mypetjawa v. 2.0 (beta) "<i>Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to ev

March 09, 2006

ACLU Opposes Surveillance Agreement

Big surprise: loud squawking from an organization that has done its best to thwart counter-terrorism efforts. The ACLU is upset because Republicans have come up with a compromise to allow the NSA to continue monitoring conversations between Americans and suspected terrorists. more...

Posted by: Bluto at 12:33 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 219 words, total size 2 kb.

Hillary: Enforcing Law Equals 'Police State'

I'm not sure who Hillary thinks she's fooling with this one. From boston.com news:

WASHINGTON --Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, a potential White House candidate in 2008, said Wednesday some Republicans are trying to create a "police state" to round up illegal immigrants.
Speaking at a rally of Irish immigrants, Clinton criticized a bill the House passed in December that would impose harsher penalties for undocumented workers.
"Don't turn your backs on what made this country great," she said, calling the measure "a rebuke to what America stands for."
Clinton said it would be "an unworkable scheme to try to deport 11 million people, which you have to have a police state to try to do."

Illegal immigration made this country great? How so? And of course, if we do as Hillary says, and surrender to the flood of illegals, how long before the Democrat party begins registering those 11 million to vote?

Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto.

Posted by: Bluto at 10:53 AM | Comments (25) | Add Comment
Post contains 170 words, total size 1 kb.

1 >>>Enforcing Law Equals 'Police State' and yet she's "tough on the borders". Hillary's the Queen Bitch of Triangulation.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 09, 2006 11:00 AM (8e/V4)

2 when is someone who actually holds elective office going to stand up and say, "Our immigration system is out of date and no longer working, it is time to restart from scratch."

Posted by: KG at March 09, 2006 11:22 AM (SZsz5)

3 Enforcing the law equals police state, but sending in the Gestapo to burn out some religious nuts, and to assassinate a rural Idaho family is just okey dokey. Liberals are scum and should all be killed.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 09, 2006 12:04 PM (0yYS2)

4 And this comming from a woman married to americas first dictator

Posted by: sandpiper at March 09, 2006 02:26 PM (FpZEl)

5 We need to position the miltary at our borders and gun down all mexicans and other filth that attempts to cross our borders. No exceptions. A family running across; bullets in the heads of every one including children and infants who will just grow up to bleed our great country dry. Hillary can eat it.

Posted by: USA Patriot at March 09, 2006 02:28 PM (AqYSV)

6 You're a fraud. no one even remotely agree's with you here.

Posted by: davec at March 09, 2006 02:39 PM (CcXvt)

7 Sorry, I can't see Hillary as president.

Posted by: Ed Bremson at March 09, 2006 03:01 PM (y6n8O)

8 Sorry, I can't see Hillary as president. I can however see Bill Clinton as the First Lady.

Posted by: davec at March 09, 2006 03:16 PM (CcXvt)

9 USA Patriot, once again, you should either go to Stormfront, or back to Kos. You're just making a fool of yourself here.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at March 09, 2006 03:38 PM (RHG+K)

10 Who IS this guy?

Posted by: Oyster at March 09, 2006 03:41 PM (rf0W8)

11 stormfront is for racists which i am not. i have no idea what kos is. i do however endorse death to all of America's enemies which includes arabs.

Posted by: USA Patriot at March 09, 2006 04:04 PM (p74Yq)

12 Best go place a shotgun in your mouth then, because you are a threat to America's ideals moron.

Posted by: davec at March 09, 2006 04:06 PM (CcXvt)

13 USA patriot is a fool - regardless of where ever he came from. Oh - reference Hillary. Wow! She really is shotgunning all over the spectrum! I'm still waiting for two different (and opposite) opinions on the same day. To me, this is classic fishing for a "catch cause" - and a clear sign of weakness. Take a lil' interest in her Senate race - something may be afoot. We may have a darkhorse developing here in NY - one very sharp and tough Irish broad itching to fight the wimping entrenched GOP here and the Lady In Pink.

Posted by: hondo at March 09, 2006 04:23 PM (fyKFC)

14 Actually, if you think about it. We're telling this guy/girl/whatever to take a hike, yet we haven't said the same thing to IM. Not trying to stir up any trouble, but it's true. I understand that we kinda know IM and we have developed a rapport with him. But well, you know what I'm saying.

Posted by: Oyster at March 09, 2006 04:31 PM (rf0W8)

15 Oyster Not in so many words - cause we like him and consider him a friend and a "character". Let's no go there - no one gains from it. maxie - don't pop a bloodvessel!

Posted by: hondo at March 09, 2006 04:38 PM (fyKFC)

16 He won't. I think he understands what I'm saying.

Posted by: Oyster at March 09, 2006 04:44 PM (rf0W8)

17 You say that, but IM and I had a disagreement about the very same on another thread. I might not agree with IM's opinion, but he has other interesting perspectives -- unlike this moron who's only contribution is to equate any issue into killing Mexicans/Arabs men,women and children.

Posted by: davec at March 09, 2006 05:17 PM (CcXvt)

18 Okay so I didn't elucidate that properly. My point is that if we're worried about that this guy makes us look bad, as some have said in the last couple threads (and frankly, I don't care about what others think of me personally) anyone who walks in here for the first time will se this guy being berated and see similar comments made by IM and no such admonishments made toward him and will immediately wonder why. I think IM has some very good insights, but it's because I've been hanging around long enough to know that. Sure, I think this guy is an idiot too. I'm only bringing up a point I wish now that I hadn't. Just an observation. If IM wants to let me have it then I'm ready. I won't get any further into it. Yeesh.

Posted by: Oyster at March 09, 2006 05:49 PM (YudAC)

19 Well of course. She wants to protect all criminals as they are likely to vote for people like her.

Posted by: RA at March 09, 2006 06:33 PM (u3a5v)

20 Oyster, it's my opinion that AP is an agent provocateur from some Leftie site. A sheep in wolf's clothing. That said, maybe IM could tone down his invective a tad.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at March 09, 2006 07:37 PM (RHG+K)

21 Just like Hondo said, IM is some kind of "character". He got most of the time a very insightful point of view, but he exagerate (sometimes too much) about muslims. In another way, I don't mind reading harsh things about them. It seems that everybody else can say whatever they want except when it comes to them. That's why I keep reading this blog everyday since I found it on the web. It quite balances for all the stupidities I hear all day long in the MSM of my city/province/country. Hope I made myself clear enough so you could understant. My English's not quite good enough! - Max

Posted by: Max at March 10, 2006 08:17 AM (WM45z)

22 Good point Oyster, because some of USAP's posts seem to be copied and pasted from mine, but I think he's just trying to stir up trouble, since he appeared at roughly the same time as greg and his idiot friends. My enmity for muslims is no secret, likewise my hatred for all of America's enemies, but that is where we part company. I do not advocated violence against illegal aliens, though I do wish the idiots in government would do something to secure our borders, because not one living soul should be allowed to come into this country without following all proper legal channels, no matter who they are or where they come from. I do advocate changing old laws, enacting new ones, and taking strong measures to secure the borders and stem the flow of enemies and potential enemies into this country. I also advocate citizens getting involved in stopping the invasion of our country by foreign nationals, which is exactly what it is, regardless of reason, and I oppose all efforts by liberals and other enemies of America, including both political parties, whom I consider no better than traitors and whores, to weaken the social fabric of our nation and dilute its culture for their own financial gain. We, the People, are caught between our enemies at home and abroad, and a corrupt, self-serving government which seeks to appease and placate them with our blood and wealth. We are being sold out bit by bit, and it will not end until we take back our country, and we will probably have to take arms to do so. When my forefathers put on the Continental blue and took up arms aganst Britain, their lawful, sovreign government; they committed a defacto act of rebellion and were treated as traitors, but they fought for against tyranny for the sake of liberty. Who is any one of us to do less?

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 10, 2006 08:25 AM (0yYS2)

23 I'm 100% percent on board with every word there, IM. And the government who does not put into action these very ideas is comprised of both liberals and conservatives. The libs are overt about what they think and the cons just give us lip service and do little or nothing. Ech side has their own agenda in allowing this mass migration. The libs do it for votes and the cons think they're helping the economy. The minutemen who staged themselves along the borders to assist in catching these illegals are patriots regardless of who calls them "vigilantes". I could have throttled Bush myself for that remark.

Posted by: Oyster at March 10, 2006 09:40 AM (rf0W8)

24 "Liberals" and "Conservatives" in government are both bizarre combinations of whores, thieves, and fanatics, and though they may dislike one another, they will work together to ensure that nobody presents a challenge to their absolute, despotic power - especially not We, the People. The ballot box is stuffed; the jury box is packed; the cartridge box is all that's left to us to set America straight. America cannot be fixed without a cleansing, and will continue to decline until we rise up and take our country back from the whores whom we have allowed to steal it, or until the day when one of our enemies abroad, with technology given away and sold by our own citizens, (all liberals, oddly enough), turns our capitol city into glowing ruins, and thus doing us an immeasurable favor by freeing us from our own government, and allowing our military to retaliate in kind to an infinite magnitude.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 11, 2006 09:24 AM (0yYS2)

25 The turkey and the witch broke all the laws they wanted to

Posted by: sandpiper at March 11, 2006 02:01 PM (qMAo+)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

March 08, 2006

And They Call Us Bigots?

What a dumbass.

So - the 82nd Airborne needs a guy to sell pencils in Iraq now? After the war is over he can get a job as a greeter at Wal-Mart. Trailer-people can come in and rub his stub for good luck on their way to the dog track.

Nothing for me to add, except this:

Update: And on a related note, Cindy Sheehan's son lies in an unmarked grave.

Update Too: LA drops a turd in his own comments:

I was mildly surprised that almost nobody understood what I perceived to be the gross absurdity of the situation: a bunch of fucking war cheerleaders crying about a nasty prank card some asshole sent to this poor kid whose leg has been vaporized and THEN weÂ’re going to clap our hands and pretend that everything is OK because heÂ’s going to go back to work for the 82nd. Way to cleanse yourself of sin, wingnuts. ItÂ’s such a brave and inspirational story! Is it? Or is it a devastating tragedy?

What a perfect display of leftist thought. The Leftard Avenger is trying to backpedal from his original display of glorious stupidity.

But even his own readers aren't buying it:

# Terry Says:
March 8th, 2006 at 10:02 pm
Jesus, LA and sgo. Stop it. Just stop it. Your attempts at shock and awe are wearing a little thin. ThatÂ’s right - shock and awe. Are you proud of this? I hope not.
The man made a sacrifice for his country. An extreme sacrifice. You may (as I do) question his motives for doing so, but he made the sacrifice nonetheless. He bought the NaziconÂ’s sale of goods, and he paid for it. Big time. Is this a reason to ridicule his sacrifice? I donÂ’t think so. I think he did what he thought was right, and he got his ass kicked for it.
So stop ridiculing this poor bastard to make your point. YouÂ’re really not doing the cause any favors. I donÂ’t think the fact that this poor son of a bitch bought the company line makes him fair game for our derision.
And thatÂ’s what youÂ’re doing, boys. You may think that youÂ’re making a political point, but youÂ’re not. What youÂ’re really doing is belittling another americanÂ’s sacrifice to further your own agenda. Exactly what you blame the other side for doing.
So knock it off. Just grow up and knock it off.

I love Leftist cannabilism.

Final update: Ayup, he yanked the post. And then he does a mea culpa, which I'll not link to, comparing PFC Sparling to Max Cleland. Sorry, chuckles, it doesn't fly.

Posted by: Vinnie at 06:57 PM | Comments (55) | Add Comment
Post contains 451 words, total size 3 kb.

1 here we have a traitor. this person should be brutally assaulted and killed. his entire family should be slaughtered. his house should be burned to the ground and a sign posted on the ashes with that disgusting blog entry on it.

Posted by: USA Patriot at March 08, 2006 07:03 PM (AqYSV)

2 The more they keep posting trash like that, the more they expose their contempt for the military, all this: We support our troops, just not the War is fake, and they keep proving it. It almost needs a compilation of quotes such as this, to show their lies.

Posted by: davec at March 08, 2006 07:04 PM (CcXvt)

3 davec, I think I agree with what you said on the other thread. More posing, I'm afraid. USA Patriot is most likely Greg.

Posted by: jesusland joe at March 08, 2006 07:23 PM (rUyw4)

4 As soon as I cursored over the link I burst out laughing. Is this your first encounter with this guy? I've been watching him for a long time. He's really, really effed up. He's especially obsessed with Michelle Malkin and used to comment regularly at captainsquarters. Everyone was so fed up with his absolutely disgusting commentary that I don't know if he was banned or if he finally got tired of the ridicule. Now I'll go read his screed because I'm a glutton for punishment. Or maybe this one will be a real laugh. Who knows?

Posted by: Oyster at March 08, 2006 07:24 PM (YudAC)

5 I left some love for them. It is full of compassion, and care for their feelings.

Posted by: Leatherneck at March 08, 2006 07:27 PM (D2g/j)

6 Nah, Oyster, I've seen him, er, it around.

Posted by: Vinnie at March 08, 2006 07:31 PM (f289O)

7 And davec, I apologize for how my post came off. Greg and the noice have got me a little edgy, I'm afraid. Sorry!

Posted by: jesusland joe at March 08, 2006 07:35 PM (rUyw4)

8 Kill 'em all; it's the only reasonable option left to us.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 08, 2006 07:35 PM (0yYS2)

9 It's just easier to be mean. Also it's an expression of the anti-war crowd's bitterness about wounded soldiers not feeling (or rather publicly expressing) any kind of resentment or hatred aimed at the government over what's happened to them. Instead they're faced with people who either want to go back and risk their lives again or just get on with their lives and be productive i.e. get a job, be a responsible citizen. A concept foreign to a lot of people. As for USA Patriot's contributions, isn't imitation the sincerest form of flattery?

Posted by: Graeme at March 08, 2006 07:51 PM (qR32H)

10 Graeme, you just hit the nail on the head.

Posted by: Oyster at March 08, 2006 07:55 PM (YudAC)

11 My man Graeme has a way with the written word! Perhaps the spoken word, also, but I can't say. Great post, Graeme.

Posted by: jesusland joe at March 08, 2006 08:03 PM (rUyw4)

12 Joe, no problem. Always amusing how no one can never tell friend or foe, when Greg is around, due to the fact that he creates new characters, or brings his friends here. Google is full of examples of how Greg's posts are followed by characters that claim to be Republicans, and use some crazy opinion to slander everyone, or some 9/11 conspiracy freak post, gee might want to start posting as a whack job a couple of days before you reappear Greg, so it's not so obvious.

Posted by: davec at March 08, 2006 08:45 PM (CcXvt)

13 Why are all Repubican men pussies?

Posted by: Count Istvan at March 08, 2006 09:01 PM (BJYNn)

14 The little cunt has to hide behind his gay-boy blog; come to my jobsite (no, not a desk, you coward LA)and we can just as easily discuss your "let's bend over and get fucked in the ass" worldview... What a dhimmi, camel cock-sucking, sandal-licking coward, to attack who he did. I really mean this: he'd best hope his IP is not easily traceable!

Posted by: jonathan at March 08, 2006 09:01 PM (rh5AQ)

15 what Would you do if he cam to your jobsite Jonathen shit your drawers? or would you do your job and serve him his Big Mac and fries?

Posted by: Prince Esteban at March 08, 2006 09:11 PM (BJYNn)

16 Ricky Martin: Whatever I did I would do it using proper English, you swallower of Juan Valdez's cum. Go die.

Posted by: jonathan at March 08, 2006 09:20 PM (rh5AQ)

17 Oh Jonathan! you should know about swallowing cum. I bet no one has ever given out more BJ'S to men then you!

Posted by: Duke Ivan at March 08, 2006 09:32 PM (BJYNn)

18 thats's true Ivan! We are forever having oral, I mean we turn on Fox news and when O'Reilly or Hannity come on the tube we just masterbait off each other and blow each other silly!

Posted by: Jonathan's Boyfriend at March 08, 2006 09:36 PM (BJYNn)

19 Lookie, lookie, a gaggle of sissies has appeared. What will it be gents, or should I say, ladies?

Posted by: jesusland joe at March 08, 2006 09:39 PM (rUyw4)

20 I love LA's blog! When i'm not busy being a traitor to my country, or feeling guilty for the West's superiority (even though I would never admit this to anyone!), or going to my local mosque to foster understanding, sensitivity and dialogue, I bend over in front of my computer so that my friend Abu Arafat fucks me in my poop-shoot whilst reading LA's manly pronouncements!

Posted by: reader of liberal avenger at March 08, 2006 09:44 PM (rh5AQ)

21 hey jesusland you're kinda cute want to three way with me johnathan?

Posted by: Jonathan's Boyfriend at March 08, 2006 09:45 PM (BJYNn)

22 Haha, funnyboy, you wouldn't want to get that close to me I don't think, but if you want to entertain a meeting, just give me your address or meet me somewhere. Or I will give you my address. Wanna play?

Posted by: jesusland joe at March 08, 2006 09:51 PM (rUyw4)

23 I can't wait until America is 6o% Muslim; then, I'll be a minority, a status I have wanted all along! I love to be a victim, almost as much as I love the Liberal Avenger and getting fucked in my ass by my local imam! Ohhhhhh, I'm so proud of my party-- they really help people of color! Ohhhhhhh!

Posted by: reader of liberal avenger at March 08, 2006 09:56 PM (rh5AQ)

24 So much for the pussy comment. We all know who fits in that category, and it is not the regulars on The Jawa. You monkeys from the Liberal Avenger need to grow a spine, and quit acting like a bunch of girls. You're likely to need that spine sooner than you think, as you boys live in cities that are likely to be hit by terrorists, while us rednecks live in rural areas unlikely to be attacked. No charge for those words of wisdom, little monkeys.

Posted by: jesusland joe at March 08, 2006 10:11 PM (rUyw4)

25 I guess the gaggle had to run off to their sensitivity training seminars. Or maybe the "How To Be a Good Dhimmi" class. Or maybe to continue their ruining of our country. Or maybe they went back to academia to ponder "Ontology of Other-ness/ A Radical Subversion of Hegelian Dynamics and Thoughts on a New Paradigm for Understanding People of Cultures Wherein Muslims Explode Themselves" .

Posted by: jonathan at March 08, 2006 10:47 PM (rh5AQ)

26 wow, who opened the door for the trash to blow in?

Posted by: davec at March 09, 2006 12:38 AM (CcXvt)

27 Yes we sure do know who the pussies are! If I walked behind any of you fuckers and yelled boo there would be so much shit in your drawers no amount Calgon could ever take the stain away. stupid pussies. I bet Jonathan and jesuslandjoe are pleasuring each other as I write.

Posted by: Duke Ivan at March 09, 2006 12:40 AM (BJYNn)

28 Oh dear God! here comes them towel heads! I just shit myself again!

Posted by: Real Republican at March 09, 2006 12:45 AM (BJYNn)

29 you seem rather obsessed with homosexual sex, projecting a little? even more ironic you combine it with the need to come across as very 'manly' with threats, whilst belitting others manhood. You do not need to be Einstein to work out who's really insecure in their sexuality and manhood, tough guy.

Posted by: davec at March 09, 2006 12:46 AM (CcXvt)

30 Or maybe to continue their ruining of our country.-Jonathan Jonathan I am on your side but how are "they" ruining the country when we are in charge of all three branches of government?

