November 04, 2006

SRT

Doug Ross takes a look at some of the documents that the New York Times has authenticated, and a suggests how those revelations should affect your future plans.

I tend to agree with his conclusion.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:46 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

November 03, 2006

Kerry's "Apology" Was All-Too Insincere

John Kerry's arrogance knows no bounds.

John Kerry has a 35-year history of slandering American soldiers, and when he disparaged the intelligence of the American military earlier this week, he deserved no benefit of the doubt. He'd referred to them as murderers, rapists, and terrorists too many times before.

When he swore he would "apologize to no one" for the comments assaulting their intelligence, he obviously meant it.

Now several days later and a "I'm sorry you aren't smart enough to understand what I meant to say" non-apology, he still has enough arrogance and contempt for the American soldier to feature on his page the headline, "Kerry's Remark: Right either way."

As Bryan notes:

Because even though he has “apologized” several times and in disingenuous ways, at heart he [Kerry] meant what he said. When he finds someone who supports his smear, he links right to them to justify himself. Someone who truly meant to apologize for a remark he doesn’t believe wouldn’t do that.

John Kerry is not the least bit sorry for slandering America's heroes.

He wasn't sorry in 1972, and he's certainly not sorry now.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:51 PM | Comments (40) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

NY Times Justifies 2003 Invasion of Iraq

This is a NY Times November bombshell as designed by the North Koreans.

The breaking article seems to be an attempt to attack the Bush Administration for releasing potentially classified information (yes, the ironymeter is pegged), but what they actually prove is that Saddam's nuclear weapons program was indeed a significant threat.

Not only were they close to developing their own nuclear bomb (at one point the Iraqis "were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away"), they also had that nucelar weapon building knowledge available to proliferate to other rogue states.

The Times may have set out to attack Bush, but instead, they have justified the rationale for the 2003 invasion.

Thanks, Pinch.

Update: Josh Manchester notes that this article seems to be an attempt by the NY Timesto pull an "Al-Qaqaa" once more before an national election.

Further Update: As Glenn Reynolds notes:

Judging from some of the delighted emails I'm getting, I need to warn people not to get too carried away -- this doesn't say that Saddam would have had a bomb in 2004. But it does say that he had all the knowledge needed to have a bomb in short order. And as we know he was looking to reconstitute his program once sanctions were ended -- and that sanctions were breaking down in 2003 -- that's pretty significant. However, perhaps even more significant, given that we knew most of the above already, is that the NYT apparently regards the documents that bloggers have been translating for months as reliable, which means that reports of Iraqi intelligence's relations with Osama bin Laden, and "friendly" Western press agencies, are presumably also reliable.

And as these documents are "presumably also reliable," then much of the research into these documents done by a former Defense Intelligence Agency contractor by the name of Ray Robinson is certainly worth a second or even a third look. Robinson compiled some of his research for the Fox News Saddam Dossier, and has much more in the archives of his personal site.

Robinson thinks he may have even triggered this by contacting the IAEA two weeks ago.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:53 PM | Comments (30) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Sinking the Timestanic

Icebergs everywhere.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:07 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Al-Taei Kidnapping Motive: Ransom?

According to Time:

A kidnapping ring has demanded a $250,000 ransom from the family of the U.S. soldier abducted in Iraq, a suspiciously low sum that his family worries could be a sign that he is no longer alive.

The Pentagon Thursday confirmed for the first time that Specialist Ahmed al-Taie, a Michigan National Guardsman assigned to the Provincial Reconstruction Team Baghdad, has been "unaccounted for" since Oct. 23 at 4:30pm; he is currently listed as "duty status whereabouts unknown." Family members of the 41-year-old Iraqi-American from Ann Arbor, Mich. say he was nabbed by a gang claiming to be from the Mahdi Army while he was on an unauthorized trip outside the fortified Green Zone to visit his wife in Baghdad.

The ransom demand for al-Taie was relayed earlier this week to al-Taie's uncle Entifad Qanbar, a former spokesman for the Iraqi National Congress and recently an official in the Iraqi Ministry of Defense. Qanbar described to TIME the complicated negotiations he has been engaged in on behalf of the family and in close coordination with the U.S.-led Hostage Working Group, a task force in the U.S. embassy in Baghdad made up of specialists from multiple U.S. agencies and the military.

