August 17, 2005
Clinton and the Sleeping Giant
Yesterday, we linked a
story that Jason from Generation Why had picked up on in which Bill Clinton claimed he was more interested in bin Laden than the Bush Administration and that had he had six more months in office he would have personally taken al Qaeda out, solved the Social Security crisis, read to every single child in America, and unified physics with a new 8th dimensional string theory.
Today, Paul at Wizbang wonders whether the real reason Clinton failed to act against al Qaeda in any significant way was that he was too busy trying to cover up his affair with Monica Lewinsky. Personally, I'm not so convinced by the timing argument presented by Paul. That is to say, the State Department warned Clinton about the al Qaeda threat during the same months that Clinton was busy obstructing justice, but this is not evidence that one effort contradicted the other. Presidents, it should be remembered, are capable of doing more than one thing at a time--even if they aren't the superheroes that Bill Clinton wishes to be remembered as.
In hindsight, Clinton's failure to act against al Qaeda seemed like a cosmic dereliction of duty. Warnings about what al Qaeda might potentially do, though, only seem so important now because we know what al Qaeda eventually did do. As we try to reconstruct history, let us remember that for every warning that turns out to be true, there are dozens of warnings that turn out to be false alarms. Many documents now show that there were warnings that Japan would attack Pearl Harbor. What is often overlooked by those wishing to play the blame game--or worse, the conspiracy game--are the dozens of other reports which claimed the Phillipines would be Japan's likely target. It is only in hindsight that we realize which threat was greater.
So, I don't blame Bill Clinton or George Bush for 9/11 any more than I blame FDR for Pearl Harbor. All of them were forced to make decisions and set priorities without the clear guidance of hindsight.
Who is to blame for 9/11, then? The first answer, of course, is al Qaeda and radical Islam. But the second answer may be more troubling. We are responsible for 9/11, all of us, the American public. Bill Clinton was not the only one asleep at the wheel, unaware of the growing danger of the global violent jihad, we all were. America was a sleeping giant, awakened from the pleasant dreams of the 1990s only when our enemies reminded us that they had been at war with us for a decade by striking our home soil.
While we were busy fretting over how to spend the tax surpluses of the 1990s, or an economy that had 1% more unemployment in the '00s, al Qaeda was busy planning our demise. We were all asleep at the wheel, only to be awakened much too late.
Let us never never be caught sleeping again.
UPDATE: Another Rovian Conspiracy agrees.
UPDATE II: Yes, Clinton is lying about his superhuman abilities every bit as much as the lie that started the rumor about his package size. But just because he serially inflates his central role in history does not make him responsible for 9/11.
Posted by: Rusty at
01:28 PM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
Post contains 553 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Can we still blame Clinton for every other thing? If so, I could go along with it.
Posted by: Defense Guy at August 17, 2005 02:40 PM (jPCiN)
2
wow! The Clenis bombed al qaeda camps in 1998?
i bet this was supported widely by the republicans. in fact, i bet that the republicans said that while this was a good first step, what we really needed to do was send ground forces in to make sure we got the job done.
i'm also pretty sure that the republicans made sure that all of Clinton's counter-terror proposals were swiftly implemented.
Posted by: Max at August 17, 2005 03:08 PM (HFKAk)
3
After the failed missile strikes in Afghanistan and Sudan, everybody was too gun-shy to try anything meaningful because of the negative publicity. There was actually a CIA rrtained and equipped Afghan team who had bin Laden under observation at Tarnak Farm, and were prepared to strike, but were never given the order because of the possibility that bin Laden might escape or that members of his family might be killed, or that the team might be captured and made to talk. In short, they were scared of bad publicity, so they did nothing. But hey, Bubba did bomb the crap out of those evil Serbs who were oppressing Muslims in Yugoslavia, that counts for something, right? After all, the Serbs were such a threat to us, and Muslims have been so grateful for the help, right? Right?
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 17, 2005 03:21 PM (0yYS2)
4
Max, is your last name Cleland?
Posted by: Oyster at August 17, 2005 04:19 PM (fl6E1)
5
I don't think the Lewinsky scandal was a factor in Clinton's non-action, because as we now know, he was warned of bin Laden and the terrorists inside the U.S. as early as 1996... well before he was philadering with fat chicks and stogies.
Posted by: Jason at August 17, 2005 09:46 PM (TwSjW)
6
I don't think the Lewinsky scandal was a factor in Clinton's non-action, because as we now know, he was warned of bin Laden and the terrorists inside the U.S. as early as 1996... well before he was philandering with fat chicks and stogies.
Posted by: Jason at August 17, 2005 09:46 PM (TwSjW)
7
String theory is eleven dimensional.
Posted by: matoko kusanagi at August 18, 2005 09:53 AM (nF0OH)
8
Jason: The philandering started well before 1006. How soon we forget.
Posted by: greyrooster at August 18, 2005 11:56 PM (CBNGy)
9
This typing in the dark has got to stop. I mean 1996
Posted by: greyrooster at August 18, 2005 11:57 PM (CBNGy)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
At Odds
Yesterday, I stumbled across the blog
Obsidian Wings. They claim to be a "balanced" forum with three conservatives, two liberals and one fence-sitter writing for them. However, from my observations, either the liberals are doing 99% of the writing or the conservatives aren't terribly conservative. I haven't read far enough through their archives yet to find out which. However, one of their authors (hilzoy) is most definately far left. He seems to enjoy the favorite lefist passtime of blaming Bush for everything. In
this post, he rails against the Bush energy policy as not doing anything right. Most of his wrath seems to be directed at changing CAFE regulations.
I'll be the first one to admit that I don't know much about CAFE, but I think this post and its subsequent comments point out two immediate and consistant leftie positions. First, if something seems to be going wrong, the government must regulate it. Secondly, the way to regulate it is to tax it. Of course as a matter of principle, I'd prefer to see the government stay out of the whole thing. If Detroit wants to make cars that get 3 MPG and people want to buy and drive them, why shouldn't they be allowed to? If they want to spend $50 per fillup because they've got a 35 gallon tank, who are you to say that they can't? The people who want to buy the hybrids are buying them.
But even putting away the esthetic argument of government intervention, I simply don't think that their idea of more tax on bigger cars is going to work. As I pointed out to them, my job requires me to drive a van. I deliver computers and there's no way that I could do that in a hybrid. The same goes for a plumber who has to carry around his parts, or an electrician, or the many types of service industries that depend on making deliveries to their customers. And that's not to even mention the trucking industry. How long would it take to tax them completly out of business? Or to make their tax burden so heavy that it breaks everyone else's back in increased cost for goods? I did propose this question to them, but so far the only answer is "we'll just have to change our whole transportation infrastructure." Somehow, I don't think that's going to be the answer. So, I propose a question to all the lefties. Can you seriously look at the economy and the nation as it stands and think that taxing the hell out of the transportation industry will do anything but drive us to ruin?
Posted by: Drew at
07:01 AM
| Comments (20)
| Add Comment
Post contains 445 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Interesting post. Along the same lines, ABC local affiliate in NYC ran a story in the 6pm hour about how the gas prices have forced people to change their spending habits. Only problem with the story? The family whose habits are being changed - owns.... get this... an older Chevy Surburban! That thing gets like 10mpg on the highway. The family has 2 youngish kids, but is there really a need for that kind of vehicle? The story made it sound like they were sacrificing food off their kids plates. How about sacrificing the land yacht for a Corolla which gets 30mpg, has good safety, and won't kill your pocketbook when you go fill it up. Heck, my own 1998 Accord V-6 gets 25-30mpg in mixed driving. Sheesh.
These are people who made choices and now have to live with them. Meanwhile, the car companies like Toyota can't keep up with the demand for the Prius and other hybrids on the way. Sure, those vehicles make up a tiny fraction of the market as a whole, but the interest is surging along with the prices, which coincidentally makes the hybrids break even in terms of price differential.
Posted by: lawhawk at August 17, 2005 08:07 AM (AcoYr)
2
"I'll be the first one to admit that I don't know much about CAFE"
Dont let that stop you. This is the blogosphere!
Posted by: actus at August 17, 2005 08:10 AM (nYnig)
3
My neighbor has two little girls and she manages to survive with a Honda CRV. Gets something like 25 mpg. Anyway, the reason the Left insists that we tax gas and SUVs to death is because the Left has deemed them "wrong". That's it. They have decided, and you must obey. You will drive a cat-food-can car, or we will tax you to death. Here in the Bay Area, we already have large parking garages that have "No SUV or Pickup" signs. I guess my Nissan Frontier pickup is out o luck. It gets 23mpg and I fill it up once a month.
Posted by: Scott in CA at August 17, 2005 09:49 AM (2SDJ9)
4
Simply more proof that a good liberal is one with a hemp necktie affixed to an oak limb.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 17, 2005 10:03 AM (0yYS2)
5
Had actus been more inclined to answer your question, rather than just offer a drive by example of his 'wit', he would have reminded you of the old commie axiom that some will be sacrificed.
Won't hardly need transportation networks when you have nothing to move. See, problem solved. Now go wait in line for me for a turnip.
Posted by: Defense Guy at August 17, 2005 10:23 AM (jPCiN)
6
I have an SUV, but I only drive about 2 miles to work each day and when I go flying it's the only vehicle that I can fit my machine in. I don't always use it anyway. I drive the Jeep too.
Posted by: Oyster at August 17, 2005 10:24 AM (fl6E1)
7
"Won't hardly need transportation networks when you have nothing to move. See, problem solved. Now go wait in line for me for a turnip."
Hey, I don't even have a car! DC works quite fine without one.
Posted by: actus at August 17, 2005 10:31 AM (nYnig)
8
The present system is good. The more you burn the more tax you pay.
Posted by: Howie at August 17, 2005 10:45 AM (D3+20)
9
If Detroit wants to make cars that get 3 MPG and people want to buy and drive them, why shouldn't they be allowed to?
Well one obvious reason is that the more we spend on petroleum products the more terrorist-supporting and Wahabbi-madrasa-supporting countries earn. People would tend to not factor that in as a cost, which is a form of market failure. The other issue is anticipatory purchasing habits, and the economic model that says consumers and producers would raise the price on a diminishing resource by anticipating the decline of that resource tends to go against what we know about actual behavior, which often adjusts to such declines to late to avoid catastrophe.
Anyway, I don't
always have a problem with government does, by definition. Part of that is that we form governments to look after those conditions of cooperation that we'd otherwise neglect. The Public Choice argument (i.e. James Buchanan, et al) isn't that government has no role, or that such cooperation doesn't need looking after. It's that the monopoly rents sought by government perfert its capacity to perform such functions at a rational cost. They also acknowledge that there are two, not one, means of managing resources: markets and political voice.
Anyway, is a general observation the process of deregulation has, on balance, benefitted consumers almost across the board. The one area where that might not be the case is in trucking, and there are also probably some structural problems in the airlines industry that make it impossible to sustain if it were entirely market-driven. Consumers have definitely benefitted from deregulation of that industry, but it has also put the industry itself in a nearly untenable position. It's possible that the entire industry could go bankrupt, in which case the only option would be something like nationalization. Ken Button, essentially a libertarian economist, has written a good deal about this possibility.
