April 25, 2006
McCarthy Leak Whitewash Continues
McCarthy Leak Defender McGovern Tied to Subversive Left
Here's how Jim Lehrer of PBS described Ray McGovern to his audience last night:
Here's how Jim Lehrer of PBS described Ray McGovern to his audience last night:
Ray McGovern was an analyst for 27 years. He retired in 1990. He is now a member of the group Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, which has criticized the current administration for politicizing intelligence.At least Lehrer mentioned VIPS, though he didn't tell us that they are barking mooonbats calling for the President's impeachment. The media meme is that McGovern is a 27-year CIA veteran who admires McCarthy's courage...no reason to dig any deeper, nothing to see here, folks...move along. more...
Posted by: Bluto at
08:53 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 183 words, total size 2 kb.
1
About two years ago, and with the advice of the Commissar, I stopped reading "A Family in Baghdad" as it was making me crazy... Having my first born son in the Navy, I would read this blog and just couldn't believe their views. Clearly, this family was part of the Baathist elite and, after reading the mother's lament about how nice it was when she had a "black" nanny to take care of the children while the family was in Amman (it seems they owned a 2nd home in Jordan) I just couldn't stand it anymore.
Once our troops arrived, she started bitching about trash in the streets, broken sidewalks and the break down of the wounderful public services her neighborhood enjoyed (like 24/hr electric supply at the expense of the rest of the nation). The kicker came when she posted pictures of her family in their living room, dressed in their "Sunday best" and I thought to myself that their home is better than the vast majority of U.S. homes. Talk about finery.
I emailed her about the trash and suggested that she organize a neighborhood committee to pick up trash and place it in a "bombed out" crater if no other alternative was available. After all, if this problem faced my community, that is probably what we would do... No good! The idea that the "neighbors" should do something themselves about the situation was completely out of the question (whose trash is it, anyway?)
Meanwhile, her son was doing some kind of Iraqi war dead thing and raving about the evil occupiers. I have come to find out that he is currently living in the Bay area of CA... and still carrying on about the evil U.S. gov't. If we are so evil, what are they doing here and, don't the people that hand out visas read blogs??? Feh, what the hell is the matter with our State Dept that we allow these kind of scum into our country?
Posted by: Babs at April 25, 2006 10:27 AM (iZZlp)
2
I saw that and I wanted to reach into the TV and slap that guy. come on Jim i kept thinking slap him! slap him silly!
Posted by: Howie at April 25, 2006 03:17 PM (D3+20)
April 23, 2006
ABC's Contribution to McCarthy Whitewash
As Kim Priestap, writing for Wizbang! notes, the American mainstream media are regaining their footing and circling the wagons to rally to the defense of Mary McCarthy, the CIA analyst fired for leaking information to the press.
ABC News is answering the partisan call. In a Saturday story on their website ABC manages to put together a remarkably dishonest piece of "journalism" predicting the fall of the Republic if leaking classified information remains a crime.
Not only did ABC fail to mention McCarthy's political leanings (she contributed $2000 to John Kerry's unsuccessful 2004 bid for the Presidency), there is also this:
"This a matter of principle," said Ray McGovern, a former fellow CIA analyst, "where she said my oath, my promise not to reveal secrets is superceded by my oath to defend the constitution of the U.S."ABC leaves out the inconvenient, but telling, fact that Ray McGovern is one of the lunatic fringe who now makes his living calling for the impeachment of President Bush.
Prepare for much more dishonesty from the media, especially now that European investigators have found no trace of the CIA renditions that McCarthy whispered of to Dana Priest at the Washington Post.
Cross-posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto, Stop the ACLU, and Vince Aut Morire.
Posted by: Bluto at
12:20 AM
| Comments (62)
| Add Comment
Post contains 220 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Culture of treason and sedition. 1:47 am pst
link fixed for you by howie
Posted by: Rubin at April 23, 2006 02:47 AM (73b9H)
2
mods, plz delete first, couldn't get tags to work, thanks.
Mary McCarthy..Culture of treason and sedition
http://www.foxnews.com/images/201228/2_21_042206_cialeak.jpg
Posted by: Rubin at April 23, 2006 02:51 AM (73b9H)
3
So when a dhimmicratic donor leaks classified information it's okay, but when the President does it, he should be impeached? Who can really argue convincingly that liberals shouldn't all be shot?
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 23, 2006 05:11 AM (0yYS2)
4
It really sucks, but they're going to get away with it... Anyone who leaks info to the benefit of the democratic party will absolutely get a free pass by the media. What a double-standard.
Posted by: Agent Meatball at April 23, 2006 05:26 AM (30FRH)
5
"where she said my oath, my promise not to reveal secrets is superceded by my oath to defend the constitution of the U.S."
Well with all the things they find in the Constitution that no one else sees, it's no surprise. Part of it must be written in invisible ink. Those founding fathers were such pranksters.
Posted by: Oyster at April 23, 2006 05:37 AM (YudAC)
6
Oyster,
good point. Liberals don' read the Constitution, they re-write it.
IM's right. Kill em all.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 23, 2006 08:16 AM (8e/V4)
7
Kill them all, as Jesus would? If liberals have a tendency to rewrite the constitution, you've got some biblical passages you've been rewriting in a much more significant way!
Why not change your name, Carlos, to Jesus for Genocide!
Posted by: jd at April 23, 2006 09:22 AM (uT71O)
8
jd,
would you please lighten up.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 23, 2006 09:56 AM (8e/V4)
9
Ray McGovern is also a board member of VIPS (Veteran Intelligent Professionals for Sanity) that in 2003 called on active duty intelligence professionals to leak classified information.
Gee..I wonder how they missed THAT!
Posted by: Rick Moran at April 23, 2006 10:46 AM (wZLWV)
10
More from the cBS news
Posted by: sandpiper at April 23, 2006 01:29 PM (gJhPg)
11
Sorry, Jesusland. I didn't see the humor in "kill them all" in reference to liberals. It is a wonderful joke. Let me try one:
Kill all the fundamentalist Christians!
Don't you think that's funny?
I don't...but then, I don't have your sense of humor...
Posted by: jd at April 23, 2006 01:52 PM (uT71O)
12
Has anyone been reading AJ Strata and Captains Quarters and Right Wing Nuthouse about this? Some pretty good reasoning behind this being a sting operation within the CIA to flush out leakers. The more I think about it the more possible it seems. What are your thoughts?
Posted by: Oyster at April 23, 2006 02:38 PM (YudAC)
13
JD, Carlos' handle refers to where he lives rather than specifically to his religious affiliation, though he is a Christian. I, however, am not, and though I follow a policy of live and let live, I also have no mercy whatsoever for enemies or traitors. When TSHTF, any libtards or muslims that come in contact with me are screwed.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 23, 2006 03:09 PM (0yYS2)
14
I'd agree, and I'd expand your observation--ANYONE who comes into contact with you probably regrets it. You have chronic halitosis of the soul.
Posted by: jd at April 23, 2006 03:35 PM (uT71O)
15
>>>Kill all the fundamentalist Christians!
Another failed and simplistic comparison from you, jd. Religious bigotry is no more comparable to hating Liberals than racial bigotry is. They are two different animals. So while hating Liberals wholesale is perfectly justifiable, hating christians and blacks or mexicans isn't.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 23, 2006 03:36 PM (8e/V4)
16
I didn't know a soul had a smell. Maybe you've been smelling soles, not souls... which of course raises lots of questions about your personal habits. Anyway, halitosis is at the opposite end, but you seem to have a lovely time sniffing the asses of America's enemies, so I'll leave you to it.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 23, 2006 05:35 PM (0yYS2)
17
jesusland--I didn't think hating anyone was part of the Jesus message. Maybe I missed the part in the bible where it says: yea, those who seek national health care, those shall the lord smiteth.
Beyond that, do you really HATE liberals? Are all of their ideas, every one, wrong? Are they all retarded or mentally ill, if not worthy of killing? I certainly don't hate conservatives--I often agree with them. It seems to me that this country needs conservatives, liberals, and moderates, because, as I've said before, truth seldom walks consistently with any one of them. Compromise is essential to the American system, and always has been, back to the days of Hamilton and Jefferson. Can you compromise with those you viscerally hate?
Posted by: jd at April 23, 2006 08:23 PM (uT71O)
18
It's funny how liberals always talk about compromise when America's enemies are losing, but talk about surrender when things don't look so good for us.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 23, 2006 08:55 PM (0yYS2)
19
Well we are right about the terrorists. Its hard to deny that forever.
Posted by: Howie at April 23, 2006 09:09 PM (D3+20)
20
How about alternatively kill all Leftwing Christians? There's probably more of them than Fundamentalists actually, so a richer playground for the terrorists who have demonstrated they don't care which are killed as long as it happens - Buddhists, Hindus, Shakers, and funky whole-bean-and-sprouts tofu-eating Breatharians. Wonder how the terrorist feel about the ultimate apostasy, Scie*gaak*h*h*t%l#gists.