Reading the Time story leave one with the impression that the kidnapping was done purely as a criminal exercise.

We have the option of accepting that at face value, but kidnapping an American serviceman would seem to be an extremely risky enterprise for a group merely interested in profit. Whereas the kidnapping of Iraqi civilians leads to only an Iraqi police response (if that), the kidnapping of al-Taei led to a massive military-led recovery effort that has at least 3,000 American and Iraqi soldiers conducting area sweeps and house-to-house searches, a response that most criminal kidnappers would understandably shy away from.

Kidnapping for ransom is a not uncommon practice throughout the developing world, and is increasingly common in regards to the kidnapping of Iraqis for political or criminal means, but it is comparatively rare for foreigners to be kidnapped for ransom, and the al-Taei kidnapping, if a criminal exercise, would be the first kidnapping of an American soldier in an attempt to turn a profit since the war began.

It simply seems doubtful that an experienced kidnapping gang would take such risks for such a comparatively small reward. Politics, hidden behind a veil of base criminal motivation, still seems to be the most likely reason to kidnap such a high-profile target.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:00 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

...Not As They Do

"Tis the season for pre-election surprises, some of them well deserved.

Nationally, a powerful evangelical minister in Colorado Springs that was a vocal proponent of a statewide ballot initiative to ban on gay marriage was outed yesterday by a man who accused him of paying for sex from him over the past three years. As a result, Ted Haggard has stepped down from his post at his 14,000-member church and resigned as president from the National Association of Evangelicals.

Haggard claims he is innocent, but his accuser, Mike Jones, reportedly has both voicemails and a letter from Haggard that he says proves the trysts occurred. Haggard was also accused of using methamphetamine in his presence. Haggard has also admitted to another minister that some of the allegations may have some truth behind them.

Locally, the campaign of incumbent Republican Wake County Sheriff Donnie Harrison was rocked by allegations that he had an on-going affair with a local optometrist's wife. They are apparently still dating now that the couple has divorced.

Obviously, both of these long-running affairs are morally wrong, and I'm sure our friends on the left will enjoy mercilessly beating them up over their conduct as we run up to the elections on November 7. We will find out at that time whether or not Colorado's gay marriage ban and Harrison's bid to remain sheriff are torpedoed by these politically timed, but still apparently valid charges.

Nobody is perfect and we all have some sort of embarrassment or skeletons in our closets. Being human, we all make mistakes, and most of them are forgivable.

But there is a special kind of hypocrisy in publicly advocating one position while privately undercutting it with a contrary and continuing pattern of behavior, and that is what troubles me about both of these cases, Haggard's moreso than Harrison's.

Sheriff Harrison had just lost his wife of almost 36 years months before his affair began, and was probably emotionally vulnerable when his affair began. That doesn’t excuse it or justify his behavior in any way, but makes it at least something that most people can understand, if not condone.

Haggard, however, has apparently risen to a position of prominence based upon the deep-seated and long-running deception of many, advocating one position in public and practicing another in private.

God will forgive all of us who truly seek forgiveness, but among mortals, many will find Haggard's duplicity much harder to forgive.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:00 AM | Comments (14) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

November 02, 2006

Dear America: Vote Terrorist Democratic

Root, root, root for the home team:

"Of course Americans should vote Democrat," Jihad Jaara, a senior member of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group and the infamous leader of the 2002 siege of Bethlehem's Church of the Nativity, told WND.

"This is why American Muslims will support the Democrats, because there is an atmosphere in America that encourages those who want to withdraw from Iraq. It is time that the American people support those who want to take them out of this Iraqi mud," said Jaara, speaking to WND from exile in Ireland, where he was sent as part of an internationally brokered deal that ended the church siege.

And he's not alone.

Muhammad Saadi, a senior leader of Islamic Jihad in the northern West Bank town of Jenin, said the Democrats' talk of withdrawal from Iraq makes him feel "proud."

"As Arabs and Muslims we feel proud of this talk," he told WND. "Very proud from the great successes of the Iraqi resistance. This success that brought the big superpower of the world to discuss a possible withdrawal."

Abu Abdullah, a leader of Hamas' military wing in the Gaza Strip, said the policy of withdrawal "proves the strategy of the resistance is the right strategy against the occupation."