But, again as a general rule, we still probably over-regulate, even after a two-decade strategy of deregulation.
Posted by: Demosophist at August 17, 2005 10:45 AM (zzime)
10
Well one obvious reason is that the more we spend on petroleum products the more terrorist-supporting and Wahabbi-madrasa-supporting countries earn.
Well, yours is certainly the most thoughtful answer I've seen. And I could accept most of it, but the quote above. Although I realize that there was corruption going on and other influences involved, it still stands that years of embargos did nothing to change Iraq. With that in mind, I don't think that enforcing policy decisions with trade is a good idea on any level. Certainly 30 years of embargos on Cuba haven't done anything to alleviate the situation there.
Posted by: Drew at August 17, 2005 11:06 AM (Ml8z/)
11
OT- but very interesting. Yes it is an odd site- and you may want to ignore some of the posts- but a very interesting story on the 9/11 funding and its ties in the US. Interested in your opinions
http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/8/16/233950/633
Posted by: Jimbo at August 17, 2005 11:15 AM (HFKAk)
12
"Certainly 30 years of embargos on Cuba haven't done anything to alleviate the situation there."
they haven't changed the situation, but they have impoverished cuba and made it so that it can't export its revolution. the same is the goal with islam and oil money: keep them from getting more money.
Posted by: actus at August 17, 2005 11:43 AM (nYnig)
13
"they have impoverished cuba"
I think Castro had more to do with that. Ya see, there's nothing stopping
the rest of the world from trading with Cuba. Yet they don't, or have little interest in it.
Perhaps that's because the only real result of investing or trading with Cuba is your money lines the pockets of Castro and his cronies?
Posted by: Robert Crawford at August 17, 2005 11:53 AM (1j9aH)
14
Drew: as I just wrote you at ObWi: you do realize that CAFE standards do not involve taxes, right?
Improbulus M: thanks for raising the tone.
Posted by: hilzoy at August 17, 2005 12:23 PM (F4dRv)
15
I've got to go with Drew on the Cuba thing. As soon as Casto dies we'll be in there with every tourist dollar we can get. Sure some of the problem is communism but the lack of trade makes the economic problems there worse. China is all fine and dandy but Cuba is evil. Horsehocky.
Posted by: Howie at August 17, 2005 12:28 PM (D3+20)
16
I am starting to see stories that the Democrats see the high gas prices as something that will benefit them in the upcoming elections, like they can lower the prices of gas. The only way that I can figure they would be able to do that would be to first tax the hell out of it, create a recession lowering demand, then dropping the price somewhat then to about what we pay now.
From a capitalist stand, I have been buying Exxon and BP stock for the last 2+ years. I used to get pissed at all the SUVs and empty pickup trucks blocking my view. Now I can care less, because each one of them is security against my investment losing money.
Both stocks offer monthly investment plans with no fees. I am not telling anyone to buy, as with my luck, you might jinx us all with your purchase and cause the stock to drop.....
Posted by: Fred Fry at August 17, 2005 01:20 PM (JXdhy)
17
Hilzoy, you do realize that I was referring to the commenter on your site who said that we should be taxed according to the curb weight of the vehicle?
Posted by: Drew at August 17, 2005 01:54 PM (ZM8DE)
18
NBC did a survey on the savings a Toyota Prius would get you in the time it took it to pay it off at current gas prices. . $81 in five years . .makes driving a "Roller Skate" really worth it, huh?
Posted by: large at August 17, 2005 03:08 PM (C7tBG)
19
Yeah I looked at the Honda Insight too. 25 g's and not they did not have the one with the stick that really gets you the milage. Plus 2000 buckbattery change every 50,000. It's for those who can afford to play help the environment not to actually save any money on fuel. so I went with the old cheap car that gets 32 mpg. One payment. No way to buy one of those nad save you'll spend more on service and stuff than you'll save on fuel.
Posted by: Howie at August 17, 2005 03:23 PM (D3+20)
20
Fred Fry: Bingo. I smile and cry at the same time. Exxon profits up 47% based on 2002 returns.
Now the truth is out. The huge profits being sucked in are going to the refineries and the oil companies.
Posted by: greyrooster at August 17, 2005 05:27 PM (CBNGy)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
August 15, 2005
Dumb Quote of the Day - Washington Post Edition
Don't the American people understand the danger of letting the Supreme Court become, in essence, a partisan of one side in a closely divided nation?
William Raspberry in today's Washington Post arguing the dangers of allowing Roberts to be nominated to the Supreme Court. I think what he meant to say was:
Don't the American people understand the danger of letting the Supreme Court become, in essence, a partisan of the right?
Posted by: Drew at
08:17 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 90 words, total size 1 kb.
1
sure, its always great if you have a bunch of liberal/leftists sitting in the courts....conservatives=bad....liberals=good......freakin libbies make me sick...they want everything their way or they cry like a bunch of 4 year olds
Posted by: THANOS35 at August 15, 2005 09:09 AM (IJ51c)
2
They never minded that it has been a partisan of the left for these many years. Talk about hypocrisy!
Posted by: jesusland joe at August 15, 2005 10:07 AM (DDXXI)
3
I'd like to make an observation. Liberals claim that they are against the right wing agenda, and claim that there is no leftist agenda, and therefore that the left isn't partisan. Well, that's partly accurate. The right does have an agenda; a positive, forward-looking agenda that is intended to make things better, while the left generally doesn't stand for anything, but rather only against whatever the right is for.
There are elements of the left who do have an absolute agenda, and it generally involves weakening the US in keeping with Marxist revolutionary doctrine, in preparation for its final downfall and overthrow to bring about the one-world revolutionary government, (which is why they embrace islamic terrorism; common cause, you see, and the intended outcome is different only in name, because communist totalitarianism and islamofascism are twin brothers in different suits), but these are really only a fringe element, though a loud and powerful fringe.
The vast majority of what we call the leftards and moonbats really have no broad agenda or ideas of their own whatsoever, which is evinced by the fact that they are not a cohesive, unified group, but really an amalgam of narrow-scope special interests whose ideologies and purposes vary wildly and are often at odds with one another, and with reality. The only thing that has ever allowed the Dhimmicrats to win elections is the fact that they've mastered the arta of class, race, and gender warfare, and depend on their targeted groups to vote in homogenous blocs, rather than as individuals.
Women, minorities, deviants, n'er-do-wells, spolied rich kids with no purpose, unions, the uneducated, the poor, the stupid, and the lazy; these are all target groups who are constantly harangued that every problem they have is the fault of those evil, rich, white Republicans (and Jooooos), who own everything and cause all the misery in the world. The leftards love scaring the elderly by shrill, hysterical claims that the Republicans are "going after" Medicare and Social Security, (they've been using this trick for almost half a century now, and we still haven't caught on), and they constantly scream and cry about everyone's "rights", most of which aren't found anywhere in the Constitution, and which can't be applied universally, and so don't qualify as rights, but that doesn't stop them.
They are parasites on our society and a plague upon our nation, and we've put up with them for far too long.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 15, 2005 10:09 AM (0yYS2)
4
They are just blowing smoke. The president pikced this guy to butter us all up before all the recess appointments. He is more and qualified for the job annd has said he will abide be priro rulins or recuse himself. If bush had noninated Ralph Nader they would be against it.
Posted by: Howie at August 15, 2005 04:50 PM (D3+20)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
August 12, 2005
Cowed by the bully ACLU lawyers, US lowers transit terrorism level
Thismakes me furious.
How can they officially let their guard down so soon after the London bombings?
Not that what they were doing before was helping anyway. I was in NYC 3 weeks after the first set of bombings, and one of my friends had her bag searched. I'd like to state for the record now that I watched the policemen search bags for 15 minutes.
They searched the bags about 8 women for every man.
UPDATE: Can you or your church group do something about the ACLU? Yes.
Posted by: Suzanne at
02:43 PM
| Comments (16)
| Add Comment
Post contains 111 words, total size 1 kb.
1
NYC is unaffected by the national lowering of the alert level. NYC has been at a heightened level of alert since 9/11 and that isn't going to change because of some DC bureaucrat deciding to play spin the bottle with the alert level bimbo (today's color is chartreuse).
The searches will continue in NYC until the NYPD and the Mayor decide that their utility is no longer necessary.
Posted by: lawhawk at August 12, 2005 03:11 PM (AcoYr)
2
Doc fix your link. It took me to a dead end.
Posted by: Rod Stanton at August 12, 2005 03:18 PM (03F0I)
3
Thanks for the link...this is how people can get involved in helping to stop this evil organization.
Posted by: Jay at August 12, 2005 03:23 PM (BKqRl)
4
Amazing. A bunch of pussy liberal America Hating lawyers just put the regular working joes who ride the subways up for grabs to Saadeek and his pals Mahsmood and Saalami.
If the fuckers blow one off, I hope one of these pissant ALCU lawyers is right there to take the blast. His kids too.
Posted by: Filthy Allah at August 12, 2005 03:36 PM (5ceWd)
5
Staff Sgt. Jason Rivera, 26, a Marine recruiter in Pittsburgh, went to the home of a high school student who had expressed interest in joining the Marine Reserve to talk to his parents. It was a large home in a well-to-do suburb north of the city. Two American flags adorned the yard. The prospect's mom greeted him wearing an American flag T-shirt. "I want you to know we support you," she gushed.
Rivera soon reached the limits of her support.
"Military service isn't for our son. It isn't for our kind of people," she told him.
Have a great weekend my lil chickenhawks!
Posted by: Max at August 12, 2005 04:10 PM (HFKAk)
6
Dang, Flithy. That's a bit harsh. The kids?
Posted by: Oyster at August 12, 2005 04:10 PM (fl6E1)
7
yea, what Filthy says is very harsh but it would be the only way to get the attention of these idiots at the ACLU..for one of their own,especially if it was someone high up in their ranks, to be killed/or a very close family member, maybe than they would take the terrorists seriously...sad but true...only way to get threw the ACLU's thick skulls
Posted by: THANOS35 at August 12, 2005 04:44 PM (IJ51c)
8
What's the source for that Max?
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 12, 2005 07:08 PM (0yYS2)
9
Something I've been meaning to say for a long time. FUCK YOU MAX.
Posted by: greyrooster at August 12, 2005 07:40 PM (CBNGy)
Posted by: Oyster at August 12, 2005 09:39 PM (YudAC)
11
Sorry, but I am confused. You claim the ACLU was responsible for lowering the threat level, which has no basis in fact. I'll bet there will be no attack for the next 3 months. Then you complain that the NYC Police were wasting time searching women over men, so the ACLU's snit, which hasn't stopped anything yet, is a moot point.
Posted by: Jake at August 13, 2005 01:11 AM (zeHqd)
12
The source for Max's statement:
Staff Sgt. Jason Rivera, 26, a Marine recruiter in Pittsburgh, went to the home of a high school student who had expressed interest in joining the Marine Reserve to talk to his parents. It was a large home in a well-to-do suburb north of the city. Two American flags adorned the yard. The prospect's mom greeted him wearing an American flag T-shirt. "I want you to know we support you," she gushed.
