when America will choose whether to contine as the leader of the free world or a nation that leaves the writing of history to others less well equipped but more determined.
All of this portends great despair, sorrow and anxiety for The Party Of Defeat. It's hardly surprising that their messengers here are in clueless denial.
They expected to win (lose ) a battle with a few thousand fanatical insurgents against 25 million people backed by the most moral and lethal armed forces in history. To their everlasting discredit they bet on a nag.
Posted by: Terry Gain at March 26, 2008 04:49 PM (iVur1)
20
The Mahdi Army is ripe for the picking. It didn't exist 5 years ago, it won't exist 5 years from now and it will have accomplished nothing in it's existence. It's a good thing.
This is where reconciliation comes from. the Sunnis have to be looking warmly upon this offensive.
Posted by: Pablo at March 26, 2008 04:52 PM (yTndK)
21
This is classic.
A few months ago, you were blasting the EM ESS EM for reporting that Basra was becoming dominated by Shia militias in the wake of the British withdrawal from the city, and now you're blasting the EM ESS EM for not realizing what a wonderful thing it is for the Iraqi government to resort to open warfare against the Shia militias which began dominating Basra in the wake of the British withdrawal from the city.
And speaking of "allies of Iran" did you notice the way Ahmadinejad was feted by the al Maliki government for 3 days on his state visit?
Too funny.
Posted by: Alex at March 26, 2008 05:05 PM (VtvxI)
22
/sarc on
Zifnab, your amazing ability to clarify the subject is, as always, baffling. Perhaps you should stick to attempting to remember which spell you need to cast.
/sarc off
megapotamus is correct. Why not let this play out for a couple months and see what turns out instead of panning it in real time?
Posted by: Mark at March 26, 2008 05:23 PM (4od5C)
23
zifnab, I'll bet you were one of those who complained when news broke that coffin builders in Iraq were losing business because of the surge. Find the bright side in everything, do you?
It's a f*cking WAR, moron! Are you too busy wanting to lose it to see ANYTHING good in the way of progress? Al Qaeda's on the run (you know, the same guys who hit us 9/11 and declared Iraq their last battlefield) and now it's the militia's turn to bite the bullet. That's a BAD thing? BTW the Iraqi gov't was elected by millions of citizens who risked their lives to vote. Remember the purple ink? Don't piss on their heads. Unlike you, they showed uncommon bravery, all things considered.
Oh, yeah, before you start with the "then why don't YOU go fight in Bush's illegal War, chickenhawk" I'm a six-year veteran too, so GFY.
Posted by: JohnnyT at March 26, 2008 05:34 PM (C8A81)
24
A few months ago, you were blasting the EM ESS EM for reporting that Basra was becoming dominated by Shia militias in the wake of the British withdrawal from the city...
Cite please, Alex. You'll notice the search box on the main page. I'm sure that typing "Basra" into it will return the post(s) of which you speak.
Posted by: Pablo at March 26, 2008 05:53 PM (yTndK)
25
[[A few months ago, you were blasting the EM ESS EM for reporting that Basra was becoming dominated by Shia militias in the wake of the British withdrawal from the city,...}}
Really? I think that supporters of the new democratic Iraq were infact blasting Gordon Brown for pulling out the Brits too soon and pointing out how the defeatocrats plans to run in Iraq would be a very bad idea in terms of destabilizing Iraq.
[[And speaking of "allies of Iran" did you notice the way Ahmadinejad was feted by the al Maliki government for 3 days on his state visit?]]
Thats an "EM ESS EM" myth. He was treated cordially as is the international diplomatic norm. I was interested to see anti Ahmadinejad demonstrations by the people of Iraq.
Posted by: Grrrrrrrr at March 26, 2008 05:57 PM (gkobM)
26
Boy, you can always tell when the lefties are worried... they start spinning furiously on blogs everywhere.
Good job, as usual, Bob, in getting the lefties to demonstrate how much good news from Iraq upsets them.
Posted by: C-C-G at March 26, 2008 05:59 PM (lueVj)
27
Pablo,
You can find the links here including a link to a ConYank comment on my blog: "The fact of the matter is though they closed the last of their bases within the city limits, the British Army still maintains bases and outposts around the city and in the coutryside (including at the airport) and they regularly patrol within Basra" which, of course, is as fatuous as the contention that Maliki's actions are some kind of a rejection of Iran's influence. His Dawa party and the SCIRI which are the major factions in his government are just as, if not more, closely aligned to Iran than Sadr.
Posted by: Alex at March 26, 2008 06:02 PM (VtvxI)
28
It's a f*cking WAR, moron! Are you too busy wanting to lose it to see ANYTHING good in the way of progress? Al Qaeda's on the run (you know, the same guys who hit us 9/11 and declared Iraq their last battlefield) and now it's the militia's turn to bite the bullet. That's a BAD thing? BTW the Iraqi gov't was elected by millions of citizens who risked their lives to vote. Remember the purple ink? Don't piss on their heads. Unlike you, they showed uncommon bravery, all things considered.