Posted by: Real Republican at March 09, 2006 12:47 AM (BJYNn)

31 It smells like traitor on this thread.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 09, 2006 01:50 AM (8e/V4)

32 Man, who confiscated all the bongs? Are you libtards so pissed that Brokeback Mountain lost Best Picture that you need to vent here? >>>stupid pussies. ...Says Dookie Ivan from the protection of his mighty keyboard.

Posted by: Son Of The Godfather at March 09, 2006 03:21 AM (maXzk)

33 It's really going to be fun killing them when the time comes, and I hope that's real soon. I lay awake at night dreaming of how they babble and shit themselves when the rope begins to bite as they're hoisted up -not dropped down- to choke slowly, and maybe I'll let them dangle on their tip-toes for a while. Come on you little fags, let's get this party started.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 09, 2006 06:05 AM (0yYS2)

34 Ha, The original post is not gone. "Error 404" Guess he couldn't take the heat.

Posted by: Fred Fry at March 09, 2006 06:51 AM (JXdhy)

35 I see "Liberal Avenger" tore down his/her post. LOL Couldn't stand the heat

Posted by: Don Surber at March 09, 2006 06:52 AM (OIxNx)

36 So you guys send death threats for a joke? You're a regular bunch of Muslim terrorists...

Posted by: Sirkowski at March 09, 2006 07:20 AM (fMeQP)

37 Not threats you idiot, promises.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 09, 2006 07:53 AM (0yYS2)

38 LA took the post down without explanation ala Kos? Will he just pretend it was never there or offer some lame platitude? Inquiring minds want to know.

Posted by: Oyster at March 09, 2006 08:34 AM (rf0W8)

39 For supposed "activists" that favor or claim to advocate "inclusion" and "tolerance," the leftist trolls that infected this comment thread are surprisingly (or not) homophobic, slanderous and hostile. Where's the original post, Lib Avenger? Down the memory hole with the rest of your bullsh*t jargon? What a seditious moron.

Posted by: Good Lt at March 09, 2006 09:07 AM (yT+NK)

40 All the homophobic language here sounds suspiciously like greg as well. He even thought he was hurting my feelings a couple weeks ago calling me effeminate. haha. When he gets backed into a corner he starts with the foul sexual references and "faggot" language.

Posted by: Oyster at March 09, 2006 09:16 AM (rf0W8)

41 He offered a lame platitude that I didn't bother linking to, Oyster.

Posted by: Vinnie at March 09, 2006 09:49 AM (f289O)

42 "Not threats you idiot, promises. Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 9, 2006 07:53 AM" Ooooh, threats on the interweb, look at the big boy! X-D What are you gonna do, poke me with a keyboard? lol

Posted by: Sirkowski at March 09, 2006 09:59 AM (fMeQP)

43 Is it just me, or do Count Istvan, Prince Esteban, Duke Ivan and Jonathan's Boyfriend sound like a teenage girl working herself into soupy panties by saying anything and everything that doesn't die of loneliness in her vacuous little mind just to piss you guys off? At least three have the same email address, the fourth is basically the same. No matter, she should be treated the same way you would treat any child acting out just for attention -- ignore her. They only thrive if you feed them.

Posted by: Sly2017 at March 09, 2006 10:11 AM (UADHi)

44 Improbulus Maximus has promised to kill someone. I'd say that's a *real* procecutable threat.

Posted by: ira at March 09, 2006 10:21 AM (ZQ41M)

45 IM's going to get procecuted?

Posted by: Oyster at March 09, 2006 10:51 AM (rf0W8)

46 >>>I'd say that's a *real* procecutable threat. As opposed to treason and sedition, nowadays. Today, that's considered "patriotic."

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 09, 2006 11:02 AM (8e/V4)

47 No, I'm just going to hoist you up on some structure and move on down the line.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 09, 2006 12:11 PM (0yYS2)

48 Good grief! Where did all those Homos come from. I bet you they have aids form poking each other in the old A hole. That type of behavior will not get you into Heaven. Bad Homo, Bad Homo!

Posted by: Leatherneck at March 09, 2006 05:59 PM (D2g/j)

49 Oh wow a blog full of racist, homosexual, star wars geeks! I bet you guys are ultra cool

Posted by: King Midas at March 10, 2006 12:10 AM (BJYNn)

50 I am so fucking stupid. But hey I do play with myself alot especially when Hannity is on. Oh boy I do slap myself silly then.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 10, 2006 12:13 AM (BJYNn)

51 Good grief! Where did all my Homos go?. we all have have aids form poking each other in the old A hole. I know That this type of behavior will not get you into Heaven. I have been Bad Homo, Bad Homo! bt the way the name is Mark Morris@Mark.Morris@att.net come fuck me up the ass.

Posted by: Leatherneck at March 10, 2006 12:16 AM (BJYNn)

52 Real Republican did ask a good question though guys and maybe we could figure out an answer at are next group ass bang. How can they be ruining the country when we are in charge of all three branches of government?

Posted by: Leatherneck at March 10, 2006 12:20 AM (BJYNn)

53 Oh no! Someone has spoofed my identity! Whatever shall I do? I am vanquished... Jesus H., liberals are such fucking morons. It will indeed be a pleasure to kill them when the time is right.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 10, 2006 08:27 AM (0yYS2)

54 I thought that was weird. Sure didn't sound like you.

Posted by: Oyster at March 10, 2006 12:08 PM (rf0W8)

55 No, 'twasn't me, 'twas only the idiot pedophile greg, recently returned, no doubt, from one of his tours of Mexico, when he ventures on occasion to find those "special treats" that he can't easily get in his hated home country.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 11, 2006 09:31 AM (0yYS2)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

GOP, White House Reach Agreement on Intercepts

From the New York Times:

WASHINGTON, March 7 Â— Moving to tamp down Democratic calls for an investigation of the administration's domestic eavesdropping program, Republicans on the Senate Intelligence Committee said Tuesday that they had reached agreement with the White House on proposed bills to impose new oversight but allow wiretapping without warrants for up to 45 days.

This is the Times supposedly in "news" mode, but you'll notice that they refer to "domestic eavesdropping", even though that's not really the truth - all of these calls and emails have either a destination or an origin outside of the United States. The Gray Lady also insists on calling the intercepts "wiretapping", which is the equivalent of calling a Ferrari Testarossa a "horseless carriage".

Here's the reason this accord is big news [emphasis added]:

The agreement, hashed out in weeks of negotiations between Vice President Dick Cheney and Republicans critical of the program, dashes Democratic hopes of starting a full committee investigation because the proposal won the support of Senators Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Olympia J. Snowe of Maine. The two, both Republicans, had threatened to support a fuller inquiry if the White House did not disclose more about the program to Congress.

Of course there will be a thorough investigation into just who betrayed his or her country by leaking details of the intercept program to the New York Times.

Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto.

Posted by: Bluto at 12:57 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 248 words, total size 2 kb.

1 "Domestic eavesdropping" drives me nuts. I don't know what the heck they're talking about. It kind of reminds me of the old days when I would listen in on my big sisters's phone calls from the phone in the kitchen. I'd pick up the phone nice and slow, and then quickly put my hand over the mouthpiece. I'd hear two or three sentences before she'd start screaming. That's domestic eavesdropping. I have no clue what the moonbats at the New York Times are "reporting" about.

Posted by: Asgerd at March 08, 2006 04:38 AM (E71Rz)

2 I can't help but think that the mindset of the Times, some in Congress and many in the public screech about this, calling it what it *isn't*, comes from a certain unadmitted guilt. Calling it domestic wiretapping (actually insisting that's what it is) makes them feel justified in the leak and justified in the demands of full disclosure. Playing with words. Damn common sense tells ALL of us that undermining the country in a time of war is inexcusable so change the words around and Voila! you can call yourself a "patriot". I understand that for some it's simple distrust of the government, but for the majority it's plain old Bush hatred. I say this because I never heard a peep out of these same people when Clinton was doing some pretty outrageous things.

Posted by: Oyster at March 08, 2006 06:19 AM (YudAC)

3 Another attempt by the NYT to gin up and keep alive a story that fell flater than my daughter's pancakes.

Posted by: hondo at March 08, 2006 11:13 AM (fyKFC)

4 That's a really good point, Oyster. I guess I never considered the possibility that mainstream editors and reporters were capable of feeling guilt.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at March 08, 2006 11:28 AM (RHG+K)

5 I think they do feel guilt. They just reason it away. BSD is too pervasive in their minds. They HAVE to hate Bush. They can't help it. It supercedes everything else, so they convince themselves that what they're doing is exposing some perceived evil deed he has perpetrated and not an actual act of sedition. And they do it over and over. And they call Bush "The boy who cried wolf?"

Posted by: Oyster at March 08, 2006 12:35 PM (rf0W8)

6 Oyster: "I understand that for some it's simple distrust of the government, but for the majority it's plain old Bush hatred. I say this because I never heard a peep out of these same people when Clinton was doing some pretty outrageous things." Great Gawd Almighty, this Psychosomatic-Bush-Hate stuff is like a sound bite from the Clinton days....just swap parties and "Bush" for "Clinton" and the rhetoric is virtually interchangeable. Of course you didn't hear a peep from these people ... they were DEMOCRATS. I heard plenty of peeps from the other people back then, I think they were REPUBLICANS! Now we've just got different loyal oppostion parties. Intellectual honesty time Oyster...though it might be satisfying to draw these conclusions because it plays comfortably into your worldviews, what makes this line of bull any more legitimate now than then?

Posted by: Goliath at March 08, 2006 01:30 PM (UHKaK)

7 It's legitimate because for one thing, I'm not from that camp. You know ... the Clinton bashers. And there are a bunch of people who feel the same way. I'm not just speaking for my self. The only time I ever bring Clinton up is to highlight a point that counters another. And I'm also not speaking for those who argue simple party-line arguments. You're right in that there are those who divide the ideals along a definitive party-line. But not like we're seeing now. I've never, in my many decades, seen anything like this. Now that the internet is open to everyone, EVERYBODY's a critic. And a significant number of them are hacks and newbies. Try asking any of these people what the Iraq war is really about and see what answers you get. Try asking any of them about social security and watch their eyes glaze over. Ask any of them what the difference is between progressive taxation and a flat tax and a fair tax. That's what I'm talking about. And the media is the worst of all. Their lazy. They've never really had to answer to anyone. And they perpetuate and cheer on this idiocy. Just sayin'.

Posted by: Oyster at March 08, 2006 08:20 PM (YudAC)

8 Alright, that was last night and after a few beers. My point is that these are the people who during the last general election cycle could not for the life of them tell you why they voted for Kerry without giving an answer equivalent to "He's not Bush." I would ask how they felt about Kerry's plan for healthcare or social security and nearly every time they couldn't answer the question and would instead bash Bush's plans. Yet they couldn't tell me any particulars at all about Bush OR Kerry's plans. Every time I ever asked them about Kerry the answer started with, "Well, Bush ..."

Posted by: Oyster at March 09, 2006 06:44 AM (YudAC)

9 xgkpwfke gstcgjtroc soeyngvhng

Posted by: mfsfmzco at May 23, 2006 08:39 PM (xaET5)

10 My main areas within linguistics are semantics (about the general linguistic meanings of words and things) and pragmatics (about how we work out what people mean in a particular context).

Posted by: avfwxuim at May 28, 2006 06:16 AM (BoZyE)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

March 07, 2006

When Terrorism Isn't Terrorism

From the Washington Post:

CHAPEL HILL, N.C., March 6 -- A University of North Carolina graduate from Iran, accused of running down nine people on campus to avenge the treatment of Muslims, said at a hearing Monday that he was "thankful for the opportunity to spread the will of Allah."

Okay, this guy rents an SUV for the express purpose of attacking UNC students to make a statement about the treatment of Muslims. He deliberately drives onto a campus area open only to foot traffic and hits nine of them, and only random chance prevents death or serious injury to anyone. Attacking innocent people to generate fear. This is the very definition of terrorism. more...

Posted by: Bluto at 01:17 PM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 322 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Next we will have some jihadi cutting loose with an AK in a crowded mall and that won't be terrorism either, unless he had at least one accomplice.....it sounds like bullshit to me, though I'm sure the good folks in NC regard him as a muslim terrorist

Posted by: goesh at March 07, 2006 01:30 PM (vX0fY)

2 Well one thing's for cetain - he wasn't a very good terrorist - allah must be disappointed. Anyway - now the real fun starts - lawyers can now sue the car rental agency and vehicle manufactor for damages and negligence. They can sue the university - but its a state institution and it takes forever to collect.

Posted by: hondo at March 07, 2006 01:59 PM (fyKFC)

3 Fuck Muslims and Fuck Allah!

Posted by: Andy at March 07, 2006 02:29 PM (tMU4W)

4 Admit it, Libs. You think he's a freedom fighter, a "minuteman."

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 07, 2006 02:32 PM (8e/V4)

5 "thankful for the opportunity to spread the will of Allah." He is going to have a hard lesson at the end of the trial when he finds out that it is the court that will be spreading the will of Allah. Then Allah will use Bubba as his tool for delivering his message to this terrorist.

Posted by: Fred Fry at March 07, 2006 02:37 PM (JXdhy)

6 What Andy said is what I think millions of Americans are thinking. Does anyone know where the next anger rally is being held at for Muslims who hate everything? I really want to go to the next one.

Posted by: Leatherneck at March 07, 2006 03:27 PM (D2g/j)

7 Let's talk Gillette out of a LOT of single edge razor blades and present every muslim in the land with a "little gem dandy suicide/martyr kit".

Posted by: Kerry at March 07, 2006 03:40 PM (AOFPD)

8 First they came for the TERRORISTS; soon they wanted the EXTREMISTS; then they culled the ACTIVISTS; after awhile it was the PROGRESSIVES; and LIBERALS . . . . DEMOCRATS . . . . MODERATES. . . . You'll need some very large domestic detention camps to house hate that deep.

Posted by: Steve Cone at March 07, 2006 04:56 PM (JIHfi)

9 Steve Cone, Are you saying we should hold hands, and sing songs with the terrorists? I do not think most American men will want to do that. I think what you are trying to write goes something like this: First, they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew. Then they came for the etc...

Posted by: Leatherneck at March 07, 2006 05:57 PM (D2g/j)

10 Steve, that's the second stupidest thing I've heard today. Spare us your schlock.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 07, 2006 06:00 PM (8e/V4)

11 JC What's the first? Steve was mine - n' he truly earned it.

Posted by: hondo at March 07, 2006 06:50 PM (fyKFC)

12 Count me in with Andy.. well said, succinct, and to the point.

Posted by: Richard at March 07, 2006 06:52 PM (7KF8r)

13 That was one of those posts - run away - n' do that Mickael Jackson giggle ... Hee Heee hhheeeee Ooooooooo!

Posted by: Hondo at March 07, 2006 06:53 PM (fyKFC)

14 No Leatherneck, Steve's right; he is simply illustrating the chain of accountability, and the order in which our enemies are to be dealt with. His reference to hate is correct too, because our enemies are the embodiment of it, and even though he meant to infer that we are the haters, and not them, he inadvertantly revealed his entire mindset in a nutshell, as as well as admitted that he supports terrorism, along with the rest of his treasonous kindred. As I often repeat, we will have to kill them all eventually, because they will never cease their war against us until they are all dead.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 07, 2006 07:33 PM (0yYS2)

15 What kind of excuse is his lawyers going to use? will it be anything like the rediclous TWINKIES DEFENSE? err too many PORKY PIG CARTOONS

Posted by: sandpiper at March 07, 2006 08:47 PM (XnXsx)

16 IM: You've outdone yourself this time, took the words right out of my mouth. If there aren't enough trees because you live in the cities, use the traffic posts and light poles, or build gallows in the stadiums. Pay per view it if you like. It doesn't really matter how you erase this blight before it erases you or yours. It only matters that get started on it. They're not that hard to find, they teach at your schools and colleges. The Islamic Fascists have come looking for the heads of your children and your women. How long must you ponder this?

Posted by: forest hunter at March 08, 2006 03:08 AM (Fq6zR)

17 Leatherneck Just remember, front sight/press.

Posted by: Jack's Smirking Revenge at March 08, 2006 04:29 AM (CtVG6)

18 You're preaching to the choir here forest, but I like it anyway!

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 08, 2006 05:04 AM (0yYS2)

19 By the way forest, you have mail.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 08, 2006 07:25 AM (0yYS2)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

March 06, 2006

Michael Hearts Cindy - The Musical

Reality seems to be setting in for erstwhile Peace Movement golden girl Cindy Sheehan. As predicted by many, "Mother Sheehan" is being dropped, even by her former supporters.

Jennifer Hunter at the Chicago Sun-Times had seen enough after the State of the Union: more...

Posted by: Bluto at 10:02 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 460 words, total size 3 kb.

Who is more anti-American: Yale or Harvard?

Yale. Hands down. After all, Monty Burns did go to Yale (class of 1914).

Posted by: Rusty at 08:02 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 28 words, total size 1 kb.

March 04, 2006

Fear And Loathing In The Alternate Universe

Nice thread from the DU.

Sooper Special Short Bus Quote (expletives not deleted, they're not my expletives, I use asterisks. Here, anyway.):

To the conservative fuck wads that are lurking here. First off let me say you are all cowards. Michelle Malkin is a racist bitch. Rush is a coward who did not serve in the military neither did that limp-dicked Sean Hannity. You people are the most pathetic excuses for human beings and you will have your day to answer for the atrocities and lies that you have perpetrated. You are all cowards. The entire planet despises your disgusting ilk and you will pay. I understand that as most of your parents were indeed siblings your inability to be decent human beings who contribute to society rests in your defective genes. Now you may return to your hate and racism. I once had a "Bad Cat" who would not behave. I put him down because he was diseased and I didn't give it a second thought. You inbred sacks of shit, return to your basements or holes or wherever you crawled from.

Improbulus Maximus, target acquired, return fire.

stein hoist Beth, who stein hoisted someone else.

Posted by: Vinnie at 07:07 PM | Comments (23) | Add Comment
Post contains 211 words, total size 1 kb.

1 The funniest part of the entire bost is that he calls Michelle Malkin a racist then goes on a hate filled rant that would make a klansman blush.

Posted by: Sirglubb at March 04, 2006 07:19 PM (DBjkO)

2 Besides showing vulgar bumper-sticker creativity in name-calling, what's his point?

Posted by: Mike at March 04, 2006 07:27 PM (vBRTz)

3 I once had a Â“Bad CatÂ” who would not behave, I put him down because he was diseased and I didnÂ’t give it a second thought. report him to peta, include this comment thread, and his e-mail, watch the left feed on their own.

Posted by: wickedpinto at March 04, 2006 07:27 PM (QTv8u)

4 You have to wonder if this person can actually function in the real world. If this person is not under the care of a mental health professional, he certainly should be. But his rant does make me wonder if mental institutions allow inmates to use computers.

Posted by: Don Miguel at March 04, 2006 08:06 PM (UAn5X)

5 I just got through mentioning that particular person on that thread. He/she/it was particularly nasty in every post. It must be miserable to be so ... well, miserable.

Posted by: Oyster at March 04, 2006 08:39 PM (YudAC)

6 Herrrre Kitty Kitty Kitty....I've got something for you.

Posted by: Cookie at March 04, 2006 08:54 PM (Ffvoi)

7 Aren't Liberals so eloquent, this one's proficiency of grammar is most enlightening. Perhap's he uses 'Hustler' magazine as his dictionary.