Posted by: -keith in silicon valley at April 23, 2006 09:37 PM (pmP8H)
21
>>>Beyond that, do you really HATE liberals?
jd,
I don't hate all Liberals. Most Libs I know are pretty ok human beings, including about half of my family. We're split right down the middle. But I do hate, nay, despise, Liberalism for the mental disorder it causes in people that I love-- just like I would hate the AIDS virus for infecting them. That's how much I hate Liberalism.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 23, 2006 10:26 PM (8e/V4)
22
MOLE: Mary McCarthy [Clinton-era National Security Council staffer]
Miscreants of the Mutai Mole Clan™ [partial list]
Richard Clarke
Sandy Burglar
John Deutch
Anthony Lake
Joe Wilson
Dana Priest
Bill Goddfellow [Priest's hubby]
Valerie Plame
John Dalton
Randy Beers
Susan Rice
Bob Bell
Bill Danvers
Anne Richard
Anne Witkowsky
Steve Andreasen
Daniel Benjamin
Steven Simon
ORGS:
Mary O McCarthy is the director of communications for
Fenton | Communications [Fidel Castro’s greatest “think tank”]: Check out their other clients!
sample:
Heinz Family Foundation
Pew Charitable Trusts
Turner Foundation
MoveOn.org
Arianna for Governor
Win Without War
Rock the Vote
Planned Parenthood Action Fund
George Soros media
International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission
United Nations Foundation
*
Here's another foundation our Mole™ is involved with.
Joyce Foundation
Director of Communications
Mary OÂ’Connell [she sure can communicate eh?]
*
org. affiliations:
>Win Without War
>Center for International Policy
>Policy Studies Network
>Fund for Peace
a few old and new fellow travelers
Lindsay Mattison
Orlando Letelier*
D. Gareth Porter aka Gary Porter
**************************
What were Mary O McCarthy motives?
Ego?
Dana priest and fellow travelers just stroked the classified intel from Mary O McCarthy for the sake of DemoKrap loyalty and agenda/ideological purposes?
*
or because she's a born Elitist?
"WE know better and what is best, because WE know what is in the National Interest peons, and what is SAFE to "leak" and you DON'T, so STFU!!!"?
*
or something more sinister?
*
regardless of motive, she's a traitor, a Benedict Arnold.
>>please feel free to add to the lists, and or criticize but be advised, I have killed before.. >)
Posted by: Rubin at April 23, 2006 10:49 PM (An3as)
23
I get your point - it's not about the constitution - it's about the politics.
But what's really interesting - it's about an issue (like so many of their's) that went absolutely nowhere in the first place.
Mary's part of a not very effective crew!
Posted by: hondo at April 24, 2006 06:05 AM (gdxQ2)
24
Love the ideologue, hate the ideology, eh Carlos? Well, at least you don't want to kill them all. So, if liberalism is AIDS, I guess that answers the question about whether you ever think liberals have been right about anything. Let me see if you still think it is AIDS given these liberal triumphs:
Liberals did the following:
1. destroyed the system of segregation and oppression under which thousands of blacks were killed and millions were denied the right to vote (liberals including Repub liberals)
2. Ended child labor in America, which many conservatives fought to preserve (read Hammer v. Dagenhart)
3. Removed communist influence from American labor unions in a long battle during the cold war
4. Fought for freedom of speech to be expanded, so that great works of literature like Ulysses and Tropic of Cancer could be enjoyed here as well as in Europe (most conservatives opposed that)
5. Expanded the rights of women, which many conservatives opposed.
6. Raised environmental standards, and environmental consciousness. Your air and water are cleaner thanks to liberals like John Chafee, Mo Udall, etc. More national parks, too. More hunting areas.
7. Raised the status of gays and lesbians, who prior to the modern era, often faced violence, legal discrimination, police abuse, and losing their children.
8. Invented the internet (OK, just kidding. Actually Gore never said that, but whatever)
9. Made cars safer in America, through crash standards, airbags, and seat belts (look at how many lives have been saved since 1965 by these changes alone--more than 500K--and opposed by conservatives every step of the way. Without liberals like Nader, this doesn't happen.)
10. Changed old age in America from a time of frequent poverty and uncovered medical costs to a time largely removed from those threats. Each advance of Soc Sec and Medicare was opposed by conservatives, except this drug benefit plan.
11. Funded at the national level science research that contributed to our continuing scientific dominance over the rest of the world. I really shouldn't give the credit solely to liberals on this one: Ike, post-Sputnik, played a key role in expanding the federal role in science and math education. It was necessary--some states were simply terrible at teaching science. Some still are.
Now, Carlos--there is a long list of liberal errors and excesses. I'm sure you know them by heart. But if you can look at this list, and say, nope, NONE of these are worthwhile, each of them is meaningless, liberalism is AIDS of the mind, I'll be surprised. I don't have a problem if you look at liberalism's errors and its virtues and say, overall, conservatism is better in most situations. I just don't think it is accurate to say that liberalism is a disease. it's a point of view. Sometimes it is right. Sometimes it is wrong. But by unleashing the discourse of virulent hatred, you weaken the country, which needs liberals, conservatives, and moderates to succeed.
Posted by: jd at April 24, 2006 09:08 AM (uT71O)
25
Oh, and these:
1. Women in the military.
2. Campaign finance disclosure (without liberal reforms, you would never know who took money from who. You and I probably hate limits, but everyone benefits from disclosure)
3. Breaking down anti-Semitism. It is seldom remembered that Jews faced widespread discrimination. It used to be legal, for example, for the seller of a home to forbid the buyer from ever selling to a black or a Jew. Using civil rights laws, liberals ended most closed country clubs and workplaces and universities and neighborhoods. My father and grandfather faced anti-Semitic prejudices that have been largely eliminated, thanks in great part to liberal reformers. They were opposed by conservatives, arguing property rights should triumph civil rights. Thank God liberals won in the battle against Anti-Semitism.
4. Integrated the armed forces. Liberals did this. Conservatives like Dick Russell opposed it. Everytime you turn on the TV and see our multiethnic fighting forces, thank Liberals.
5. Created a godless, abortion-laden, sodomizing America where children are taught witchcraft and homosexuality in the public schools, enviro-wackos stop all economic progress, the media demonizes Christians and conservatives, businesses are stolen from the private sector and nationalized, and socialism reigns! (oh, wait, that's their secret plan for victory, not an achievement...)
Posted by: jd at April 24, 2006 09:23 AM (uT71O)
26
jd,
My comparisons (unlike yours) hold water. Liberalism (as we know it today is actually Leftism) is a virus to Western societies in the same way AIDS is a virus to the human body. You see, in the same way AIDS weakens a body's immune system, allowing diseases to wreak havoc, so does Liberalism weaken societies by creating social dysfunction within that society and weakening a nation's resolve against external threats. It's a nation killer. A virus. Western civilization is seriously threatened by this disease. And people who subscribe to the Leftist/Liberal worldview are like carriers. They should be treated as such. They should politically quarantined.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 24, 2006 10:04 AM (8e/V4)
27
Does that mean that you agree with conservatives on all the points I raised? Obviously, few conservatives today advocate segregation, but many did then, or at least tolerance of Southern rights to segregate/discriminate. If you disagree with segregation, then don't you have to concede that America needs liberalism, despite its many errors, to correct conservatism when it goes wrong? A nation of one ideology is a nation doomed. A nation of open debate, where no view is "quarantined" (how are you going to make that happen, incidentally) is what we need to be.
I don't see you claiming that any specific liberal policy leads to the dangers you articulate. If I were to sum up modern American liberalism, I would say this: A belief in individual freedom, tempered by the belief that an active government is often necessary to help individuals remain free and to help them realize their potential, as well as preserve certain communal goods such as the environment and public education.
American conservatism: a belief in individual freedom, tempered by the belief that liberty must not be allowed to devolve into license, in which individuals indulge their freedom in negative ways (sexual licentiousness, hedonism generally).
There are also areas where the tendency of liberals and conservatives differ on a continuum; for example liberals tend to be more wary of free trade's cost to average Americans (although some paleos like Buchanan are at least as sensitive), and conservatives tend to be far more wary of international organizations and treaties. Also, while both sides frequently favor market solutions, and America under liberals and conservatives has some of the lowest national taxes in the industrialized world, it is true that conservatives tend to favor market solutions more than liberals. Conservatives are also far more skeptical of government's ability to socially engineer, while liberals are more sensitive to the needs of historically oppressed groups.
Where is the disease requiring quarantine in that typology? I'm not saying you should agree with liberalism, but to talk about it as if it were a deadly pathogen is very damaging to our country, and our unity in national tasks like defeating terrorism. Remember that many liberals are fighting for your freedom, every day. Don't insult them by saying they suffer from mental illness.
Posted by: jd at April 24, 2006 10:17 AM (uT71O)
28
Why not, instead of characterizing liberalism as an evil virus, say that it is an ideology that you frequently disagree with, that sometimes has the right answer on questions of public policy, and certainly deserves a place in American politics?