Listen, you can wave your pom-poms all you want, but this war has played out like an Orwellian Nightmare since it first began. We've been "winning" for 5 straight years. We have proven far superior at killing insurgents than they have at killing US Servicemen. And yet the insurgency rolls on unimpeded.
No kidding its a "WAR!!1!" Evil, dirty, hippie liberals were telling you how a war would get a great many people killed without providing any new security or peace to the homeland.
We invaded to rid the country of Saddam and Al-Qaeda cropped up. We crushed Al-Qaeda and the Sunnis revolted. We surged over the Sunnis and now the Shiite militias are feuding. How many more times are we going to "win" - how many more missions do we accomplish - before we get to bring our troops home?
Go back to the old '90s diatribes against the Kosovo War. Listen to Dick Army and Dick Cheney and Tom DeLay and Newt Gingrich and Texas Governor George W. Bush lambast Clinton for entering into a war with no exit strategy. Hear them bemoan the handful of US servicemen lost in Bosnia and Croatia. Read how they repeatedly tried to cut funding because the Clinton "military adventure" was costing us too much blood and treasure.
Now come back to Iraq and explain how its been such a success.
Posted by: Zifnab at March 26, 2008 06:07 PM (Usaah)
29
Al Qaeda's on the run (you know, the same guys who hit us 9/11 and declared Iraq their last battlefield) and now it's the militia's turn to bite the bullet.
Right, the same al Qaeda which had no significant presence in Iraq prior to 2003, unless you believe a pile of crap straight from Dick Cheney's chamberpot.
And al Qaeda never declared Iraq their "last battlefield," speaking of product from Cheney's chamberpot. Bush claims it calls it the "central front" but even he has never been so crazed to claim it is a "last battlefield."
AQ's leadership remains safely in Pakistan along the Afghanistan border, and it has conducted its operations in Iraq with jihadists it has easily recruited by claiming our operations in Iraq constitute a part of a larger offensive against all of Isalm.
Posted by: Alex at March 26, 2008 06:15 PM (VtvxI)
30
Thats an "EM ESS EM" myth. He was treated cordially as is the international diplomatic norm.
That's weird, because I don't remember Bush hanging around Baghdad for three days of festivities, or walking around holding hands with Maliki.
Posted by: Alex at March 26, 2008 06:22 PM (VtvxI)
31
You don't read much, do you, Alex? Please be so kind as to point out where CY said that the MSM was wrongfully reporting shia militia influence in Basra. What you linked? That ain't it.
Posted by: Pablo at March 26, 2008 06:34 PM (yTndK)
32
And yet the insurgency rolls on unimpeded.
Then why aren't they advancing? Why can't they maintain the areas under their control? Why does even Sadr admit failure?
There's nothing Orwellian about it. It's fairly standard counterinsurgency, the bedrock principle of which is that if they can't maintain popular support, they can't continue.
Posted by: Pablo at March 26, 2008 06:37 PM (yTndK)
33
You don't read much, do you, Alex? Please be so kind as to point out where CY said that the MSM was wrongfully reporting shia militia influence in Basra.
My bad -- I assumed you were clever enough to click on the hyperlink at the top of the linked post which would magick-ally transport your cathode-ray tube device to another page which discussed CY's denial that Shia Militias were taking over Basra after the British withdrawal (In fact, he claimed the British didn't leave).
The report he claimed was EMESSEM distortion:
In the southern city of Basra, there are already signs of religious extremism being used to rein in women. Police say gangs enforcing their idea of Islamic law have killed 15 women in the last month. “There are gangs roaming through the streets . . . pursuing women and carrying out threats and killing because of what the women wear or because they are using makeup,” the Basra police commander, Maj. Gen. Abdul Jaleel Khalaf, said this month.
I should have done a better job explaining how blogs and the internets work.
Posted by: Alex at March 26, 2008 06:46 PM (VtvxI)
34
I should have done a better job explaining how blogs and the internets work.
No, Alex, you should have done a better job of reading, and a better job of laying down the snark.
My bad -- I assumed you were clever enough to click on the hyperlink at the top of the linked post which would magick-ally transport your cathode-ray tube device to another page
I dunno about you, but I'm looking at an LCD screen.
which discussed CY's denial that Shia Militias were taking over Basra after the British withdrawal
No, he said, via Mike Yon who was there, that Basra was not in chaos. At no point did he say that there were no militias. Probably because they were everywhere.
(In fact, he claimed the British didn't leave).