Posted by: Ken at March 04, 2006 09:09 PM (nrPPn)

8 Let me guess, someone was just told that he needs to get a job because his allowance has been canceled. Strange, I don't hate him or others like him. Doesn't mean that I don't think that many of these people are dangerous. Come to think of it, perhaps he's bitter because one of us just: - Fired him. - Successfully sued him for keying our car. - Counciled him on his ethics. - Treated him for BDS. - Told him to get off his ass and start working instead of looking for handouts. - Explained that he's not getting a raise because he does crappy work. - Told him that she only dates real men. Take your pick.

Posted by: Fred Fry at March 04, 2006 09:44 PM (HJnrm)

9 I love this leftist liberal, at least you know where you stand and when the Muslims come for him he will fight instead of giving up. I wonder, did he eat the cat after killing it??? The Texican, Freedom, the only choice at any cost.

Posted by: The Texican at March 04, 2006 10:25 PM (2hBg0)

10 I'm about as scared of him as I would be a piss ant. These people are oh, so bad, on the internet, but they have nothing. He keeps a cat. Now that inspires fear. What a little dopehead he is.

Posted by: jesusland joe at March 04, 2006 10:31 PM (rUyw4)

11 Texican, That little bastard wouldn't fight the Muslims or anybody else, either. He's probably about 5'6" tall and weighs 135, and sits in front of a computer in his mommy's basement 24/7 waiting on his unemployment check to come in. He needs his little ass kicked.

Posted by: jesusland joe at March 04, 2006 10:37 PM (rUyw4)

12 There were 119 posts on DU when I followed the link to that site. Jara Sang's posts were by far th most offensiveand not at all typical. I do not thimk, that they are indicative of a widely held beliefs on the "left". Did anyone else read ALL of the 119 pos ? Most congratulated him on his new baby, I think the second most common comments were thanking him for his service.

Posted by: john ryan at March 04, 2006 10:55 PM (TcoRJ)

13 The most striking thing to me about the thread, john ryan (and you're correct, there were some friendly/neutral posts) is that the moderator felt so threatened by The Sad Little Pony's words that he was compelled to lockdown the thread.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at March 04, 2006 11:09 PM (RHG+K)

14 Well Vinnie, enough profundity has already been expounded upon the topic that I have little to say at the moment, except that I wish one of the little sacks-O-crap would try to make me pay as this waste of flesh promises. It shouldn't be long now, but dammit, it's like waiting for Christmas when you know you're gonna get the Red Rider BB gun. Maybe I'll get drunk later on and have another go at it, since I always write better when I'm buzzed.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 05, 2006 06:24 AM (0yYS2)

15 Ryan, I read every word. Right, Bluto. And they tombstoned his profile. What this indicates to me is all these people seem to only have information they get from the NYT or network news. Only two said they knew someone in the service over there. One was married to someone in Iraq and one had a friend. They either read military blogs and dismiss them or they don't read them at all. Or they've been careful not to associate with military family members to get first hand information they won't agree with. They were all too eager to ask questions of someone on the DU board who they seemed to hope might tell them what they want to hear, not what the facts are on the ground. Did you read Jara Sang's last post? More vitriol. Quite a vocabulary it has. I just spent an hour read DU stuff in which Sad Little Pony had comments and it appears he's been a pillar of common sense in a sea of loonies for some time now.

Posted by: Oyster at March 05, 2006 06:53 AM (YudAC)

16 read the whole thing too, and was surprised when i came to the end, which was the end since it'd been locked. locked? why? my favorite bit was how pony couldn't possibly actually know the truth, since he'd only been there and experienced it. and if he did know the truth, he was lying about it anyway, since he wasn't saying a thing they wanted to so obviously hear.

Posted by: catbat at March 05, 2006 09:03 AM (8kJqM)

17 Ya know, I think they may have left their guard down a bit. Could it be they "put him down" because it was a pain in the ass and made up the whole thing about being diseased? Freudian slips can be very telling.

Posted by: RicardoVerde at March 05, 2006 11:40 AM (b+HIl)

18 I don't even waste words on the morons any more, but I would like to waste some bullets on them, though I'd try to get as many twofers and threefers as I could.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 05, 2006 12:24 PM (0yYS2)

19 Why bother?

Posted by: hondo at March 05, 2006 12:46 PM (fyKFC)

20 Why waste time analyzing or even posting what this schizophrenic has to say?

Posted by: Malsivaeb at March 05, 2006 01:01 PM (Y2ILH)

21 Sorry excuse for a human, I do take offense to his term "coward".....unlike him I have faced the barrel numerous times and not ONCE quivered in fear, Served my country on foreign soil, protecting this POS rights. I think that the conclusion that he's very dimunitive and hiding in basements is a accurate one, might I add one more assessment?....his vagina is showing! White Knight

Posted by: White Knight at March 05, 2006 06:14 PM (XLU8R)

22 WK, an insult from a snivelling piece of shit such as one of the libtards at the DU is like a growl from a scrawny, mangy dog, except to be treated with less regard; they're all wind and crap.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 05, 2006 08:48 PM (0yYS2)

23 But I bet this clown bends over backwards to understand the terrorist point of view though. Simply amazing how upside down their world is.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 05, 2006 11:55 PM (xpnBq)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

America's Worst President Jumps the Shark

Actually President Peanut might have done that a few years back, but he hasn't left much doubt about it now.

From The New York Sun:

President Carter personally called Secretary of State Rice to try to convince her to reverse her U.N. ambassador's position on changes to the U.N. Human Rights Commission, the former president recalled yesterday in a talk in which he also criticized President Bush's Christian bona fides and misstated past American policies on Israel.
Mr. Carter said he made a personal promise to ambassadors from Egypt, Pakistan, and Cuba on the U.N. change issue that was undermined by America's ambassador, John Bolton. "My hope is that when the vote is taken," he told the Council on Foreign Relations, "the other members will outvote the United States."

The UN Human Rights Commission has become a joke, whose sole function appears to be passing resolutions condemning Israel for alleged human rights violations. more...

Posted by: Bluto at 12:06 AM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 249 words, total size 2 kb.

1 I CONFESS HERE PUBLICLY THAT I AM AN IDIOT WHO DOESN'T COMPREHEND HOW TO MAKE A TOPICAL POST. PITY ME!

Posted by: Sam Thornton at March 04, 2006 02:47 AM (2C+Np)

2 Ironically enough when this off-topic troll's post is deleted, it'll kvetch about us cutting off it's right to free speech...

Posted by: Cybrludite at March 04, 2006 02:59 AM (XFoEH)

3 Carter is an angry, self-righteous bitter man. Its obvious the hard Left loves him as a former President more than when he was in office. The guy is in love with tyrants. Human rights go to hell. I think I despise him more than Clinton.

Posted by: Javapuke at March 04, 2006 04:46 AM (p2CuJ)

4 It seems that yes, liberals really are as stupid as they appear.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 04, 2006 05:20 AM (0yYS2)

5 Carter has become a megalomaniac. Now he's making "personal" promises. What the ...?

Posted by: Oyster at March 04, 2006 06:36 AM (YudAC)

6 Carter needs to shut up and go back to building houses on the weekends,

Posted by: Stephen Macklin at March 04, 2006 07:03 AM (DdRjH)

7 More from this whimpering idiot why dont this peanut just stop trying to prove he is what he,ll never be A REAL MAN

Posted by: sandpiper at March 04, 2006 08:38 AM (oN6hw)

8 I used to respect Carter as a human being, even if I thought he was a terrible president. Now I just think he's a complete moron.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 04, 2006 09:49 AM (8e/V4)

9 Here is a direct quote from President Peanut's Library web page, "The toll of patient diplomacy was great, but President Carter's actions brought freedom for the hostages with America's honor preserved." In fact it was not until Ronald Reagan took office that the hostages were released. http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.org/documents/hostages.phtml

Posted by: Angel Elf at March 04, 2006 01:59 PM (eXq5/)

10 I almost cannot put into words the amount of disdain I have for this man.

Posted by: CP at March 04, 2006 03:46 PM (9lWEl)

11 I have words with which to clothe my disgust for President Peanut, but I won't waste them on the likes of him, though I will suffice to say that I take comfort in the fact that he will be dead soon, along with his good buddy Fidel, and upon both occasions, I shall dance.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 04, 2006 03:52 PM (0yYS2)

12 Angel Elf, good find. Did you happen to notice that the page was just updated February 09, 2006? How much does anyone want to bet that the last four words of what Angel quoted was part of either that update or one at least recently?

Posted by: Oyster at March 04, 2006 05:05 PM (YudAC)

13 Oyster! You have an eye for detail! Should be a researcher - or at least a teacher.

Posted by: hondo at March 04, 2006 07:48 PM (fyKFC)

14 I'm normally pretty lazy, but one has to stay on one's toes around this place. ;-) Anyway, you wouldn't want me teaching. I'd rely heavily on the use of duct tape.

Posted by: Oyster at March 04, 2006 08:31 PM (YudAC)

15 It takes a pretty incompetent president to cause a) a lot of his (former) followers to become known as 'Reagan Democrats' and b) nearly lose the bid for renomination to Ted Kennedy in 1980. Many forget that Carter was so unpopular in his own party that Kennedy was seen as the only hope of retaining the presidency. Kennedy was headed to the likely nomination had it not been for a rambling, incoherrent interview on TV (I want to say it was '60 Minutes') like he pretty much always does now. It takes a really unbelieveable amount of ineptitude on one man's part for them to try and abandon a sitting president and head of the party. Many of today's liberals are probably too young to remember how really, really bad he was. I'll give him credit for doing his part for the Reagan Revolution by losing. To bad he didn't just go away quietly like Ford and Bush 1 did. Absolutely incredible that his library is trying to take credit for the hostage release. Everyone knows Reagan's people effectively took office right after the election. The last thing Iran wanted to deal with was a newly-elected strongly pro-military president. The only reason the hostages were kept for over a year was because the Iranian government knew Carter would never do anything. More typical liberal revisionism.

Posted by: slug at March 04, 2006 10:15 PM (ijjIa)

16 Oyster that's funnier than you know. I do teach and tape has been fuckin' deployed. Key was, I didn't bring it but I did know how best to dispense it. Clearly a success too.....

Posted by: forest hunter at March 05, 2006 02:29 AM (Fq6zR)

17 lol, forest hunter, I can only imagine! My dad babysat my son for me one afternoon when he was about three. I came home and found him tied to a tree in the front yard and my dad happily whistling away in the garage working on a project. I think a little duct tape could be in order for Jimmah.

Posted by: Oyster at March 05, 2006 01:38 PM (YudAC)

18 Carter was a jerk in the whitehouse and he still is a jerk butt his time a real stupid jerk

Posted by: sandpiper at March 05, 2006 02:13 PM (stdEd)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

March 03, 2006

DU Shouts Down Marine Vet back from Iraq, Calls him Liar

It would be funny, if it wasn't simultaneoudly sad and pathetic. My favorite response to a returning Marine who is telling the DU that they've been fed propaganda?

Because He's Still in the Military He can't talk until he's out, at which point maybe he'll talk about torture, civilian killing, chemical weapons use, looting, corruption, imperialism, bigotry, abuse, intimidation, snipers, urban warfare, propaganda, etc... It ain't going to happen now, he'd be court-martialed. My only question is why'd he join in the 1st place? Was he aware of the illegitamacy of this fake war when he joined? Of course, that can't be answered either.

Posted by: Rusty at 02:47 PM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 126 words, total size 1 kb.

1 This is typical of the Liberal leftist... As an American and a veteran i am sick of these leftist treasonist bastards... www.jimgoism.blogspot.com

Posted by: jimgoism at March 03, 2006 03:39 PM (jvG2F)

2 SOP for the left. Screw them. I'm not out to change their minds, and I don't give a damn what they believe. But I do care what my nextdoor neighbor believes and others like that - so that's who I and friends talk to - and this is what really pisses off the left!

Posted by: hondo at March 03, 2006 05:14 PM (fyKFC)

3 The Zogby poll company is run by two Arabs, and is paid by a peacenik company to conduct the poll to show Iraq is lost. The truth as the active duty Marine put it, is not what the MSM wants to hear, or print. The MSM has treason in their hearts, and minds, and should be shot for it. Right after a fair trial.

Posted by: Leatherneck at March 03, 2006 05:37 PM (D2g/j)

4 Now, now...We all know they don't support the war, but they support the troops!

Posted by: dave at March 03, 2006 07:25 PM (CcXvt)

5 funniest article this month, without a doubt. The best part is how many people asked about "atrocities" and "burns by WP Chemical weapons" by contractors/soldiers. Don't you know your "Baby killer" soldiers, are just crazy emotionless killin` machines? I guess we can put a "tombstone" on this whole "we support the troops" nonsense, right about now.

Posted by: dave at March 03, 2006 07:36 PM (CcXvt)

6 Maxie's right, Liberal traitors should be rounded up and deported to North Korea.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 03, 2006 07:46 PM (8e/V4)

7 Thanks for posting this Rusty. I e-mailed you the story since what I usually read on DUmmie Funnies is hysterical... This was simply tragic. More people must read that thread.

Posted by: Son Of The Godfather at March 03, 2006 08:32 PM (t8BiH)

8 We saw the same shit coming from the parents of these functionless targets throughout the VietNam War. We didn't hang'em for treason then and now they've multiplied.

Posted by: forest hunter at March 04, 2006 01:44 AM (Fq6zR)

9 Wow!! That was a fascinating look into the natural habitat of the moonbats. That is one brave Marine!

Posted by: nuthin2seehere at March 04, 2006 02:53 AM (blNMI)

10 Well I advocate shooting, but deporting would suffice.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 04, 2006 05:44 AM (0yYS2)

11 DIRTY ROTTEN LIBERAL LEFTIST SCUM THEY DESERVE TO HAVE A ROTTEN TOMATO HIT THEM IN THEIR FACE

Posted by: sandpiper at March 04, 2006 08:43 AM (oN6hw)

12 I certainly don't think people (of any political persuasion) should be quick to flaunt their prejudices... and I think any time someone who has actually been there can offer an unvarnished picture we should pay attention. Having said that, credibility is important. I don't know if the Marine's credibility, judgment, or information is out of whack, but early on he was asked about the readiness of Iraqi battalions. He said I'd say that about half of the Iraqi Battalions are ready to operate independently. That flat out contradicts formal testimony of senior military commanders. Here's what AP reported last week: In a briefing for reporters at the Pentagon, Lt. Gen. Gene Renuart disclosed that the number of battalions at Level 1 had dropped from one to zero, while the number at Level 2 had grown from 36 last September to 53 now. The number at Level 3 fell from 52 to 45, in part because some were upgraded to Level 2. Level 1 is defined as fully independent. Level 2 is defined as battalions capable of taking the lead in combat against the insurgents, with some U.S. help. Level 3 is defined as battalions fighting alongside U.S. forces but not ready to take the lead in planning and execution of missions. If the Marine were more precise, then I would have more confidence in his reporting.

Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at March 04, 2006 04:41 PM (ordBV)

13 That Jara Sang person on DU is particularly vile. Lord, I hope it's not a teacher. ------------------------ background, he probably answered that question out of turn and offered an opinion he shouldn't have or he simply over-generalized. Frankly, I'm pretty sure he couldn't care less about your confidence (or that of his vile detractors at DU) in his reporting any more than I do. Since you seem to have a problem with it, why don't you hop on over there and ask him how he can offer such an opinion? Or did you glaze over the part where he then admitted his "view over there was pretty mypoic[sic]" having only been in Fallujah and elsewhere in Anbar? All his replies sounded like simple honest answers from a guy just returned. He didn't flavor it with politics and was called names and accused of outright lying. I think he stayed pretty cool in spite of it. He didn't even gently chide a single person as I'm sure he could have. And you are a little too quick to dismiss him. At the risk of getting a little snarky myself, you're beginning to live up to your name. (Rusty: What the hell is a fruitcake error? I'll keep trying to submit until my comment appears.)

Posted by: Oyster at March 04, 2006 08:14 PM (YudAC)

14 Sweetheart.... you will excuse me if I find it ironic that a woman with the handle "oyster" chooses to mock my nick (a sardonic reference to a Rose Garden statement). But to your point about the commentary attributed to a recently returned Marine... I *did* see his comment about the myopic view. That sounded credible. In fact, that is exactly what I would have expected from a grunt on the ground. I don't know enough about the guy to say whether he is legit or a plant, reading from a script, opining about matters he has no knowledge of, or simply regurgitating what he read in Stars and Stripes. That is why I limited my comment to what I did. I also spelled out the different definitions for levels of preparedness because it makes sense that he may have heard the 50% number and either confused Level 1 and 2, or simply not appreciated there were levels. Again, completely reasonable and in no way qualifying him as a liar, shill, or plant. In other words, I'm not questioning his integrity, just whether he is a reliable reporter for anything beyond what he actually personally witnessed. As near as I figure, the site you guys are talking about is a parody of some other blogosphere... and I confess I have no idea where DU is... which surprised me because I know an awful lot of places. The problem I had following the red letter text was they clearly munged up the attributions and got carried away with extra commentary so you lose the thread of the narrative. I would have liked to see the interaction about the 85% comment... as you know Jason over at Gen Why had an awful lot to say about the Zogby poll. Unfortunately, when I asked him about the surprising finding that *more* of the troops polled believe Saddam was involved in 9/11 than even the folks from the WaPo poll a couple years back the best he could do was cite a Hewitt interview with Zogby. I find that polling result intriguing because, as you probably recall when President Bush and Prime Minister Blair were asked if they believed that Saddam was involved in 9/11 they stood shoulder to shoulder in the same room at the same time in the same press conference and gave the same answer ... which was "No." That Zogby poll result is concerning to me because, if true, it means one of the following: Either 1) The majority of troops STILL believe Iraq was involved in 9/11 or 2) The majority of troops believe that retaliating against Iraq was a rational response to 9/11 or 3) Both Let me put some real numbers to this to demonstrate why that is a problem. About 2,986 people were killed by terrorists on 9/11. So far, about 2,310 Americans have been killed in Iraq since we invaded in March 2003. At the present mortality rate, we will pass the 2,986 number shortly before Christmas (somewhere between 12/14 and 12/21). That means that our Christmas gift to ourself this year is going to be the loss of MORE men and women in Iraq than we lost on 9/11. As you know, people don't die just for one or two news cycles. That's a gift that will keep on giving. No one who is sane questions the importance of protecting the US from international terrorists. What people like me have been saying since BEFORE we invaded is that pouring valuable resources into Iraq will NOT do that. If people are making that sacrifice under the mistaken notion that there is some relationship between the two, we have a serious problem. It means we are going to keep making that mistake for a looooong time.

Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at March 04, 2006 10:06 PM (gw6yg)

15 I apologize for the snarky remark. What I find difficult about you is that you use select facts more to halt discourse than promote it. Supplying facts is very important in a discussion, but it isn't the whereall and endall. If one sees their argument as just a collection of selected facts and data, they have to also assume that any other direction or course taken previously would have produced better or more favorable results and we just don't have that luxury. At the rate Saddam was killing people, and if that trend had continued, the 2986 x 2 number you use may easily have been a drop in a bucket. The civilian count in Iraq, as well, doesn't come close nor can it even be compared to the genocidal manner in which they were killed by Saddam's regime. Some argue whether Saddam was adverse to fighting a proxy war or whether he would have gleefully supplied support to those who could have claimed a much larger civilian count even within our own borders. Again, we don't know that, but there was every indication that it was well within the realm of possibility. In the beginning there was a level of confusion as to exactly why certain countries with UN veto power were so opposed to the war. We found out why later. Saddam was using under-the-table Oil For Food contracts to buy support for lifting sanctions, not just to build new palaces. And there was an undeniable trend that showed this was the direction things were going. Just what might have happened once these sanctions were lifted? That's the $64,000 question. I'm not accusing individual governments, but their representatives in the UN were the problem. As far as the Zogby poll goes; you'll never hear me quoting results of polls or putting much stock in them at all unless I see the actual questions asked and I know the specifics of the sample group. The only information they provide is the number of soldiers asked. The rest they say is classified for security purposes and contend that it was random and we'll just have to take their word for it. Locations, yes, should be classified, but what about rank? What about political persuasions? What about security level status? So in that regard I won't comment. Polls are often just a tool of convenience. Both sides use them much too freely to bolster their arguments. Sometimes they're quite scientific, sometimes agenda driven. I will say though that the 85% number may not be problematic at all when one considers things like Salman Pak or what level of the Iraqi government welcomed al Qaeda members (whom we know were in and out of Iraq prior to 9/11) and to what degree. Did Saddam himself have explicit knowledge of and give direct support to the 9/11 plot? Another $64,000 question. If you want to narrow the argument to that fine point, and you firmly belive he didn't play a role then by all means argue away. But the whole picture isn't that simple. You can't narrow this down to a few facts when the whole picture is so complex. And thanks for the "sweetheart". I know you didn't mean it that way, but I really am a sweetheart.

Posted by: Oyster at March 05, 2006 08:18 AM (YudAC)

16 Ma'am, Let me first say I appreciate and accept the apology. You raise several points, which I will address. However, for the sake of clarity let me focus on one or two now and leave the rest for later when I can give them the detailed response they deserve. To be fair, let me start at the beginning, with your second and third points: What I find difficult about you is that you use select facts more to halt discourse than promote it. Supplying facts is very important in a discussion, but it isn't the whereall and endall. If one sees their argument as just a collection of selected facts and data, they have to also assume that any other direction or course taken previously would have produced better or more favorable results and we just don't have that luxury I do think facts matter. I think there is merit to living in the "reality based" world. Facts, like pain, are important indicators of a problem. Ignoring facts, like ignoring pain, can turn an acute problem into a chronic problem. Sometimes it can destroy you. I do agree with you that facts are much more than rhetorical devices to end debate. I also agree with you that cherry picking facts is intellectually dishonest and calls to mind Twain's comment about lies, damned lies and statistics. I also agree with you that a discussion is more than the facts. There are assumptions, biases, hopes, predictions, empathy, feelings,needs, requests and exploration. So on your first point I think we are basically in agreement and recognize that facts are part of the stone soup we call discourse. On your second point, I think we diverge. If my contention was 20/20 hindsight ... I would have more sympathy for that position in this particular case. I mean anyone can look at a trainwreck after the fact and say how it should have been handled. Lessons learned have value and that sort of commentary is important, to a point. That point being how well you apply those lessons learned to the next train ride. However, my point here -- and I am talking not just about the invasion of Iraq, but also about the radical shift in policy it represents -- is that the critique about the facts, the policy, the assumptions, and the predictions were all stated before we invaded. For now, I will just sum up the basic reasons why I rejected the notion of invading Iraq as a "test case" for the National Security Strategy released in 2002 (aka the "Bush Doctrine"). It discounted the economic impact of protracted war. It disdained diplomatic alliances that are critical in a nuclear age. It disregarded intelligence that did not support the policy. It discarded historical lessons learned at a heavy price. and It disrespected the professional opinion of seasoned military professionals with command experience. Instead, the policy was predicated solely on the fanciful notion that might alone would be sufficient to prevail. The resulting "shock and awe" would light up the darkness and change the face of the world. Those who argued otherwise were ignored, dismissed, forced out, resigned, or hunted down and intimidated into silence. We are now left with the bitter fruits of that harvest and have to nourish our future crops with the poisoned waters from that well of deceit. The damage we have done to ourselves in the process is more than anything terrorists could have hoped for. I will stop here merely to say I do not accept, but I am willing to discuss, the position that we had to invade Iraq because "we just don't have the luxury" of waiting for a smoking gun in the shape of a mushroom cloud over New York. I realize that is twisting your quote a bit out of context, but I think it fairly reflects the spirit of your comments. I don't say it to put words in your mouth, but to crystallize a basic point of disagreement. I focus on that point because I do not think policy should ever be decided by panic or fear. Thank you for your continued interest and attention.

Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at March 05, 2006 11:06 AM (gw6yg)

17 Sure, more people will die in war by Christmas than in 9/11, but 290,000 men made the ultimate sacrifice by 1945 for the deaths of some 2,300 at Pearl Harbor in 1941. One casualty is too many..... but avenging the deaths of those who were needlessly killed is not wrong. That whole region needs to be weeded of terrorists mercilessly, and if you have a problem with that, it's comparible to saying 'Not all Japs and Germans supported the Axis Powers and what they stood for, so lets just target Nazi and Jap leadership.' Ignorant fools.... get with it or face someday living in what USED to be the USA

Posted by: Carloso at March 22, 2006 06:57 PM (3mpfi)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

March 02, 2006

Ranting HS Teacher Hires Ward Churchill's ACLU Lawyer

The Colorado high school teacher who was caught on tape by a student while indoctrinating his students with vile, raidcal leftist dogma has hired an attorney from the ACLU. Not just any lawyer either, but the same one who represents Ward Churchill, the man who called 9/11 victims "little Eichmanns". more...

Posted by: Bluto at 09:35 PM | Comments (43) | Add Comment
Post contains 169 words, total size 1 kb.

1 The irony is that next week he had a whole lesson plan lined up where he gets his students to simply accept that a cartoon of mohammed wearing a bomb turban is a celebration of free speech.

Posted by: Mason at March 02, 2006 10:26 PM (T/kas)

2 Oh the irony! That he even needs a lawyer for this merely proves his point.

Posted by: Natasha at March 02, 2006 10:46 PM (i6py+)

3 What point, Natasha? That it's oppressive for a geography teacher to be expected to teach geography instead of pitching into lunatic rants during class? That's it's not evil for an authority figure who controls his pupils grades to indoctrinate his students? If you got pulled over by a cop and he launched into a rant about liberals would you argue with him or agree with him, hoping to get off with a warning?

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at March 02, 2006 10:51 PM (RHG+K)

4 Fire him for incompetence and be done with it. I've been fired for far less.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 02, 2006 11:04 PM (8e/V4)

5 I guess that's a no brainer, pun no, no pun intended or unintended or was that unattended?

Posted by: the other forest hunter at March 02, 2006 11:52 PM (Fq6zR)

6 I love cases like this! They strengthen the growing push and acceptance of school choice, vouchers, private education, and home schooling. This is a very common practice in parts of the country in public schools. Its been going on for over 30 years - AND - if it was successful Hillary would be president today in an landslide. IT HAS NOT BEEN SUCCESSFUL so don't go crazy and lose your cool over this. It has actually been backfiring very slowly over the same time span. This particular case involves a leftist teacher as opposed to a liberal teacher - there is a difference - yeah - I know what everyone here is gonna say - but a lib is sly about it and stradles the line, while a leftist jumps head first across ... use the leftist fuckup to get to the liberal - its easier and more effective. This is not about free speech (though they will try), and it is not about teaching - it is classic attempted specific viewpoint political indoctrination of children in a forced mandatory environment - or as I prefer - intellectual pedophilia.

Posted by: hondo at March 02, 2006 11:56 PM (fyKFC)

7 JC Its not incompetence or anything like that - going that route will always fail - and it gives the libs tons of wiggle room to ease away from this. See it for what it is - insidious politizing of children in a governmental environment requiring forced presence and participation.

Posted by: hondo at March 03, 2006 12:13 AM (fyKFC)

8 Interesting, er, Geography they teach these days. No wonder kids can't read maps anymore.

Posted by: nuthin2seehere at March 03, 2006 01:59 AM (blNMI)

9 I use sites like this to teach English to my students. It's great because, one it's real. Two, I don't have to think of a thing. They like the perspective of reality versus TV and MSM.

Posted by: forest hunter at March 03, 2006 02:41 AM (Fq6zR)

10 Natasha is a rightwing wackjob. When she's nnot donating time to the RNC, she dreams of licking the lint out of Karl Rove's fat, sweaty belly button. But then. You already knew that.

Posted by: jenni at March 03, 2006 03:44 AM (FXug0)

11 I was taking some courses a the local community college a couple of years ago, and there was one adjunct law teacher -a practicing lawyer, no less- who was prone to go off on rants about various Constitutional issues, and of course, she was always wrong, in which I found great entertainment by pointing out in fine detail, before the whole class, exactly how she was wrong, and kicking her ass in every argument. I was shocked to get an A in the course, because I figured she's retaliate against me, but I think she knew it wasn't the best idea to try.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 03, 2006 05:31 AM (0yYS2)

12 I listened to the whole rant in an audio file and the thing is, most of these kids didn't listen to Bush's speech nor did they listen to what Condi Rice had said, both of which Bennish was purportedly "quoting" from. The problem was that he wasn't quoting. He was twisting what they said, using his own words, and adding his own crap to further his rant. The World Trade Center was a "military" target? Tobacco fields in the Carolinas are no different than coca fields in Columbia? Whoah, Nellie!

Posted by: Oyster at March 03, 2006 06:10 AM (YudAC)

13 Did you notice that he kept referring to "co-co" fields rather than "co-ca" fields? While listening to him, I wondered if the 10th graders in the class knew the difference. But then I thought, of course they do after all the consumer drug education they have had by that age!

Posted by: Babs at March 03, 2006 08:42 AM (iZZlp)

14 >>>The problem was that he wasn't quoting. He was twisting what they said, using his own words, and adding his own crap to further his rant. It's pretty funny hearing stuff after it's passed through the BDS filters.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 03, 2006 09:35 AM (8e/V4)

15 Oh the irony! That he even needs a lawyer for this merely proves his point. The fact he hired Ward Churchill's lawyer, the guy who claimed those killed on September 11th were "little eichmann's" and that the duty of Soldiers was to "Frag their Officers" pretty much proves a different point, however? I'm guessing you do not have Children, due to the fact you are not upset about this, when a teacher states his opinion, it comes with a lot more weight, due to their normal teaching role of providing facts. It is as much a parents responsibility to provide critical thinking about ones Government, and politics as it is to teach your child about sex and drugs. I would say the same about any teacher providing his political views on a child.

Posted by: dave at March 03, 2006 10:23 AM (CcXvt)

16 Such a teacher who dares be so incredibly POLITICALLY INCORRECT must be silenced! He should not be allowed to teach our children for us! If we allow EVIL LEFTISTS to teach evolutionary "science" and speak their left wing thoughts out loud, to our children in school, who shall be left to expose them to the other side of such arguments? Well certainly not we ourselves. It is the duty of THE STATE to teach our children proper values. That is why we must make absolutely certain that our children hear only politically correct views at school. Or we could teach our children how to use their critical intellect. We could help our children to develop the ability, to think for themselves, rather than merely accept what they are taught to believe. Of course this would take hands on parenting. We would have to actually get involved ourselves instead of leaving our children's education solely the responsibility of state run schools. Too many so called conservative parents, wrongly think that "getting involved" means policing educational facilities, in order to "weed out" teachers who don't think right. Apparently such also believe that education and mental conditioning are one in the same. They are not. Teach your children to 'question everything' tossed at them as fact. Teach them to weigh the evidence, considering all viewpoints, so they may then form a rational and well considered opinion. Teach your children to think for themselves! This is something rarely done by parents, on either the left or the right these days, because both alike are terrified that their children will later not agree with them. Clearly such people, left and right, have no faith in the intelligence of their own offspring. Both alike are devoted to indoctrinating their children rather than teaching them how to think for themselves.

Posted by: Natasha at March 03, 2006 11:33 AM (i6py+)

17 So Natasha, if an Earth Science teacher decides to tell his class that AIDS should really be called "God's Just Burning Vengeance Disease*" because "...gay people brought this plague upon us by their sins..." you'd be okay with that? I mean, surely the kiddies need to be exposed to all ideologies in order to learn "how to think for themselves"? *From The National Lampoon circa 1988.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at March 03, 2006 11:49 AM (RHG+K)

18 Natasha: It's not about "left" or "right" I would be equally mad at any teacher that gave his opinion, as a fact. Nowhere during reading the transcript of this recording did I hear him encourage his students to read material that documented his allegations, or to challenge his point of view, nor did he differentiate his opinions from facts. There is a place for encouraging children to be critical of foreign policy, and the Government: it's called "home" You do not need to be "politically correct" if you were teaching Geography as instructed, instead of comparing the sitting U.S president to Hitler, or pushing the opinion that Israel is a terrorist state.

Posted by: dave at March 03, 2006 11:58 AM (CcXvt)

19 As if such is not being pounded into children's heads already bluto? Could you actually bring yourself to read what I wrote instead of just scanning it and triggering? The answer to your leading question is already in my above post.

Posted by: Natasha at March 03, 2006 12:04 PM (i6py+)

20 Dave do you presume that I approve of the actions of this teacher? If so why do you?

Posted by: Natasha at March 03, 2006 12:09 PM (i6py+)

21 Natasha, if it's not a parent's duty to ensure their children aren't indoctrinated by maggot-infested moonbats, I don't know what is.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 03, 2006 12:16 PM (8e/V4)

22 I don't know Natasha, could it be: Oh the irony! That he even needs a lawyer for this merely proves his point. Posted by: Natasha at March 2, 2006 10:46 PM Proves his point? Did I misread your intent?

Posted by: dave at March 03, 2006 12:18 PM (CcXvt)

23 Dave Yes you did Dave.

Posted by: Natasha at March 03, 2006 12:36 PM (i6py+)

24 How so? his point is that Bush = Hitler. perhaps you can explain what you meant?

Posted by: dave at March 03, 2006 12:39 PM (CcXvt)

25 jesusland carlos wrote, "if it's not a parent's duty to ensure their children aren't indoctrinated by maggot-infested moonbats, I don't know what is." How far would you be willing to go in rooting out those who try to indoctrinate your children carlos? Would you merely pick and choose which indoctrinators are OK? Would you merely pick and choose where your children can be indoctrinated? Are you sure that you are not really saying that brainwashing, conditioning, indoctrination, what ever you wish to call it, is OK as long it is the of the correct kind? I beleive that much more than the supposed "best way" to protect our children from being indoctrinated, the only way which we really and truly can protect them from brainwasing, is to teach our children to think for themselves.

Posted by: Natasha at March 03, 2006 12:50 PM (i6py+)

26 Natasha, no, the answer isn't in your post. But if you can document a teacher telling children that AIDS is "God's Just Burning Vengeance Disease" (or something similar) email me with it at dreadpundit@hotmail.com so that I can expose the bastard(s). Methinks your phony outrage is reserved only for ideologues who conflict with your own beliefs, i.e., your are intellectually dishonest. And btw, belated kudos to hondo for creating the term "intellectual pedophilia" - brilliant!

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at March 03, 2006 12:55 PM (RHG+K)

27 Dave wrote, "How so? his point is that Bush = Hitler. perhaps you can explain what you meant?" Please read my last post before this one, and think about what I may really be saying Dave. Maybe then we discus this. Or we can just argue like a couple of idiots, each presuming we already know the other's position and how wrong they must be. I can tell you right now I don't want to merely argue though. I have work to do right now though, and so I will be away for a while. Please think about this 'with me' Dave. Maybe we can both learn something from each other. : )

Posted by: Natasha at March 03, 2006 01:03 PM (i6py+)

28 "intellectual pedophilia" agreed, brilliant. You better copyright that one asap. Natasha, yes, as a parent I reserve the right to choose what kind of indoctrination my children will receive. Moonbats will raise my children over my dead body.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 03, 2006 01:04 PM (8e/V4)

29 Bluto your belligerence prevents us from communicating, and it also undermines your both your position and your credibility.

Posted by: Natasha at March 03, 2006 01:07 PM (i6py+)

30 Bluto your belligerence prevents us from communicating, and it also undermines both your position and your credibility.

Posted by: Natasha at March 03, 2006 01:07 PM (i6py+)

31 Natasha: It's probably due to the fact this happens a lot here: People post their "true" knee-jerk reaction immediately, then follow up with a sympathizing, patronizing post with thinly veiled messages that attempt to belittle republicans. It's the kind of game you can see everyday in people's *cough* dailykos diaries, where they fake outrage and then post about their "victory" on their echo chamber @ dailykos.com

Posted by: dave at March 03, 2006 01:08 PM (CcXvt)

32 Yes a lot of baiting goes on, and so does a great deal of mere punditry, rather than honest communication. The tactics you describe, so very well I might add, are employed by so called liberals and so called conservatives alike though. It really is horribly wrong I agree. Such is extremely counterproductive, being founded upon mere partisan bias, coming from both extremes. Of course we buy right into it when we presume such chicanery is the sole domain of "the others" though. I have never posted at dailykos myself. It just does not appeal to me. I have dropped by a couple of times and read though, and so I know they practice political correctness every bit as hypocritically as do some so called conservatives right here jawa. I am not at all pleased with such bullshit, and as a Republican I am extremely offended by the neocons, because they are among the worst offenders. I really have to get going. Oh my god now I am late!

Posted by: Natasha at March 03, 2006 01:35 PM (i6py+)

33 "maggot-infested moonbats" Uh-oh. SOMEONE's a happy ditto-head. That's Rush's pet phrase from today's show. I'm just waiting to hear Sean do his own unique "Chihuahua-with-a-chew-toy" rant on this. I think EVERYBODY in America slept through the SOTU, which was just more canned on-the-stump boilerplate about "evil-doers," so I can't really fault Bennish for paraphrasing. Otherwise, he doesn't seem to have said anything that isn't at least arguable, if not demonstrably true. No doubt he and his high-powered attorney will make a fuss. With luck, maybe they can spearhead legislation to impose content guidelines and uniform performance-testing requirements on parents who home-school. Some good may yet come from this.

Posted by: Rotwang at March 03, 2006 02:22 PM (kQLcs)

34 >>>as a Republican I am extremely offended by the neocons, because they are among the worst offenders. If you're a Republican I'm an astronaut.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 03, 2006 02:35 PM (8e/V4)

35 >>>maybe they can spearhead legislation to impose content guidelines and uniform performance-testing requirements on parents who home-school. Why? Homeschooled children perform better academically at every level than children at public screwls. Fact.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 03, 2006 02:37 PM (8e/V4)

36 JC Notice the fear some have of home-schooling - include vouchers and other alternatives. To the lib/left, possession of the classroom (elementary & seconday) is as important as possession of the courts. All this is just a very obvious example of using public schools as a mandatory captured audience to proselytize a very specific political view-point. The left is ham-handed at it - the liberals more coy & cute - but neither are truly effective.

Posted by: hondo at March 03, 2006 04:29 PM (fyKFC)

37 I see Natasha is at it again. Totally missing the point that this was a geography class. Geography! Not "Mao's Little Red Book 101". These were 10th graders in a public high school where pushing one-sided political viewpoints is not supposed to be going on. The schools say so themselves. Too bad they're only willing to enforce it at whim. Nobody here even remotely implied they would prefer Bennish, or other teachers, adopt a far right-wing agenda and start preaching it through lies and distortions in their high school geography classes. But don't let that stop you, Natasha, from your thinly veiled accusations and belittling. "Too many so called conservative parents, wrongly think that "getting involved" means policing educational facilities, in order to "weed out" teachers who don't think right." Well it certainly seems to be a no brainer for liberal parents. The schools themselves have been careful to keep conservative teachers a distinct minority. What are they afraid of? Now don't you have a conspiracy to promulgate somewhere, Natasha?