"We warned the Americans that this will be their end in Iraq," said Abu Abdullah, considered one of the most important operational members of Hamas' Izzedine al-Qassam Martyrs Brigades, Hamas' declared "resistance" department. "They did not succeed in stealing Iraq's oil, at least not at a level that covers their huge expenses. They did not bring stability. Their agents in the [Iraqi] regime seem to have no chance to survive if the Americans withdraw."

Abu Ayman, an Islamic Jihad leader in Jenin, said he is "emboldened" by those in America who compare the war in Iraq to Vietnam.

No further comment seems necessary.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 04:03 PM | Comments (20) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Another "Botched Joke"

After the apparently unedited video of John Kerry's bashing of the intelligence of the American military was revealed to have mirrored comments that he made to an anti-war group in 1972, leading Democrats such as Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, New York Senator Charles Schumer, and Congressional Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi joined a growing chorus of prominent Democrats that called for the disgraced Massachusetts Democrat to resign his seat in the United States Senate.*

"Our brave men and women in Uniform deserve our unerring support, whatever their mission," said Dean. "By slandering the intelligence and commitment of our Armed Forces, John Kerry has besmirched the honor of all Americans that appreciate the honor, integrity and intelligence of our men and women in uniform."

Said Schumer, "We have all known for a long time that our nations' military consistently attracts our best and brightest. This latest slight by Kerry against our soldiers is not his first, but it should be his last as a public servant."

In an interview aired on CNN, Pelosi added, "I have always supported those brave souls who feel called to defend this great nation. Any attacks leveled against them, even in jest, are unacceptable."

"John Kerry, it seems, is the "botched joke" that is no longer needed in a patriotic and military friendly Democratic Party."

Grass roots Democratic activists have also voiced their displeasure with Senator Kerry, and have started a petition drive to demand his ouster.

* As if you couldn't tell this was satire...

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:15 AM | Comments (20) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Negotiations Underway to Release Captured U.S. Army Translator

As I said in response to Andrew Sullivan's willfully ignorant claim yesterday that "commander-in-chief has abandoned an American soldier to the tender mercies of a Shiite militia":

Andrew Sullivan disingenuously misrepresents a small (and increasingly irrelevant) part of the rescue effort as the entire rescue effort, discounting all active military and police searches, intelligence gathering efforts, and back-channel political maneuvering that we know from past experience is certainly taking place.

This morning, Fox News confirms that the back-channel political maneuvering I discussed is indeed occuring:

The U.S. military identified a kidnapped soldier for the first time on Thursday, saying the abducted Iraqi-American was 41-year-old Ahmed Qusai al-Taayie.

Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell also said that the reserve soldier was visiting his Iraqi wife when he was handcuffed and taken away by gunmen during a visit to the woman's family.

Caldwell said there was "an ongoing dialogue" in a bid to win the soldier's release, but he would not say with whom or at what level.

The fact that al-Taei (or as this article spells it "al-Taayie") did not turn up dead within the first 72 hours of his abduction, and the fact that he is believed to have been captured by the Mahdi Army instead of al Qaeda, leads me to believe that he was abducted not to become a victim of torture and murder, but to become a political pawn for one of the factions of Muqtada al-Sadr's militia.

What remains to be seen, and what we may never know, is whether al-Taei's capture is something that al-Sadr had a hand in, or if a faction within his loosely-organized Mahdi Army Militia conducted the kidnapping independently. If al-Taei's abduction was not conducted with al-Sadr's knowledge or blessing, there is the possibility that the kidnapping is evidence of a rift between factions of the Mahdi Army.

If so (and this is purely speculation), it could be that factions within the Mahdi Army are using the kidnapping to make a run on al-Sadr's control of the militia. The kidnapping places a microscope on al-Sadr (note the renewed calls to have him killed, which stem at least in part from the kidnapping), and depending on internal Iraqi politics, could rattle his standing with both other Mahdi Army factions and with the Iraqi government, which for now, seems to be doing the bidding of al-Sadr (on that, at least, Sullivan was correct).

If al-Sadr starts to lose (more) control of the Madhi Army, his importance to and influence within the Iraqi government may wane, and the possibility that Ralph Peters may eventually get his wish, perhaps courtesy of the apparently fragmenting Mahdi Army itself.