Is that what he said, or have you screwed that up too? Let's have a look:
"The fact of the matter is though they closed the last of their bases within the city limits, the British Army still maintains bases and outposts around the city and in the coutryside (including at the airport) and they regularly patrol within Basra"
Is that statement true or false?
Posted by: Pablo at March 26, 2008 06:57 PM (yTndK)
35
[[That's weird, because I don't remember Bush hanging around Baghdad for three days of festivities, or walking around holding hands with Maliki.]]
Err, he did. Better luck next time!
Also there were not large demonstrations against Bush which there were for Ahmadinajad.
Posted by: grrrrrrrrrrrrr at March 26, 2008 09:30 PM (2wI6h)
36
[[Right, the same al Qaeda which had no significant presence in Iraq prior to 2003, unless you believe a pile of crap straight from Dick Cheney's chamberpot.]]
The recent analysis of captured intel found in Iraq indicateds numerous significant ties between Saddams dictatorship and al-Qaida (weird right because all the libs clain Saddam was secular and would thus have Noooo ties to bin laden). AQ have poured into Iraq post liberation because they decided to make Iraq the central front in the war on terror (cant have a democracy in the heart of the Caliphate you know). Fortunatly they are on the verge of a historic defeat.
Posted by: Grrrrrrrr at March 26, 2008 09:35 PM (2wI6h)
37
"And speaking of "allies of Iran" did you notice the way Ahmadinejad was feted by the al Maliki government for 3 days on his state visit?"
Too funny.
What's funny is that all of a sudden,talking to
Ahmadinejad is a bad idea to the liberals.
Better tell Obama and the liberals that support
him because they are telling anybody who will listen that they have a smarter way to handle international relations by doing the exact thing
that Alex and his sheep are condemning Maliki for
doing.
I mean come on dumba$$, a major liberal college in NY City just laid out the red carpet for the man who has declared he supports the destruction
of Israel,helping arm Al-qaeda and militias through their Quds forces,and trying to go nuclear
to back up their terrorist goals.
It's like watching you libs denounce McCain for his "100 years" remark and Obama's own military advisor has said the same thing,except he didn't want democracy in Iraq,he wanted a puppet government to the US.
Mcpeak:
Is Iraq the last country we confront in the Middle East?
"Who wants to volunteer to get cross-ways with us? We’ll be there a century, hopefully. If it works right."
"I’ll tell you one thing we should not hope for (is) a democratic Iraq. When I hear the president talking about democracy, the last thing we should want is an election in Iraq. We’re not very popular. So I don’t think we’ll see any open elections in Iraq for a long time."
"Hopefully over time they can be brought along like Japan and Germany — Japan and Germany were relatively easy, I think, and South Korea."
http://www.poor-attitude.org/mt/archives/000074.html
liberals are so caught up in their defeatism,they
don't even know where they stand anymore.
Posted by: Baxter at March 26, 2008 09:40 PM (5NHPy)
38
Also there were not large demonstrations against Bush which there were for Ahmadinajad.
That's because Bush flew in unannounced for security reasons and left the same day before the Iraqi public realized he was there.
Are you really this dense???
Posted by: Alex at March 26, 2008 09:51 PM (COrkg)
39
Right, the same al Qaeda which had no significant presence in Iraq prior to 2003, unless you believe a pile of crap straight from Dick Cheney's chamberpot.
Hey, Alex... did this State Department news release come from Cheney's chamberpot?
Read the third paragraph up from the bottom.
And be sure you notice the date.
Would you like your crow baked, or fried?
Posted by: C-C-G at March 26, 2008 10:12 PM (lueVj)
40
"But no peace deal emerged. The Surge quelled the violence just long enough to accomplish no political progress. i.e. The Surge failed"
Silly:
The Surge accomplised, at a mimimum, a couple of things: gave more time for the Iraqi police and military to increase its training and manpower and, gave the Iraqi government more time in power.
Posted by: davod at March 27, 2008 05:21 AM (llh3A)
41
I just deleted a bunch of comments.
Folks, argue the issues. Argue the facts. I'm tired of the personal insults.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 27, 2008 06:08 AM (HcgFD)
42
Then why aren't they advancing? Why can't they maintain the areas under their control? Why does even Sadr admit failure?
Civil War much? As has been previously stated, the US military has never lost an open conflict with Iraqi insurgents. We saw the same game of cat and mouse in Vietnam and we were there for over a decade. America doesn't "lose" wars, but they do score a great many Pyhrric victories.
Sadr acknowledges that he's never going to drive the US from Iraq unless it wants to leave. But such an acknowledgment is rather meaningless as everyone already knows this. But, at a certain point that $12B/month tab is going to come due. I really don't want to see the US go bankrupt just to prove that we've got the biggest balls in the Middle East.