Posted by: Oyster at March 03, 2006 07:32 PM (YudAC)

38 Looks like it takes one to know one especialy when it come to these reptiles at the ACLU and these leftists teachers

Posted by: sandpiper at March 03, 2006 08:45 PM (oN6hw)

39 "Uh-oh. SOMEONE's a happy ditto-head. That's Rush's pet phrase from today's show. I'm just waiting to hear Sean do his own unique "Chihuahua-with-a-chew-toy" rant on this. I think EVERYBODY in America slept through the SOTU, which was just more canned on-the-stump boilerplate about "evil-doers," so I can't really fault Bennish for paraphrasing. Otherwise, he doesn't seem to have said anything that isn't at least arguable, if not demonstrably true." The term ditto-head when Rush first coined it, heralded the lock step conformity of neocon political correctness, and yet no one has more unfailingly railed against political correctness than he himself. Bush's war on terror has ignited global chaos, and his gift of freedom to Iraq comes with the added bonus of civil war. I can only hope that he is less successful in his efforts to make our homeland safe. A mighty fortress is his skull. - The Colbert Report

Posted by: Natasha at March 04, 2006 02:59 AM (i6py+)

40 "I am not going to rise to the bait being trolled by those who wish to divert the topic of this thread." Oh wait ... who said that?

Posted by: Oyster at March 04, 2006 07:18 AM (YudAC)

41 There is no such thing as neocon political correctness. Political correctness is a Leftwing invention. Harriett Myers and Portgate are pretty good evidence of that. Virtually all of Rush's callers disagreed with him on both counts. So much for dittohead "political correctness." Rush Limbaugh hands you Lefties your ass on a plate 5 days a week. Been doing it for years. Which is why you hate him so much. Your hatred is the sincerest form of flattery. But it's as effective against him as the beat of a mosquito's wing is to a hurricane. All you can do in response is thrash about and gnash your teeth in frustration. Natasha is a good example. He ain't going nowhere.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 04, 2006 10:53 AM (8e/V4)

42 Ha Ha ha ha Thanks Oyster

Posted by: hondo at March 04, 2006 10:54 AM (fyKFC)

43 "Rush Limbaugh hands you Lefties your ass on a plate 5 days a week." I would suggest that those who actually believe that should watch The Colbert Report, but the idiots would probably think Steve is one of them.

Posted by: Natasha at March 04, 2006 03:47 PM (i6py+)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

March 01, 2006

Am I a bigot?

Merriam-Webster:

bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices

Since both "obstinate" and "intolerant" are subjectives, it's really hard to tell just who a bigot is.

For instance, isn't obsinately insisting that all religions produce equal amounts of violence and oppression then a form of bigotry? And, isn't intolerance for criticizing a certain religion of peace then a form of bigotry? And isn't it prejudging when one assumes--contrary to all statistical evidence--that cultures produce equal hostility towards liberty?

If such is the case, then we are all bigots now. Malkin has more.

Posted by: Rusty at 09:11 AM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 105 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Nah, we all just have obnoxiously bigoted attitudes, remember?

Posted by: Vinnie at March 01, 2006 10:01 AM (f289O)

2 Rusty takes adolescent pleasure in pretzel logic and sophistry, but Vinnie just acts adolescent.

Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at March 01, 2006 10:09 AM (SVPNF)

3 "Pretzel logic". Er, how so? Declarative statements don't make an argument.

Posted by: Rusty at March 01, 2006 10:20 AM (JQjhA)

4 Liberalism's greatest hypocrisy is that it demands "tolerance" for everyone and everything, but in fact it's intolerant of intolerant beliefs. Such self-contradiction compares favorably with "There are no absolutes in life," which of course is itself an absolute statement. Thus there's a real double-standard with liberalism's "tolerance," which has limits after all. But it goes even further: liberals demand tolerance, but in their actions they've shown they're intolerant of anyone who simply disagrees, no matter how peacefully. As I've become more libertarianism than conservative, I've recognized that "the right to free speech" is best used to OFFEND people. Is your position so weak that you must use coercion (especially government force, i.e. laws and jails) to subdue your critics? One of my favorite Thomas Jefferson quotes is, "It is error alone that needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself." Libel and slander have remedies in courts, but otherwise, let people say what they want. Foolishness and idiocy tend to become apparent. Like I wrote in my satire on what if Christians and Jews went on rampages (thanks for linking before, Rusty), Christ told Peter to put away his sword, because at any time he could have summoned entire legions of angels to defeat the Romans. Is Mohammed of such little power that his reputation (as shady as it is) must be defended by earthly violence? Never mind Allah, who always seems to take a back seat.

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at March 01, 2006 10:54 AM (CzL/Y)

5 That was pathetic. obstinate: perversely adhering to an opinion, purpose, or course in spite of reason, arguments, or persuasion So your obstinate hypothetical is completely useless as it fails to show that it meets this definition. In fact, it looks like a prejudice. intolerant: a. unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters b. unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights : BIGOTED You obviously have the right to say what you want, we just think you sound like an idiot. By definition then, it is not intolerance. Thirdly, who gives a damn about whether or not "cultures produce equal hostility to liberty"? We aren't talking about picking a government to represent us, we're talking about picking a company to run large sections of our ports. I don't give a damn if it is an American company, I still want to see a 45 day commission to check the security of the company. That isn't prejudging, that is deciding that our national security counts no matter what company it is.

Posted by: Sean Sirrine at March 01, 2006 11:12 AM (5/A71)

6 Like the saying goes, Rusty. I don't think you're a bigot, I think you just hate everyone. :OD

Posted by: Vonski at March 01, 2006 12:27 PM (Srmrz)

7 Rusty, You are engaging in ridiculous session of acrobatic semantics here. No doubt you felt it profound after you blew some weed.

Posted by: Greg at March 01, 2006 12:29 PM (q5wwn)

8 Background, you can knock off the superior intellectual seriousness anytime. Vinnie was just engaging in a little levity.

Posted by: Oyster at March 01, 2006 01:12 PM (zCI3+)

9 I don't feel like this is just a semantic argument, I feel like it is a heuristics argument and what that reveals hidden assumptions embedded in the structure of our language. When language conflates reasonable suspicion with unreasonable suspicion, the words used in the language have to be examined. Carefully. So, when some suggest that it is unreasonable to put Muslim companies under higher scrutiny, they are basing that on...er...what exactly? An underlying assumptiveness that "all people are the same, regardless of religious ideologies". A common statistical inference error is called the "ecological fallacy". This fallacy results when one applies a generality to the specific. For instance, it would be an ecological fallacy to claim that because most Muslims support Palestinian terrorists, that we can know what the feelings of a specific Muslim is on Palestinian terrorism. However, just because it is an ecological fallacy come to a condlusion, it does not make it unreasonable to put that person under heightened scrutiny. The fact remains that an individual Muslim is much more likely to support Palestinian terrorism than, say, the individual Jew. We must operate in the real world, and in the real world there is a much higher chance that acts of terror will come from Muslims than any other religious faction. So, my fears over the UAE are not unreasonable, rather they are quite reasonable. The opposite seems much more true to me: those who claim there is no difference between a British company and a UAE company are the ones functioning under an unreasonable assumption, not me. One based on plattitudes and slogans--the ABC After School Special view of the world. This does not mean that I would ultimately be against the Dubai ports deal--just that it will take more convincing since I have a reasonable suspicion. I am very open to the notion that we MUST take the deal in order to secure some sort of cooperation from Dubai in a current war. But, that is just weighing one need against another.

Posted by: Rusty at March 01, 2006 02:07 PM (JQjhA)

10 I dug it Rusty. In spite of some above comments I feel I'm deeper now and that's what matters. Heh.

Posted by: Javapuke at March 01, 2006 02:12 PM (+l8ZI)

11 I don't have a problem with anyone who has reservations about this ports deal. I understand perfectly why some do and any reservations I have (which may not be to the same degree) are for the very same reasons. What does bother me are those who scream bloody murder over it with not only a lack of facts or information, but they're armed with misinformation as well. They're also using their ignorance to bludgeon others who are trying to gain a better understanding of it and come to their own conclusion. This is not to say that I think Rusty is one of those people. I think he has some valid points. He's also been very diplomatic about it, laying out a concise and reasoned argument with facts pertaining directly to why he is opposed. That's more than I can say for some here.

Posted by: Oyster at March 01, 2006 03:04 PM (zCI3+)

12 Whatever happen to sticks, and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me? The ports deal will be a problem when the information of what comes in, and what is going out will be worth it's weight in gold.

Posted by: Leatherneck at March 01, 2006 09:01 PM (D2g/j)

13 Rusty:"And isn't it prejudging when one assumes--contrary to all statistical evidence--that cultures produce equal hostility towards liberty?" It may be. If so, allow me to be "a bigot". Hostility towards liberty is primarily coming from your beloved King George and his ziocon cadre of greedy goons. Watch the money. (Dubais, or not to buy, that is the question!)

Posted by: Greg at March 01, 2006 09:43 PM (q5wwn)

14 Yeah, Rusty, all those radical Muslims don't want to deny you free speech and free expression, they just want to deny you the right to speak or express yourself on Islam. Heck, you have all those other religions you can slander, but we will kill you if you tell the truth about Islam. Makes sense, doesn't it? Clearly King George is in on the plot, and all the Zioconistas and their allies in the corporate media who wish to take over the World and turn everything into a Wal-Mart parking lot.

Posted by: jesusland joe at March 01, 2006 10:08 PM (rUyw4)

15 INVESTORS from the United Arab Emirates helped fund the $23 million Neil Bush raised for Ignite!, the learning systems company that holds lucrative No Child Left Behind Act contracts in Florida and Texas. http://www.watchermagazine.com/?p=3839 Watch the money, honey.

Posted by: Greg at March 02, 2006 12:42 PM (q5wwn)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

February 28, 2006

Ramsey Clark Marches Against American Troops

Former Democratic Attorney General Ramsey Clark (far left) spotted in Bulgaria marching with Communists and next to former Saddam Hussein advisor. Marching against what? Against U.S. troops, of course! He is a Democrat...

Posted by: Rusty at 06:45 PM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 45 words, total size 1 kb.

Terrorists' Early Warning System: The New York Times

Evidently, the New York Times is not satisfied with the damage they have already done to US national security by exposing the NSA's secret intercepts of terrorist phone calls into and out of the US. Now they're suing the government to release the names of those surveilled:

The New York Times sued the US Defense Department demanding that it hand over documents about the National Security Agency's domestic spying program.
The Times wants a list of documents including all internal memos and e-mails about the program of monitoring phone calls without court approval. It also seeks the names of the people or groups identified by it.

Yes, by all means, let's warn every suspected terrorist that they're being watched. It's only fair. more...

Posted by: Bluto at 12:07 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 211 words, total size 2 kb.

1 They're blowin' smoke - will never get anything like this. A diversion for J Rockafeller or just running in place with a fading story.

Posted by: hondo at February 28, 2006 12:51 AM (fyKFC)

2 Un.F-ing.Believable.

Posted by: Son Of The Godfather at February 28, 2006 02:30 AM (maXzk)

3 Rope. Tree. Seditionists. Some assembly required.

Posted by: Cybrludite at February 28, 2006 02:55 AM (XFoEH)

4 Good plan, but technically, it isn't sedition, it's actual treason when one gives aid and comfort, in any form, to the enemy.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 28, 2006 05:54 AM (0yYS2)

5 Hanging is too good for them, Cybrludite. I say one way tickets to Waziristan and let them report or talk their way out. Send me the videos; I'll watch those.

Posted by: Dusty at February 28, 2006 10:04 PM (8RfU1)

6 You're right, the best way to prevent the spread of Islamofascism is to ruin the privacy of Americans and spy on dissidents. Why don't we just round up all those treasonous reporters and make them do something worthwhile, like reading our mail for the feds?

Posted by: James at March 01, 2006 01:01 AM (N0GWP)

7 James, Kindly read the history of the battle of Midway and the effect that our SIGINT program had on it. What the NYT has been doing could very well result in the deaths of American citizens.

Posted by: Cybrludite at March 01, 2006 01:15 AM (XFoEH)

8 James, why don't you cite something from the post that resembles what you just wrote?

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at March 01, 2006 01:16 AM (RHG+K)

9 James was trying to be clever and snarky, but rather just suggested what he would do were he king. Libtards will tell you everything you need to know about them if you listen; they fear most in others the very things they themselves would do, had they the power unrestrained.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 01, 2006 05:54 AM (0yYS2)

10 The New York Time the best information that terrorists can afford lets have the NYTs head editor tried for treason

Posted by: sandpiper at March 01, 2006 09:52 AM (/4Knp)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

February 27, 2006

Peacenicks Plan to "Storm" White House

In the lingo of the left, "genocide" = any civilian killed by U.S. troops, regardless of extraordinary measures taken to avoid civilian casualites. It does not include mass murderers in the Sudan bent on wiping out animists, Christians, and black Muslims.

"Torture" = any time the U.S. deprives a prisoner of sleep. "Torture" does not include enforcement of sharia law, in places like Fallujah under the 'resistance', where beheading, arm and tongue amputation, and stoning to death are institutionalized.

"Occupaton" = any time the U.S. liberates a country. It also includes any Jewish majority anywhere. It does not Turkish, Iraqi, Syrian, and Iranian control over Kurdish territory.

United for Peace plans to "storm" the White House to "Stop Genocide, Torture and Occupation".

It's not so much that we're not against genocide, torture, and occupation. It's just that we fundamentally disagree on what those words mean.

Hat tip: Alicia

Posted by: Rusty at 10:14 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 160 words, total size 1 kb.

1 The beauty of the "fringe" is that it is, and will always be, the "fringe". It has absolutely no growth potential. There are those who either find themselves associated with the "fringe" or choose to embrace it momentarily for gain (love those Dems), who will invaribly be singed and burned by it. Storm away!

Posted by: hondo at February 27, 2006 10:24 AM (fyKFC)

2 Would love to see regular folks show up and block them. But regular folks are too busy holding down a job and providing for their families.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 27, 2006 10:27 AM (8e/V4)

3 Going to be alot of dead hippys on the front lawn. S.Service will f-ing shoot first. Don't these idiots realize they are playing a dangerous game?

Posted by: Filthy Allah at February 27, 2006 11:14 AM (5ceWd)

4 If they were truly against genocide, torture, and occupation, then why have they waited so long? Why haven't they "stormed" the embassies of those countries which commit these things regularly? Why aren't they sending letters to Castro? Why not march in groups of thousands shouting slogans against Lybia, Syria, Iran, etc? Why don't they stand outside Saudi-run mosques with signs that say "Stop preaching hatred" and "Hate-mongers go home"? These are, of course, rhetorical questions.

Posted by: Oyster at February 27, 2006 11:33 AM (7YTVr)

5 Oyster ha ha ha - of course you know! Actually some of them would indeed support (and possibly participate in) genocide, torture, and occupation if the opportunity ever arose for them reference one of their own causes or goals. They would just rationalize it differently. We are their "enemy" - and the above is just lingo in that battle.

Posted by: hondo at February 27, 2006 11:51 AM (fyKFC)

6 Storm away, I say, but none of the assholes will be down here where I'm at. Damn, I miss all the fun!

Posted by: jesusland joe at February 27, 2006 06:52 PM (rUyw4)

7 On the definition of "Occupation". Don't forget that, according to the left, the US Military "Occupied" New Orleans. Apparently America is under US occupation.

Posted by: celestial at February 28, 2006 12:50 AM (cwlpC)

8 "Storm" = "Encounter the Secret Service and 'bravely run away, away, away, away....'"

Posted by: LC CanForce 101 at February 28, 2006 03:15 AM (3smJS)

9 And it will stay that way, celestial. If these leftists want to see some action, I would just love for them to attempt a coup. The military and patriotic civilians in this country would wipe them from the face of the earth.

Posted by: jesusland joe at February 28, 2006 10:13 AM (rUyw4)

10 Let them there will be quite a few of these reptiles with will REST IN PEACE right in the grave these people are the real extremists they are the equivalint to AL QUEDA

Posted by: sandpiper at February 28, 2006 02:12 PM (162Hn)

11 If you educated yourself on the true actions of the U.S. CIA and NSA, you would understand that their is no liberation going on in Iraq. The sweeping house raids and systematic murder of innocent people is all designed for one purpose - Corporate Rule and Corporate Theft of Other People's Resources. Stop pretending that your country cares about anything other than money. Stop pretending that they are on your side. They are not concerned with anyone other than their wealthy group of corporations, and the pollution, genocide, port deals and 911 were all arranged by PNAC a long time ago. If security was a real issue, then why did Bush make a deal with United Arab Emirates (pilots of 911 planes) and why did George's brother Marvin arrange the planting of controlled demolition in the WTC and arrange the "terrorist insurance" for his buddy Silverstein. Stop being conned, wake up and smell the coffee. Watch this interview with a CIA hitman and learn something http://play.rbn.com/?url=demnow/demnow/demand/2006/feb/audio/dn20060215.ra&proto=rtsp The crimes of other countries does not make our crimes okay. We cannot change Syria's government, but we have the obligation to try to change ours. If you don't care about living in a dictatorship, then do nothing and keep believing the stupidity propaganda they throw at you, as if you are 10 years old.

Posted by: Darrow Boggiano at March 05, 2006 06:28 PM (cjH6k)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

February 25, 2006

Homeland Security Objected to UAE Ports Deal

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security raised objections to selling the rights to U.S. ports to a Dubai based company. Well slap my rear and call me Charlie!

AP:

The Homeland Security Department objected at first to a United Arab Emirates company's taking over significant operations at six U.S. ports. It was the lone protest among members of the government committee that eventually approved the deal without dissent.
The department's early objections were settled later in the government's review of the $6.8 billion deal after Dubai-owned DP World agreed to a series of security restrictions.

PS-This is my only post of the day. Too much to do around Mos Eisley today.

Posted by: Rusty at 01:23 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 124 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Dont put the UAE fox in charge of the ports henhouse

Posted by: sandpiper at February 25, 2006 02:13 PM (AQZCQ)

2 Got - additional security consessions and modifications prior approval. Seems to me everybody doing their job is "doing their job". Now this doesn't seem to be good enough for some people. Seems they believe the admin and involved govt agencies are doing a piss poor job of national security and are a failure that can't be trusted. Er, where have I heard this before? Fine - everyone here can now happliy jump on the Hillary, Kerry, Corzine, Dean & Company Dem bandwagon - now they know how national security should be run! A lot of people in those agencies (including myself to a degree) who have worked very hard on national security. Seems all was for naught since so many of you think we had done such a shitty piss poor incompetent job. A perfect track record after 9/11 just isn't good enough for you. Fine - maybe Hillary & co. will build for you a time machine with assistance from the ACLU and set everything straight. Oh - its not port operation - its terminal/berths operation. See - the actual Port of NY/NJ is hugh! And within it are about a couple of dozen port terminal facilities which is what's involved here - see the term port is interchangable - english is a funny language. Most are operated by foreign mitli-national corporations and foreign & domestic shipping carriers. Wasn't always like that - the old days (pre-70s) was paradise for the unions!

Posted by: hondo at February 25, 2006 05:38 PM (fyKFC)

3 Actual port security & overseeing control is in the hands of several federal and state govt agencies - I'd name them for you but some here would just take the opportunity to trash them - I've got a lot of dedicated friends there and I don't want to here it.