For example, I think farm subsidies are an atrocious example of rent-seeking. I oppose all farm subsidies and have since I first examined the question. They take government money, cause uneconomic activities, give money to folks far wealthier than the national average who are politically connected, artificially make food more expensive for those who are at the lowest income levels, and also impoverish third world farmers, while weakening the world's overall commitment to free trade. When conservatives in 1995 passed the "Freedom to Farm" act, I was ecstatic--finally, someone has the balls to rapidly phase out farm subsidies. It was a great idea, and I embraced it. Good ideas come from both parties, and both ideologies. we need both.
(Over time, of course, most conservatives have hypocritically and repeatedly endorsed increases in farm subsidies, making this law a dead one. Sad.)
Posted by: jd at April 24, 2006 10:26 AM (uT71O)
29
jd,
I subscribe to conservatism as it exists today, not 50 years ago. 50 years ago I would have called myself a Liberal because back then there was still a difference between Liberalism and Leftism. No longer. Times have changed, and so has conseravatism. That's why talking about Southern segregation in the past is irrelevant to what I see happenning in the world today, and therefore irrelevant to my being a conservative.
Liberalism (read Leftism) is not something I can merely disagree with and leave it at that like I would scientology or mormonism. Liberalism, like radical islam, actually threatens our civilization. We fought a long hard Cold War against the USSR. Now that failed ideology of America hatred has weaseled its way into America through useful idiot Liberals.
Let me give you an example. My brother, your classic useful idiot Liberal, is in favor of complete amnesty for all immigrants and "erasing all borders." He thinks his views make him a "good guy." What he doesn't know is that one of the goals of Marxism is to make the nation-state obsolete. When I told my useful idiot brother that he is expousing Marxist views, he shrugged his shoulders and ignored me. My brother is an example of how Marxism has weaseled its way into modern Liberalism. Liberals expouse Marxism without even knowing it, and ironically they fancy themselves the "intellectuals" amongst us. On the contrary, most of them are quite ignorant.
That doesn't mean I want to kill Liberals, but rather I believe in completely deligitimizing Liberalism as an ideology and worldview. Liberal (read Leftist) activists are not ignorant however. They KNOW what they're up to. But they're stealthy about it. Leftism requires stealth, just like a disease.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 24, 2006 10:47 AM (8e/V4)
30
Interesting post. But merely because something is espoused by two ideologies does not make them the same. For example, many classical economists and libertarians advocate the entirely free flow of labor over international borders, from conservative economic principles. By your logic, they are Marxists...Your brother isn't unknowingly espousing Marxist views. His views merely coincide with one of theirs--and with libertarians. I think you owe your brother an apology, first for calling him a Marxist and then for thinking him igorant in not seeing that.
Posted by: jd at April 24, 2006 10:50 AM (uT71O)
31
jd,
there is a difference between the free flow of goods vs erasing all borders.
Useful Libidiots are not free marketeers, they are primarily interested in undermining American as it is currently constituted, i.e., capitalist, white, Western. One activist called amnesty for immigrants the "browning of America." To him it's about race. To my Libidiot brother it's about "the poor".
Whatever the reason, Libidiots are dangerous morons, and they are UNAMERICAN. period.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 24, 2006 11:02 AM (8e/V4)
32
I just don't think blanket statements about a sizable percentage of your fellow Americans does anything but hurt this country in the war on terror. Those you call idiots and haters of America are actually your allies in the war against those who hate us. Liberals work at CIA, DOD, NSA, State, DEA, and ICE, etc. Liberals get up every day, and work to preserve your freedom, as conservatives and moderates do as well. Conservatives have no monopoly on morality or accuracy or honesty. Sometimes liberals have the right solutions, and unless we as a country are open to many ideologies, we will not succeed.
Oh, one more key difference. Conservatives tend to, in the Burkean sense, be skeptical of new ideas. While acknowledging whatever flaws there may be in existing social structures, they are cautious towards new ideas, because tradition itself has a value. (if it survived, it must have some merit, is a nice encapsulation of this idea) This sometimes makes them less open to necessary change. Liberals, by contrast, are often overly critical of tradition, seeing only the flaws, and not the virtues, of the existing order. This difference, perhaps more than any other, illustrates why we need both perspectives. Conservatives are the necessary watchdogs on the future, asking piercing questions about proposed reforms. Liberals are the necessary critics of that which is, proposing better ways of doing things.
Think the RFK quote: some men look at things as they are, and ask "why"? I dream things that never were, and ask, "why not"?
Dreaming things that never were sometimes leads to proposing things that never will be or should be. That's where conservatives step in.
Posted by: jd at April 24, 2006 01:45 PM (aqTJB)
33
>>>Conservatives are the necessary watchdogs on the future, asking piercing questions about proposed reforms. Liberals are the necessary critics of that which is, proposing better ways of doing things.
That's an interesting way of putting it. Of course, that is an idealized view. Today's Libs (read Leftists) aren't interested in "reforming" the status quo, but in toppling it.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 24, 2006 03:25 PM (paKD6)
34
You seem to have confused liberals and leftists with the revolutionary workers party. I know very few liberals who want to "topple" anything. The bumper sticker "regime change begins at home" merely means kicking out Bush. It doesn't mean revoking capitalism or radically changing our government.
Posted by: jd at April 24, 2006 09:55 PM (uT71O)
35
I think Carlos' point is that many of today's liberals have sidled up to the leftists. They see conservatives as a common enemy. Politics has made stranger bedfellows. The political climate as a whole in this country has drifted to the left over the many decades and some find that alarming. I do. It has brought us to the point where socialsim (communism light if you will) is an acceptable state.
Conservatives still believe in equal opportunity rather than the pervasive "equality of outcome" that is infecting our society. The victim mentality, too, is a real problem. Racism is at an all time low yet, to hear some talk you'd think we still have slaves on the auction block in the town square. Class warfare abounds as well without addressing why some do not achieve the heights others do.
And jd, I don't know what you call yourself, but I consider myself right of center. What you have to consider is the use of terms. Liberalism in its classic sense is good. However, when a group or individual who adopt leftist ideals like socialism, marxism and communism call themselves "liberals" they've taken the term to an extent that it was never meant to describe. It's why I use terms like "far-left" or "leftist". Some people still understand what "liberal" means and take offense when others use the term derogatorily. So you have to understand that when most people here use "liberal" they refer to those who have adopted the term merely to soften their leftist slants or have actually abandoned the good aspects of liberalism for leftism. I am not offended because I know to whom they refer. Just fifty years ago I might have been labeled as bordering on communism for my own views.
So while you may take offense at the "sweeping statements" just keep that in mind. If any of us here talk about "liberals", or any group for that matter, and we don't use the proper term to assauge someone's sensibilities it's because no matter what we say, someone's going to get offended. I myself have had to write umpteen paragraphs here just to get one simple point across so I don't "offend" anyone.
These guys here, Carlos, Joe, Maxie, etc. are not the monsters or unreasonable people you might think they are and if one does not take into consideration that this is a comment section where words are typed and you can't see their eyebrows or smile, well then, what we get is this nitpicking. Yes, some things are said merely for their shock value. I just slide past them to get to the real intellectual meat.
Posted by: Oyster at April 25, 2006 05:59 AM (YudAC)
36
Oyster--smartest thing posted here in weeks. Thanks. I still don't think there are many "liberals" in terms of Howard Dean, Harry Reid, or even Pelosi who should be called "socialists" or radicals. If Dean has won the presidency in 2004, what would be different? We might be out of Iraq, granted, and our overall foreign policy would be different in some ways, but we would still be a capitalist country, with the largest military in the world. We would still have a lower tax burden than almost any Western European country. Dean would probably be moving on health insurance along Mass. lines, and gay equality would be advanced (say, gays in the military, which a majority of Americans favor). Pro-choice people would have been put on the Supreme Court, but not left wing radicals from Yale. More like corporate moderates like Stephen Breyer (mod Dems and con Reps wouldn't let a true left judge through the senate...not even Ginsberg is a legal realist). Truth is, if you oppose bureaucracy in health care, you should hate the current system--we spend 30% of our health spending on paper pushing, whereas it average 10% in W. Europe.
So if Howard Dean isn't some socialist radical (he was actually a very moderate gov of Vermont, who cut taxes and balanced budgets), then where are these radical socialists who have hijacked the Dem party?
I do appreciate your explanation of bombast, and I'm not trying to be a caricature of some super-sensitive PC asshole. When people say kill all the liberals, or liberalism is a mental illness, though, and deny that they are being bombastic or humorous...hey, I'm going to challenge that. The chappaquiddick jokes and the Clintoon references..I do let those go. Finally, if you can put this aside to get to the intellectual meat here, I hope you'll extend the same courtesy to those you disagree with. If you can swim through posts that call Bush Hitler to find the "intellectual meat" (and there often is some) then that's great.