Update: Josh Manchester has further thoughts.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:21 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Last Word on the ''Botched Joke'' Update: Almost Last Word

I just watched what appears to be the uncut footage of the Kerry speech at Hot Air.

It doesn't make me feel any less irritated, for while Kerry did clearly deliver a "botched joke" (i.e., it wasn't close to being funny), it seems obvious to me that the dig at the intelligence of the troops was scripted and intentional and targeted specifically at them, if part of a larger comment directed at President Bush.

In the larger context of what he said in the first 3 minutes of the clip, I took it as something in the neighborhood of "Only morons would follow this idiot into war," but perhaps that is merely my perception.

Well, me, and these guys.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:20 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

November 01, 2006

PowerPointless

A clandestine program to track terrorist communications into the United States splashes across the pages of the New York Times, and the government does nothing in response. A top secret program is leaked in the same paper revealing how terrorist funding is monitored, and again, the leaker goes free.

Today, the leak of a minor but still classified report, including a PowerPoint slide, has the Pentagon wanting to drop the hammer:

The Pentagon is looking into how classified information indicating Iraq is moving closer to chaos wound up on the front page of Wednesday's New York Times, and is not ruling out an investigation that could lead to criminal charges.

A spokesman for U.S. Central Command, which has responsibility for operations in Iraq, confirmed to FOX News that a chart published in The Times is a real reflection of the thinking of military intelligence on the situation in Iraq as of Oct. 18, adding that an effort is underway to find out who leaked the chart and if the breach of operational security constitutes a crime.

The published report includes a classified one-page slide show from an Oct. 18 military briefing. The slide show is titled: "Iraq: Indications and Warnings of Civil Conflict," and shows spiraling violence in Iraq and a worsening position for American efforts.

Based on the slide show, Iraq is moving sharply away from "peace," designated in green on the left side of the chart, to a point much closer to the red-zoned right side of the spectrum, marked "chaos."

News flash to the Pentagon: This is kinda like letting someone break into your house, steal your valuables and rough up your family, only to get pissed off when they trample on the grass while leaving.

If the government wants to start nailing those who leak classified information during a time of war, they should start with the most important cases, not much less important ones such as this.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:42 PM | Comments (21) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Sullivan's Dim Bulb Flickers Once More

As seems to be his pattern lately, Andrew Sullivan suckles onto one fact and uses it to fatten up a dishonest charge he cannot support:

While the media is obsessed parsing the ad libs of someone on no ballot this fall, something truly ominous has just happened in Iraq. The commander-in-chief has abandoned an American soldier to the tender mercies of a Shiite militia. Yes, there are nuances here, and the NYT fleshes out the story today. But the essential fact is clear.

What Andrew Sullivan obtusely states as "fact" is nothing of the sort.

U.S. forces withdrew from checkpoints around the Sadr City slum at Prime Minster Maliki's request, but it is quite a leap to suggest that by turning over checkpoints to the Iraqi Army, that efforts to secure the release of captured U.S Army translator Ahmed Qusai al-Taei have been abandoned.

Does Sullivan honestly believe, and does he even have the basis to believe, that the cordons around Sadr City were the only measure being taken to secure al-Taei's release? If so, Sullivan betrays a stupefying naiveté. More likely, however, he just abandoned any pretense of honesty in favor of a cheap partisan shot that suits his increasingly fractured and incoherent ideology.

I'll state in advance that I do not know specifically what U.S. and Iraqi military, police and political forces are doing to retrieve al-Taei (nor would I reveal the details if I knew them), but what I can state with a fair degree of certainty is that those who kidnapped him at gunpoint:

• had planned the kidnapping in advance
• had a pre-planned and nearby location where they would take al-Taei, in what they consider a safe and sympathetic area from which they are very unlikely to move

It is almost certain that al-Taei was already in this pre-planned containment area before a cordon was ever established. They are now even less likely to move him because of the much greater risk of exposure that any move would entail.

We also know that a passive cordon would only be part of an overall plan to rescue this missing soldier, based upon all-too recent experience.

When Pfcs. Menchacha and Tucker were kidnapped by al Qaeda in June, more than 8,000 soldiers from the U.S. and Iraqi armies participated in the search. We know that forces have actively searched for al-Taei by foot and air, and that there is no sign that the active searches, those that are most likely to be effective at this late stage of the kidnapping, have abated in the least.