Posted by: Zifnab at March 27, 2008 11:10 AM (Usaah)
43
Hey, Alex... did this State Department news release come from Cheney's chamberpot?
Read the third paragraph up from the bottom.
And be sure you notice the date.
Um... the date is 1998. That's six years before this report, and eight years before this report. So you're basically running on ten year old guesswork from pre-invasion sources.
Then, of course, there is the March '08 Saddam and Terrorism: Emergin Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents report which continues to beat the "Saddam and Bin Laden, sitting in a tree" myth to death.
Did Saddam have contact with Al-Qaeda? Yes. Did he have a passionate dislike for the United States? Yes. Is there any evidence that he was using his money, technology, or connections to launch terrorist attacks against US citizens? No. Absolutely none.
The 9/11-Saddam link has been proven false at every turn over the last seven years, but you guys keep on trotting it out. I don't know how anyone is going to be voting Republican - much less embracing conservatism - in the near future if the foundation of right-wing foreign policy is based entirely on errors and lies.
Posted by: Zifnab at March 27, 2008 11:27 AM (Usaah)
44
Of all people, William Arkin of the Washington Post on the public radio show of Warren Olney, "To the Point, " broadcast on Weds. supports this Maliki led operation vs. Sadr because it will as he sees it extend the legitimate authority of the Iraqi government.
Posted by: Michael Pugliese at March 27, 2008 12:52 PM (6B75v)
45
Oh, my, Zifnab is using Wikipedia as a primary source!
The point is not, by the way, what we know now, the point is what we knew at the time we decided to invade.
And the Clinton Administration said that Saddam and bin Laden were cooperating, and the Bush Administration had no reason to doubt that.
Posted by: C-C-G at March 27, 2008 01:59 PM (lueVj)
46
A duly elected democratic government subject to a constitution attempting to stamp out lawless thugs and impose order should get our support and not disdain. Hitler had his SA, Sadr his Mahdi Army. There is no need in a democratic system for private armies. Would Zifnab and his ilk support the Nazis because the Weimar government was "illegitimate"? Even a pacific country like Canada has had to stomp out rebellions with force. Give these guys a break.
It appears that BDS has destroyed what little reasoning skills may still exist on the Left.
Posted by: wjo at March 27, 2008 04:36 PM (H6mNc)
47
Oh, my, Zifnab is using Wikipedia as a primary source!
The point is not, by the way, what we know now, the point is what we knew at the time we decided to invade.
And the Clinton Administration said that Saddam and bin Laden were cooperating, and the Bush Administration had no reason to doubt that.
If you want to get really, really, really technical, I used Google as a primary source. From there I got the wikipedia article that - in turn - has links to a great many other sources you need only follow the links to read. Links are your friend.
And, lest it bare repeating, two Presidential wrongs don't make a right. If Clinton couldn't find any proof of WMDs - but insisted they were there - and Bush couldn't find any proof of WMDs - but insisted they were there - then they're both liars and deserve a due tarring and feathering for their transgressions.
UN weapons inspectors scoured Iraq for years without success. Our disbelief in the evidence at hand cost us billions of dollars and thousands of lives. Simply waving off an error of this magnitude as "bipartisan" doesn't change the fact that the US screwed up royally. And of course its worth noting that Clinton wasn't stupid enough to mount a full scale land invasion, no matter what cherry-picked neo-con fantasies he did believe.
Posted by: Zifnab at March 27, 2008 05:42 PM (Usaah)
48
Civil War much?
I seem to remember that being Sunni vs. Shia, and that problem being intractable because Maliki would NEVER take up arms against Shiite thugs, only against Sunnis.
And now that he's doing just that, it's not a good idea anymore, it's a new civil war. Did you come up with that one yourself, Zifnab, or is there some better known genius out there spewing this twaddle?
Posted by: Pablo at March 27, 2008 06:09 PM (yTndK)
49
Zifnab, might I suggest you buy stock in an eraser company? Your history revisionism is mind-boggling.
Let me remind you of what you seem to actively want to forget. In 2001, on a bright September Tuesday morning, people who belonged to Al Qaeda flew planes into three buildings.
Since that wasn't known in 1998, President Clinton didn't have as much reason to go after Al Qaeda, and its allies, as did President Bush. We went after the Taliban--a known Al Qaeda ally--in Afghanistan and then we went after another suspected ally in Saddam Hussein.
Like I said, it's about the data we had then,, not the data we have now.
Posted by: C-C-G at March 27, 2008 06:16 PM (lueVj)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 25, 2008
It Never Stops: Obama's Church Published Letter Alleging Israeli "Ethnic Bomb."
Middle America, I'm sure this sort of stuff appears in your church bulletins all the time.
Israel and South Africa worked on "ethnic bombs" to kill blacks and Arabs, and Libya was designated as a terrorist state by the U.S. for supporting African liberation movements?