Posted by: jd at April 26, 2006 10:39 AM (g/1zI)
37
Well done!
Posted by: Roy at June 22, 2006 10:26 PM (6nnY9)
38
Great work!
Posted by: Nick at June 22, 2006 10:52 PM (vVzaz)
39
Thank you!
Posted by: Mary at June 23, 2006 05:37 PM (fuzLo)
40
Thank you!
Posted by: Nicole at June 23, 2006 05:50 PM (aMtTL)
41
Thank you!
Posted by: Karen at June 23, 2006 05:54 PM (ijgPP)
42
Well done!
Posted by: Sally at June 24, 2006 03:49 PM (ee2lJ)
43
Well done!
Posted by: Adam at June 24, 2006 03:53 PM (APRav)
44
Thank you!
Posted by: Glen at June 25, 2006 04:13 PM (zeQ55)
45
Great work!
Posted by: Ann at June 25, 2006 04:18 PM (ZUixb)
46
Great work!
Posted by: Gloria at June 25, 2006 04:21 PM (ZrOV5)
47
Well done!
Posted by: William at June 25, 2006 04:24 PM (UA2CO)
48
Well done!
Posted by: Betty at June 25, 2006 04:26 PM (o6ULF)
49
Thank you!
Posted by: Veronica at June 27, 2006 04:15 PM (O9iO5)
50
Good design!
Posted by: Naomi at June 27, 2006 04:18 PM (SuTDN)
51
Thank you!
Posted by: Mary at June 27, 2006 04:21 PM (dWWuj)
52
Great work!
Posted by: Joy at June 28, 2006 03:13 PM (EX2eW)
53
Well done!
Posted by: Nicole at June 28, 2006 03:16 PM (HhDrB)
54
Great work!
Posted by: Rachel at June 28, 2006 03:21 PM (ZUixb)
55
Great work!
Posted by: Mike at June 28, 2006 03:24 PM (ytPY1)
56
Thank you!
Posted by: Lee at June 29, 2006 08:06 PM (gyjAi)
57
Great work!
Posted by: Angie at June 29, 2006 08:11 PM (az8PD)
58
Well done!
Posted by: Troy at June 29, 2006 08:18 PM (feUU/)
59
Well done!
Posted by: Gina at June 29, 2006 08:21 PM (gyjAi)
60
Good design!
Posted by: Kathy at June 30, 2006 07:38 AM (o4nb6)
61
Great work!
Posted by: Nicole at June 30, 2006 03:55 PM (WjteZ)
62
Great work!
Posted by: Karl at June 30, 2006 04:01 PM (D9VMc)
April 21, 2006
CIA Officer Fired For Leaking to Media (Updated)
A CIA officer, not assigned to public relations, has admitted to passing classified, operational information to the media, specifically, the Washington Post. From Fox News:
WASHINGTON — A CIA officer has been relieved of his duty after being caught leaking classified information to the media.The CIA is expected to prosecute. Expect Leftist traitors all over the country to spring to this weasel's defense.One official called this a "damaging leak" that deals with operational information and said the fired officer "knowingly and willfully" leaked the information to the media and "was caught."
A second law enforcement official confirmed said the CIA officer had provided information that contributed to a Washington Post story last year saying there were secret U.S. prisons in Eastern Europe.
Via the Drudge Report.
Update: NBC News has identified Mary O. McCarthy as the CIA officer fired. Interestingly, Fundrace.org identifies a Mary O. McCarthy, with occupation listed as "Analyst" for the U.S. Government as having donated $2000 to John Kerry's 2004 Presidential campaign.
Cross-posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto.
Posted by: Bluto at
04:14 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 187 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Curious...
Posted by: LC CanForce 101 at April 21, 2006 09:52 PM (3smJS)
2
The irony here is that someone leaked the firing of the leaker 
If they prosecute THAT leaker... and someone leaks their firing... this could turn into a cottage industry.
If they prosecute THAT leaker... and someone leaks their firing... this could turn into a cottage industry.
Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at April 21, 2006 11:28 PM (t4Rmq)
3
The CIA is so rotten from top to bottom that it should be shut down.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 22, 2006 05:05 AM (0yYS2)
4
The CIA is just another liberal enclave. The only difference between Harvard and the CIA are the retirement benefits.
Posted by: MCPO Airdale at April 22, 2006 09:46 AM (WOQ34)
5
I am a cowardly piece of shit from San Diego. I perform fellatio on men to make a living. My mother was a crack whore who died of AIDS last year. My father? Your guess is as good as mine.
Posted by: San Diego Hacker at April 22, 2006 10:37 AM (VSHgb)
6
Hey Hacker, you could run for President on the dhimmicrat ticket with credentials like that. Hell, you'd even beat Osama Obama, whose mother was a whore and whose father was a ritualistic licker of goat balls.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 22, 2006 07:41 PM (0yYS2)
April 19, 2006
Wal-Mart Media Conference
(Bentonville, Arkansas) The 2nd Annual Wal-Mart Media Conference began yesterday with about seventy credentialed media representatives in attendance for a tour and various presentations by the company. They came from all across both the print and broadcast spectrum and included, among many, the New York Times, Washington Post, US News & World Report, The Guardian, Women's Wear Daily, ABC News, CNN and CBS News. Notably, two bloggers were also invited and were able to break away from their normal lives and travel to Arkansas. At their own expense, I might add.
Tom Forbes of Palousitics traveled from western Washington State to Bentonville and spent the first day of the conference attending presentations by Wal-Mart executives and taking notes. At intervals, Tom was able to post some of the more salient aspects of the information presented by the speakers.
One of the presentations pertained to Wal-Mart employee health care programs and how they are evolving. Tom provides a good overview and remarks that Wal-Mart's health care programs continue to improve and are quite competitive when compared to others in private industry.
In another session, Tom listened to Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee eloquently support Wal-Mart as an example of free market competition which benefits low-income customers through low prices and benefits communities by providing jobs and taxes.
The other blogger in attendance, Rob Port of Say Anything, spent his day among a group of elite media representatives and found himself more engaged by their attitudes and antics than the presentations of the convention. Rob indicates that most of the 'jounalists' exhibited strongly negative attitudes toward Wal-Mart and he wondered whether they were capable of reporting objectively. more...
Posted by: Mike Pechar at
06:12 AM
| Comments (15)
| Add Comment
Post contains 577 words, total size 4 kb.
1
I need to make a correction to the above:
Trusting the mainstream media to be objective ----- -------- is a mistake.
Posted by: Michael Hampton at April 19, 2006 07:40 AM (FVbj6)
2
Well, folks, since I'm working and living in the Russellville, Ar. area, I'm getting a lesson on Wal-Mart. To tell you the truth, I don't really like Wal-Mart, but every time I need something, that is where I go. Sorry, mom and pop, it's just more convenient to do all your shopping at Wal-Mart and be through in one trip. And in small towns, it serves as a gathering place for the locals. Even though I don't like Wal-Mart, I love it. What can I say?
Posted by: jesusland joe at April 19, 2006 09:48 AM (rUyw4)
3
>>>>Trusting the mainstream media to be objective ----- -------- is a mistake
Unlike blog sites of course!
Look, I love the whole concept of citizen journalism and many of the best sites are well-written and articulated from a stylistic standpoint, BUT I hold few higher than any other media source for their standards of objectivity. That's OK, because most are quite clear about their larger slants -- the honest ones at least. Blogging is a different model, in which less-than-objective opining is part and parcel.
Posted by: Glenn at April 19, 2006 10:21 AM (UHKaK)
4
Jesus Joe, you can sing this little jingle along with the elevator music as you're shopping at Walmart's:
Undermine the economy ... whoa yeah ..
Daylight come and I watchin' 'em grow
Chink, chink, chink the cash register go ...
Illegal alien move so slow ...
Ah so, Ah so we come to take yo land
Chink a chink a c'hang watch the register grow
Chink a chink a c'hang, chink a chink a c'hong
Posted by: Last word Larry at April 19, 2006 11:20 AM (FCC6c)
5
Glenn - You lost me at "because most are quite clear about their larger slants."
I haven't seen any of the MSM admit to being left-wing house organs with aggressive political agendas. And, in my estimation, publishing dozens of front page Abu Ghraib stories with pictures and not one Mohammad cartoon is not being objective.
No, Glenn, the MSM pretends to be objective and denies their seething bias.
Posted by: Mike at April 19, 2006 03:24 PM (XeoHY)
6
Well, where in the hell do you shop, Larry? And tell the truth for one time in your life, if you know how.
Posted by: jesusland joe at April 19, 2006 04:44 PM (rUyw4)
7
Ummm...you guys aren't one of those blogs secretly getting paid by Wal-Mart are you?
Posted by: Alexander Wolfe at April 19, 2006 05:00 PM (018Z+)
8
WARNING: New topic (was re: media bias against Wal-Mart)
My comment is: why all this big concern for Wal-Mart?
Last time I checked, Wal-Mart was the number one player sending America's manufacturing business to China and helping the Chinese communists build up their manufacturing capacity at the expense of our own.