Posted by: hondo at February 25, 2006 05:42 PM (fyKFC)

4 The Council on Foreign Relations strongly advocates such deals, referring to the practice as "proactive global interdependence", touting it also as a necessary step toward WORLD GOVERNMENT. The CFR also advocates "Corporate Powerbuilding", as a means to outstrip government in wealth, in order to then subvert it through direct economic influence. Of course W Bush, like his father, is a member of the CFR. I believe the Iraq War, soon to be followed by the Iran War, is a device being used to simultaneously decrease government wealth, as it increases both corporate wealth and power. "Fascism should more rightly be called corporatism, as it is the merging of State and Corporate power." - Benito Mussolini

Posted by: Natasha at February 25, 2006 05:58 PM (i6py+)

5 Don't try using the old "liberal" vs "conservative" distraction ploy. This is NOT a partisan issue. It is an issue of National Security no matter how you try to spin it. I tell you what. You CFR Globalists can just keep your Hillary and W Bush. Oh yes. They are both alike members of the CFR, as is Bill Clinton, Dick Cheney, Carl Rove, Donnie Rumsfeld, John Kerry, ... etc etc. Stop the Globalist oligarchy now folks. The partisan divide is just one of their devices. The old divide and conquer trick. Don't buy it people.

Posted by: Natasha at February 25, 2006 06:07 PM (i6py+)

6 Rupert Murdoch, the owner and CEO of FOX, is also a CFR member, along with Tony 'the poodle' Blair, and yes lots of phony liberals are too. FOX "news" is where you idiots got that CFR spin you were just using, by the way.

Posted by: Natasha at February 25, 2006 06:11 PM (i6py+)

7 Anyone who thinks that anyone in a position of power can be trusted is a sucker anyway.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 25, 2006 06:40 PM (0yYS2)

8 That is a very insightful observation Improb.

Posted by: Natasha at February 25, 2006 07:02 PM (i6py+)

9 Even the twilight zone seems to have a fringe element.

Posted by: hondo at February 25, 2006 11:12 PM (fyKFC)

10 John Buchanan, lamented Clinton doing the same thing, back when Bill was President. {excerpted under fair use] A Chinese Naval Base -- at Long Beach by Patrick J. Buchanan March 13, 1997 "And last year, Johnny Chung, who gave $366,000 to the Democratic National Committee, showed up for a Clinton radio broadcast at the White House, with six Chinese in tow, including an adviser of Cosco. The president begged off being photographed with his guests, which raises a question: If Bill Clinton is leery of being seen with these characters, why is he giving them a Long Beach naval base?... Does anyone care about national security anymore?" Read the rest @ http://www.buchanan.org/pa-97-0313.html [end excerpt] Clinton sold the Long Beech California Port to the Chinese commies?! Those damned liberals! That adulterous slimy lying bastard Clinton! Sadly, he is not alone, in the selling of America. Here is a really incredible coincidence too. The UAE based multinational corporation, set to buy 21 Ports in the US, also gave "us" a gift also, just weeks before the UAE Ports deal was announced. Only Bush must be a better salesman than Clinton, because he got "us" 366 MILLION dollars! It supposedly went to the Katrina relief effort. Who knows. Why would a supposed conservative, hell bent on National Security and improving our economy, sell off our infrastructure? Really, it doesn't matter what foreign outfit he sells them to, or which party is involved now obviously. The question is why? Bush does not need the money, and it didn't go to him. I guess. So what the hell is going on? Could globalization have anything to with this, and does that have anything to with Globalism? Of course it does. What the hell is Globalism, and who are these guys anyway? Now that is THE question, and here is the answer. George W Bush, like his father, is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, as are both Bill and Hillary Clinton, Dick Cheney, Carl Rove, Donnie Rumsfeld, and yes of course John Kerry and other phony liberals and phony conservatives also. WHAT THE HELL! WHO ARE THESE GUYS? The Council on Foreign Relations strongly advocates such deals, referring to the practice as "proactive global interdependence", touting it also as a necessary step toward WORLD GOVERNMENT. That's right. the CFR is a Globalist organization. They want a world government, 'and' they want to 'be' that world government. How could they ever hope to accomplish this?! Well, nobody is stopping them, and they can certainly afford it, because "they" are also BIG OIL, not just here in the US but everywhere on earth. Now that is some serious economic power right there. The CFR along with the Bilderburg Group, seems to be the headship of globalization, and they have long advocated "Corporate Powerbuilding" as a means to outstrip governments in wealth, in order to then subvert governments everywhere through direct economic influence. Oh by the way. Did I mention that Bush Jr and Sr, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Carl Rove, John Kerry, and others you have heard of recently, are also members of the Bilderburg Group? SURPRISE! They are! So is the owner of FOX, and many other media owners, major newscasters, and yes even some cute and fuzzy pundits are members too. Hello, Rush? Is that why you are so well fed? How could it even be possible, for this group of super wealthy corporate heads 'and' heads of state the world over, to ever hope to take over governments all over the world? Can they do it? Well obviously, they have so much money now, they can both buy the infrastructure 'and' the political cooperation necessary. In effect they are buying the world as we speak. Both Clinton and Bush, and Reagan and Carter, and Ford, and others, have been selling our nation all along, like, well, like hotcakes. How does that make you feel? Wont it be wonderful?! Imagine the same ethic displayed by EXXON, McDonalds, "The Good Guys", WAL-MART and that place you slave at, applied mercilessly on a global scale, without the government or civil restrictions now protecting you. Wont it be great?! Do you think maybe they (repubs and dems alike), got us all so divided and blinded with partisan squabbling, thanks Rush, that we didn't notice what they were up to in secret behind our backs? Ya think? I mean do you think at all? "Fascism should more rightly be called corporatism, as it is the merging of State and Corporate power." - Benito Mussolini

Posted by: Natasha at February 27, 2006 04:15 PM (i6py+)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

February 22, 2006

Why Port Security Matters, and Why Allies are not Friends

Many are now calling our objections to the UAE port deal "knee jerk", "Islamaphobic", a "red herring" or even "racist". I have friends making the argument, so I won't point them out specifically.

Since the last time I checked "Islam" was still not a "race", I will give no space to that silly argument other than to mention that there are millions of Christian Arabs scattered throughout the Middle East.

As for being "Islamaphobic", I'm not exactly sure how one decides which fears are objectively irrational and which fears are not. For my part, given a fairly large body of evidence, I do not believe it is irrational to scrutinize Muslims more closely than Mennonites and Buddhists. And while I'm sure any religion has its share of its fanatics, to claim that Islam has a disproportionate share of them isn't exactly a problematic in my view.

So, to the last objection: that fears over the announcement that a Dubai (UAE) based company would acquire certain ports in the U.S. were "knee jerk" reactions. This objection is related to the two mentioned above. I can draw no other conclusion than to think that such a statement is predicated on the assumption that the "knee jerk" reaction is based on Islamaphobia or hatred of Arabs. I believe I've addressed those two above, and if the reaction is not based on irrational Islamaphobia or racism against Arabs, then why is it "knee jerk"?

The fundamental problem with the White House arguments that the port sale should go through rest on a misperception of the nature of an ally.

Alliances are relationsips based on mutual interests.
more...

Posted by: Rusty at 03:46 PM | Comments (37) | Add Comment
Post contains 1298 words, total size 8 kb.

1 I'll try again this again. Internal server must'a not got tipped again! Your comment on ..."Islam" was still not a "race",...and as I understand "religion" to be defined, not that either. "Cult" seems to be a more accurate description, which can be referred to as an "Extinct Cult" if and when, the world wakes up to the fact that Islamic Ghouls are to be destroyed, not understood or mollycoddled!

Posted by: forest hunter at February 22, 2006 05:33 PM (Fq6zR)

2 I'll try again this again. Internal server must'a not got tipped again! Hopefully, this won't be a double whammy. Your comment on ..."Islam" was still not a "race",...and as I understand "religion" to be defined, not that either. "Cult" seems to be a more accurate description, which can be referred to as an "Extinct Cult" if and when, the world wakes up to the fact that Islamic Ghouls are to be destroyed, not understood or mollycoddled!

Posted by: forest hunter at February 22, 2006 05:34 PM (Fq6zR)

3 Well, that ought'a clear it up, sayin' it twice! Can ya hear me now? Sorry 'bout that y'all.

Posted by: forest hunter at February 22, 2006 05:37 PM (Fq6zR)

4 Better take that one up with George... Basically, he can't even find a veto pen since he started "working" as president and now he is ready to whip it out and use it...... for what? For a sweetheart deal that made Secretary Snow MILLIONS of dollars (and we're supposed to believe he has no conflict of interest as Chairman of the committee that approves it)... and here's the best part.... Bush didn't even know the details of this deal until after he started having a temper tantrum!!!! So the issue is not principle... the issue is Junior can't stand the idea of having to be accountable or having anyone tell him what to do.... Great. I love to watch the shills defend this .... giving away millions of dollars to a fat cat already worth 100 million so a country that has aided terrorists and nuclear proliferators can manage American sea ports.... What amazes me is how many people went from "The only good Muslim is a dead Muslim" to "We need to be fair and let terrorist sympathizers manage our ports" OVERNIGHT... What's it going to take before people walk away from this guy? LNG tankers blowing up in 5 harbors on the same day? = Democrats serve their country. Republicans serve their country up on a platter.

Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at February 22, 2006 10:17 PM (K5Ko+)

5 Noise, just because the GOP is exposed as being rife with corruption doesn't mean the dhimmicraps get a free pass. The GOP must be purged of their crooks if they want to send anyone else to office, but the dhimmi's are all crooks, and a purge would leave no party. Take your bullshit somewhere else you idiot kid.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 23, 2006 05:24 AM (0yYS2)

6 This hubbub began as a knee-jerk reaction and some have had the intelligence to refine their argument over it while others continue to screech with little basis for it as they don't know all the facts. There has been much misinformation and lack of information over this deal. I understand your argument and I agree. But I still have mixed feelings. Dubai Ports World is taking a huge risk too. They are already in al Qaeda's sights a traitors to the Arab cause because of the huge steps they've taken to become a tactical ally to us. This will only make it worse for them because the alliance goes beyond just the tactical. You say people remain allies because they have similar goals even if they don't have similar philosophies. This is a business deal. And business partners are not always of the same political or philosophical stripe either. What we need to understand too is that port security is still "our" game. Their role is purely operational and they are more advanced technologically than the current operators. Too, one has to understand that they will most certainly protect their financial interests with their own first-line-of-defense security measures because this ain't no small potatoes deal. They are "partly" government owned (many think they are solely government owned) and out of the eighteen ports they manage only three are Arab. They're in Australia, Germany, Romania, China, India ... But, like you, I still have reservations due to the nature of their government. I'm just trying to be pragmatic.

Posted by: Oyster at February 23, 2006 05:39 AM (YudAC)

7 Dennis the Peasant has done some real research on this. It might be of interest to some.

Posted by: Oyster at February 23, 2006 07:47 AM (7YTVr)

8 "The only good Muslim is a dead Muslim" to "We need to be fair and let terrorist sympathizers manage our ports" OVERNIGHT... noise, Just more baseless verbal poopie from the "reality-based" community. I challenge you to show me where Bush has said anything even slightly resembling that comment (I don't expect you to take up the challenge or produce anything tangible, by the way. Just more verbal poop). If anything Bush has bent over backward to the point of snapping his spine trying to convince us islam is a "religion of peace." He's been very consistent about that, and this port deal is consistent with his rhetoric thus far. We happen to disagree with him. But why are the Dhimmicrats suddenly doing such a 180 on this? Observer how they sell their muslim pets down the road for some short-term political points. It couldn't possibly be hyporcrisy, now could it?

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 23, 2006 09:28 AM (8e/V4)

9 Joe, My comment about the 180 was for people on talk radio and blogs who are trying to put lipstick on this pig. Bush couldn't do a 180... he didn't even know that Snow was putting this deal together until he read about it in the paper! I thought the Washington Times' piece titled "Scotch the Port Deal" was funny.... rude given how many DUIs Cheney, Bush, and Snow have between them.... but funny nonetheless. As for apologists..even in this space there are people trying to paint this as reasonable. In addition to the six affected ports mentioned above, two others would also have part of their operations managed by DP World Â– on behalf of none other than the U.S. Army. Under a newly extended contract, the owner of P and O will manage the movement of heavy armor, helicopters and other military materiel through the Texas seaports of Beaumont and Corpus Christie. That would be like allowing Okinawans in 1942 to work as military contractors at Pearl Harbor. And for those who think this is simply a matter of DP buying out P&0... think again. The UAE evidently intends to raise nearly all of the $6.8 billion price for P and O on international capital markets. Who will the foreign investors be? How will we know? You think the US is the only country that uses front operations? The reason we are looking at this mess is this is yet another example of this administration cutting corners and ignoring the laws set up to protect us.

Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at February 23, 2006 10:26 AM (K5Ko+)

10 Noise, we're still waiting for you to show us who went from "The only good Muslim is a dead Muslim" to "We need to be fair and let terrorist sympathizers manage our ports" OVERNIGHT...". Like I said, Bush has been consistent about working with (moderate) muslims, whilst we genuine islamophobes are consistently against the port deal. So who's flip flopped? Still waiting for you to produce something tangible. The only flip floppers here are the Dhimmicrats. They're willing to become "racists" and "islamophobes" for some short-term political gain. They won't live this down.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 23, 2006 10:39 AM (8e/V4)

11 check out blisteringcheese.com http://blisteringcheese.com/index.php/weblog/comments/11491/

Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at February 23, 2006 11:34 AM (K5Ko+)

12 "That would be like allowing Okinawans in 1942 to work as military contractors at Pearl Harbor." Not quite. We aren't at war with the UAE. But nice try.

Posted by: Oyster at February 23, 2006 11:36 AM (7YTVr)

13 Noise, blistering cheese is making the same baseless claim you are. Conservatives are almost unamimously against the port deal-- whether it be Bush or John Kerry. So essentially you've created a strawman to knock down. And you folks call yourselves the "reality-based" community.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 23, 2006 11:51 AM (8e/V4)

14 and ps., Noise, are you goind to address why you and blistering cheese and the Dhimmicrats have become such islamophobes and racists overnight? Reality-based indeed.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 23, 2006 11:55 AM (8e/V4)

15 From the start, I've said I had no problem with this deal. I actually know exactly what port operations entail pretty much inside and out courtesy my fed job position in harbor operations here in NYC. I know this company and its record - and I have good knowledge of the UAE. I also have decent fair knowledge of actual port security and who does what and what it entails right here in the Port of NY/NJ (one of the biggest in the country). To the lib/left this whole thing is just another example Bush incompetence and why this admin should fall and be replaced by them (the Cheney thing has recently run out of steam). But to some on the right the reaction borders on blind ignorance, hatred and dare say even bigotry and racism. Rusty seems to have been the only one who has actually addressed this openingly and intelligently - and though we disagree on the final conclusion - at least I appreciated his argument and gave it serious thought (ref - nature of alliances). I know the biggest unseen pusher behind the Dem position is the affected unions - and I know what their position is and why. As far as the left - hell - its obvious. But some of you guys on the right - whoa! Looks like the lib/left found its magic bullet. This really is disturbing in the long term.

Posted by: hondo at February 23, 2006 12:26 PM (fyKFC)

16 hondo, this "magic bullet" is just more Dem attempts to triangulate. They think they can come off as strong on security with this one lonely example, and in the process they're only confirming to anybody with any sense that they have no core. At least Dhimmi Carter has a core. Bush, on the other hand, is being entirely consistent with his own rhetoric. He's always said islam is a "religion of peace", and he's always expressed a desire to work with moderate muslims in the war on terror. Dubai certainly fits that bill. We conservatives too are entirely consistent in our opposition to the deal. It's only the Dems who've flipped. Because they have no core. They simply look for short-term political gain, but it costs them in the long run. It's why they lost the last election, despite the war and the economy. It should have been a gimme.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 23, 2006 12:49 PM (8e/V4)

17 JC You know how I feel about the lib/left - but some of the conservation reaction is disturbing and not consistant. I know what motivates the lib/left and they don't give a damn about security - and they have consistantly failed to get any traction. This whole thing however is creating a crack for them and letting the right do more damage than they have been able to. As I said - I don't have a problem with this deal - and no one has given me an adequate reason to state otherwise - and I am directly affected by this! You could come over my house - we'd drive over to NorthShore Point - and lobe tennis balls off the sides of massive container ships 100 ft away in the channel slowing moving towards the terminal berths. I'm practically sitting on the exact port terminals in question.

Posted by: hondo at February 23, 2006 01:08 PM (fyKFC)

18 hondo, then Bush should explain to us why the deal is ok, on the merits, instead of labeling us "isolationists" and islamophobes. I expect that from moonbats, not from the Bush camp. He did the same thing to us with Harriet Myers, labeling us sexists and elitists. It's a betrayal. He should knock it off asap.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 23, 2006 01:54 PM (8e/V4)

19 JC, Bush has been very exasperating all along when it comes to communicating. So it's really nothing new that he hasn't changed in that regard. It doesn't make it right - not at all. We do get tired of hearing, "Trust me." I could only recommend doing some serious research. I've been doing a lot. Read the link I gave above to Dennis the Peasant's post and check on his claims yourself to corroborate what info he gives.

Posted by: Oyster at February 23, 2006 02:45 PM (7YTVr)

20 JC I thought he did! The very fact that a foreign investment like this has to be investigated and get prior approval by more than a dozen federal agencies including National Security related - plus as we now know additional agreements were made above required! Point is - nothing Bush can say will square this with you. When all the above is done and approved then this is strictly business - how much further do you want the presidency involved in national/regional business operations?

Posted by: hondo at February 23, 2006 06:04 PM (fyKFC)

21 >>>Point is - nothing Bush can say will square this with you. Nonsense. We've been giving Bush the benefit of the doubt for years. It's only polite that he do the same with us instead of talking to us like he's some kind of moonbat. We aren't isolationists, and we're not unreasonable in our islamophobia. Talk to us, George.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 23, 2006 07:04 PM (8e/V4)

22 Oyster The Dennis link was right on the money - thanks. This is where I've been working out of for the past 5+ years (recently left) - harbor operations/maintenance (fed agency). Its amazing how far some will go with this without any idea whatsoever what is involved in port terminal operations - its as if the reality of said operations is irrelevant to all this. The biggest threats I ever saw was the apparent widespread incompetence and corruption amongst my (former) agency - and we weren't involved in security. A big force behind the scene on this is the involved unions. They hate all of the private corps and carriers running ops and calling the shots. They really miss the good ol'days of the '50s when they and their political friends ran the docks (into the ground!).

Posted by: hondo at February 23, 2006 08:22 PM (fyKFC)

23 Hey, here's a great idea to please the Arab countries who are our 'Allies' and 'Friends' and all the Muslims, from moderates to radical IslamOfascist monkee killers that dream of destroying and taking over America: The U.S. should outsource Homeland Security to Saudi Arabia! After all, they are one of our biggest allies in the Middle East when it comes to the GWIFT (Global War on Islamic Fascism & Terror). Why not? This would be a great way to "make a statement" that we trust any country with our security, even one that secretly nurtures, finances and educates many of their citizenry toward desiring the Non-Islamic world to be enslaved under Sharia Law. They'll really start to love us after this, terrorism will start to diminish, and many IslamOfascists will start becoming more and more Hippyish and Flowerchildish. They'll no longer kidnap innocent men and women and slice their heads off on TV. They will stop raping young women and then stoning them for adultery after they become pregnant. They will stop hating all Jews and wanting to "wipe Israel off the map". Why not? This would be a very nice gift to the Islamic world. A way of saying thank you for not committing any major terrorist attacks in the U.S. since 9/11.