Rivera soon reached the limits of her support.
"Military service isn't for our son. It isn't for our kind of people," she told him."
is: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05223/552161.stm
Let me repeat that amazing quote for Chickenhawks:
"MILITARY SERVICE IS NOT FOR OUR KIND OF PEOPLE"
which means, only economic cannon fodder need to die for BUSH.
Like my new email?
Klanrooster - you are still a sorry racist putty-butt!
Posted by: Downing Street Memo at August 13, 2005 02:28 AM (niirf)
13
A lot of people who don't live in NY are very upset.
Posted by: actus at August 13, 2005 09:05 AM (nYnig)
14
"They searched the bags about 8 women for every man."
i would imagine more women have bags.
Posted by: actus at August 13, 2005 09:07 AM (nYnig)
15
Downing Street Moron: Does your mother still work the back alleys of Toyko.
Posted by: greyrooster at August 13, 2005 09:17 PM (CBNGy)
16
Max: Do you have a point here? Are you saying the sons of the wealthy don't become privates in the Army? We already know that asshole. One mothers belief stands for all. Perhaps the women wishes her son to go to Harvard and become a nuclear sciencist and someday have the previlege of blowing up pricks like you.
Some families send their children to college before they serve their country. I did. Not too many high school grads flying jets these days.
By the way. Patton was a millionaire. You're a turd Max. Nothing but a lonely hateful little turd.
Posted by: greyrooster at August 13, 2005 09:27 PM (CBNGy)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Sheehan: Secret Service Out To Kill Us
Tinfoil alert. I guess since Sheehan's son died in the War that we're not allowed to institutionalize her?
The Astute Blogger sends us word about Sheehan's latest moonbat statements:
Cindy says that the protesters will be killed if they stay the night.
“We’re not letting them intimidate us. If we get killed out here, know that
the Secret Service killed us.” [MORE HERE]
Since I saw Cindy on MSNBC this morning, I'm going to presume that the Secret Service hit squad missed their target. By the way, the MSNBC story was very flattering to Sheehan. No mention of her
antisemetism,
paranoia, and false alliby that her protests are about the President's alleged lack of concern.
Greg Hays is photoblogging the Cindy Sheehan protest from Crawford.
NoDNC and T. Longren have the propaganda angle covered.
Very Small Doses presents a Cindy Sheehan media timeline here.
Point Five, Confederate Yankee, and Bespoke Memetics have the parody angle covered.
PS-Due to an Instalanche, LGF, and Michelle Malkin link all within 48 hours I've been overwhelmed with e-mails. Sorry if I haven't got back to you. I now understand why Glenn Reynolds never returns my phone calls.
Posted by: Rusty at
11:51 AM
| Comments (17)
| Add Comment
Post contains 204 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Yet another white knight that the radical left expects to lead them to victory, who devolves into a raving YYYEEEEAAARRRGGGHHH lunatic.
When do we get to fight a worthy opponent? Or do we have to spend our blogging time swatting flies?
Posted by: a4g at August 12, 2005 12:15 PM (Wekol)
2
First, Venom, this horse can't die until the one's who gave it life kill it. (and I don't mean kill
her so don't misconstrue that) That's not going to happen until they find someone new whose blood they haven't sucked dry yet. Then they'll just leave her at the side of the road and "moveon". Second, the new Iranian President may be a case of mistaken identity, but not a "conspiracy".
Posted by: Oyster at August 12, 2005 12:40 PM (fl6E1)
3
Hahaha, I love how it's casually dismissed as simply mistaken identity when everyone was so, well, venomous not too long ago. C'mon, I know it's all fun to show the online diaries for the world to see, but let's face it: the "blogosphere" has a lot of growing up to do if the majority of people are going to take it seriously. A reference source it is not, and while I know someone will chime in and say "it's not meant to be a source of refernece," all I can say, then, is that some people sure are wasting a lot of time doing "reseach." I mean, if it's just a mistake, then why were so many people's panties in a bunch over Rathergate? Sure he fucked up (to put it mildly), and paid the price by falling on his sword. I'm sure we'll see a lot of bloggers give up their blogs as their pennence for making a "mistake." I mean, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?
By the way, kudos to the CIA for doing some legit research instead of jumping on the first rumor to hit them.
On the other note, you could be right, Oyster. Not until every neocon and every leftie have extracted whatever they can out of this woman will they leave her alone. Both are guilty of the same thing.
Posted by: Venom at August 12, 2005 01:01 PM (dbxVM)
4
What, praytell, are the neocons, (is that the same as Joooooos?), "extracting" from this shameless propaganda whore who desecrates the memory of her heroic son? For we the few, the proud, the sane, she is a passing amusement, as she can only hurt the leftard moonbat cause and makes a good distraction from whatever main course the media buffet has been serving ad nauseum. I for one say we should give her all the airtime she wants, because she's obviously a Rove plant, since everything she says or does only strengthens the President's position.
And Oyster is always right.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 12, 2005 01:10 PM (0yYS2)
5
Why is it that whenever someone disagrees with a neocon position, the neocon automatically assumes it's something Jewish-related? Give it up, or at the very least, loosen the tinfoil.
And what are neocons extracting from Sheehan? Why, Clueless Maximus, the same as the lefties: shameless promotion for their own ideals. Admit it, no one on other side of the issue actually cares that she lost a son in Iraq - it's all about how they can play her against the other side.
That is the real tragedy in all of this. Both sides should let her protest and stop making judgement calls on her. Until you've lost a child in conflict, you won't know what she's going through or her motivations.
Posted by: Venom at August 12, 2005 01:29 PM (dbxVM)
6
i dont give a flying flaming fuck if it is mistaken identity, but as he has made very early on,the new President of Iran is definitly a big mouthed, egotistic, eager to start up a shitstorm, idiot....Iran is supplying the terrorists in Iraq with shape charged explosives and im sure that the Iranian Pres is sending them with love....yea, i understand he is really just a figure head and im sure he knows this as the madmullahs really are the true power behind the throne in Iran, but it makes him a really nice juicy target for a bullet to his head when he acts and talks like a bigshot in charge......and that bullet might just come from his own people if he gets to big for his britches....after all, the mullahs do not share power
Posted by: THANOS35 at August 12, 2005 01:43 PM (IJ51c)
7
oh, and for Cindy...lemme play a violin for ya while you cry us a river...she is definitly ready for a nice padded cell up here in NJ, right in Gray Stone
Posted by: THANOS35 at August 12, 2005 01:47 PM (IJ51c)
8
Cindy obviously has deep emotional and psychological troubles. I hope somebody that cares for her will do the right thing and have her intsitutionalized.
Posted by: tyler at August 12, 2005 02:03 PM (Y9Lwb)
9
Venom, I take umbrage at your implication that the "right side" is using her for the same purpose. Most of those on the right, myself included, feel sorry for her because of the obvious way the anti-war movement is exploiting her.
Dan Rather's retirement was already planned. And he did not give up being a personality. He's still spouting.
And you're not allowed to use the "tinfoil" inference. That's only for us nazi-neo-cons to use when referring to the libs. Get your own saying ;-)
Posted by: Oyster at August 12, 2005 02:18 PM (fl6E1)
10
Aw, but tinfoil is such a universal household product - and it fits so many heads on both sides of the spectrum.
Oyster, maybe you do feel sorry for her for the way the left is exploiting her (but, oddly enough, not for losing a son), but judging from the comments here I'd say you're in the minority. I mean, look at this thread alone - most would prefer to ridicule her (which is, you must agree, a form of self-serving propoganda in itself).
And Thanos, sure, the new president of Iran is definitely a theocratic fascist, but that obvious observation wasn't the point being made. It was simply the lack of acknowledgment by those that were oh-so-certain he was a hostage taker a while ago that they were, it seems now, pretty wrong. And the accompanying point that it's pretty hypocritical for bloggers who so love to call for resignations by the MSM when they fuck up, but then offer nothing similar when they fuck up.
And what's with the violin crack? Have you given up playing with yourself to play a violin? Bravo. Thanks for missing the point again, btw.
Posted by: Venom at August 12, 2005 02:39 PM (dbxVM)
11
I feel like flying down there and smacking this loonie.
Posted by: FIlthy allah at August 12, 2005 03:40 PM (5ceWd)
12
Not for losing a son?!!! Are you kidding me? You, sir, are far too judgemental and way too quick with unfounded accusations. I'm not going to beat you up too bad for that because you don't know
why I can empathize with her in that regard. I'll just leave it at that and ask you to read my previous comments on the matter before you stick your foot in your mouth again.
Posted by: Oyster at August 12, 2005 04:27 PM (fl6E1)
13
Hmmm, something smells... "greggy" in here, or is that just my imagination? At any rate, it look like the village has a new idiot. Welcome, Venom!
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 12, 2005 04:43 PM (0yYS2)
14
yea, seems like another greg clone....insults you when you expose his bullshit and than trys to move the goalposts when he knows he is wrong...nice try venom but youll have to do better, close but close only counts in horseshoes and handgrenades
Posted by: THANOS35 at August 12, 2005 04:55 PM (IJ51c)
15
Mistaking the mullet headed president of Iran for a terrorist A BIG DEAL. Big deal why? Damn these liberal will make a big thing out of nothing. What has it got to do with anything? We all know the president of Iran is an Islamofacist. If he wasn't the mad moolas would have the military (that they are in charge of) remove him.
Maybe he was a hostage taker, maybe not. Who cares and why does in matter. The mad moolas are for anyone against America. Like Venom, Colon Babaler, etc:
Posted by: greyrooster at August 12, 2005 08:42 PM (CBNGy)
16
Why is it that moonbats always find something irrelevant and idiotic to latch onto when there are bigger fish to fry? The fact is, the president of Iran has already said he's going ahead with nukes, he doesn't care about anyone else. Sounds just like Saddam with the UN sanctions.
And Oyster, you really shouldn't let a nitpicking leftist get to you, dear. I have a son in Iraq and I'm absolutely outraged what Cindy Sheehan, Moveon.org, and the rest of them are saying about Iraq--among the cracks about BushitlerRovianConspiracy that it's a war about Israel. Who's making this all about the jews again, Venom? Excuse me, but I'm always hearing the leftists talk about "peace" and "money for jobs not war" and who say "kill more jews for peace".
Cindy Sheehan is spouting anti-semitic rhetoric like this:
Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel.
Pretty extreme. Even her own family is separating themselves from her message and is denouncing what she's doing.
Posted by: Cao at August 14, 2005 11:08 AM (RyucI)
17
Gee, thanks for the "welcome," Clueless Maximus...incidentally, where the fuck have you been? I've been posting here for almost a year now/ These days, I choose to let the moronic neocons wallow in their self-indulgent nonsense, but I actually feels some amount of pity for this mother, and decided to give my opinion (which was that since none of us can really empathize with her, we ought to just ignore this "story."). Thanks for missing the point, smart guy.
Thanos - moving the goalposts? See, you're missing one of the fundamental rules of a debate: you can't accuse someone of "moving the goalposts" when it's been pointed out to you that you've done it. Pot, please meet kettle.