Along the same vein, Wal-Mart was very recently busted by the Bush Administration for employing illegal workers. I can't even imagine how blatant a company would have to be in this day and age to get busted by the George "what borders?" Bush Administration for hiring illegals.
Wal-Mart's executives are the masters at cutting costs and driving down prices. Good for them, but is that all there is?
Look, I fully understand we all benefit in the short run from keeping manufacturing costs down, and I fully understand the concept of comparative advantage. But should we really be placing our country's manufacturing capacity in the hands of communist dictators? Should we go to bat for the people that do more than anything else to make this happen?
Personally, I think perhaps we should all be a bit more concerned about this.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold at April 19, 2006 06:14 PM (1g7g2)
9
I wish the hell they were paying me, period. But alas, no. Although I'm not a blogger.
Posted by: jesusland joe at April 19, 2006 06:15 PM (rUyw4)
10
Mike--
>>>I haven't seen any of the MSM admit to being left-wing house organs with aggressive political agendas."
Uh, possibly because they're not. The myth of media liberalism is just that. Most "MSM" are owned by giant conglomerates, owned by ultra-conservative individuals/holding groups and funded by giant conglomerate -- and by nature conservative-- advertisers. The vast majority would therefore stand to gain nothing from forwarding a leftwing agenda and would more than likely prosper from pushing a rightwing one -- if they chose to take a partisan stand.
>>>And, in my estimation, publishing dozens of front page Abu Ghraib stories with pictures and not one Mohammad cartoon is not being objective.
That's no comparison. The events at Abu Ghraib were a photographic record of a factual event. The Mohammed cartoons were somebody's opinion, created to express a thought that tended up pissing off a bunch of people.
Blogsites are opinion/editorial based. Though often written by well-informed, intelligent and articulate people, they are not held to the same standards or conventions as bonafide media, just like someone's diary is not. Sorry, but those are the facts.
Posted by: Glenn at April 19, 2006 06:48 PM (oxMjD)
11
The myth of media liberalism is just that.
Uh-huh. Keep repeating that and you might convince someone. Unfortunately for you, the rest of us can see what and how the press acts.
BTW -- pointing to corporate ownership is not refutation to the facts of their bias. Corporations quite frequently use government power to eliminate competition. In the media realm this is often through things like the "Fairness Doctrine" and "campaign finance reform".
Posted by: Robert Crawford at April 19, 2006 06:53 PM (Gn9tM)
12
How are the Fairness Doctrine and campaign finance reform being used by the media to eliminate competition?
Look, the fact they hold your guys' feet to the fire doesn't mean the institution is corrupt. You loved 'em when they covered the Clinton blow job in tedious detail.
Posted by: Glenn at April 19, 2006 07:16 PM (oxMjD)
13
Is nobody banning the idiots anymore?
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 20, 2006 05:10 AM (0yYS2)
14
Yep, while they were covering the "Clinton blow job in tedious detail" they were ignoring the "Clinton/Chinese connection". Clinton was so enamored with the Chinese he flung that door open wide. And I agree that Bush should be slamming it shut, but let's call a spade a spade here. I still don't understand why every time Clinton's name pops up it's connected to the blow job to the exclusion of every other aspect of his presidency.
Posted by: Oyster at April 20, 2006 06:19 AM (YudAC)
15
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Clinton fully deserved to be removed from office, but not for getting a blowjob from a frumpy intern.
He deserved to be removed for selling out to the Chinese communist dictatorship.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold at April 20, 2006 09:14 AM (Gj4c3)
April 13, 2006
MSM's South Park Hypocrisy
The story of the censored South Park episode has hit the mainstream media, after, of course, being exposed on blogs first (See Howie's post below). Wednesday's episode was supposed to contain a scene of the Muslim prophet Mohammed, in reference to the famous Danish Mohammed cartoons that caused Islamic zealots to indulge in rioting, arson, and murder throughout the Islamic world.
Posted by: Bluto at
11:03 PM
| Comments (31)
| Add Comment
Post contains 374 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Comedy Central /did/ allow a depiction of Mohammed to air, a few seasons ago. Screencap is up here: http://www.divus.org/
Posted by: Chris at April 14, 2006 12:19 AM (1s6Th)
2
Please, where can I see and get a copy of the cartoon of Jesus defecating on Bush????
Posted by: Mary Lou at April 14, 2006 12:41 AM (vbxlH)
3
You can get it at the whorehouse where your mom works, Mary Lou.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 14, 2006 05:11 AM (0yYS2)
4
The cartoons were published in the United States.
I do not get obsession with these Mohammed cartoons. But Comedy Central should thank those of you who helped publicize the episode which was repeated last night.
I watched it again and still found it very childish and unamusing (and I usually like SP). There is a reason it is on cable and Family Guy is on real TV
Posted by: Don Surber at April 14, 2006 06:30 AM (OIxNx)
5
Family Guy is on FOX because it isn't funny.
Posted by: Michael Hampton at April 14, 2006 06:51 AM (FVbj6)
6
Shenanigans! Why didn't somebody tell me! Where's my broom?
Posted by: Bentsteele at April 14, 2006 07:17 AM (CbxGk)
7
>>>When the cartoons were reprinted in newspapers worldwide in January and February, it sparked a wave of protests primarily in Islamic countries.
An utter lie from the Liberal MSM. The STORY was reported worldwide, but the cartoons were printed in only a handful of papers. And that was all it took to send the Ummah hordes on a rampage.
Guess what, Comedy Central. Christians consider what you do to our faith blasphemous too. Do you only "respect" people who chop your heads off? You Liberals are gutless snivelling cowards.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 14, 2006 08:20 AM (8e/V4)
8
Don Surber: I missed their publication, other than on the internet. As far as I know, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, Fox, and all major newspapers refused to carry them "out of respect for Islam", which made for some strange (and no doubt embarrassing) convolutions when they tried to report the story.
I see no reason to gratuitously insult someone's religion, however, when the practitioners of that religion threaten violence to suppress freedom of speech and of the press, then the press has a moral duty to defy them. 99.99999% of the American press were derelict in their duty.
Do you have a link?
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at April 14, 2006 08:29 AM (RHG+K)
9
Bluto I did see one, one time on FNS.
Posted by: Howie at April 14, 2006 08:32 AM (D3+20)
10
The TV news networds all pixelated out the pictures of Mohammed, out of "respect" I suppose (read fear of head chopping). No such respect for the christian faith. I guess we haven't "earned" it.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 14, 2006 08:50 AM (8e/V4)
11
The Philadelphia Inquirer did publish the cartoons. Mary Lou, i'm sure the part with jesus defecating on Bush will be on youtube soon.
Posted by: Gottayo at April 14, 2006 10:02 AM (B/KNF)
12
Jesusland Carlos-
the cartoons in questions were only published in Dutch newspapers waaay back in November. When word of the cartoons, including photocopies of them, reached street-level Islam a couple of months ago, the riots/protests started.
So it wasn't necessarily the images that sparked the violence -- but the IDEAS of the images. the way IDEAS are shaped by OPINIONS, CONTEXT, PROPAGNDA & PRESUMPTIONS. is this issue. Not who printed what, when.
Posted by: IM Mol at April 14, 2006 12:28 PM (xYJFV)
13
"It's inaccurate to say that the Mohammed cartoons were published "worldwide", unless "worldwide" has been redefined to exclude the United States."
This is being pretty frickin picky. If "worldwide" is inaccurate when one country isn't included, then the word is inaccurate in nearly every use of the word.
Also, inaccuracy is not hypocrisy. "MSM's South Park Inaccuracy" may not be a cool headline, but at least it isn't, well, inaccurate.
Now criticizing you for being picky, then being complaining about using a word in the wrong context... THERE'S a true example of hypocrisy.
Posted by: vune at April 14, 2006 12:56 PM (5WejT)
14
Com Cen chickened out. They should have allowed the use of an image of the Prophet. The more people that "respect" that demand by Islamicists (which isn't even clear in the Koran--there are Muslim art works in history that depict Mohammed, it is depictions of GOD that are forbidden), the more those who defy it stand out for attack.
But the biggest problem is that the episode wasn't funny. I love SP the movie, and they have often satirized religion to great effect, in the long tradition of Jonathan Swift, Mencken, and Richard Pryor. Their episode on Mormonism was priceless, and their skewering of the Passion of the Christ deft. They even nailed Osama with verve. But this episode was preachy, and simply not funny.
And to the guy who blamed "liberals" for SP's rudeness to Christ--wrong. Stone and Parker are not liberals. Nobody skewered Jesse Jackson as well as these guys. They are equal opportunity satirists, and very often, their targets are those on the left. My guess is they are libertarians, not liberals. They have a deep abiding antipathy to organized religion, obviously, but they have problems with authority of all kinds (as well as an obsession with pedophilia, at least as shock-humor). They are hit-miss humorists. Sometimes they make me laugh out loud, as with the movie. Sometimes, they just gross me out. Other times, they are just offensive for the sake of being offensive, as with their scatalogical humor involving Jesus and Bush. What I found most offensive about it was that it wasn't funny.