Sullivan, of course, does not mention this, perhaps purposefully.

He wouldn’t want to ruin his pre-determined narrative:

The U.S. military does not have a tradition of abandoning its own soldiers to foreign militias, or of taking orders from foreign governments. No commander-in-chief who actually walks the walk, rather than swaggering the swagger, would acquiesce to such a thing. The soldier appears to be of Iraqi descent who is married to an Iraqi woman. Who authorized abandoning him to the enemy? Who is really giving the orders to the U.S. military in Iraq? These are real questions about honor and sacrifice and a war that is now careening out of any control. They are not phony questions drummed up by a partisan media machine to appeal to emotions to maintain power.

Actually, these are "phony questions drummed up by a partisan media machine," and, that machine is an intellectual Trabant at that.

Andrew Sullivan disingenuously misrepresents a small (and increasingly irrelevant) part of the rescue effort as the entire rescue effort, discounting all active military and police searches, intelligence gathering efforts, and back-channel political maneuvering that we know from past experience is certainly taking place.

I don’t expect Sullivan to be nonpartisan or ideologically neutral, but a do expect him to approach the subject with at least a hint of intellectual honesty that he has not thus far shown.

11-02-06 Update: Fox News confirms this morning that the back channel negotiations I mentioned above are indeed occuring. More here.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:55 PM | Comments (21) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

A Word of Thanks

I've been a bad blogger.

John Hinderaker, Paul Mirengoff, and Scott Johnson over at Powerline graciously picked me to be their "Blog of the Week," and my RSS feed has been featured at the top of the page at Powerline News, sending me oddles of first-time readers that I hope will take this opportunity to bookmark Confederate Yankee and make this site a daily read.

While I haven't personally met John or Paul, I did get to spend Friday evening and part of the day Saturday with Scott (along with many other excellent bloggers) at Carolina FreedomNet 2006, and found him to be a delightful person I appreciate the opportunity they've given me to earn your trust and your readership.

Thanks.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:29 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

A Pickshure Is Werth A Thousand Wurds

A written response to "Jon Carry" from the American soldier.

Hat tip: Michelle Malkin, who notes this picture has made it to Drudge as well.

Update: Retired Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney calls for Kerry’s resignation.

Not that it will happen. By insulting the military, Kerry's playing to his base.

Update: Kerry finally apologizes.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:17 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Going His Own Way

I haven't read John Cole's blog Balloon Juice in quite a while, but when his post This is No Fun popped up on memeorandum.com this morning, it piqued my interest enough for me to want to see what he had to say, especially as many of the more prominent liberal blogs seemed to be linking it.

Essentially, Cole provided his bona fides as a long-time Republican who feels that today's Republican Party no longer represented his views. I can respect that.

I don't think that any American should feel that they owe either political party, or even a larger ideology, a lifetime of dedication from the metaphorical cradle to grave. As we grow older and mature, our life experiences impact how we view the world and that affects our perspective, sometimes radically. In general, as people grow older they tend to grow more conservative, but there will always be those that started out as being more conservative who shift their viewpoints towards more liberal philosophies.

It is also quite normal for those who have made a radical shift from one philosophical point of view to another to find tremendous fault in their former stablemates. David Brock certainly did so going from conservative to liberal, just as has former 60s radical David Horowitz did going from liberal to conservative. Their is also an apparent need for those making such ideological transitions to prove themselves to those they now find themselves aligned with.

I don’t know when things went south with this party (literally and figuratively- and I am sure commenters here will tell me the party has always been this bad- I disagree with that, and so do others), but for me, Terri Schiavo was the real eye-opener. Sure, the Prescription Drug Plan was hideous and still gets my blood pressure pumping, and the awful bankruptcy bill was equally bad, and there were other things that should have clued me in, but really, it was Schiavo that made me realize this party was not as advertized.

[snip]

I am not really having any fun attacking my old friends- but I don’t know how else to respond when people call decent men like Jim Webb a pervert for no other reason than to win an election. I don’t know how to deal with people who think savaging a man with Parkinson’s for electoral gain is appropriate election-year discourse. I don’t know how to react to people who think that calling anyone who disagrees with them on Iraq a “terrorist-enabler” than to swing back. I don’t know how to react to people who think that media reports of party hacks in the administration overruling scientists on issues like global warming, endangered species, intelligent design, prescription drugs, etc., are signs of… liberal media bias...