Posted by: Little Blue PD at February 24, 2006 12:53 AM (SJJAx)

24 Port operations and port security are two different things - though I doubt some really give a damn. Some refuse to make a distinction here about anything and insist upon some kneejerk reaction. Fine. Then why are we even bothering in Iraq or Afghanistan?

Posted by: hondo at February 24, 2006 02:02 AM (fyKFC)

25 Hondo asks: Then why are we even bothering in iraq or Afghanistan? Good question. Afghanistan... because the failed regime turned into a launching pad for international terrorists that attacked us. When we demanded they hand over the perpetrators, they refused. We invaded with the support of virtually every country in the world, including Iran, Cuba, Libya, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, China and Russia. The realization of that threat to international stability was why central asian countries like Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and others allowed us to set up military bases for operations. The opposition to that invasion was extremely muted. Congressional approval was virtually unanimous. Even Quakers went on record supporting it. Iraq... There have been over 2 dozen reasons floated by this administration to justify the invasion. Now that the long predicted Civil War has begun, the only plausible reason left is to maintain control of oil contracts so they can be denominated in dollars not euros. In contrast to Afghanistan, opposition to this invasion was very vocal. About 1/3 of Democrats voted against it. Most of our allies refused to participate. Those who did have since cut back dramatically on their involvement. The consequence is the costs have spiraled out of control, we have damaged our standing around the world, we have stretched our military to the point that is no longer a credible deterrant. Gulliver has tied himself down and inflicted more damage on himself than anyone else could ever have done. The worst part is the radical new doctrine of preemptive war has provided incentive for other nations to join together. The growing alliance known as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization demonstrates the US will soon be confronting a political/economic/military alliance that it cannot defeat. The pending admission of Pakistan and India to an alliance dominated by China demonstrates how the Bush Doctrine has successfully driven countries that are normally at each other's throats into each other's arms. The rise of SCO will mark the end of American hegemony as it will consist of 4 nuclear powers (with a 5th pending), 2 major oil producers, 2 major gas producers, 1/2 the world's population, and a land mass from the Baltic to the Pacific, the Arctic to the Indian Ocean. The rise of SCO will scuttle American aspirations for a Pax Americana and mark the end of American hegemony. Unfortunately, this could have been avoided if Republicans served their country before serving their party. == The worst wounds are self-inflicted - Duke Cunningham

Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at February 24, 2006 08:34 AM (K5Ko+)

26 Little Blue - Your far-flung and childish suggestions do not advance the discussion at all. You're just "acting out" and contributing absolutely no pertinent knowledge of the situation. Now, if you care to promote discussion in a manner removed from emotion and virtual "waving of arms", we're ready to listen.

Posted by: Oyster at February 24, 2006 08:37 AM (YudAC)

27 noise, your "analysis" reads like something out of a wacko Leftwing website. But instead of more feverish speculation, why not just answer the few simple easy questions put to you. Because I could challenge your latest drivel too, but what's the use. You're not here for an exchange, merely to hit and run.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 24, 2006 09:07 AM (8e/V4)

28 You can discount what I say, but you cannot ignore the fact that Uzbekistan kicked out US troops last year. We are talking about a country that if it were a state, it would be getting aid from West Virginia. When was the last time the US was kicked out of a country? I mean before Uzbekistan? You can pretend this is loonie talk... because it scares you witless to realize that the criticism of this policy was right. BEFORE the invasion people said the NSS of 2002 was a mistake waiting to happen. The invasion of Iraq was objected to because it a) discounted the economic impact of protracted global war, b) disdained the diplomatic alliances needed in a nuclear age, c) dismissed the professional opinion of experienced military commanders, and d) disregarded the intelligence that did not support the policy. Everyone who raised these points was labelled a traitor, terrorist sympathizer, or worse. Many were fired or forced to resign. During this entire time Republicans have controlled the Executive and the Legislative branches. The cronyism you see with Halliburton and now Snow & Co. are part and parcel of this administration's disdain for dialogue and contempt for law. Instead of refuting any of the points raised you lob epithets and shriek like a battered spouse protecting her abuser, refusing to see how you have enabled the destruction. The facts are clear. The arthmetic is clear. The outcome is clear. Pretending otherwise flies in the face and teeth of reality. = Napolean's armies were defeated in Haiti before they were defeated at Waterloo.

Posted by: Background Noise at February 24, 2006 09:30 AM (K5Ko+)

29 >>>"because it scares you witless " noise, Uzbekistan kicked and out, and we.....ACTUALLY LEFT??? The horrors! I'm scared witless. But you left out the part that they kicked us out of Uzbekistan because we condemned their human rights record. The Uzbek dictator is a villain who boils dissidents alive, and we had the temerity to criticize him. Shame on you George Bush! No, I don't lob epithets unless they're first lobbed at me. Then it's open season. On the contrary, I've addressed your hit and runs with reasoned responses, to no avail. You refuse to answer any challenge to your bomb throwing. Shows how weak your position is. It's bumper sticker ideology.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 24, 2006 10:00 AM (8e/V4)

30 you can spin the departure anyway you like... just as you spin everything else .. DiRita tried to spin it too.... The United States was among many insisting upon an independent investigation into the Andijon events. But Uzbekistan sought shelter from international criticism and found it in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which groups Uzbekistan with Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan. At the SCO summit in July, the group approved a call for the United States to name a date for its departure from bases in Central Asia. At the time, US officials blamed China and Russia for pressuring the Central Asian states into demanding the US name a date for leaving. US Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs Lawrence Di Rita pointed to the importance of the Uzbek base and said it was Uzbekistan and not the SCO who should decide how long the United States could use Khanabad. "I hadnÂ’t seen the declaration or whatever it was that the group put out. ItÂ’s a facility that is -- that the United States government and, in fact, the coalition have found to be an important -- providing an important capability in the global war on terror. ItÂ’s one that we have operated from with the consent and the cooperation of the Uzbek government. ItÂ’s a decision the Uzbek government has to make as to whether or not we would continue to operate from that." Di Rita said. In the following weeks, Tashkent made it clear that it wanted US forces out of the country. US Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Daniel Fried was in Tashkent on 27 September to formalize what was already known for two months -- the US military is leaving Uzbekistan by the end of this year. After FriedÂ’s meeting with Uzbek President Islam Karimov, Uzbek presidential spokesman Beruniy Olimov tried to put a good face on the results. But Fried plainly said that "we intend to leave the base without further discussion." He could have added that the state of US-Uzbek relations was the worst it has been since the Soviet Union collapsed. http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insight/articles/pp092905.shtml the fact is that is the first domino to fall... U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's trip to Kyrgyzstan -- aiming to keep the U.S. military base there open -- resulted in a stalemate. While Rumsfeld received assurances from Bishkek that the U.S. air base would not be closed any time soon, he was also told the base would not become permanent. In any event, Washington has made it clear it will not be pushed out of Central Asia easily, so now the real competition can begin. http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/read_article.php?id=252486&countryId=68 of course it scares you witless.... when people said the nss 2002 was a mistake you called them appeasers and worse. when people said invading iraq was a mistake you called them cowards and worse. when people turned their backs and refused to help you mocked them. when people offered to help they were shunned. when people tell you how you were misled you ignore them. when people demand accountability you shirk it. when it all falls apart you blame everyone but yourself. the carelessness of an administration run by drunks is no surprise .... what is a surprise is how many people enabled them. unfortunately, these drunks are taking the rest of us with them as they rush to hit bottom. But back to Central Asia... You may think Uzbekistan doesn't matter... but you are wrong. It was a clear signal of America's waning influence and they have snatched upon it and are running with it as fast as they can. The sad part is all the sycophants are so busy parading their triumphalist nonsense they don't even realize their is a race going on... are you aware that there is a new Russian, Indian, Pakistani pipeline deal in the works? Are you aware of the military exercises held by SCO with observer nations attending? Are you aware of the pending joint Russian Indian military exercises? Are you aware of the pending China Iran oil deal pending? When history is written, Bush will be compared to Nero -- unfavorably -- and those who blindly supported him will not be able to say "we didn't know" because the record is clear you were warned repeatedly and chose to ignore it.

Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at February 24, 2006 10:37 AM (K5Ko+)

31 You Lefties, as usual, side with foreign dictators, against your own country. The only thing that scares me witless is knowing that there are so many of you within our nation's borders. "Uzbekistan formally ordered the United States to leave an air base that has been a hub for operations in Afghanistan in protest over a predawn United Nations operation on Friday to spirit out refugees who had fled an uprising in Uzbekistan in May, senior State Department officials said Saturday. Mr. Burns said the United States had been "profoundly concerned" about the status of the Uzbek refuges in Kyrgyzstan who fled after the Andijon incident. "We have energetically supported the efforts to bring them to safety in Romania," he said, "because we feared they would be persecuted if they were sent back to Uzbekistan." Another State Department official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of department ground rules, said, "Obviously we don't want to lose K-2." But he added that loss of the base was preferable to backing away from demanding that Uzbekistan start political and economic reforms and agree to an international investigation of the Andijon killings." http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/31/international/31uzbek.html?ex=1140930000&en=6978b2e607a32a53&ei=5070

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 24, 2006 01:08 PM (8e/V4)

32 Regardless of the merits (if any) of placing US ports under foreign control (dubious Dubai), Junior has clearly alienated his clinging remnant of support. He enjoyed a whopping 27% margin amongst non-college-educated White males in the 2004 election, and now even what remained of that hardcore demographic is abandoning him, as even the radical evangelicals within that ilk are now throwing tantrums. The once simmering anti-Muslim, anti-Arab bigotry is now seething. Politically, Junior has just blown the 'national security' dome off the GOP temple, and it was the only shelter they had left. Confucius say: Always better to shoot friend in face than self in foot.

Posted by: tipsy at February 25, 2006 07:17 AM (PbJdC)

33 GOOD DAY DAER SO ASK HOW CONYACT? I NEED TELPHONE OFICE AND IMAIL SO THANK YOU REPLY

Posted by: ABDALAH at March 17, 2006 12:19 PM (IpuE8)

34 GOOD DAY DAER SO ASK HOW CONYACT? I NEED TELPHONE OFICE AND IMAIL IN U.A.E SO THANK YOU REPLY

Posted by: ABDALAH at March 17, 2006 12:20 PM (IpuE8)

35 GOOD DAY DAER SO ASK HOW CONYACT? I NEED TELPHONE OFICE U.A.E AND IMAIL IN U.A.E SO THANK YOU REPLY

Posted by: ABDALAH at March 17, 2006 12:20 PM (IpuE8)

36 GOOD DAY DAER SO ASK HOW CONYACT? I NEED TELPHONE OFICE U.A.E AND IMAIL SO THANK YOU REPLY

Posted by: ABDALAH at March 17, 2006 12:21 PM (IpuE8)

37 GOOD DAY DAER SO ASK HOW CONYACT? I NEED TELPHONE OFICE U.A.E DUBAI AND IMAIL SO THANK YOU REPLY

Posted by: ABDALAH at March 17, 2006 12:21 PM (IpuE8)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Stand with Denmark, Rally at Danish Embassies

Posted by: Rusty at 02:17 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 14 words, total size 1 kb.

1 I LIKE IT!! Great idea for a bumper sticker too.

Posted by: heroyalwhyness at February 22, 2006 03:13 PM (XU9K/)

2 I'm sitting this one out. Actions speak a lot louder than words - and words lend themselves to semantic redefinitions quite easily. I want to see what the Danes and other Euros will do over the next several months before I cuddle up next to them and make a fool of myself.

Posted by: hondo at February 22, 2006 04:01 PM (fyKFC)

3 hondo, you made much the same comment on my post about this. I don't see myself aligning so much with the Danes as with our own Constitution. Standing for freedom of speech and freedom of the press isn't really subject to the whims of fashion and international politics. It just happens to be the Danes on the receiving end right now.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at February 22, 2006 04:36 PM (RHG+K)

4 Agreed - but the islamists can be placated, even if only temporarily. The Danes and Euros know this - and they know what it takes. Even if it is just a war of words, the Danes know they can offer up US and Israel to sooth them. Principals of free speech and press are US inventions - the Euro versions came later and they are - versions, variations on the theme. There are differences.

Posted by: hondo at February 22, 2006 05:54 PM (fyKFC)

5 I'm with hondon on this one. I'll stand up for the Danes when they begin standing up for themselves. Until then they're just dhimmis.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 22, 2006 08:28 PM (8e/V4)

6 FLEMMING ROSE THE AUTHOR OF THE PROPHET CARTOONS IS A ZIONIST JEW Flemming Rose born 3/14/1956 into a Jewish family in the Ukraine Flemming Rose, a Jewish extremist supporter of Israel and close friend of Neocon Jewish extremist Daniel Pipes. Either we in the West believe in Freedom of Speech or we don't. If we really have free speech then why is world-renowned historian David Irving sitting in a prison in Vienna right now facing up to 20 years imprisonment for having a dissenting opinion on some details of the Holocaust? Why was Germar Rudolf, a Chemist Doctoral Candidate, kept from receiving his degree and now sits in a dank prison meant for terrorists with a five year sentence for simply scientifically challenging some forensics of the Holocaust? Why has a pacifist Canadian, Ernst Zundel been in prison for 3 years and now faces trial in Mannheim, Germany for expressing his conscience on an historical period now over 50 years old! It should be obvious to all the fair-minded people that the pro-Israel, pro Clash of Civilizations, pro World War III cartel of media brazenly supports freedom only when it supports their own nefarious agenda, they cannot afford criticism or dissent. Flemming Rose born 3/14/1956 into a Jewish family in the Ukraine Flemming Rose, a Jewish extremist supporter of Israel and close friend of Neocon Jewish extremist Daniel Pipes. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flemming_Rose&oldid=39058031

Posted by: hansrussen at February 24, 2006 05:42 PM (8kpQK)

7 So, let's look at the guy who started this whole cartoon escapade. He's Flemming Rose, the cultural editor of the Danish newspaper. In all of the Lexis-Nexis database of stories from the American media on the Mohammed cartoons, there is absolutely no mention of the fact that Rose is a close confederate of arch-Islamophobe Daniel Pipes. Indeed, there is almost no context at all about Rose's newspaper. On a brief mention in the Washington Post gave a hint at a fact desperately needed to understand the situation. The Post described the affair as Â“a calculated insult Â… by a right-wing newspaper in a country where bigotry toward the minority Muslim population is a major, if frequently unacknowledged, problem.Â” How bad is Pipes? He wants the utter military obliteration of the Palestinians; indeed, from the Muslim world, his racism is about as blatant as that of the Holocaust denying Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. PipesÂ’ frequent outbursts of racism -- designed to toss gasoline on the neo-consÂ’ lust for a wholesale conflict of cultures -- earned him a Bush nomination to the U.S. Institute of Peace, a congressionally funded think tank. Rose came to America to commune with Pipes in 2004, and it was after that meeting the cartoon gambit materialized. It's also worth noting that Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen wrapped himself in protestations about freedom of speech, and that's commendable. But he is one of Bush's few fans in Europe, steeped in the we-versus-them rhetoric, and having sent troops to the Iraqi Crusade. Is Rose an equal opportunity offender? No way. As the British press reported last week, his newspaper refused in 2003 to run cartoons that ridiculed Jesus. And, of course, free expression in Europe is very relative. Many of the democracies have laws banning certain speech.

Posted by: hansrussen at February 24, 2006 05:43 PM (8kpQK)

8 But Rose acknowledges that even his liberalism has its limits. He said he would not publish a cartoon of Israel's Ariel Sharon strangling a Palestinian baby, since that could be construed as "racist." Now why would Rose refuse to publish a cartoon depicting Ariel Sharon, a known war-criminal and genocidaire, strangling a Palestinian baby? Why would such a cartoon, correct and accurate in its depiction, be considered "racist" by Flemming Rose? Sharon has certainly been responsible for the murder of thousands of Palestinians during his time on this planet. He is a well-known war criminal. So, why would an Israeli war criminal be protected by Mr. Rose? Are we likely to see cartoons in Jyllands-Posten calling into question the force-fed Zionist myth of the Holocaust, which has become the new "Holy Cause" of Europe? Why should the criminal history of a Zionist leader or outstanding questions about the the Second World War be more protected than the worshipped prophet of one of the world's major religions?

Posted by: hansrussen at February 24, 2006 05:44 PM (8kpQK)

9 Jail for British Holocaust denier but nothing against flemming rose the zionist racist jew who offend muslims with his prophet cartoons Monday 20 February 2006, 22:54 Irving termed the trial ridiculous A British historian has been convicted in Austria of denying the Holocaust - a crime in this country once run by the Nazis - and sentenced to three years in prison. Elmar Kresbach, the lawyer, said: "I consider the verdict a little too stringent. I would say it's a bit of a message trial." Irving appeared shocked as the sentence was read out. Moments later, an elderly man who identified himself only as a family friend called out: "Stay strong, David - stay strong," before he was escorted from the courtroom. Irving, 67, has been in custody since his arrest in November on charges stemming from two speeches he gave in Austria in 1989 in which he was accused of denying the Nazis' extermination of six million Jews. Earlier on Monday, he told journalists he considered it "ridiculous" that he was standing trial for remarks made 17 years ago. Irving's trial was held amidst new - and fierce - debate over freedom of expression in Europe, where the printing and reprinting of unflattering cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad has triggered violent protests worldwide.

Posted by: hansrussen at February 24, 2006 05:45 PM (8kpQK)

10 The Danish constitution says: Â“The law prohibits publicly disseminated statements, which threaten, insult, or degrade persons based on their religion.Â” And this law was used by the Danish government to condemn Â“anti-SemiticÂ” activities and investigate them, as mentioned in the human rights report made by the US Department of State regarding Denmark in 2004: Â“From January through June, there were five incidents of anti-Semitic vandalism, primarily graffiti, and one incident of an anti-Semitic mailing, which the government condemned and investigated.Â” Why a different stand when it comes to Islam? Of course there is nothing new in this. In April last year the queen of Denmark was quoted by the Telegraph newspaper as saying that we (Denmark) Â“should show our opposition to IslamÂ”. The problem is not confined to Demark; some newspapers in some European countries used the same cartoons to say that they support the Danish newspaper's Â“freedom of speechÂ”. These countries that boast about freedom of speech and freedom of press are the same countries that make it illegal and punishable by prison for anyone to question the holocaust . In France a university professor was sacked because he made a research questioning the magnitude of the Holocaust. In Germany one risks going to jail if one denies the Holocaust . In fact the Italian interior minister confirmed on Thursday that legal action is being taken against 11 football fans for brandishing Nazi symbols during a Serie A game. The 11 face prison sentences of between three months and one year. There are many examples to show that freedom of press in Europe stops when it comes to some historical facts that two can differ upon, but when it is about insulting Islam then it is freedom of speech. No freedom is absolute; a person's freedom ends when it encroaches into another person's freedom.