There is more nuttiness here than in a
Payday bar, but rest assured that Barack Obama never saw this bulletin, and certainly doesn't agree with it, just as he's never seen or agreed with any of the other insanities that have been uttered in his church of choice over the past 20 years.
You'll note that this was published on Trinity's "Youth Day," as part of "Family Month" according to the note at the bottom left of the page.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:27 AM
| Comments (51)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Wow. What a great honor it is to be a terrorist?
In my little hometown church the bulletin says stuff about some old lady that's having a hip surgery, or that the Legion's having a pancake breakfast.
It makes for a good compare/contrast.
On one hand you have "bake sale on Tuesday".
On the other hand you have "It's good to be a terrorist."
Hmmm.
Posted by: brando at March 25, 2008 12:43 PM (qzOby)
2
Seems to me Obama's "church" is more like a front for terrorist groups like Hamas and al Qaeda than it is any kind of "church."
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at March 25, 2008 01:06 PM (kNqJV)
3
Perhaps Obama is telling the truth about never noticing any of this stuff in twenty years of being a member of the church. What does that say about the performance we can expect from him as President? The last time we had someone that clueless and oblivious in the Oval Office, it was Ulysses S. Grant. Look how that turned out.
No, thank you.
Posted by: Pat at March 25, 2008 03:18 PM (0suEp)
4
The last time we had someone that clueless and oblivious in the Oval Office, it was Ulysses S. Grant. Look how that turned out.
Good point,Pat, but I don't think you have to go all the way back to the 1870's. How about the 1970's? Mr. Peanut was that clueless and oblivious (and has not improved with age) and look how that turned out!
Posted by: Donna at March 25, 2008 07:28 PM (GJg/7)
5
You guys are all looking in the wrong column. Mary gave birth to a PALESTINIAN? Is that why Jesus was always bitching about the Jews?
Also, Bob, let me dig around and find a pic of the River Jordan taken last year that will show that it is neither polluted nor dry.
Posted by: XBradTC at March 25, 2008 08:55 PM (njB5u)
6
JW just keeps selling his own congregation into mental slavery.
(Aw, the bulletin also tells us that it's "Family Month". )
Posted by: Joan of Argghh! at March 26, 2008 06:05 AM (8F+iI)
7
Barack Hussein Obama is a post racial politician who can unite America by reaching across the aisle and striking non-partisan agreements.
Obama is against the war and wants to pull out immediately. His foreign policy team is decidedly anti-Israel and pro muslim. He wants to attack Pakistan but talk to Iran.
In the middle of a war, he wants to cut defense spending by 10%, cancel FCS, stop SDI, stand down nuclear alert and stop research into a new Nuclear weapon. (The B61 is 30 years old.)
He's for all forms of abortion including partial birth. He wants gay marriage and hate crime laws.
He wants to deny city residents their second amendment rights and all of us our right to self defense. Ban on semi automatic weapons and registration of all handguns.
He wants to control loans and regulate business. He wants to repeal the Bush tax cuts and raise taxes on upper income (above $30,000) people. He wants to tax oil company profits and sue Pharma.
He wants to institute universal health care.
He will open the borders and grant amnesty to illegal aliens.
He believes what Rev Wright preaches - black master race, violent overthrow of the US government. He hates whites and hates America. He refuses to wear an American flag lapel pin or render customary courtesy when our National Anthem is played.
His associates include the New Black Panthers, the Weather Underground, Kenyan Islamist politicians and bagmen like Tony Rezko who had ties to Saddam Hussein through oil for food.
Obama is a middle of the road guy. What's wrong with you people?
Arch
Posted by: arch at March 26, 2008 08:56 AM (4zISc)
8
Seems to me like Obama and his "church" are a rascist bunch of idiots. So much for his candidacy. Id rather have Hillary than an extremist like like Obama.
Posted by: grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr at March 26, 2008 10:27 AM (gkobM)
9
Well, South Africa and Israel did work together on WMD, including testing and developing nuclear weapons. Israel allegedly has chemical and biological weapons. It avoids signing up to the chemical weapons convention. It refuses, along with the US to turn the middle east into a nuclear free zone. You guys should read more widely?
Posted by: David Smith at March 26, 2008 11:24 AM (n5R5D)
10
Yessss. I knew someone would jump in to defend it, confirming that it's not isolated. I was expecting it to be someone else, but you'll do.
Posted by: brando at March 26, 2008 11:46 AM (qzOby)
11
Dear David Smith,
A broken clock is right twice a day. Doesn't mean we should use it to tell time.
Do you even use that thing between your ears or is it just there to give the pot a work out?