Cao - I don't really read Sheehan saying anything anti-Jewish. Being anti-foreign-policy-as-it-pertains-to-Isreali-relations doesn't really make one anti-semitic, unless you're looking for that angle from the get-go.
Look, I never said this woman wasn't being exploited by the left. Definitely she is. I'm saying two things: 1) She's a woman who's lost a son in combat and until you're a parent in that kind of circumstance, you can't possibly have any idea what's going on in her head; and, 2) Let this topic go. There will always be anti-war protesters, and if everyone gets their panties in a knot each time one makes the news, well, you'll never have any time to enjoy life.
Posted by: Venom at August 15, 2005 10:05 AM (dbxVM)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
There's your "extreme circumstances"
Life News:
Pro-abrotion Sen. Barbara Boxer of California says she will filibuster the nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court if he does not say he is in favor of upholding the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized unlimited abortions.
Anybody want to lay odds Frist doesn't have the balls to stand up to her?
Oddly enough, when I did a Google news search, the only two direct hits I got were Life News and Outside The Beltway. Seems that the rest of the MSM are going to give Boxer a pass on this. Go figure.
Posted by: Drew at
10:13 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 104 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: Howie at August 12, 2005 10:17 AM (D3+20)
2
She needs other Senators to fillibuster. Otherwise, she's just blowing hot air, as usual for her. I can't imagine Roberts not getting at least 5 or 6 Democratic Senators' votes. So I don't see a fillibuster happening, no matter how much Babs wants it.
Posted by: Scott in CA at August 12, 2005 10:17 AM (WzxC8)
3
I hope they do filibuster so the GOP can nuke that nonsense once and for all.
Posted by: Carlos at August 12, 2005 10:32 AM (8e/V4)
4
I will take odds on Sen. Frist being a pussy. It is par for the course I am afraid.
If they buckle now, all hope is lost. After all, if you can not defend a guy like Roberts, who will the GOP defend?
Posted by: WunderKraut at August 12, 2005 11:45 AM (wRkc3)
5
In all fairness, she was not part of the "gamg of 14," so she is free to do whatever the hell she wants along with Schumer, Leahy, et. al. It is the 7 Democrats who signed the deal that must conclude there are "extraordinary circumstances," and thusfar I hear nothing from them.
Posted by: Mark at August 12, 2005 11:50 AM (GvZ+q)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Firey Coals
A commenter (Chris Hanson) on
Confederate Yankee asks of the supporters of Cindy Sheehan:
"...what happened to your moral compass?"
This is becoming depressing for me. It was fine, for awhile, just to be on the "right side of history," but as these events have progressed and the original issues about the war have receded-- the stakes in Iraq becoming clearer and more obvious with each passing day--the manner in which the Left has chosen to destroy itself for what a friend of mine appropriately calls a "lust for peace" has surpassed any conception of foolishness that I might have thought possible. The spectacle of this mother placing her grief at the feet of such a self-destructive and destructively inclined movement isn't really resolved by any sort of anger I can manage to whip up against her. It's just plain sad, and sad in a way that transcends the sadness anyone must feel about the death of any individual (including a loved one). It's the sadness of discovering that good intentions not only don't equate to good judgment, but can easily transform into very very bad, even vicious, intentions. Why are we pulling apart, instead of together?
I read the other day about James Wolcott complaining that people like Roger L. Simon have "betrayed the Left" in their support for the war, but to me it seems precisely the opposite. For whatever moral legitimacy I had once ceded to the Left for the sake of its intention to support the misfortunate, or to serve as a brake on unfairness and selfishness, has been replaced by moral and political skepticism. And I don't imagine I'm alone. How could any movement that claims to take such ideals seriously, so seriously and wilfully betray them? How could any movement willing not just to argue for, but to insist on, the moral equivalence between Camp X-Ray and Auschwitz, or who reserves any esteem for our own generation's "Lord Haw Haw", or any one of a dozen or so similar travesties I could recall were I so inclined, ever again be entrusted with the public good? As Marc "Armed Liberal" Danziger asked recently: Why do you so hate the poor? This is a cataclysm. If you don't see that, you're not paying attention.
And just to put the final touch on what has to be yet another disillusioned flower child's naked lunch, it seems to me that George Bush's response to this crowd surging to press Mrs. Sheehan's grief in his face like a cream pie (while her own family recoils in shame) has simply and unambiguously canceled a wave of hatred... with generosity, tolerance and understanding. Which, frankly, makes me feel a little more optimistic about the long term.
more...
Posted by: Demosophist at
12:13 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 782 words, total size 5 kb.
1
It's unfathomable, but nothing new. This is the one way that Iraq is like Vietnam - the ultimate betrayal of country and abandonment of morals by the Left. It seems to be some type of mental breakdown, an inability to face reality leading to a retreat into a fantasy world with its own wacky internal logic.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at August 12, 2005 12:52 AM (RHG+K)
2
Well spoken... and yet, your wisdom will continue to fall upon deaf ears, until history once again forces their silence from shame, as it has done so many times in the past.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at August 12, 2005 06:07 AM (0fZB6)
3
As to the Sheehan reference:
Even before that letter came out I had misgivings about how the family may have felt. They were largely silent. But when her husband said, "...we
try to continue to support her," I knew that was spoken by a man at wit's end. I'm not surprised by the letter sent by her family. The husband's words said it all beforehand. He undoubtedly loves his wife, but he is frustrated.
The Michael Mooreites, Code Pinkers and antiwar.com'ers should be ashamed of themselves for exploiting this woman.
Posted by: Oyster at August 12, 2005 07:04 AM (YudAC)
4
Sadly, this is nothing new. And it goes back further than Vietnam -- I read a bit last night about a group of weeping mothers trucked around the country during the late 1930s to support the "America first" movement.
Posted by: Robert Crawford at August 12, 2005 07:06 AM (1j9aH)
5
Confederate Yankee & Robert:
Actually it goes back at least to the Copperhead movement during the Civil War, but I had hoped that we might be better able to pull together this time because we were actually attacked. Yes, we weren't attacked
by Iraq, but as many have observed we weren't attacked by Germany either, nor by any countries in N. Africa which we invaded during the early days of WWII.
The Belmont Club observes that every time it appears that an enemy has managed to obtain and "asymmetrical weapons advantage" (the bomber, the torpedo boat and submarine, etc.) the first impulse is always appeasement. As things unfold it becomes clear that the apparently invincible weapon can be defeated with countermeasures and the tables are turned.
Posted by: Demosophist at August 12, 2005 09:45 AM (IbWE6)
6
The left has always proclaimed their sympathy for, and solidarity with, the downtrodden, but when the curtain is lifted, it reveals the truth; cynical manipulation of real problems in order to further their radical agendas. No leftist organization has ever really been dedicated only to helping the helpless, but has only carried out good works as propaganda cover for their real intentions. The ACLU exists solely to manipulate the fight for Constitutional rights and use the Constitution against the very people and society it was meant to protect. The UN has become a country club for terrorists and dictators. Amnesty International, Greenpeace, et al; name any leftist organization, and it won't be hard to find their true agenda, which universally boils down to one thing, anti-Americanism.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 12, 2005 04:52 PM (0yYS2)
7
Amnesty International, Greenpeace, et al; name any leftist organization, and it won't be hard to find their true agenda, which universally boils down to one thing, anti-Americanism.
Well, there are people on the left who aren't in that camp, but most of them I know voted for Bush this time around. The Left has never taken the accusation of anti-Americanism very seriously, and I think it's going to either hurt them, or hurt the country, very badly before this is over.
There is, of course, an institutional reason for the anti-Americanism that goes back to the "Why no socialism?" literature, of people like Louis Hartz and even Friedrich Engels. And you're right, it has little to do with any serious concern about the poor. But just because that's the case doesn't mean their opposition has the answers, or cares about the issue. And if they don't learn to deal with it and care about it, the door will be left open for these n'er-do-wells to work their stuff.
Posted by: Demosophist at August 12, 2005 06:00 PM (IbWE6)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
August 11, 2005
Gee, Thanks, Cindy!
Cindy Sheehan gives us a shout-out:
Cindy Sheehan, the woman whose soldier son was killed in Iraq and who is now camping by a road in Crawford, Texas demanding a meeting with President Bush, on Wednesday thanked a group of antiwar bloggers for supporting her, saying that without the Internet, America would be a "fascist state."
"This is something that can't be ignored," Sheehan said during a conference call with bloggers representing sites like democrats.com, codepink4peace.org, and crooksandliars.com. "They can't ignore us, and they can't put us down. Thank God for the Internet, or we wouldn't know anything, and we would already be a fascist state."
"Our government is run by one party, every level," Sheehan continued, "and the mainstream media is a propaganda tool for the government." Sheehan also called the 2004 presidential election "the election, quote-unquote, that happened in November."
Read the rest
Posted by: Vinnie at
05:37 PM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
Post contains 151 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: Carlos at August 11, 2005 06:29 PM (8e/V4)
2
I don't have time to read that, is she talking about the Governor's race in Washington?
Posted by: slickdpdx at August 11, 2005 06:39 PM (MjGRu)
3
yea, with the internet we can keep an eye on people like Cindy who try and spread misinformation and propaganda for the left....and it makes me laugh every time when someone who is on the leftists side makes the same old sorry excuse about the MSM being a tool for the White House when we all know and see every day that it is a tool for those on the left with all the lies and distortions it spreads....same old some old...oh boohoo, cry me a river Cindy
Posted by: THANOS35 at August 11, 2005 06:56 PM (IJ51c)
4
I believe Cindy is trying to get a job at Indymedia. Cindy, better put on your tin foil hat, and do watch out for those cellphone towers.
Posted by: jesusland joe at August 11, 2005 06:59 PM (DDXXI)
5
This woman makes me sick. I think she is actually glad her son died. She is basking in the lime light. Her 15 minutes of fame. How low can you go.
I understand her relatives do not feel the way she does. In fact they feel she is misbehaving and just playing to the leftist anti government crowd. Shame on her. She defiles the memory of her son. In addition. She already has met with the president some time ago and was kissing his ass then. I guess she didn't get enough attention that time. Just because your son is a hero doesn't mean your not a bitch.
Posted by: greyrooster at August 11, 2005 08:11 PM (CBNGy)
6
As the parent of a service member I can't think of many more things to do than she has done to dishonor her son. What a disgrace to his memory!
Posted by: Don Miguel at August 11, 2005 10:11 PM (UAn5X)
7
Don't hate the messenger, just the message.
Despite not liking her message, you should remember this women has experienced a terrible loss, and as such has been manipulated into changing her story.
I despise those whom would prey on someones vulnerability after such a loss, and use it to further their own agenda.
may she find peace.
Posted by: dave at August 11, 2005 10:27 PM (DO6vD)
8
For someone in the throes of agony, she sure loves propaganda whoring for the camera. Can anyone else smell that? Smells like a book deal in the wind to me...
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 11, 2005 10:48 PM (0yYS2)
9
I think this stopped being about Cindy Sheehan's son and began being about Cindy Sheehan some time ago. One can sympathize with the grief, but only short of the point at which that grief becomes mere mindless hatred. She is dishonoring the memory of her son, and cheapening the his sacrifice. Furthermore, she is playing into the hands of those who have more sympathy for his muderers than for the fallen soldier himself.