Posted by: jd at April 14, 2006 01:54 PM (aqTJB)
15
jd,
fine, Stone and Parker are equal opportunity offenders. But Liberals aren't. They have a long history of intentionally defiling christian symbols, but now suddenly call for "respect" for islam. I hope that little bit of blatant hypocrisy gives you an inkling into why Liberals are so despised.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 14, 2006 10:11 PM (8e/V4)
16
Yea Mr. Stone and Mr. Parker are not liberals. They didn't even make fun of George Bush, which everybody does and its old anyhow. I heard an interview those two strapping young lads did on the Drudge Report. The Drudge Report. They said they love The Drudge Report. I do not consider that show very liberal. Now Comedy Central brass ball bags, and Viacom, thatÂ’s liberal.. Its okay to have Jesus win a rigged boxing match against Satan but no Muhammad, who was a kid toucher just like L. Ron Hubbard by the way. Comedy Central sucks. They need to go to FOX. I am sure good old Rupert would allow it. HeÂ’s Australian and its a known fact that Australians hate middle eastern kid touchers that start religions.
Posted by: A Big American Cowboy with a Marlboro (not the gay one in that movie) at April 15, 2006 03:46 AM (ZKqFy)
17
We are in agreement that liberals who oppose offending Islam but celebrate and appreciate satires of Christianity are hypocrites of the first order. Viacom isn't liberal, in my view, but cowardly. We do well to call them on that. The majority of liberals who I have read on this topic take your position--that sacred cows should be exposed. The caricature of liberals as all agreeing to PC sensitivities is not the liberalism that I know. Are their liberals who think like that? Sure. Are they the majority? Again, not in my experience. If that is why you hate liberals, you should be aware there are many many liberals who agree with you on this point.
Posted by: jd at April 15, 2006 06:17 AM (uT71O)
18
As for the Prophet being a pedophile: within his own historical period, it was not that uncommon for weddings to be consumated at menarche, not only in his society, but in the Christian societies that led to our own. It was legal for a girl to be married as young as 12 with the permission of her parents in frontier texas. In colonial America, it was not uncommon for a woman of 16 to already have two children. Does this mean America was founded by "kid touchers"? I'd like to think not. Mohammed was married to a girl when she was 9, most historians don't think such weddings were consumated until menarche. Either way, the age at which sex was appropriate has been spiraling upward in the last two hundred years in the West, first among the wealthy, then among the hoi polloi.
There are many reasons to disbelieve or dislike Islam, historically or currently. The Mohammed as pedophile meme is probably not one of them.
Posted by: jd at April 15, 2006 06:19 AM (uT71O)
19
Well, it seems that Muhammad and L. Ron Hubbard have gotten to you. Zoinks! Well if my crusade to stop Hillary Clinton, L. Ron Hubbard and Muhammad is going to work I suppose it won't be with you. You see in the year 622, when the Catholics tried to outlaw kid touching, the Arabs were al little upset, since they loved to fondle children. So a man from nowhere, stood up to their evil plans, That one man was, Muhammad. He stood up for the right to Marry your nine year old cousins. He really represented the people. Then one day the Catholics took it too far. They beheaded his beloved pig Francis and left it in his bed to try and scare him. So he then, in his little buddies memory gave a tearful, yet riveting speech to his people. It was hear in Medina, then around the globe. It was at that time, out of respect for Muhammad that pigs became sacred.
He decided to start his own religion to show those Catholics who is boss. Muhammad, being the justified kid toucher he is would not allow the Catholics to get away with this dastardly deed! He then began his own religion in which he killed a bunch of people for no reason. He really showed those Catholics!
So the torch of the true story behind the kind prophet Muhammad has been passed from generation to generation. Kid touchers from all over in elite positions know about this. I know about this, well, because I was married to Hillary Clinton when I was 5. I barley escaped from the Clinton Compound with my life. So listen up truth bearers. If something isn't defined by people do, but what people believe it to be, well, then Muhammad, was a great man. And liberals stand up for the rights of wonderful organizations that have roots in Islam. One of these many is called NAMBLA. SO I say if a cat barks it must be a turkey, and if a liberal is standing up for the rights of free speech of kid touchers, then, by golly who am I to say that liberals are not great folk! This is America. Girly liberals and red neck conservatives should be holding hands saying, We're not going to take it! Then and only then can the proper respect for Muhammad be shown. Only then can we all marry 9 year old cousins. Only then will this country be great.
Posted by: A Big American Cowboy with a Marlboro (not the gay one in that movie) at April 15, 2006 01:01 PM (ZKqFy)
20
I consider this attempt at satire self-refuting.
Posted by: jd at April 15, 2006 06:02 PM (uT71O)
21
Funny how everyone just takes the bait. If Christians were really that offended, they could put South Park out of business instantly by boycotting the products adevetised on any network that shows it.
And you know what? It would be an act of free speech. Just as it was Comedy Central's choice what to air and what not to air on their own network.
For all those whuining about how 'liberals' are more afraid of muslim reprisal that Christian outrage, I invide you to either organize said boycott and put your money where your mouth is, or admit that you are not THAT offended after all or are to lazy to actually exercise your right to vote with your dollars and your feet.
Posted by: Tim at April 16, 2006 10:30 PM (19a7L)
22
I seriously doubt that many Christians have South Park on their list of late-night entertainment choices.
Posted by: Last word Larry at April 17, 2006 05:25 PM (FCC6c)
23
"Im Jesus, would you like for me to a crap on you Mr Boosh?" haha one of the funniest things I have ever seen on television. And not offensive whatsoever. quit being so uptight you puritans, their not just being vulgar, they are proving a point.
Posted by: TommytheCat at April 21, 2006 04:10 AM (b1Dtu)
24
This single cartoon just shows how fragile and radical the islamic world is. All it takes is one simple cartoon and you are having riots and killings?? What kind of religion is this that sparks violence at any protest to it? The christian world has been under attack since the days of jesus, but you dont see us going out doing suicide bomb runs. I know not all muslims are radical and some are very true to their faith, but it makes you realize how insane the middle east is. And dont even try to connect this to iraq, cause it has nothing to do with it. We are in iraq as a staging point for resource dommination in that region, AKA oil. We will slowly pull out of iraq after establishing a few super bases in the country, which will be used to somewhat stabilize the flow of oil from the region. Yeah, and dont think oil isnt important, even if we do reduce our oil dependancy its only real effect will be in transportation. Oil is still a key ingrediant in pesticides, plastics, and most any other product that helps us have this american way of life. And also, fuck off global climate change people, sea levels will only rise another 24" in the next 100 years!!! plenty of time to accomodate and adjust, so our kids will be fine.
Posted by: the middle east at May 06, 2006 02:41 PM (Sq6o+)
25
your a fool seriously a simple cartoon lol what would you say if you saw a cartoon of jesus which you wont see because well jesus is a prophet in islam isa dont you see all religions are similar ? and man your a typical american the speech about oil thank god im in england lol and really the british people are not fond of bush the mother fucker could atleast speek of the guantanamo british detainees how insane the middle east is lol their actually the most educated people who without the worls would be nothing were did roman numerals come from? i wonder if we could count were did plastic surgery come from? were did chess come from? intelligence is needed for that game islam is connected to science the word islam means peace ok theirs some extremists bombing themselves in anger but dosent every religion have misunderstood ppl and is economic wealth of a country important if people in the otherside of the world are dieing how would one country survive if others end the worls revolves around each country no more croissants for you if you pick on the french lol bye bye fool
Posted by: middle east is a bush fuker at June 08, 2006 11:50 PM (u+Jtv)
26
Yo, Middle East is a bush fucker...before you go and start calling pther people stupid you should really check your own grammer and content...you make no god damn sense...and you're British?? Don't you wankers speak english hahahahaha
GO USA!!!!!
Posted by: godisdead at June 11, 2006 01:22 AM (IBXq5)
27
u dumb american this is not a english exam slang is appropraite enogh when conversing with u fools
Posted by: middle east is a bush fuker at June 11, 2006 03:56 PM (u+Jtv)
28
usa is full of shit even the cars are shit you lot are jokes he dude rock on fuck sake homer simpson is the image of each american
Posted by: middle east is a bush fuker at June 11, 2006 04:00 PM (u+Jtv)
29
u stupidmother fukers dnt u get it bush is takin u 2 hell all he wants is ur mums fanny crack and ur dads balls dats the devil talking. nw here the truth there is 1 god believe it or not and i promise u im not hypocritical but there is proof and im not tellin u 2 change but there wil b a judgement day and every1 wil suffer.bk 2 the devil u stupid fukrs its not alwayz abt sex unless ur mum wants 2 fuk me ill make ur mums fanny sweaT LKE THE HOLY PISS DAT U DRINK BYE BYE
Posted by: ake at June 12, 2006 07:37 PM (mHX7T)
30
WE DO NO SEE christians running around the streets with AK-47s when we see jesus shunned on.... you muslims and arabs need ot buckle down or the US is going to kill every one of ya.. QUOTE ON QUOTE... YOU HAVE no right to kill and destroy stuff...((we know thats what arabs do best))... this cartoon is FUNNY as hell.. get us to the fact that we hate muslims in the United States of the america (hell ya)
Posted by: American Devoted at June 14, 2006 08:09 AM (tuSO1)
31
No I don't hate anyone. See they do that hating and the killing. We respond to that. they have decarled themselves our enemy. We oblidge by kicking their ass. Not hate, necessity.