Posted by: Dan Irving at March 26, 2008 01:01 PM (Kw4jM)
12
"It refuses, along with the US to turn the middle east into a nuclear free zone. You guys should read more widely?"
I think the Iranians are the ones doing the refusing, moron. Perhaps you should read more widely.
Posted by: Bob at March 26, 2008 02:06 PM (RnF5u)
13
I have this question for Barrack
Are you stoned or just stupid?
And to the MSM. Will this ever see the light of day, or be buried too?
Posted by: mike at March 26, 2008 02:08 PM (b6BDB)
14
David Smith: There was some collaboration between Israel and South Africa. Both were small, somewhat isolated countries facing a communist menace. This did not signify Israeli approval of Apartheid and it had parallels in many other countries.
South Africa was accused of conducting one nuclear test (in 1979) and Israel was dragged in gratuitously. In any case, it's almost certain there was no such test. A sensor on a US satellite probably malfunctioned or got hit with a burst of solar radiation. Ground data showed no signs of an event.
Posted by: greenmamba at March 26, 2008 02:48 PM (meqtt)
15
Obama is not a racist, he is worse. He is a typical idiotic radical leftist, little different than the morons marching in Seattle and Berkeley with "paper-mache" puppets on their heads, but he is in a shiny package which the MSM can present as a new type of Democrat.
And as any Christian knows, Jesus was a Jew.
Obama's church is nothing but a black equivalent of the KKK.
Posted by: LogicalSC at March 26, 2008 03:01 PM (ETOgT)
16
This need to be broadcast from the rooftops!!! I can not belive any human in this day and age can be so unbelivably sick and perverted. I wonder how this can be distributed WIDELY?
Posted by: Bayla at March 26, 2008 03:28 PM (UpOSy)
17
Yeah, is it not insane they would consider a baby born in Bethlehem as a Palestinian considering the name Palestine was not created for 100s of years after the Romans destroyed the 2nd Temple in Israel. These Pali-Loving antisemites stop at nothing to bend the truth. They are the force of evil in the world, trying to deceive and rewrite history. These forces of evil, the Rev Wrong and his minions, will be erased from the earth soon. The hate they spew will be their own undoing.
Posted by: mitvahGedolah at March 26, 2008 03:35 PM (iUCWn)
18
Hey, I though Jesus was a black man! Reverend Jerry, you pulling my leg?
Posted by: Pablo at March 26, 2008 04:57 PM (yTndK)
19
Make noise about this.
Via the Lizard king, this derives from a 15 November 1998 article by Colvin and Mahnaimi. Here's another little Colvin gem, in which she maintains much of the same citing peace-studies prof Malcolm Dondo. Another associate of Colvin is one Sarah Baxter, who writes for the "Centre d Recherche sur la Mondialization", far-left kook site.
Mahnaimi for his part is best buds with "former" PFLP terrorist Bassam Abou-Sharif; the two now write anti-Israel books. (Documentation on their associations.)
They were most likely punk'd by a sci-fi story. Much like the Protocols, which began its life as a satire against Napoleon III.
Colvin-Mahnaimi is oft cited by Vanguard and IHR types, that is to say neonazis and holocaust-deniers.
This is blood libel, pure and simple.
Posted by: David Ross at March 26, 2008 07:10 PM (u5+ay)
20
The "ethnic bomb" they devised as per the original papers (whether hoax or not), were made to kill Arabs and Gentile Europeans.
Obama's church's keyboard commandos deleted "whites" (the main victims of Israeli treachery) and instead put in "blacks".
As if Israel would pick a people who aren't a national problem, over their enemies or their increasingly freedom-seeking western slaves.
Israel knows their host nations. Israels worry about uppity "goyim" (white gentiles). They don't have to care about uppity blacks.
Posted by: I see only Yankee no "Confederate" at March 26, 2008 08:44 PM (kq2Cy)
21
"victims of Israeli treachery"
Ohhh kay...
Looks like someone spilt some nazi trash at aisle 8:44. Cleanup crew?
Posted by: David Ross at March 26, 2008 08:51 PM (NhJCg)
22
Any word yet on what subject Obama wrote about that got him into the Harvard Law Review?
Or is that still a secret?
As for 'I see only Yankee blah blah blah' ... you know you're sick, don't you? Get help.
Posted by: Daisy at March 26, 2008 09:56 PM (rwa+X)
23
A whole bunch of TUCC bulletins can be found archived here if anyone wants to take the time to review them for more of this stuff:
http://www.scribd.com/people/view/387542-pyreal
Posted by: SC at March 26, 2008 10:10 PM (xsPm3)
24
I love the Libya part. Nevermind all of those planes exploding because of Libya. It was our disdain for Mandela that got Libya on the rogue terrorist list.
Here is a great synopsis of how this moonbattery will affect Obama's foreign policy. You won't be disappointed.