And it makes me mad. I still think of myself as a Republican- but I think the whole party has been hijacked by frauds and religionists and crooks and liars and corporate shills, and it frustrates me to no end to see my former friends enabling them, and I wonder ‘Why can’t they see what I see?” I don’t think I am crazy, I don’t think my beliefs have changed radically, and I don’t think I have been (as suggested by others) brainwashed by my commentariat...

[snip]

I feel like I am betraying my friends in the party and the blogosphere when I attack them, even though I believe it is they who have betrayed what ‘we’ allegedly believe in. Bush has been a terrible President. The past Congresses have been horrible- spending excessively, engaging in widespread corruption, butting in to things they should have no say in (like end of life decisions), refusing to hold this administration accountable for ANYTHING, and using wedge issues to keep themselves in power at the expense of gays, etc. And I don’t know why my friends on the right still keep fighting for these guys to stay in power.

I disagree with Cole on many of the policy points in his post, but that does not make either of our opinions on these or other issues invalid, just different.

What I do find a bit perplexing is statements like this:

...the whole [Republican] party has been hijacked by frauds and religionists and crooks and liars and corporate shills...

I'm not quite sure what to make of this and related statements in his post.
Frauds and crooks and liars exist in both parties, far more than either side would like to admit. Criminal behavior is bi-partisan, and has been since this nation was founded, with the party in power at the time being more potentially corruptible simply because they are more powerful and therefore more attractive to those who would be corrupters.

As Republicans currently hold power across the board on the federal level, their influence makes them more of a target at this present time, just as even a cursory examination of history will reveal that when Democrats have held more power, they, in their own turn, have also proven to be quite corruptible to similar interests. Cole, I hope, won't be crushed yet again when the Democrats he has now apparently allied himself once more take power (which I hope will be later, rather than sooner) and prove that they are also far from pure.

I suspect that deep down, he is already aware of this truism, and that he is just using this temporary excuse as a cover for a deeper felt affront that seems to be tied more to an aversion for what he terms "religionists" (just a half-step from Andrew Sullivan's "Christianists").

By his own admission, the Terri Shiavo case which polarized many deeply affected Cole, and it seems fair based upon the comments in this post that Cole's version of what the Republican Party should be, is a party that should not embrace those people who are religious. If I misstate his views I apologize, but that is what he appears to say.

Cole, of course has other complaints: about fiscal responsibility, public policy, and the War on Terror under the Republicans, and most of these complains at least have debatable merit.

The sad thing, however, is that as Cole has rejected Republicans, he seems to have reflexively thrown in his lot with not the moderate middle where his stated interests would seem to reside, but with the most extreme elements of the political far left. From Oliver Willis to Daily Kos to Glenn Greenwald and others, Cole has apparently become the darling for those who hold political views that are also in apparent opposition to what Cole states he believes.

The Republican Prescription Plan may be bad, and yet his newest proponents support the boondoggle of socialized medicine. The Bankruptcy Bill was abhorrent, and yet his new allies support raising taxes, which also hurts those living on the financial edge. He disagrees with how the War in Iraq is being fought, and aligns himself with those who would prefer that we instead embrace defeat. What he states he believes and who he currently finds himself "in bed with" (metaphorically speaking) seem to be diametrically opposed.

He ends his post by saying that he doesn't know where it is going. It seems more likely that he knows his precise destination, but is unwilling or unable to realize how far past center to the other extreme he has gone.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:58 PM | Comments (16) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

All Those Right Wing Morons

"You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq."

Those were the words of Democratic Senator John Kerry on Monday night while campaigning for fellow Democrat Phil Angelides in California.

By midday Tuesday, outrage from the active duty military, veterans groups, online pundits, talk radio personalities and conservative politicians (and from conservative politicians that are veterans) had reached a crescendo, and Kerry, instead of apologizing, stated that he would not apologize, instead stating that the controversial line was targeted at the White House.

Funny, that.