Posted by: Howie at June 14, 2006 08:15 AM (D3+20)
April 11, 2006
Fitz Puts (Mis)Stake Through Shuster's Heart
Nathan Goulding of National Review Online had already called out Hardball's David Shuster for some quite blatant lies and distortions; and then George at Seixon used these same overt lies to discredit a fawning DailyKos entry about Shuster. George also notes that he has registered to comment at DailyKos; he might want to see how the Kossacks deal with infidels first.
Among other fabrications, Shuster concocted a "quote" from Libby saying that a "key judgement" of the NIE (meaning all were agreed) was that Saddam was "vigorously trying to procure uranium". MSNBC put it onscreen as a super - see the Seixon link for a screen capture. more...
Posted by: Bluto at
11:14 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 272 words, total size 2 kb.
April 04, 2006
Malkin Exposes NBC Plot to Stigmatize NASCAR Fans
One of Michelle Malkin's readers has forwarded emails to her detailing an NBC Dateline scheme to provoke anti-Muslim/anti-Arab behavior at a NASCAR event. According to the email, sent out to members of a Knoxville Muslim organization in response to queries from Dateline producers, NBC wants:
...a guy with no foreign accent whatsoever, a good thick beard, an outgoing personality, and someone willing to wear a kufi/skullcap during the filming.Quick, somebody set up a sting to gauge the elitist prejudices of NBC Dateline executives who think that all NASCAR fans are inbred hicks who don't vote Democrat often enough.They also want someone who is fairly well accomplished and has contributed to American society at large in some meaningful way.
That said, I'm urgently looking for someone who can be filmed this April 1st weekend at a Nascar event (and other smaller events) in Virginia. NBC is willing to fly in someone and cover their weekend expenses. The filming would take place all day on Saturday and Sunday.
Note to NASCAR fans: NBC apparently wants to film their stunt at a NASCAR event this coming weekend (April 
- a follow-up email, also posted by Malkin notes the change in plan.
Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto and Vince Aut Morire.
Posted by: Bluto at
12:57 PM
| Comments (44)
| Add Comment
Post contains 226 words, total size 2 kb.
1
There they go again, trying to create news instead of reporting it. Doing this at sports events is blatant profiling. Someone quick - call them up an tell them they forgot country music festivals. What a bunch of putzes.
Posted by: Oyster at April 04, 2006 01:51 PM (uZPWy)
2
What a bunch of crap. NBC is stupid and anyone that watches it is stupid.
Posted by: Jim at April 04, 2006 02:15 PM (DxLwq)
3
The fact is, if you place one or two people in a crowd and purposely make them look different to everyone else, they'll get some looks - but it doesn't necessarily mean hatred. So this'll be another lame piece of "investigative journalism" where the video shows nothing of interest happening, but the "victims" stating how tense the situation was and how uncomfortable they were. If NBC wants some really interesting footage, put two Orthodox Jews to stand outside a mosque.
Posted by: Graeme at April 04, 2006 02:34 PM (yPRZ1)
4
Wasn't it NBC back in the 80s that got caught staging 'news' with gas tank explosions on Ford pickups?
Posted by: Mike at April 04, 2006 02:49 PM (KR+0J)
5
Wonder what Sprint-Nextel would think about this. I hope they pull every advertising $ they spend at NBC including Races!
Posted by: Cindy at April 04, 2006 02:52 PM (hUZ4U)
6
Knoxville eh? Maybe I should drop by the local Middle Eastern market and put out the word that such an even might be a bad idea.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 04, 2006 03:41 PM (0yYS2)
7
I.M., if you get close to some of those Muslims, please take some small piglets with you to let go. I bet they run faster than you can say NASCAR.
Posted by: Leatherneck at April 04, 2006 03:47 PM (D2g/j)
8
Oh I get close to them all the time, and I let them think I'm a good dhimmi. Hell, they may even try to recruit me to their cause, and then I'll be all over them like a cheap suit.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 04, 2006 04:33 PM (0yYS2)
9
If I'm not mistaken, NBC SPORTS presently has a contract to televise the second half of each (this) seasons NASCAR race schedule....
I would think that Bill France Jr. who runs NASCAR, and who also issued the contract, might have something to say about NBC News trying to 'sting' what is essentially a sport entirely run by the France family.
If I were Bill France I would put some heat on NBC to find some other sport to trick
Posted by: n.a.palm at April 04, 2006 04:49 PM (uO8TL)
10
Rathergate may be gone but it is a news fabrication routine the MSM/DNC learned well the last 55 years. They will continue to do the "Ugly America" news lie because it seemd to work so well for Brinkley and Cronkite 55 years ago. Of course there was no Talk Radio then. And then they wonder why their market share has shrunk the last 26 years?!
Posted by: Jo macDougal at April 04, 2006 05:49 PM (adQET)
11
Someone write him a letter and tell him what NBC is doing:
Bill France Jr.
Chairman of NASCAR and International Speedway Corp.
NASCAR
P.O. Box 2875
Daytona Beach, FL 32120
Posted by: Oyster at April 04, 2006 05:54 PM (YudAC)
12
If NASCAR wanted to get even, they should stage a mock beatdown by some Middle-Eastern looking men on some innocent bystander, screaming "allahu akbar" the whole time.
Posted by: Insomniac at April 04, 2006 06:40 PM (wZLWV)
13
Thank God for Talk Radio (27 years)and blogs (7 years). When Uncle Walter would smear America with his Ugly America lies 60 years ago there was no source to give the truth to the public. Now when another Rathergate hapens there are people like Michelle to get us the truth; and do it in real time. Uncle Walt would have lost his job by 1965 had there been Talk Radio and blogs 50 years ago.
Posted by: Rod Stanton at April 04, 2006 07:00 PM (adQET)
14
Apparently reporting on animosity against Muslims isn't enough for ol Tarek....now he's trying to manufacture some for the TV cameras. Read below taken from google link.
Tarek El-Messidi says Muslims have experienced "a lot of backlash against us as a community, even though we are very diverse and a peace loving people.
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:vlQgtahLJ0gJ:www.wate.com/Global/story.asp%3FS%3D1193074+Tarek+El-Messidi&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=8&client=firefox-a
Posted by: mrclark at April 04, 2006 07:27 PM (Na6eO)
15
I don't understand why NBC has to be so sneaky about it. If you they would ask me, or any of my NASCAR loving friends, we would be happy to explain why we hate islam, and the brain dead followers of the mass murdering, drug addicted, baby raping, pedophile "prophet" mohammed. We might even quote a few passages from th unholy qu'ran, to prove our point, if they asked nice. Quit with all the sneaking around, and act like you have caught us with our in the racist cookie jar! Islam's an ideology, not a race, so suck it, NBC! Sheesh!
BTW, that YALE taliban guy...
I think his home addy is listed in the white pages. Dumbass.
Posted by: Princess Kimberley at April 04, 2006 07:54 PM (bMVL0)
16
Rathergate was awesome. The MSM lost almost all credibilty after that little incident. As for Yale, who lets in anyone with a 4th grade education? Not to mention a terrorist.
Posted by: Craig at April 04, 2006 08:18 PM (b3fZv)
17
Now that I've had time to think about it, I hope they do provoke an incident and cause a lot of domestic muslims to go on the rampage, because that might prove to be the turning point, and a good excuse to hang a few.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 04, 2006 08:19 PM (0yYS2)
18
Time to wring the peacocks neck
Posted by: sandpiper at April 04, 2006 08:24 PM (PObDu)
19
The improbable man strikes again! the only thing he could hang would be a washing line, and that would probably fall down.
Wouldn't it be funny to drop him into Fallujah, just for the laughs you understand.
Posted by: Sonic at April 04, 2006 08:42 PM (Gsn6c)
20
This is ridiculous. It's so frustrating to read things like that!
Posted by: sports crazy at April 04, 2006 08:44 PM (rjg51)
21
Sonic, how about we drop a nice 50 MT hydrogen bomb on fallujah instead of 'ol maximus? You can never have too much glass, ya know. Then, I encourage you to visit there. Stay as long as you like.
Posted by: jamsler at April 04, 2006 08:56 PM (VqA/E)
22
Sonic, at least I.M. would go down fighting, you would just cry for your mommie. Mommie! Mommie!