Posted by: EtheWise at March 26, 2008 10:23 PM (cMzXq)
25
I am for John McCain (because Socialism is madness--especially in a tanking economy).
But prior to this, many White people almost never seemed to care this much about about racism when people try to point it out to them. Now people are all of a sudden not afraid to use the word "racist" anymore.
They have now found the racists. At long last.
This is sort of funny. No lie.
I do find though, that very few people seem to treat Israel like a normal country in discussions anymore. It's either the closest thing to heaven--complete with Gods and angels--or it's another Apartheid regime.
Can it not be "normal"?
Israel is a great ally and a democracy surrounded by people who need to take more than a hint from it. That is my feeling about Israel. But like any other country--including ours--it has varying degrees of bad historical turns, and the South Africa thing is one of them.
Much of the "details" in the "brochure" are pure nonsense, but we do know for sure that Israeli cooperation/ties with South Africa were much deeper than many people would like to admit; and that was a sad, sad, thing--especially considering the history of the founding of Israel.
Posted by: John at March 27, 2008 04:51 AM (HRLQW)
26
David Smith is complaining about Israel's arsenal and refusal to sign the NPT.
It seems that David doesn't know that Israel has to confont the whole Arab world and, in the past, the Soviet Union. Does he not know that Russians were embedded int he Egyutpian and Syrian military, that they flew combat for Egypt?
Posted by: JanP at March 27, 2008 06:26 AM (clnhB)
27
@Mike
"And to the MSM. Will this ever see the light of day, or be buried too?"
I can almost hear the the 50s-style paperboys now... "Extra! Extra! Read all about it! Obama's pastor says something stupid in an irrelevant church bulletin from almost a year ago while the candidate was probably in Washington or on the campaign trail. Extra! Extra!"
Honestly people, it's a church bulletin not a white paper. These kind of really peripheral ad hominem attacks make it look like Republicans can't fight Obama on policy issues.
Posted by: Juan Manuel de Rosas at March 27, 2008 11:50 AM (duarq)
28
I love that first paragraph, describing the "beautiful" church in Bethlehem, and the wonderful image of how Palestinian fighters were "given refuge inside it." One cannot help but imagine pacifist priests, appalled by the violence, who opened their doors to the poor, shivering, feareful, brave...sorry, I gotta stop here before I make myself gag.
Because what actually happened was that armed terrorists burst into the church, took those inside hostage, ate their food, urinated and deficated in the aisles, desicrated the holiest parts of the church, and trashed the entire interior.
Wright's statement is appalling in its brazen dishonesty. The fact that the world forgets quickly allows him to get away with his lie.
Posted by: Rick at March 27, 2008 12:56 PM (Ku8DX)
29
"Honestly people, it's a church bulletin not a white paper."
Perhaps I disagree with it because I disagree with it. And on that same note, perhaps people defend it, because they agree with it.
I don't think you know what "ad hominem attacks" are. Staying on topic, I disagree with many of Wright's facts, but that's just me.
Posted by: brando at March 27, 2008 01:35 PM (qzOby)
30
But maybe this is typical of a black socially active church. No?
Posted by: Eddie at March 27, 2008 03:54 PM (iMeBN)
31
It's an excellent point that Obama's church has extremist views and his views are the most liberal in the senate but you guys are the Obama of the conservatives aren't you?
Posted by: Eddie at March 27, 2008 05:52 PM (iMeBN)
32
Obama joined this church to gain political power, and he showed very poor judgement in staying there for 20 years. Twenty years is a heck of a long time and he is really not someone who should be president with all this total BS coming out of his most cherished religious home -- Obama will ruin the democratic party!
Posted by: Histie at March 27, 2008 10:26 PM (AiJXe)
33
So whose running for President again, Rev Wright or Barrack Obama? Finally a descent man with passion for change and the betterment of the country, and the only thing people can continue to bash him with, is the fowl remarks from his FORMER Pastor. I am so sick and tired of reading about Rev. Wright as if he is the man running for President. We have real issues to deal with in the US and we need a cleansing. Obama or Hillary Clinton would be the best choice for the US right now. So let's get back to reality and back on track on the REAL issues in the US and nominate a person that can make the changes desperately needed in the US. Rev Wright have received entirely too much attention. I am sick and tired of all the desperate attempts to bring down Obama, as if he made the comments that Rev. Wright have made. They are clearly two different people, with two different agendas and passions in life. WAKE UP!!!!
Posted by: Truth at March 28, 2008 09:31 AM (P7xkj)
34
HAHAHAHAHAHAA "Christian and Muslim activists chased by Israeli death squad took refuge in the church"
Hamas and Tanzim members who broke into the church which was full of civilians and held them hostage for 40 days are "activists" hahahahahahahah
Posted by: Mike Seth at March 28, 2008 11:44 AM (3T34g)
35
Obama is "for change"? Uh, ANY candidate will usher in "change". The question is: good change or bad change? Merely blathering on about being "for" Change is stupid. In the extreme.