I read the line, delivered at a Democratic campaign rally at a college campus, and cannot see how Kerry can claim how what he said could be construed as anything other than an insult to the intelligence of those Americans who chose to serve in the Armed Forces. Kerry's implication is clear:

"If you are smart and do well in school, you can be successful. If you don't do well in school, and you don't make an effort to be smart, you'll end up in the military... and shipped off to fight in a war I do not support."

How can any logical person construe this as an attack on President Bush or his leadership, as Kerry claimed? Clearly, neither the President, not the White House, nor even conservative politicians were referenced or even implied in what Kerry said. His statement, regardless of intent, directly challenges the intelligence of those who have and will join the Armed Forces of the United States.

This of course is not the first time that Kerry has slandered American servicemen and women. He has a long history of such behavior, dating back to the 1970s and his infamous and unsupported "Genghis Khan" testimony, to his more recent allegations in our current conflict in Iraq that U.S. military forces were "terrorizing" Iraqis. When given a chance to attack the enemy, Kerry consistently defines the "enemy" as those wearing camouflage and the flag of the United States on their sleeves.

Accidentally or not, John Kerry has offended those who serve this nation, and will not apologize to those he slandered.

To me, that speaks volumes both about the man, and the Democratic Party that he represents.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:23 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

October 31, 2006

At It Again

It looks like someone is trying to steal Michael Yon's pictures. Again.

This time?

The Washington State Democratic Party, on behalf of congressional candidate Darcy Burner.

Interestingly enough, this seems to be the second time a Democatic group has stolen intellectual property while trying to "help" Burner get elected.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:27 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

The Charge of the Lightweight Brigade

It seems that John Kerry can't quit charging the guns:

Senator John Kerry issued the following statement in response to White House Press Secretary Tony Snow, assorted right wing nut-jobs, and right wing talk show hosts desperately distorting Kerry’s comments about President Bush to divert attention from their disastrous record:

"If anyone thinks a veteran would criticize the more than 140,000 heroes serving in Iraq and not the president who got us stuck there, they're crazy. This is the classic G.O.P. playbook. I'm sick and tired of these despicable Republican attacks that always seem to come from those who never can be found to serve in war, but love to attack those who did.

I'm not going to be lectured by a stuffed suit White House mouthpiece standing behind a podium, or doughy Rush Limbaugh, who no doubt today will take a break from belittling Michael J. Fox's Parkinson's disease to start lying about me just as they have lied about Iraq. It disgusts me that these Republican hacks, who have never worn the uniform of our country lie and distort so blatantly and carelessly about those who have.

The people who owe our troops an apology are George W. Bush and Dick Cheney who misled America into war and have given us a Katrina foreign policy that has betrayed our ideals, killed and maimed our soldiers, and widened the terrorist threat instead of defeating it. These Republicans are afraid to debate veterans who live and breathe the concerns of our troops, not the empty slogans of an Administration that sent our brave troops to war without body armor.

Bottom line, these Republicans want to debate straw men because they're afraid to debate real men. And this time it won't work because we’re going to stay in their face with the truth and deny them even a sliver of light for their distortions. No Democrat will be bullied by an administration that has a cut and run policy in Afghanistan and a stand still and lose strategy in Iraq."

I'm almost overwhelmed at how politically tone-deaf John Kerry in posting this response on his Web site.

Almost.

Not only does Kerry refuse to apologize for slandering those serving our country, he actually has the gall to try to go on the offensive and attack those condemning his comments. As many of the "assorted right wing nut-jobs" attacking him are current and former members of the military, Kerry insults them not once, but twice.

Kerry even goes so far as to insist that those who are enraged at his slur have resorted to lies and distortions, even though his comments were captured in print, audio, and video formats. The context of his comments was quite clear, and it is disingenuous for him to try to say the video evidence he freely gave of his own accord was a distortion.

His comments devolve from there into what even reads as a high-pitched and hysterical shrieking that seems to indicate that Kerry's immeasurable gaffe is somehow the Bush Administration’s fault. Certainly, the rant will play well on the far left fringe of the Democratic Party, but it serves to alienate almost everyone else in the country that expected a measured apology, not a second attack.

Allied against the overwhelming core of the American populace that respects the military even if they have not served, an anemic John Kerry continues to futilely charge into the guns, perhaps snatching a more perfect Democratic defeat from the jaws of possible victory once more.