Posted by: DWC at August 12, 2005 09:00 AM (Suv/B)
10
maybe they will give her a reality show, and i say reality with LOTS of sarcasm concerning Cindy
Posted by: THANOS35 at August 12, 2005 09:56 AM (IJ51c)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Billy Carter, Roger Clinton, Cindy Sheehan
What do all of these people have in common?
Drudge:
The Sheehan Family lost our beloved Casey in the Iraq War and we have been silently, respectfully grieving. We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the the expense of her son's good name and reputation. The rest of the Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our President, silently, with prayer and respect.
Ken Summers posts this from Melanie Morgan, of KSFO:
The letter came from Cheri Quarterolo, a regular listener of KSFO Radio. Cheri is Casey Sheehan's Aunt and godmother. I have confirmed that the letter represents the entire Sheehan side of Casey's family.
Many of the relatives do not want their names made public, and will not be making further statements. But Mrs. Quarterolo confirms that Cindy's actions have been extremely hurtful. "We're coming unglued. We can't walk down the street without people stopping us and telling us that they agree with Cindy. We do not."
Mrs. Qarterolo is Drudge's source and has also personally confirmed this to
Ken at It Comes in Pints.
Posted by: Rusty at
03:51 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 205 words, total size 1 kb.
1
So if I can get someone in your family to condemn what you're doing at this site you become discredited. This is so lame. Again.
Posted by: Professor Peter Von Nostrand at August 11, 2005 04:54 PM (zxWKA)
2
Pete: The concept of "Upset Relative=Bad War" is discredited.
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at August 11, 2005 05:06 PM (KEdco)
3
The difference is that the first two are just publicity whores, but Sheehan is a propaganda whore.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 11, 2005 05:20 PM (0yYS2)
4
Could it be that, even though her son's death is a real tragedy, she is enjoying playing this role? She wouldn't be the first to desperately cling to fifteen seconds of fame...especially when it also keeps the memory of her son alive. When she stops...
Posted by: slickdpdx at August 11, 2005 06:43 PM (MjGRu)
5
she is beating a dead horse, let her rag on till she is horse....she has the right to talk and she also has the right to make herself look like some loon standing on a corner talking about the end of the world...she wants her 15 minutes of fame to go on???....well she will get her fame....more like infamy....rag on, Cindy, rag on.....Too Bad, So Sad
Posted by: THANOS35 at August 11, 2005 07:09 PM (IJ51c)
6
She is having a ball. Probably sitting on here living room floor cutting out all the newspaper ads and taping MSM over and over.
Posted by: greyrooster at August 11, 2005 08:24 PM (CBNGy)
7
Hey, I think Billy Carter is a lot more respectable than Jimmy.
Posted by: Rachel at August 12, 2005 08:37 AM (HsaNj)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Who is the Idiot that Refused to Pass on Atta's Name to the FBI? (UPDATED)
By now, most of the readers of The Jawa Report have heard of
Able Danger. According to
The New York Times, the secret military intelligence team known as
Able Danger, compiled a dossier on four of the nineteen 9/11 suspects in 2000--including the mastermind, Mohammed Atta. The team recommended that the information be shared with the FBI and that the suspected terrorists be deported. Unfortunately, that information was not shared. In fact, a doctrine first developed in the Carter administration and later extended by a clarification made by Clinton Administration official, and later 9/11 Commissioner, Jamie Gorelick, that put a 'wall' between intelligence operations and police activities.
I do not blame the Clinton Administration for 9/11, nor do I think it was preventable in any meaningful way, but the so-called Able Danger revelations do raise some interesting issues.
The first is the most obvious, and that is the silliness of ever erecting a barrier between law-enforcement and intelligence agencies. In hindsight this was stupid. Some things are so stupid, though, that to need hindsight to see their stupidity one must first find a group of morons, take out the brightest of the bunch, and then find the dullest bulb in the pack. That it was enacted by Democratic Congress intent on reeling in the perceived excesses of the CIA is no excuse for this piece of legislation. Just. Plain. Dumb.
But it also raises another important question: Who was it that refused to turn over the Able Danger documents to the FBI?
I do not personally blame the individual who refused to turn over Atta and his al Qaeda co-conspirators to the FBI. That is, it's not their fault for being a brainless bureaucrat. They were just following policy. But policy or no, there was an individual who had to look at the documents and make a decision not to share this intelligence with those that could do something about it. Who was this person who made the decision to follow policy?
more...
Posted by: Rusty at
11:09 AM
| Comments (28)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1734 words, total size 12 kb.
1
sadly, by all chances we will probally not find out any time soon, maybe when this person is on their death bed, than they will come out and admit it....but im sure the left has their conspiracy theories on who it is....i would bet that Rove is numero uno suspect
Posted by: THANOS35 at August 10, 2005 10:42 PM (IJ51c)
2
>>>"...because of concerns about pursuing information on "U.S. persons" — a legal term that includes U.S. citizens
as well as foreigners admitted to the country for permanent residence — Special Operations Command did not provide the Army information to the FBI.
oh...my...god. Liberalism is going to get us all killed.
Posted by: Carlos at August 10, 2005 11:04 PM (8e/V4)
3
"...the 9/11 Commission never bothered to ask the Pentagon about its intelligence missions -- or simply disregarded evidence relating to it."
We know it's not the only thing the 9/11 Commission either disregarded or didn't ask. Any time you get a bunch of angry people together with pre-conceived notions you get zip in return. I understand that, originally, the idealism of trying to protect our liberties was the motivation behind witholding information, but for four years now there have been people who had this information and kept it under wraps for
political purposes. What other reason could there be?
Posted by: Oyster at August 11, 2005 06:11 AM (YudAC)
4
I've been reading a book called "Ghost Wars, From the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan to September 10th, 2001". It's a strictly objective, analytical work, and it details so many missed opportunities to do the right thing, but because of politics, policy, or law, terrorists were given a pass time and again. It's not light reading, but it's worth it. But one warning; you can't read much at a time, because it will make you physically sick when you realize the magnitude of incompetence and stupidity that exists in our government.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 11, 2005 08:25 AM (0yYS2)
5
The speculation that Sandy Berger was behind the withholding of the Able Danger information is strongly reinforced by his theft of the documents to protect his "reputation". It is truly frightening that Sandy would have been Secretary of State in a Kerry administration.
Where the Clintons ran their administration according to poll results and were afraid of adding to the Waco fallout, ignoring a problem does not make it go away, except for the short term. When the Somalia aid effort went badly, President Clinton immediately ordered withdrawal regardless of the humanitarian consequences. The public should hear no more about it; everything is OK.
The Left compares presidential approval ratings from the Clinton administration to the current Bush administration as if it is an indicator of effectiveness. President George W. Bush is doing what is right whether or not it is popular. We are seeing in Iraq/Afghanistan the equivalent of the early days of the fall of the Soviet empire that started during the Reagan presidency. If the United States is not demoralized by the fifth-column Left and finishes this task, the Middle East will be a much different and better place in five years.
Posted by: MikeG at August 11, 2005 08:46 AM (yQulH)
Posted by: Howie at August 11, 2005 08:57 AM (D3+20)
7
Check out the latest at Fox. Fox seems to be the single MSM site to have any interest.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,165414,00.html
Posted by: Kstumpf at August 11, 2005 11:25 AM (GImrl)
8
The other MSM outlets are just waiting for instructions on how to spin this as part of BusHitlers devious plot to help the Joooos take over the world. Are you afraid of the discussion? What are you trying to hide?
Posted by: Defense Guy at August 11, 2005 11:52 AM (jPCiN)
9
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't "following policy" akin to "just following orders?"
Posted by: BorgQueen at August 11, 2005 12:34 PM (AxlwF)
10
Good. Grief. This is really, really, really bad. Liberalism really is a mental disorder...I tremble for the future of this land.
Posted by: Labosseuse at August 11, 2005 12:48 PM (Xjv2p)
11
a little off topic:
1...Robert Bork for Supreme Court Justice
2...Destroy the Iranian Mullaocracy-now
3...Secure our borders and deport illegals
Posted by: chuck at August 11, 2005 01:06 PM (oW1VQ)
12
Here is a
memo issued by Jamie Gorelick on April 14, 2004 that's interesting.
Also, the commission admitted they were told of Able Danger during a trip to Afghanistan last year, but now they're saying that Atta's name wasn't mentioned. Their story keeps changing. So now guess what they're doing?
Staffers are searching the National Archives for information! Whatcha wanna bet they should be searching Sandy Burglar's laundry instead?
Posted by: Oyster at August 11, 2005 01:54 PM (fl6E1)
13
More on Bergler and Clarke and the mood in summer 2000
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/497
Cheers.
Posted by: AJStrata at August 11, 2005 01:56 PM (67DAA)
14
Another question;
I've been reading that Mohammed Atta, et al were here on non-immigrant visas and were in fact not protected by the law that said they could not be survielled. That the FBI did indeed know about them but didn't go after them for other reasons. One being that Able Danger was mining all sorts of information illegally at the time, i.e. tapping phones and monitoring other communications without warrants.
Got any ideas? I don't have a clue.
But it still doesn't answer the question of exactly what Sandy Berger took from the archives during the 9/11 investigation and why. If it was to protect someone other than just himself, you know good and well it wasn't to protect the current administration.
Posted by: Oyster at August 11, 2005 02:43 PM (fl6E1)
15
Deliberately blocking the Able Danger report from being acted upon by the FBI (and CIA) sounds like a treasonous offense to me.
Posted by: Ron at August 11, 2005 02:46 PM (wO/DS)
16
Someone, please tell me why every member of the Clinton Administration has not been chased around a strip mall parking lot and finally bitch slapped behind the dumpster next to taco bell????
Dear Lord. Please send every one of these degenerate liberals a blistering case of rectal warts.
Amen.
Posted by: Filthy Allah at August 11, 2005 03:43 PM (5ceWd)
17
Where is that dumn ass Professor Von Nostrand? I'll bet he has a "serious leftist position" on this subject.
Posted by: jesusland joe at August 11, 2005 03:44 PM (DDXXI)
18
Yesterday, the commission said they never heard of Able Danger, today, the said, why yes we have, after Weldon said he had multiple witnesses. I doubt the Pentagon was the blocking force. Remember, Gorelick made the wall so all things cleared through her.
http://snookerswamp.blogspot.com/2005/08/now-911-commission-had-heard-of-able.html
I have another post that might interest you. Dug up an oldie from FrontPage that may explain alot.
http://snookerswamp.blogspot.com/2005/08/gorelick-wall-was-it-just-coincidence.html
I got a name from an anonymous email source that said he was one of the 'fixers' of the final report -- Dietrich Snell. Don't know anything yet, other than he was involved with the 9/11 commission, may try to google up something tonight.
Soemthing is begining to stink, real bad.
I guess when you know people who died, you really want to get to the bottom of it all.
Posted by: bill at August 11, 2005 03:58 PM (7evkT)
19
Lying about national security issues.