He also claims to be for "hope" - interestingly void of details. His followers therefore base all their joy and rapture on the man's claims to be for change and hope. But there's no "there, there". No details of what exactly he's offering that is so breath-takingly hopeful about his proposed "change".
Higher taxes are hopeful? Raising regulations, costs, and taxes on major American corporations ("big" oil, "big" Pharma, "big" auto etc.) is certainly "change" but hard to claim it'll be "good change". 40% of all American's 401k and retirement pensions are invested in these "big" corporations. So if their profits are seized by Obama's "change" guess who gets shafted? Why, that's right! "the little guy".
Speaking of little guys. Obama is pro-abortion to the hilt. He also wants to pull out of Iraq, consequences for millions of Iraqi civilian children be damned.
He claims to be for uniting America, getting us away from the polarization (caused by democrats) of these past few years. But what has he done in Illinois or Washington to show an ability to bridge the ideological divide? NOTHING. He's voted hard-core left 100% of the time. He's not crossed the aisle on anything. So again, he offers great sound bytes of being for some great American reconcilliation...but has exactly zero experience or record actually doing what he claims to be an expert in.
His famous race speach telegraphed his understanding of who "the real enemy" is: rich white people. He excused both black rage and white blue-collar class warfare rage as inevitable. His solution? redirect this against business. Seize private property and use government to redistribute the spoils to these two groups of haters who each feel entitled to what fellow Americans happen to have.
So much for a great unifying ideology - the only people he wants to unite are the haters, the angry, the undereducated "America owes me everything, I owe America nothing" entitlement groups. Call them the proletariat and we have classic Marxism here.
The man is a stuffed shirt- brilliant only in his own mind and the mind of people who can't specify exactly what specifics he offers as his 'change'.
Posted by: John at March 28, 2008 04:49 PM (xgQeg)
36
Yes, Change and Hope is what Obama stands for. . as far as it being void of details, I have to disagree. Instead of listening to him to find out what you can critize, listen and hear what you can learn about the man's plan. I am one that can listen with understanding and with an open mind to what actions he wants to take. I have also listened to McCain and Hillary. I personally don't see any one of the three having more experience than the other.
Some simple facts:
In the U.S. Senate, Obama introduced the STOP FRAUD Act to increase penalties for mortgage fraud and provide more protections for low-income homebuyers, well before the current subprime crisis began.
Predatory Lending: In the Illinois State Senate, Obama called attention to predatory lending issues. Obama sponsored legislation to combat predatory payday loans, and he also was credited with lobbying the state to more closely regulate some of the most egregious predatory lending practices.
American Jobs: Barack Obama introduced the Patriot Employer Act of 2007 to provide a tax credit to companies that maintain or increase the number of full-time workers in America relative to those outside the US; maintain their corporate headquarters in America; pay decent wages; prepare workers for retirement; provide health insurance; and support employees who serve in the military.
It's so ironic how some have translated the "Race Speech" and made it out to be something totally different than what it was meant to be. Maybe that's because some just don't want to be unified. Some are just simply satisfied with the unfairness in America. Some believe change isn't needed and content with how things are now. How? Why? Please someone answer that for me.
Posted by: Truth at March 29, 2008 05:02 PM (P7xkj)
37
Hey Truth.
Do you think it's an honor to be a terrorist?
Cause that's what the topic is.
Folks don't have a problem with Wright being black. Folks have a problem with him being weapons-grade crazy.
There's no correlation between those two things, don't you agree? Maybe you think there is correlation. Or maybe even causation.
I say that there is no correlation. But that's just me.
Posted by: brando at March 29, 2008 08:13 PM (rDQC9)
38
"Some believe change isn't needed and content with how things are now. How? Why? Please someone answer that for me."
Practically no one is content with the way things are now. But there is something much, much worse, and that's the tired old collectivist crap on offer by Obama and Hillary.
Progressives are dressing said collectivist crap in a new wrapper and calling it "Change". This sort of collectivist "change" has been inflicted on many countries over the last century. The result was always - ALWAYS - the same: loss of liberty, declining living standards, opression, repression, and above all, rot. The people got "Equality" it's true. Equality in peasanthood.
That's why.
Senator Obama, who apparently agrees with much of the exceptionally goofy variety of Liberation Theology preached at his church, can stuff this sort of "change" where the sun don't shine.
Posted by: Goose at March 31, 2008 12:01 AM (dWav/)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
<< Page 127 >>
Processing 0.09, elapsed 0.7603 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.7173 seconds, 433 records returned.
Page size 338 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.