Cannon to the Right of Them.

Cannon to the Center.

Cannon all around.

The magic hat lies (and lies, and lies... )

shatter'd and sunder'd.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 04:40 PM | Comments (24) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

The Silence Hear 'Round the World

The center-right side of the political blogosphere is buzzing this afternoon over a slur made against the military by Democratic Senator John Kerry while Kerry was stumping for California gubernatorial candidate Phil Angelides.

Kerry said:

"You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq."

The remark, a slight against the intelligence of the men and women serving in our nation's military, would doubtlessly have been front page news if uttered by a Republican, but instead, the mainstream media has so far largely given the Democratic Senator from Massachusetts a pass.

Not one story regarding the slur has been posted in major media outlets as reported on Google News as of 1:00 PM, more than 12 hours after Kerry made the comments.

A simple search of Google News For "John Kerry" captured only a handful of reports from conservative blogs, and the single link to anything approaching a major media outlet was post to a Chicago Tribune blog called The Swamp.

As for North Carolina media outlets, neither the Raleigh-based television station Web site WRAL.com nor the McClatchy-owned Raleigh-based newspaper, the News & Observer, deemed the story worth a mention, even though Fort Bragg, Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, and Pope Air Force Base are all within their readership/viewership, as are Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point and Marine Base Camp Lejune.

It almost makes you wonder if the media might be attempting to cover for one political party over the other.

Doubtlessly, when the media does catch up to the story, they will present it as a feud between the Republicans and Kerry, not the reprehensible belittling of our men and women in uniform that Kerry's offhand remark so clearly was.

Update: WRAL finally posted an online article on the subject as I was writing this, setting up the story in such a way as to pit the White House against Kerry.

I guess they had to wait until they could figure out a way to minimize the damage.

Update: It's rare that they deserve such credit, but I'll always give it when due: AllahPundit reports that CNN ran the video clip of Kerry's comments "a good four or five times within the past hour."

In the wake of running terrorsit propaganda videos as news on the 19th, that this could be seen as CNN's attempt to "Lurch" back towards the middle.

Update: Kerry refuses to apologize. But he supports the troops!

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:28 PM | Comments (16) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

John Kerry's Continuing Contempt For the Military

Lurch just can't keep his contempt for our brave soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines hidden any longer.

“You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.”

This mindblowingly stupid comment comes courtesy of Allahpundit, who also has Kerry on audio and video over at Hot Air.

I hope that members of our military keep in mind that Kerry is only articulating sentiments that many on the far left have held over and passed down to future generations of service-hating leftists since at least the Vietnam War era, and that our military can voice its displeasure with Kerry's "fellow travelers" at the ballot box exactly one week from today.

If Kerry's backhanded slap at those in uniform isn't a call to get "out the vote" for our brave servicemen and servicewomen and those who support them, I don't know what is.

Update: Republican Senator, Navy Pilot and former POW John McCain lets Kerry have it with both barrels:

Senator Kerry owes an apology to the many thousands of Americans serving in Iraq, who answered their country's call because they are patriots and not because of any deficiencies in their education. Americans from all backgrounds, well off and less fortunate, with high school diplomas and graduate degrees, take seriously their duty to our country, and risk their lives today to defend the rest of us in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.

They all deserve our respect and deepest gratitude for their service. The suggestion that only the least educated Americans would agree to serve in the military and fight in Iraq, is an insult to every soldier serving in combat, and should deeply offend any American with an ounce of appreciation for what they suffer and risk so that the rest of us can sleep more comfortably at night. Without them, we wouldn't live in a country where people securely possess all their God-given rights, including the right to express insensitive, ill-considered and uninformed remarks.

I'm asking CY readers to send a copy of Kerry's comments and the link to the Hot Air URL (copy and paste: http://hotair.com/archives/2006/10/30/audio-john-kerry-on-americas-lazy-uneducated-military/ ) via email to everyone they know of voting age.

As their selected candidate for President of the United States just two short years ago, John Kerry obviously reflects the mindset of many liberals in the Democratic Party. Let them all know what you think of them one week from today on November 7.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:54 AM | Comments (27) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Processing 0.03, elapsed 0.6931 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.6777 seconds, 162 records returned.
Page size 155 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.