Obstruction of a Federal investigation.
Theft and destruction of evidence.
Knowingly and deliberately covering up a serious breach of intelligence protocol.
Disseminating propaganda helpful to the enemy.
Giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
All these are descriptive of various acts committed by Democrats before and since 9/11. In the America of our fathers and grandfathers, people would go to prison, or the firing squad. Today, they get to run amok in the government and media and the Republicans, who don't seem to understand that they are in the majority, do nothing. Dammit, dammit, dammit. How long will We, the People, put up with this? How long before we have to rise up in open revolt in order to see justice? Our government is either impotent, or incompetent, or both, but either way they are all complicit, Democrat and Republican alike.
Mulsims are living among us, and they're building bombs, chemical, and biological agents in their basements. They're preparing to unleash terror within our nation, and our idiot "leaders" worry about nothing more than the next election. The Republicans only want to keep things under control enough to win, but don't want to actually do anything about islam, and the Democrats want as many of us as possible to get killed, because that would make good campaign propaganda.
We are under attack by uncivilized savages the like of which the world has not seen since the dark ages, and the government does NOTHING, because they don't want to offend the cavemen. I'm sick of it all, and I know a lot of other people are too. If these morons in Congress don't do something soon there will be hellish retribution, and when it starts, it won't end until the streets run with the blood of muslims and their treasonous liberal lackeys. If it gets to that point, even Congress won't be safe. The last two times the people of this country had a major disagreement with their governments, in 1776 and 1860, hundreds of thousands died. The first time sundered an empire and created a nation, the second almost destroyed the nation, and nobody can say what the third time will bring, but I believe it's coming, and soon, if something isn't done.
Hang the traitors, hang the terrorists, expel the muslims and illegal aliens, and bar them reentry upon pain of death. We need bombs falling on Iran and North Korea until nothing is left of their cities but ashes and embers. Cut off all Chinese imports and get our damned economy working again. I'm sick of this crap, and everyone else should be too.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 11, 2005 05:05 PM (0yYS2)
Posted by: Labosseuse at August 11, 2005 08:20 PM (Xjv2p)
21
I don't blame Clinton for 9/11, I blame the terrorists, who would have found another way to attack us. I used to not blame Clinton for allowing 9/11 to happen (if y'all see the distinction), but, in light of this new information, I have flip flopped, and do indeed blame him. His rules. He could have stopped, or at least put on hold, that attack. They would have tried something else, but, maybe we would have stopped that, too.
Posted by: William Teach at August 11, 2005 08:29 PM (Pzlrt)
22
Sandy Berger did it with the good graces of Clinton. Clinton main focus was getting a BJ. Not protecting or leading this nation. The withholding of information with his permission is dereliction of duty on Clinton's part. Damn shame we didn't impeach the self centered idiot. Now they wish to run his lesbian wife for his old job. Stupid liberal assholes. It's not the conservative leaders that are going to get us killed it's the dumbass liberal leaders.
Posted by: greyrooster at August 11, 2005 08:40 PM (wJPgF)
23
Improbulus for president.
Hey: Were are all you hate Bush, Hate Republicans, Hate America, muslim hugging liberals assholes on this one. Mighty quite out there. Ha, ha. What a bunch of sissies.
Posted by: greyrooster at August 11, 2005 08:50 PM (wJPgF)
24
IM is right on target with his post...its brutally true what will happen in the US if another attack by Muslim terrorists happens with the loss of thousands if not millions of Americans lives....American civilians will have had enough of the government doing nothing to protect us from a growing threat within our borders{Muslim radicals and liberal leftists}...i for one am ready to protect myself from those who would gladly try and kill me and my family
Posted by: THANOS35 at August 11, 2005 10:17 PM (IJ51c)
25
If people want to gaze upon a "face", try State Dept. official
Barbara Bodine. As ambassador to Yemen, she refused to let special
agent John O'Neil back into that country to continue the Cole
bombing investigation. O'Neil was the subject of Frontline's
documentary "The Man Who Knew" and had been doggedly scrutinizing
terrorists and the Al Qaeda network for at least ten years before
anyone else was aware of them.
See: www.unknownnews.net
O'Neil was eventually hounded out of the FBI and ironically
procured a new job as security head of the World Trade Center
just before it was hit.
As for the above documentary, there are two versions it seems.
The original, longer one that aired soon after 9/11 and a later
shorter version. To my memory, the latter curiously seemed to
have had several negative mentions of the Saudis "toned down",
if not excised.
Posted by: RJ at August 12, 2005 12:32 AM (4sKd/)
26
Here's the complete link for the above 'face' mentioned:
www.unknownnews.net/cdd052402.html
Posted by: RJ at August 12, 2005 12:45 AM (4sKd/)
27
"Where is that dumn ass Professor Von Nostrand? I'll bet he has a "serious leftist position" on this subject."
Probably having lunch with Art Vandelay.
Posted by: Tongueboy at August 12, 2005 10:37 AM (nug4S)
Posted by: greyrooster at August 12, 2005 09:04 PM (CBNGy)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Cindy Sheehan: Antisemetic Moonbat (UPDATED)
Jawa Report contributor and Paduan Learner,
Trader Rob of Exposing the Left, digs up this usenet post from Cindy Sheehan:
Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel. Am I stupid? No, I know full-well that my son, my family, this nation, and this world were betrayed by a George Bush who was influenced by the neo-con PNAC agenda after 9/11. [READ THE REST]
Trader Rob calls this remark
borderline anti-semetism. I dunno, call me an
out there if you will, but there is something about, you know, believing there is a
secret group--a cabal if you will-- of Jews pulling the
strings of power behind
closed doors involved in a
deep plot to conceal the
real reasons we went to war seems something more than
borderline. But that's just me.
UPDATE: Via Rob at Say Anything, I learn that Phil Hendrie weighs in on Sheehan.
UPDATE II, 8/11: A reader sends this transcript from a recording of a Sheehan speech he attended:
"It was the unstated threat. Iraq wasn't going to attack America or nuke America. But Iraq was a threat -- to Israel. That was the real threat and had been for fifteen years. But for the US government this was the threat that couldn't speak its name. Europe doesn't care much about that threat. And the US government didn't think they should lean too much on it, because going to war to protect Israel wouldn't be popular.
Nothing to see here folks. Move along.
I suspect we may update this post later. Call it a hunch.
more...
Posted by: Rusty at
11:00 AM
| Comments (24)
| Add Comment
Post contains 329 words, total size 2 kb.
1
This woman is a pathetic, and pitiable...tool. It takes a dark soul to mine partisan gold from a mother's grief. The number of dark souls on the Left becomes more apparent every day.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at August 10, 2005 07:01 PM (RHG+K)
2
One really doesn't know what to say, except, just where in the living hell is her husband?
Posted by: jesusland joe at August 10, 2005 07:18 PM (DDXXI)
3
Actually, her idiotic remarks only serve to lessen her message and credibility- and hence, the credibility of the left.
Fine by me.
Posted by: Sigmund, Carl and Alfred at August 10, 2005 07:42 PM (dHZc2)
4
And I didn't think you could sink any lower. Congratulations.
Posted by: Professor Peter Von Nostrand at August 10, 2005 07:49 PM (REz6/)
5
Von Nostrand is Greg or perhaps an evil reincarnation of Greg. All the Lefties don't believe in God, but they have no problems believing in such nonsense. Perhaps he is possesed by Greg. Hmmm...
Posted by: jesusland joe at August 10, 2005 07:53 PM (DDXXI)
6
Von Nostrand is possessed by Kramer.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at August 10, 2005 08:11 PM (RHG+K)
7
Yeah, I guess the fact that she lost a son excuses her antisemetism and relentless political activism. Let's not pick on her, that's just mean! /sarcasm
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at August 10, 2005 08:54 PM (JQjhA)
8
Speaking out against Israel is NOT anti-Semetic.
Israel is a country who's policies are becoming more extreme.
Besides, Arabs are Semetic, too. Look it up.
Posted by: LT at August 10, 2005 09:22 PM (9sQW4)
9
LT, speaking aginst Israel is not anto semitic. You are right about that. Blaming Israel for the war in Iraq is idiotic, at best.
Further, when you talk about Israel, you have to talk about the neighborhood. Do you really want to play the comparison game?
Lastly, it is true that Arabs are a Semitic people. Nevertheless, for the past couple hunderd of years, the term anti semitism has meant the dislike or hatred of Jews. Every dictionary in the worlddefines anti semitism in that manner.
Thus, your point, while merely annoying, is also irrelevant. It does however, speak volumes about you.
Posted by: Sigmund, Carl and Alfred at August 10, 2005 09:29 PM (dHZc2)
10
Of course speaking out against Israel is not-necessarily antisemetic. It only usually is. And when you believe in a secret conspiracy that puts Jews in the center of world wide policy decisions....er, calling the ghost of Julias Streicher? You there Julias?
Anyway, the idea that Arabs can't be anti-Semetic is a stupid red herring. The term 'anti-Semetic' has a specific meaning and always has. It has never been applied to ALL Semetic peoples, but only to Jews. The "Arabs can't be anti-semites because they are a Semetic people" is an excuse for Arabs to be, well, antisemetic and get away with it.
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at August 10, 2005 09:31 PM (JQjhA)
11
hey Cindy, where is the smoking man, at???
Posted by: THANOS35 at August 10, 2005 10:44 PM (IJ51c)
12
Actually LT, Semitic is the group of languages native to that part of the world, Hebrew and Arabic both being Semitic languages ..along with Amharic, Modern Hebrew, Akkadian, Arimaic, Phoenician, Punic and those are further divided into North West, East and South West Semitic languages. How Semitism applies to Jews (of which I am one) is found in any worthy dictionary, to wit: "a Semitic expression or idiom//ideas, cultural ideals, etc. thought of as ESSENTIALLY Jewish. [fr. Mod. L. semiticus]" It would follow that anti-Semitism applies to against or anti Jewish cultural ideals, ideas, idioms, expressions .. not to the idioms, expressions, cultural ideals, ideas of the other speakers of Semitic languages. ((It sure ain't a race issue, dearie.) You can thank good ol' ENGLISH dictionaries for the meaning attached to Semitism and anti-Semitism. Call Mr. Webster or Oxford and tell them they are wrong, will you?
Posted by: Bubbe at August 10, 2005 11:02 PM (cbAi4)
13
>>>Am I stupid? No, I know full-well that my son, my family, this nation, and this world were betrayed by a George Bush who was influenced by the neo-con PNAC agenda after 9/11.
Lady, I hope it hurts. Now go home and stop making a damn fool out of yourself.
Posted by: Carlos at August 10, 2005 11:17 PM (8e/V4)
14
Sorry Rusty, but I've seen
far worse from you on this very "anti-muslim, relentlessly activist" site. And regardless of whatever conspiracy theories Sheehan may believe (the quote you provide doesn't actually suggest that she holds any... as if I care), it is just ridiculous for you to suggest that any sort of criticism of Israel, or American policy towards Isreael, equals anti-semitism. Just as criticising the U.S. government does not equate to "anti-Americanism." Criticising a state is not the same as criticising a people. And, once again,
you should know this.