Posted by: Leatherneck at April 04, 2006 08:57 PM (D2g/j)
23
He would go down, thats the point.
people who talk like that don't have any guts when the sh*t really hits the fan, and thats a fact.
Posted by: Sonic at April 04, 2006 09:45 PM (Gsn6c)
24
I don't know, Sonic, IM let loose a few bursts back in Gulf War I, and I think he might have been a cannon cocker, too, but it doesn't matter. He's seen the elephant! I wonder if you have, because I kinda doubt it.
I haven't met very many people from New Zealand, I only know two personally, but both of them I would list as sissies in the dictionary of life. I figure you fit in that category as well, but perhaps not. Again, I doubt you have seen any combat. But we are all just dying to know!
Posted by: jesusland joe at April 04, 2006 09:54 PM (rUyw4)
25
Sure Jesusland, thats us Kiwis, all sissies.
IM is a liar, you only need to read a few of his posts to work out he was a REMF at best.
Fact.
Posted by: Sonic at April 04, 2006 10:29 PM (Gsn6c)
26
How do you know that it is a fact? I've read a few of your posts and you are just plain stupid. FACT!
Posted by: jesusland joe at April 04, 2006 10:36 PM (rUyw4)
27
Everybody knows that the Aussies threw all the pansies out of OZ and sent them to New Zealand.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at April 04, 2006 11:16 PM (RHG+K)
28
Thanks for the heads up over at my place Don. I noted Michelle's story earlier but have not had time to post anything at Full Throttle. I may get to that this morning. I'm also going to post notices at many of the racing blogs I visit.
Posted by: Marc at April 05, 2006 05:28 AM (3l5dJ)
29
I like the Fallujah idea myself. Everyone dies, so that's no big deal. To me, that'd be like dying in a candy store. I could probably get a couple hundred before they got me, but my dead-man switch with a timer on a 20lb satchel charge would get a few more when they came to dance on my corpse. Barring that event though, I still plan on getting a few when they get uppity here.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 05, 2006 06:15 AM (0yYS2)
30
Well 24 hours later let's try to get back to the original post. Not one MSM including Fox has had anything to say about this. I think this whole story was a spoof. There just does not seem to be any CREDIBLE tie in to NBC. Why would NBC be asking some muslim student leader in arranging help to do this ? Why would he be sending this out as part of a mass mailing ? Until someone can show me more I am putting this in with the "we never really landed on the moon" news items.
Posted by: john Ryan at April 05, 2006 10:38 AM (TcoRJ)
31
I think John may be right. NBC carries the 2nd half of the NASCAR season along with TNT. IÂ’m sure itÂ’s a pretty big investment for them.
Why would they spit in their own soup?
Posted by: Brad at April 05, 2006 11:14 AM (3OPZt)
32
Why bother with getting a real middle eastern physical type when Hollywood makeup/prosthetics can replicate the look just fine?
Heck, let's gear up an ultra-orthodox black coat, a hari krishna, and a sari wearing buddhist to complete the set.
What would be even funnier? If they all enjoy the race without a single comment or ugly incident. Maybe, just maybe, NASCAR fans aren't the US' version of soccer hooligans.
Posted by: TM Lutas at April 05, 2006 04:30 PM (z/jms)
33
As I said, blowhard.
Posted by: Sonic at April 05, 2006 04:44 PM (Gsn6c)
34
No, as bad as I hate to say it, I believe this story is true. NBC is definitely working on a story that will purport to show the discrimination the poor Muslims are receiving in the US, none of it caused by the Dark Ages cult religion they profess. No, this is the playing of the race card, even though Muslims are not a race. NBC and the MSM are worthy of .........Well, you fill in the blank. I'll leave it to your imagination.
Posted by: jesusland joe at April 05, 2006 06:58 PM (rUyw4)
35
There is now a story on MSNBC that reports the attempted plot to create news. It happened this past weekend at Martinsville, as a Muslim man and two women dressed in Muslim garb attempted to get a negative reaction from NASCAR fans, but were unsuccessful.
NASCAR has confronted NBC about this, and Dateline has admitted doing the story. They may also be at the Texas Motor Speedway this weekend to attempt another sting. The ones who should have their asses kicked are the producers of this fake news.
Posted by: jesusland joe at April 05, 2006 07:47 PM (rUyw4)
36
provoke?
Posted by: actus at April 05, 2006 08:11 PM (nnhSu)
37
What's your take on this, actus? Is this how news is done?
Posted by: jesusland joe at April 05, 2006 09:00 PM (rUyw4)
38
"What's your take on this, actus? Is this how news is done?"
Its how undercover work is done. I have no idea if news is done this way. It doesn't seem very provocative to have a muslim at a NASCAR event.
Posted by: actus at April 05, 2006 11:49 PM (nnhSu)
39
No, apparently it wasn't provocative to NASCAR fans, either. So there, the rednecks didn't take the bait. Good on them. But NBC should lose NASCAR, because this is an attempt to create news, not report news. And you call it undercover work, now who woulda guessed that?
Posted by: jesusland joe at April 06, 2006 05:59 AM (rUyw4)
40
Rectus, being a typical liberal and so not quite as smart as he gives himself credit for being, has once again exposed his true thoughts on the matter. Why would someone need to go undercover to stage and provoke an incident at a public event, if not to further a secret agenda? Why not just ask people what they think? We all know the answers, but liberals will still try to tell you that black is white. It's like they use 1984 and Brave New World as operations manuals without realizing that we've read them too.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 06, 2006 01:38 PM (0yYS2)
41
"Why would someone need to go undercover to stage and provoke an incident at a public event, if not to further a secret agenda? "
I don't see why people are talking about provocation. Is this provocative?
Posted by: actus at April 06, 2006 01:41 PM (CqheE)
42
Is it provocative for skinheads to march in a black or Jewish neighborhood? Liberals are so stupid.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 07, 2006 06:19 AM (0yYS2)
43
"Is it provocative for skinheads to march in a black or Jewish neighborhood? Liberals are so stupid."
I had a shaved head when I lived in a predominantly black neighborhood.
Posted by: actus at April 08, 2006 07:29 PM (nnhSu)
44
I'm sorry rectus, I didn't mean to express concepts that were so far over your head. I'll keep all my future posts on shiny things where you're concerned.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 09, 2006 09:42 AM (0yYS2)
April 03, 2006
Gauging the Media's Civil War in Iraq
Engram at Best of the Fray (the blog, not the Slate forum) has been doing some research to substantiate the increasing carnage in the mainstream media declared civil war in Iraq:
more...
Posted by: Bluto at
11:59 AM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
Post contains 193 words, total size 1 kb.
1
It seems whenever you guys start crowing about drops in US troop casualties the number suddenly spikes.
14 dead in last three days.
http://icasualties.org/oif/
If you cared about the troops I would suggest keeping it shut.
Posted by: Sonic at April 03, 2006 05:03 PM (Gsn6c)
2
I think that even though the absolute number being killed in Iraq is the same in the first 3 months of this year and the first 3 months of last, there has been a definite change in the way that they have been killed. Last year most of the civilian casualties were from terrorist bombs. This year they seem to be more of the abduction followed by torture/murder type.
Posted by: john Ryan at April 03, 2006 05:13 PM (TcoRJ)
3
Sonic, this is about deliberate misreporting by the mainstream media, not "crowing". I have to say, you are one of the stupidest sacks of shit I've ever seen post on Jawa, and it disgusts me to see people actually cheering for the terrorist insurgency, as you quite obviously are doing. You should get yourself a short rope and do the right thing.
john ryan, all the people you mention were killed by terrorists. I fail to see the significance of the tactics and methods of murder. With the MSM declaring a civil war in progress, it's interesting to note that the Brookings statistics do not bear out the hysterical reproting.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at April 03, 2006 05:37 PM (RHG+K)
4
Pointing out casualties=cheering on the insurgency. Hmm
Perhaps if we all kept quiet about the dead they would pop back to life?
Posted by: Sonic at April 03, 2006 07:22 PM (Gsn6c)
5
So Sonic, now you know what it's like to have someone deliberately and maliciously misconstrue something you wrote. Did you learn anything?
Stupid effing Kiwi.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at April 03, 2006 07:26 PM (RHG+K)
6
THE DOVE WILL FLY THE VULTURES WILL LIE
Posted by: sandpiper at April 03, 2006 09:41 PM (uTBPj)
7
Perhaps if we all just hanged one idiot liberal every day pretty soon the world would be a better place.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 04, 2006 06:30 AM (0yYS2)
8
The dove may fly, but in the end it's eaten by a vulture or a hawk.
Posted by: Ranba Ral at April 04, 2006 02:04 PM (GyNTD)
9
Ve have vays of making you squawk
Posted by: sandpiper at April 04, 2006 08:29 PM (PObDu)
<< Page 1 of 1 >>
126kb generated in CPU 0.0656, elapsed 0.1635 seconds.
123 queries taking 0.1177 seconds, 411 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
123 queries taking 0.1177 seconds, 411 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