Posted by: hansrussen at February 24, 2006 05:46 PM (8kpQK)

11 The mainstream media coverage of the anti-Islamic cartoons ignores the fact that the publication of the images was a "calculated offense" commissioned by a Jewish "Danish" colleague of the Jewish neocon ideologue Daniel Pipes and was meant to incite violence and promote the Jewish "clash of civilizations" between Muslims and Christians. After Danish embassies in three Muslim nations were attacked and set alight by angry Muslims protesting the anti-Islamic cartoons published in a Danish newspaper, the mainstream Jewish media turned its attention (from the 58-year Jewish occupation of Palestine and the Zionist occupation of Iraq) to the "controversial" images and the violent reactions they provoked. Invariably, however, the Jewish-controlled press overlooked the important fact that the offensive images were commissioned and published by a Jewish "Danish" colleague of the Jewish neoconservative extremist Daniel Pipes. The anti-Muslim cartoon scandal has turned out to be a major step forward for the Zionist neocons and their long-planned for Israel "clash of civilizations", the artificially constructed conflict designed to pit the so-called Christian West against the Islamic world. "The rioting that has erupted across the Middle EastÂ… is a predictable if overwrought reaction to what now seems like a calculated offense against Islam," the Miami Herald wrote in its lead editorial on Feb. 7, 2006. "It is not necessary to reprint the offending cartoons for U.S. readers to understand the issue," the Knight-Ridder paper said. "A religious taboo was violated, and those involved knew full well what they were doing. The incident fell all too neatly into the hands of those who would exacerbate tensions between Europe and the Muslim world." The Zionist Flemming Rose, the cultural editor of Jyllands-Posten (JP), is the person who commissioned and published the offensive cartoons knowing that the images would exacerbate tensions between Europe and the Islamic nations. Rose is a colleague of the Jewish neocon Pipes who visited the Philadelphia office of Pipes' Zionist web site, called Middle East Forum, in 2004. Rose then penned a sympathetic article about Pipes entitled "The Threat from Islamism", which promoted his extreme anti-Islamic views without mentioning the fact that Pipes is a rabid Zionist Jewish extremist. Pipes, the son of the Polish-born Jewish Zionist neocon professor Richard E. Pipes, is a Zionist of the most extreme sort, who says that the Palestinian people need to have a "change of heart" that should be brought about after being utterly defeated by the Israeli military. "How is a change of heart achieved? It is achieved by an Israeli victory and a Palestinian defeat," Pipes said in 2003. "The Palestinians need to be defeated even more than Israel needs to defeat them." After three Danish embassies were attacked by angry Muslims, CNN turned to Pipes, its carefully chosen Middle East analyst, to explain the cause of the widespread anger in the Muslim world. Rather than discuss the origin of the anti-Muslim images, which had provoked the protests, Pipes blamed radical clerics for having circulated the offensive images! CNN failed to mention that Pipes and Rose are Zionist Jewish neocon colleagues while Pipes blamed Muslims for the violent protests, saying that "extremists" had used the offensive cartoons published by Rose "to rally their people and become more agitatedly anti-Western." While there have been massive protests throughout the Muslim world against Denmark for the offense against Islam, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, with Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni by her side, blamed Syria and Iran for the violent protests in Damascus and Tehran. "Iran and Syria have gone out of their way to inflame sentiments and to use this to their own purposes," Rice said. "And the world ought to call them on it." In an article entitled "Cartoons and Islamic Imperialism", written as the Danish embassies smoldered, Jewish Pipes framed the "key issue at stake in the battle over the 12 "Danish" cartoons. "Will the West stand up for its customs and mores, including freedom of speech, or will Muslims impose their way of life on the West? Ultimately, there is no compromise," Pipes wrote! "Westerners will either retain their civilization, including the right to insult and blaspheme, or not." Repeated questions to Rose, Pipes, and the editors of JP about whether Europeans should also have the right to "insult and blaspheme" the Zionist Jewish version of the "Holocaust" went unanswered. During the last decade, there have been several thousand people fined and hundreds put in European prisons for having written or spoken about the "Holocaust" or Jewish related affairs in a manner deemed illegal. Framing the cartoon scandal in this way and forcing a false choice between defending the "free press" or the Muslim protesters, Pipes reveals his hidden hand behind the publication of the cartoons, which now appears to be a well-laid trap into which a number of newspapers and populist parties have fallen. There is also a clear connection between the publication of the anti-Muslim cartoons and the secretive Jewish power. Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the "Danish" prime minister and frequent Jewish power attendee, for example, has refused to issue a formal apology, which would cost Denmark nothing but could save the nation from further losses to its exporting business and national prestige. Denmark has lost significant market share in Muslim nations due to a consumer boycott of Danish products. The damage caused to Denmark's image, prestige and economy is likely to be severe and long-lasting. Danish lives are also clearly endangered. Rasmussen's refusal to apologize, however, suggests that the "calculated offense", which has led to increased tension between Europeans and the Muslim world, was intentional. One would think that the Jew Rose, as the person directly responsible for the "calculated offense" to millions of Muslims, would be charged under Europe's anti-racism laws, not to speak of the severe damage his offensive cartoons caused to Denmark and the Danish people. Merete Eldrup, the managing director of IP/Politikens Hus, the parent company that owns Jyllands-Posten, is married to Anders Eldrup of Denmark, a Jewish group attendee for the last five years. Eldrup is chairman of Danish Oil and Natural Gas.

Posted by: hansrussen at February 24, 2006 05:47 PM (8kpQK)

12 The banner, above, has the most attractive background I've seen so far in the "Support Denmark" campaign. I like bumper stickers. They may not develop points of view very well, but they can be great at expressing them. Kind of like cartoons ... Here's one I'd like to see: Join the Muslim Diaspora! Move to Sunny Scandinavia! Rape Western Women!

Posted by: rdarmand at February 28, 2006 11:34 AM (k7h/L)

13 The problem with believing in free speech and toleration is that it means you have to give free speech and tolerance to fascist scum like Hansrussen. But that doesn't mean you have to let him have space on your website!

Posted by: Bob from Brockley at March 16, 2006 07:47 AM (lCeVs)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

February 21, 2006

Bush to Veto UAE Port Legislation

Wow. And all this time I thought it was some Rovian plot just to make Bush look like a dumbass.

Unless there is some secret backroom deal going on here (eg, Dubai insists port deal must go through or kick U.S. bases out of UAE) then it looks like the White House has the ABC Afterschool Special view of Islam: it's wrong to discriminate based on religion, mmmmmkay.

Posted by: Rusty at 03:09 PM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 80 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Why does't Bush just tell everyone why this is such a good deal?

Posted by: Leatherneck at February 21, 2006 04:08 PM (D2g/j)

2 Even Dhimmi Carter agrees with the port deal. What's Bush's fucking problem.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 21, 2006 04:10 PM (M3nr/)

3 When Carter of Arabia is in agreement with your middle east policy, you know you are 1-wrong, and 2-not lokin them Jew people too much

Posted by: Steve Sharon at February 21, 2006 04:31 PM (L+HFR)

4 This is political correctness gone amuck. One wonders what it will take for people from bottom to top to come to their senses. An atomic bomb blast might do it.

Posted by: jesusland joe at February 21, 2006 04:42 PM (rUyw4)

5 Proof that the A rab money DO-BUY American policy

Posted by: Steve Sharon at February 21, 2006 06:09 PM (L+HFR)

6 Steve nailed it. I wonder what Bush is getting out of the deal? I always wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt, but I see now that he is either as stupid or corrupt as the libtards have always said. God I feel sick.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 21, 2006 06:30 PM (0yYS2)

7 I don't see what the problem is other than it is state-owned (UAE - primary shareholder) with extensive additional arab, British and German corporate investors. It already has a track record of port ops in the US going back several decades. Carter will give his 2 cent opinion to anyone if they ask - or don't. He's irrelevant. now Hillary is another thing ... a lot of people here seem eager to jump into bed with her and cuddle up. Why is that?

Posted by: hondo at February 21, 2006 07:14 PM (fyKFC)

8 Bush has never used his Veto power. If he chooses this time to do it, I think there is enough bipartisan opposition to overturn it. Several democrats have already opposed it, as well as some republicans, like Bill Frist.

Posted by: The Gentle Cricket at February 21, 2006 07:54 PM (USZUJ)

9 It is odd. However right now Bush looks like the Supporter of UAE good for his perception abroad. If shot down it will be by popular dissent. Thus absolving W of the blame for the block abroad(UAE). Also it shows that the American people are involved and are mistrusting the Arab world because of terror. Thus providing UAE, who has stated oil is finite and they want to diversify, motivation to fight terror in order to accomplish the stated goal of entering the new investor economy and moving away from oil as the lone source of their economy. Other than that ??? More to this than meets the eye methinks(hopes) otherwise it's just stupid.

Posted by: Howie at February 21, 2006 08:09 PM (D3+20)

10 This whole deal scares the crap out of me. Love the Bush-man but he has lost his mind on this one!

Posted by: Mighty Whitey at February 21, 2006 08:16 PM (LxONe)

11 In the words of the immortal P.J. O'Rourke: "WTF??? I mean, WTF'n F???"

Posted by: Eman at February 21, 2006 08:19 PM (c/4ax)

12 If Bush does veto the legislation blocking the port deal, it's going to overturned by congress. That will result in Bush' political incineration. He's going to torpedo every republican running for office in '06 and probably '08. You know what's funny. I don't think there are too many companies worldwide that can run an operation like this and Halliburton is one of them.. LOL. Can you just imagine?

Posted by: Richard at February 21, 2006 08:40 PM (7KF8r)

13 Watched Baltimores Mayor Martin O'Malley tear into the Bush Admin, and watched the republican Gov of MD weasel yesterday. Today, both are on the same page..polls rule? You know.. Michael Moore was right about the Saudi connection. I thought it was just blah blah, but you know... he's right. ( and I thought Farenheit 9-11 was only entertainment..who knew? )

Posted by: BlackCat at February 21, 2006 08:40 PM (oy596)

14 Hondo.. the problem is that the UAE has a very checkered past and has been involved in financing islamfascist terror infrastructure. The idea of giving these guys management control of our ports is ludicrous.

Posted by: Richard at February 21, 2006 08:46 PM (7KF8r)

15 Individuals in country - yes - UAE Govt - no. This is a state-owned multi-national partnership corporation that has been operating ports around the world (and several already here in USA) for several decades. UAE and corporation have got a clean slate and record - so what's the beef? I work in and around port facilities - many are foreign operated. I hope no one here is dumb enough to think they are going to replace hundreds if not thousands of American port workers with Pakis with green cards! The workforce remains the same with the addition of possibly a few middle and upper level execs.

Posted by: hondo at February 21, 2006 11:19 PM (fyKFC)

16 correction - no current port terminal ops here - confused Corp with Dubai Shipping which is a major world freight carrier and I believe a seperate part of the corporation. Bulk of their ops are in Asia (far east) and big competitor with Chinese & S. Koreans. Corporate board and Co Ops Global heavy with ... Brits.

Posted by: hondo at February 22, 2006 02:48 AM (fyKFC)

17 Having thought about it, maybe he does have a plan. He used Harriet Myers as a stalking horse to galvanize his base into demanding a real qualified conservative justice, and we got one, more or less. Now, he won't be running for re-election, and neither will anyone in his administration be running, with the possible exception of Condi, so maybe he's using himself as a stalking horse by committing this outrageous act to get us all wound up. He is so unpopular with so many swing voters, and conservatives, that he may be giving strong Republicans a chance to come out and stand up for us. The dhimmicraps certainly aren't missing the opportunity to expose this lunacy for what it is, so maybe they will be forced to start acting like our compatriots again, instead of our enemies. But then, if they do that, we will have a harder time purging them when the war comes to our streets. Damn.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 22, 2006 05:37 AM (0yYS2)

18 I still can't believe it. People are allowing their attention to be diverted from the most important issue regarding this deal. Yes, there are obvious irregularities and "conflicts of interest" involved, in this little deal really, which are of concern surely. These are sides issues of less importance though, in comparison to the fact that ownership or control, when not both, of our entire infrastructure has already been sold to foreign corporations. It is not just our seaports which have been sold off over the last four Presidential administrations. If only that were all there is to it. No, also our airports, railways system, trucking companies, highways and toll roads, bridges, hospitals, national retail chains, shipping companies, and even most of what little domestic industrial capacity left here to us in the US, have already been sold off. For whatever reason, whether by design or by accident, the public has become aware of some of this because of the DPW of the UAR Ports deal. The electronic media however has not told even half the story. For example DPW is not buying control of a mere 6 ports, but 21 ports in fact. Thus far media coverage has focused on the sensationalist possibilities, which I am certain the Bush admin, both can and will put to rest as they proceed with the deal. Media coverage is also making this a very sensationalized partisan issue. Clearly however both US Parties have been fully complicit all along, in selling control and ownership of our entire infrastructure, to the multinational corporate alliance. This same global confederation of Big Corps, doing all the buying, has no loyalty to any nation state. In fact this multinational corporate alliance, is becoming more powerful in wealth (the one true power) than all national governments put together, and they are doing it through the buying of the infrastructure within all nations, everywhere, not just here in the US. Well what can we expect of the media? It too is owned and controlled by, the very same multinational corporate alliance.

Posted by: Natasha at February 28, 2006 01:53 PM (i6py+)

19 John Buchanan, lamented Clinton doing the same thing, back when Bill was President. {excerpted under fair use] A Chinese Naval Base -- at Long Beach by Patrick J. Buchanan March 13, 1997 "And last year, Johnny Chung, who gave $366,000 to the Democratic National Committee, showed up for a Clinton radio broadcast at the White House, with six Chinese in tow, including an adviser of Cosco. The president begged off being photographed with his guests, which raises a question: If Bill Clinton is leery of being seen with these characters, why is he giving them a Long Beach naval base?... Does anyone care about national security anymore?" Read the rest @ http://www.buchanan.org/pa-97-0313.html [end excerpt] As you can see the selling off of America is not a partisan issue. Bush too is selling off our infrastructure. But why would a supposed conservative, hell bent on National Security and improving our economy, sell off our essential infrastructure? Really, it doesn't matter what foreign outfit he sells them to, or which party is involved in this sort of thing now, obviously. The question really is why. Bush does not need the money, and it didn't go to him. I guess. So what the hell is going on? We shall hear the official story, endlessly ad nauseam, whether we wish to or not. So lets take a look at it from another perspective also. Could globalization have anything to do with this, and does that have anything to with Globalism? Of course it does. What the hell is Globalism, and who are these guys anyway? Now that is THE question, and here is the answer. George W Bush, like his father, is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, as are both Bill and Hillary Clinton, Dick Cheney, Carl Rove, Donnie Rumsfeld, and yes of course John Kerry and other phony liberals and phony conservatives. WHAT THE HELL!? WHO ARE THESE GUYS? The Council on Foreign Relations strongly advocates such deals, referring to the practice as "proactive global interdependence", touting it also as a necessary step toward WORLD GOVERNMENT. That's right. the CFR is a Globalist organization. They want a world government, 'and' they want to 'be' that world government. How could they ever hope to accomplish this?! Well, nobody is stopping them, and they can certainly afford it, because "they" are also BIG OIL not just here in the US but everywhere on earth. Now that is some serious economic power right there. The CFR along with the Bilderburg Group seems to be the headship of globalization, and they have long advocated "Corporate Powerbuilding" as a means to outstrip governments in wealth, in order to then subvert governments everywhere, through direct economic influence. It sure seems to be working doesn't it? Oh by the way. Did I mention that Bush Jr and Sr, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Carl Rove, John Kerry, and others you have heard of recently, are also members of the Bilderburg Group? SURPRISE! They are! So is the owner of FOX and many other media owners, major newscasters, and yes even some cute and fuzzy pundits are members too. Hello, Rush? Is that why you are so well fed? How could it even be possible, for this group of super wealthy corporate heads 'and' heads of state the world over, to ever hope to take over governments all over the world? Can they do it? Well obviously, they have so much money now, they can both buy the infrastructure 'and' the political cooperation necessary to that possible. In effect they are buying the world as we speak. Both Clinton and Bush, and Reagan and Carter, and Ford, and others, have been selling our nation all along, like, well, like hotcakes. How does that make you feel? Wont it be wonderful?! Imagine the same ethic displayed by EXXON, McDonalds, "The Good Guys", WAL-MART and that place you slave at, applied mercilessly on a global scale without the government or civil restrictions now protecting you. Wont it be great?! Do you think maybe they (repubs and dems alike), got us all so divided and blinded with partisan squabbling, thanks Rush, that we didn't notice what they were up to in secret behind our backs? Ya think? I mean do you think at all? Does anybody think anymore? "Fascism should more rightly be called corporatism, as it is the merging of State and Corporate power." - Benito Mussolini

Posted by: Natasha at February 28, 2006 02:17 PM (i6py+)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Give the Ports to the Danish

Forget the Arab companies trying to take over American ports. Give them to the Danes! Heh.

And while we're thinking about Arab companies running U.S. ports, why not take this poll which asks what other government functions should be taken over by Muslims. Preview: Turn over U.S. nuclear plant security to a council of filthy Iranian mullahs.

Posted by: Rusty at 08:04 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 69 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Maybe somebody more knowledgeable than I, can explain to me why the US would want arabs managing our most important seaports?? And apparently Jimmy Carter is backing Bush on this. And Hillary is fighting against it. I know I'm missing something here. What is it? Somebody please give me a clue.

Posted by: Richard at February 21, 2006 08:55 AM (7KF8r)

2 Oh, and this story has been out on Drudge for at least a week now and I would have expected to see more postings about it here. This is a major national security issue. Why is everybody so mum on this?

Posted by: Richard at February 21, 2006 08:58 AM (7KF8r)

3 Putting the arabs in charge of our ports is like trusting the fox to guard the hen house

Posted by: sandpiper at February 21, 2006 10:01 AM (ILvmZ)

4 Richard, here's the deal. Nobody in their right mind wants any Arab in charge of our ports. The problem is that, due to our reliance on their oil, and our subjection of ourselves to political correctness, we don't have the balls to say no. Is that clear?

Posted by: jesusland joe at February 21, 2006 10:08 AM (rUyw4)

5 JL.. I was hoping for a different answer than that.. LOL. That's too depressing. Look what Hillary is doing. She's going to garb this ball and run with it all the way to the White House in '08. I think a lot of people are pissed off about this and Bush is blowing it big time. And my other question is, why is the US incapable of managing its own ports???

Posted by: Richard at February 21, 2006 10:43 AM (7KF8r)

6 Put the Muslims in charge of the Miss America Pagaent. All the contestants must wear burkas, meaning that even the ugliest girls can now win.

Posted by: Steve Sharon at February 21, 2006 12:09 PM (l8Mj+)

7 I will never vote Republican again, no matter who's running on what platform; the sumbitches have shit their nest with me. But I sure as Hell won't vote dhimmicrap. Ever.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 21, 2006 04:33 PM (0yYS2)

8 What's next? Sub-contracting out the southern border to Mexican drug lords? it's bad enough that the southern and the northern borders are as open as they are... now the eastern border is as good as open if the UAE get ahold of it.

Posted by: The Other Dave at February 21, 2006 04:41 PM (o03mE)

9 The real shame of this is that, just when people on the right AND left were becoming somewhat united on the cartoon stuff, Bush has to pull this stupid little trick out of his dunce hat. I've supported this guy but did you hear his arrogant reply to the concerns we have over this thing? He basically said, "Stick it up yer ass, I'm doing it." I don't think he's aware yet how many people in his base that he's alientating with this crap.

Posted by: Richard at February 21, 2006 05:02 PM (7KF8r)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

278kb generated in CPU 0.1072, elapsed 0.2905 seconds.
135 queries taking 0.2406 seconds, 645 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Search Thingy

Monthly Traffic

Pages: 32732
Files: 188
Bytes: 472.2M
CPU Time: 67:02
Queries: 3310838

Content

Posts: 5690
Comments: 76633

Feeds

March 09, 2006

March 08, 2006

March 07, 2006

March 06, 2006

March 04, 2006

March 03, 2006

March 02, 2006

March 01, 2006

February 28, 2006

February 27, 2006

February 25, 2006

February 22, 2006

February 21, 2006

Search Thingy

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives

Blogroll

Monthly Traffic

Content

Feeds