Posted by: Professor Peter Von Nostrand at August 10, 2005 11:29 PM (REz6/)
15
Hey Rusty, do you really know this idiot?
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 11, 2005 08:31 AM (0yYS2)
16
I would be willing to put up money that Mrs. Sheehan didn't hold these particular views before groups like codepink got her ear. I am often inclined to ignore the statements by grieving relatives as they are too easily influenced by overwhelming emotion. Obviously, I do not agree with her assesment of the situation.
Posted by: Defense Guy at August 11, 2005 08:56 AM (jPCiN)
17
Look folks, Israel is a nice boy living in a housing project neighborhood full of crackheads. Sometimes they have to take rather extreme measures to survive. Fine with me. Personally, they should have implemented the Alon plan and "transfered" the Arabs across the Jordan years ago. Israel will never, ever be secure until it controls everything west of the Jordan. And if anyone out there really, truly believes that a "Palestinian" state will live in peace with Israel....well fine, you're entitled to your delusion.
Posted by: Scott in CA at August 11, 2005 10:18 AM (MKTwl)
18
Peter von Nostrand said:
"And I didn't think you could sink any lower. Congratulations."
"Sorry Rusty, but I've seen far worse from you..."
Which is it? And just how pompous can one get?
Posted by: Oyster at August 11, 2005 11:33 AM (fl6E1)
19
In case you missed it, evidently her family is sick of her shit too...
From Drudge:
FAMILY OF FALLEN SOLDIER PLEADS: PLEASE STOP, CINDY!
Thu Aug 11 2005 12:56:21 ET
The family of American soldier Casey Sheehan, who was killed in Iraq on April 4, 2004, has broken its silence and spoken out against his mother Cindy Sheehan's anti-war vigil against George Bush held outside the president's Crawford, Texas ranch.
The following email was received by the DRUDGE REPORT from Casey's aunt and godmother:
Our family has been so distressed by the recent activities of Cindy we are breaking our silence and we have collectively written a statement for release. Feel free to distribute it as you wish. Thanks àCherie
In response to questions regarding the Cindy Sheehan/Crawford Texas issue: Sheehan Family Statement:
The Sheehan Family lost our beloved Casey in the Iraq War and we have been silently, respectfully grieving. We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the the expense of her son's good name and reputation. The rest of the Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our President, silently, with prayer and respect.
Sincerely,
Casey Sheehan's grandparents, aunts, uncles and numerous cousins.
Posted by: disgruntledinca at August 11, 2005 02:55 PM (IpG/2)
20
Cindy Sheehan the new poster girl for the liberal hate Bush bunch.
Now we must figure a definition for a Sheehan. Sort of reminds me of shenanigan. Any more? You have just been sheehaned. Meaning to want attention at any cost.
Posted by: greyrooster at August 11, 2005 09:00 PM (wJPgF)
21
I'm sick of this "story." Is it a publicity stunt? Yes. Is it being exploited by anti-war activists looking to further their own agenda? Yes. Is this a desperate attempt by a grieving mother who wants some answers from the man who sent her son to Iraq? Yes. Do neocons and lefties have so little to do that they have to "dig up" usenet stories and weigh in with their own abstract theories? Yes.
Left and right, I think it's pretty dumb to try and explain this woman unless you've been in her position. I don't care if you've served, I don't care if you know someone who's enlisted, I don't care if you've attend pro-war/anti-war rallies with people in her position. Unless you've lost your son/daughter in combat, you won't know where she's coming from. Maybe you've lost a family member and you had some pretty strong emotions as a result - but unless you've lost you're own child, I doubt you can really weigh in with any kind of valid opinion. Because when a parent loses a child, all bets are off. The bond between a parent and a child is, obviously, incredibly unique. And the most vocal war supporter can find themselves looking for answers they thought they knew and question the reasons why their child was sent into conflict, and the most rabid anti-war activist can suddenly find themselves looking for revenge on those that killed their child. I say again: even though you think you know how it feels, you don't. And no amount of exchanging opinions and insults is going to change a thing in any of this.
So, let's stop talking about this non-story. Enough's enough.
There's my fucking two cents, let the bashing begin.
Posted by: Venom at August 12, 2005 10:45 AM (dbxVM)
22
See I told you guys that sometimes Venom makes sense.
He is finished with this story. So he wishes for everyone who contributes to the Jawa Report to stop talking about it.
As you will see he would rather everyone focus on the maybe mistaken idenity of the president of Iran. Was he a hostage taker many years ago or not? Like this story ended months ago and who gives a shit.
This in his mind is more important than the mother of a dead US Serviceman demonstrating at the President's home.
See what I mean. Sometimes he makes sense and then the liberal, moonbat takes over and it's looney tunes time.
Posted by: greyrooster at August 12, 2005 09:17 PM (0zyYw)
23
"he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel." While I'm sorry for her loss, Ms. Sheehan is so wrapped up in her 15 minutes of fame, she can't (or more likely WON'T) realize how she's being manipulated by the greif pimps at MoveOn, Michael Moore, Code Pink(sounds like an association of porno actresses)and the other usual suspects. It's interesting how the left is realy starting to show their true anti-semetic colors. I wonder how many of them beleive that Pres. Bush is linked to the good old-fashioned Jewish banking conspiracy? How I wish there was such a thing. Too bad my great-great grandparents weren't let in on the ground floor of such a money laundering racket! OY, I should only be so lucky!! :-)
Posted by: Maddaddy at August 18, 2005 07:51 PM (UTcMx)
24
For more about how Cindy Sheehan has lied about the PNAC Neocon/war for Israel in her email sent to ABC's 'Nightline' on her behalf, scroll down to the 'Rhetoric' paragraph of the following URL:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cindy_Sheehan
Posted by: dontcowerfromthetruth at October 11, 2005 11:30 AM (sncSf)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
August 10, 2005
Let's Settle the Iraq War Question the Old Fashion Way, With a Duel
Q: Who would win in a gunfight? An Iraq War supporter or an Iraq War opponent.
A: An Iraq war supporter, of course. What kind of an idiot would pull a gun on an Iraq war supporter? Oh, this guy.
A quarrel between two firearms vendors at a Floyd County flea market on Thursday allegedly led both men -- described as "good friends" -- to draw guns. Douglas Moore, 65, of Martin, who supports the war, shot and killed Harold Wayne Smith, 56, of Manchester, who opposed it, investigators said.
Hat tip:
Jeff Blogworthy who has more.
Posted by: Rusty at
10:07 PM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
Post contains 122 words, total size 1 kb.
1
One less moonbat in the world won't be missed. That's 'tolerance' neocon style baby!!!
Posted by: Carlos at August 10, 2005 11:00 PM (8e/V4)
2
Hey Jawa, it's "duel" not "dual".
Posted by: Redhand at August 10, 2005 11:44 PM (TrmBs)
Posted by: Oyster at August 11, 2005 05:28 AM (YudAC)
4
What a wonderful idea, and it's good to see Amerikkkan culture is still intact- let's just kill anyone who disagrees with you.
Posted by: Zanzibar at August 11, 2005 08:46 AM (gDyiS)
5
I for one support the killing of anti-american war opponents. Lets get it on! I am being completely serious, they deserve nothing but hatred an death for themselves and their families.
Posted by: Hedgy at August 11, 2005 09:17 AM (A8rF5)
6
I think there's really only one moral or ethical thing one can say. Whoever was the agressor deserved to get shot, no matter what position they happen to hold on the war. If both went for their guns simultaneously instead of reacting to an agressor (meaning it really was a duel) or if the person who was the initiator is the survivor, then the survivor is guilty of murder. His opinion on the war is irrelevant, both legally and morally, to the outcome.
Posted by: Demosophist at August 11, 2005 09:33 AM (IbWE6)
7
a sad case of people having the right to have different choices not agreeing to respect each others choices and instead trying to hurt and kill each other ...and this is over having the right to speak youre mind on a subject, a harmless thing
Posted by: THANOS35 at August 11, 2005 10:02 AM (IJ51c)
8
A man may disagree with me. And I will fight to the death for my right to shoot him if he does.
Posted by: Scott in CA at August 11, 2005 10:04 AM (MKTwl)
9
I seem to recall a similiar story on AMW recently in which the anti-war person shot the pro-war one. No one ever said that the reasons we kill each other were always going to be good ones, or ever would for that matter.
Posted by: Defense Guy at August 11, 2005 11:26 AM (jPCiN)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Lodi Terror Ring Connected to Bin Laden
Whoa. Check this out
from KGO:
The FBI is now drawing a link between their terror investigation in Lodi and Osama bin Laden. The government believes al Qaeda was trying to set up a school in Lodi to recruit terrorists.
The accusations from the FBI came Tuesday morning during an immigration hearing for Shabbir Ahmed. He's the 39-year-old religious leader of the Lodi mosque -- one of five men connected to the mosque that have been arrested on immigration charges. Today the government drew links to all five and then to Osama bin Laden.
The FBI says it has information that two of the religious leaders at this Lodi mosque were acting as intermediaries for Osama bin Laden....
Lawyers for the government would not be interviewed, neither would the FBI. But in court today the lead agent said they have secretly taped conversations between several of the five men arrested in Lodi....
The government believes they wanted to set up a branch of a religious school that has in the past been associated with terrorists including 9/11 leader Muhammed Atta.
For their part, the father and son Hayat terror duo dispute the governments claim, admitting to the lesser charge of fomenting violent jihad against the United States and praising bin Laden while in Pakistan. Both claim they have changed their minds about the U.S. I wonder, though,
what are on those secret tapes?
UPDATE: California Mafia has been following the case closely. Their post on the bail hearing is here, including the name of the connection between the Lodi ring and al Qaeda.
more...
Posted by: Rusty at
09:06 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 314 words, total size 2 kb.
1
All of this is so comforting to me, being 70 miles from Lodi. Seiously, here in the Bay Area, we have lots of Muslims. Not suprising, since we have Berkeley and Stanford here, as well as several other schools. All of them have lots of Muslim students and faculty, as they have for decades. However, we here have noticed that in the last couple of years, many of our Muslim neighbors have begun to wear the headscarf, the traditional dress, the little white caps, the long beards, etc. Many of them tend to glare and scowl a lot. I don't fear or hate or even dislike Muslims. But I do wonder why this change has come about. When I went to Berkely in the 80s, it was not this way. It is now.
Posted by: Scott in CA at August 11, 2005 10:10 AM (MKTwl)
2
What is odd too is Victor Davis Hanson's words just a few weeks ago (I'll paraphrase); that we're likely to find more Muslim "friends" in Tehran than in Berkeley.
Posted by: Oyster at August 11, 2005 11:26 AM (fl6E1)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
The Party of "I Don't Know What I'm Talking About"
The Democrats, once again, are attempting to talk morals. Since this is a subject with which they are not familiar, they should probably give up trying to convince people they have them. Unfortunately, for them, they just can't seem to give this particular bone up. And as long as they continue talking, we'll continue getting gems like the following from California Democrat Senator Jack Scott:
"I don't think God is either a Democrat or a Republican," said California state Sen. Jack Scott (search), a Democrat. "The moral values that I really care deeply about is justice for the poor and peacemaking and so that's the reason that I wouldn't call the Republican Party the party of religion."
Huh? Could someone translate this gibberish for me? I honestly don't remember being called the "party of religion" and even if we were, what would it have to do with peacemaking and justice for the poor? And is he saying that morals are equalivent to religion? Because if they are, then he's started one heck of a conflict for the "separation" crowd.
Last month, Democratic spiritual leaders gathered in Berkeley, Calif., to focus on resurrecting the American spiritual left. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid is bringing God back into the Democratic fold by adding a page on the party's Senate Web site aimed at religious voters.
And again, Mr. Reid, I ask what happend to your "separation" mantra? Out of curiosity, and since Fox didn't provide a link to the specified page, I went to the DNC page and tried to find what they were talking about. The only mention of religion that I could find is a speech that Dean made to a Methodist church claiming how close they are in values. Of course he spends most of the speech demonizing Republicans and completly ignoring history. I was especially amused at this exerpt:
"The Republican leadership likes to talk about their connection with African Americans and their heritage as the party of Lincoln. This new stump is chock full of apology but light on true repentance...
"Like America, the Democratic Party has grown and evolved and our relationship with the African American community is a progressive movement...
The DNC has grown and evolved in their realationship with blacks? So does that mean that you've stopped lynching them and given up your battle against civil rights? Because historically, that's what the DNC has stood for. Heck, you're even being sued for reparations by people in the black community. But I suppose as long as you can pretend your past isn't there, then you can convince anyone you're on thier side.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. If the Democrats want to convince people they have morals, then they need to take a very hard look at their policies. Stop murdering innocent babies and releasing hardend killers. That only proves you've got it backward. And my definition of morals doesn't include allowing anyone to do anything that they like no matter how depraved. Even if you aren't Christian, there are some things that civilized people should be able to agree are simply wrong.
Posted by: Drew at
08:07 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 542 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Would it be fair to call the democrats the party of Tissue?
Posted by: Brad at August 10, 2005 08:16 AM (6mUkl)
2
Democrats are the party with morals. Right. And I guess we have always been at war with Eastasia...
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 10, 2005 08:34 AM (0yYS2)
3
I don't claim any religion as my own yet, I do share some of the same morals as the religious do. Common sense tells me certain things are right and wrong, not religion.
For a party that spends so much time demonizing the religious they certainly are trying hard to convince others they are religious too.
They got the wrong message in the last election. Frankly, I (and many others) never questioned their religiosity. I do have a problem with double standards and hypocrisy though. That's why I'm not a member of any political group either.
Without taking a side in either argument, consider this:
Many who are pro-abortion and anti-death penalty respond that those who are anti-abortion and pro-death penalty are the same as them. They're not the same. By using this argument they conveniently ignore the reasoning behind each argument. Rather than defend their views, they attack back. It's like answering a question with a question. It's as if I call you an asshole and you respond with, "Oh yeah? So are you."
Posted by: Oyster at August 10, 2005 09:28 AM (fl6E1)
4
>>>Last month, Democratic spiritual leaders gathered in Berkeley, Calif., to focus on resurrecting the American spiritual left.
Lookout! the Dems are trying to "impose their morality" on us.
Posted by: Carlos at August 10, 2005 02:02 PM (8e/V4)
5
Amazing. You'll have to explain to me how the current Democratic Party should bear any responsibility for lynchings and segregation. How am I supposed to keep from using the word "lie" when you (purposefully?) neglect to include certain important facts... you know, like the fact that racist Southern Democrats
left the party to join the Republicans after the Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson administrations gradually shifted policy in favor of Affrican Americans (Johnson not so gradually... and this statement should not be taken as an effort to diminish the role of liberal Republicans like Earl Warren).
Again, while this blog should certainly not be held to the standards of a research journal (and I never implied such a thing), it
should be held to basic standards of truth telling, use of evidence, and rationality. That is, if you care at all about your reputation.
Posted by: Professor Peter Von Nostrand at August 10, 2005 05:59 PM (REz6/)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
August 08, 2005
More Nazi Nonsense
Harry Belafonte Calls Black Republicans 'Tyrants'
Day-O, Daayyyy-O Daylight come and it's time to blow smoke.....
Atlanta (CNSNews.com) - Celebrity activist Harry Belafonte
referred to prominent African-American officials in the Bush administration as "black tyrants" at a weekend march, and he also compared the administration to Adolf Hitler's Nazi Germany.
Belafonte, a featured speaker at Saturday's march in Atlanta commemorating the 40th anniversary of the signing of the Voting Rights Act, previously ignited a political controversy in 2002 when he likened then-Secretary of State Colin Powell to a "house slave."
At Saturday's civil rights march, Belafonte said the Bush administration has been "rather dismal" for the lives of black Americans. The march, which featured prominent civil rights groups and labor union representatives, was intended to drum up support for extending and strengthening the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Belafonte used a Hitler analogy when asked about what impact prominent blacks such as former Secretary of State Powell and current Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had on the Bush administration's relations with minorities."
Hitler had a lot of Jews high up in the hierarchy of the Third Reich. Color does not necessarily denote quality, content or value," Belafonte said in an exclusive interview with Cybercast News Service."Hitler had a lot of Jews high up in the hierarchy", HUH???? I think you've been totin bananas in the hot sun too long. Or, maybe your just a liar.
Companion OpiniPundit
UPDATE BY RS: Jews? In the hierarchy of the Third Reich? Talk about retarded.
Be sure to check out the response from other black Republicans Mike King, La Shawn Barber, and Dane Bramage. And check out what the other moonbats at the rally said over at Michelle Malkin's place.
Posted by: Traderrob at
02:52 PM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
Post contains 292 words, total size 2 kb.
1
“Hitler had a lot of Jews high up in the hierarchy of the Third Reich.”
Just think of the media uproar if Dan Quail had said something this stupid and this false.
Or how about a prominent conservative citizen like Charlton Heston saying something this ignorant. The media would crucify him.
Why does Bellefonte get a free pass to be such an idiot? Is it that expectations are so low for blacks in the media? Man talk about racism.
Posted by: Brad at August 08, 2005 03:12 PM (3OPZt)
2
The man should stick to his singing, if you can call it singing.
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at August 08, 2005 03:16 PM (x+5JB)
3
The rantings of another Liberal celeb high school dropout.
Posted by: Carlos at August 08, 2005 03:31 PM (8e/V4)
4
""Color does not necessarily denote quality, content or value""
No shit Harry, your statments prove that!!
Posted by: Cindy at August 08, 2005 03:36 PM (/lR21)
5
BWAAAHAHAHA.....3 pointer Cindy
Posted by: traderrob at August 08, 2005 03:37 PM (3al54)
6
Unless I'm mistaken, doesn't Mr. Day-O spend his vactions in Havana fellating Castro?
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 08, 2005 05:43 PM (0yYS2)
7
I heard Harry Belafonte on the Hugh Hewitt radio show today guest host
8/8/05 870 KRLA LA OC, CA area
Say “Hitler had a lot of Jews high up in the hierarchy of the Third Reich.”
hearing is believing
Posted by: Zebrab5 at August 08, 2005 07:30 PM (wWAmZ)
8
In 1971 I attended a Harry Belafonte show at Ceasar's Palace in Vegas. He was whinning the same bullshit then as now. The most laughter of the whole show was when he made the comment "and they said, I should have stayed in the kitchen". Then someone in the audience yelled "why didn't you?". The same still holds true.
Posted by: greyrooster at August 08, 2005 09:25 PM (CBNGy)
9
Now don't be too hard on him, he's just trying to be a good house negro for his masters in the DNC. LaShawn Barber could kick his ass.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 09, 2005 02:26 AM (0yYS2)
10
While I'm on the subject my to favorite black racist are Belafonte and Jim Brown. Birds of a feather.
I've removed Cassius Marcellus Clay since one should pity the mentally handicapped.
Posted by: greyrooster at August 10, 2005 04:47 PM (CBNGy)
11
Rusty: Cindy wins the best reply in a week award. That was classy Cindy. Great.
Posted by: greyrooster at August 12, 2005 10:33 PM (CBNGy)
12
Perhaps Harry B. is still bitter about his signature tune being turned into a pro-war ditty ("Come Mr. Taliban, turn over bin Laden") in the days after 9/11/2001.
Posted by: Joshua at August 13, 2005 03:24 AM (ywZa8)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
August 05, 2005
Who is Joseph Wilson?
I've no idea who Joseph Wilson is, but apparently he's
somebody. I mean, he's in the "Who's Who in America", listed as being married to some chick named Valerie Plame--also some one I've never heard of. Did I miss something while I was on vacation?
Aylward seems to think this is important for some reason. He might be right.
Posted by: Rusty at
04:02 PM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
Post contains 67 words, total size 1 kb.
1
“New Documents Show FBI Targeting Peaceful Protesters in Colorado as Potential Terrorists
August 2, 2005
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: media@aclu.org
DENVER -- The American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado today released new documents that it says confirm that the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) is inappropriately treating people who engage in peaceful protest as potential terrorists.
The ACLU obtained the documents in response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed last December on behalf of 16 organizations and ten individuals. The files released today contain information on the Colorado American Indian Movement and the Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center.”
More at:
http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=18862&c=206
Ziocon Dawgs,
Look what your government is up to. You must be very proud of your new country, the USSA.
Posted by: greg at August 05, 2005 04:15 PM (/+dAV)
2
Greg is banned. Again. This time, for good.
Posted by: Rusty at August 05, 2005 04:19 PM (JQjhA)
3
haha. Didn't you just unban him Rusty? Like only hours ago?
Posted by: tyler at August 05, 2005 04:54 PM (Y9Lwb)
4
Greg does not have the self-discipline necessary to conduct himself properly when engaging in an arguement. He is compelled to speak because he thinks he is so much smarter than us ignorant rednecks. I knew he wouldn't last long. Rusty, you gave him more chances than he deserved, although I do miss the chance to insult him. He was an easy target, and I do have a way of getting under his skin. HeHe!
Posted by: jesusland joe at August 05, 2005 05:19 PM (DDXXI)
5
And Greg never stays on topic.
Posted by: jesusland joe at August 05, 2005 05:21 PM (DDXXI)
6
Yeah, it's too bad. He was fun to have around sometimes.
Posted by: Rusty at August 05, 2005 05:55 PM (JQjhA)
7
Wow. I read the first link and thought, "Hmm. Greg would post something like that."
And he did!
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at August 05, 2005 06:38 PM (3+9IT)
8
P.S. I should have known: "media@aclu.org."
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at August 05, 2005 06:41 PM (3+9IT)
9
The American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado today released new documents that it says confirm that the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force...
Sorry! Did I miss something? Isn't this the same ACLU that was taking internal, unvetted FBI memos on Gitmo as gospel truth? How
funny can you get!
Posted by: Krusty Krab at August 06, 2005 12:52 AM (DnA9m)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
160kb generated in CPU 0.2132, elapsed 0.3006 seconds.
132 queries taking 0.2635 seconds, 448 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
