July 25, 2006
Prepare the Virgins
The U.S. military has churned through the Taliban over the past month, killing
more than 600 terrorists during Operation Mountain Thrust.
Why isn't this on the front page at CNN.com?
Don't be silly. That "800-lb marlin spears fisherman" story is so much more a pressing world event...
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:03 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 53 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Actually, CNN does cover this story, only that they cover the first part of it. That's the part where Taliban scare off the local police and take over a town. CNN gives that big headlines.
Then when the coalition and Afghan forces come in and terminate their existence with extreme prejudice, CNN isn't around to post that.
Curious. Very curious.
Posted by: lawhawk at July 25, 2006 09:16 AM (0vFVj)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 24, 2006
Maryland Democrat Rapes Mail Order Bride
In Maryland, Democratic Senate candidate
David Dickerson has just been charged with
beating and raping his 19-year-old mail order bride.
The response from the nutroots was immediate and predictable.
Why Does This Seem Like Some Sort Of Set-Up??? Is He really a Democrat or just someone "posing" as a Democrat! You see, I've become way over the line "cynical" these days. I wouldn't put it past the Repukes to have someone out there stating he's a Dem, but all the while a Repuke.
I need MUCH MORE information & background on this one. I don't doubt that some Democrats can be THIS stupid, but right now??? Right before an election where the Dems seem to be gaining some ground?? I wonder.
Or shorter, "ROOOOOOOOVE!!!
This message brought to you by the Democratic Underground, where the nuts never fall far from the tree.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:15 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 154 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Two sources have now reported the charges filed, both the WJZ story you linked and now the Baltimore Sun.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/crime/bal-candidate0724,0,2330662.story?coll=bal-home-headlines
While the facts of the case might be open for debate the fact that he's been charged and released on a $100K bond isn't. The fever swamp on the left just can't bear the reality, I suppose.
Posted by: Ric James at July 25, 2006 07:46 AM (zwJfV)
2
If this IS a set-up, it's the most idiotic ever conceived. The guy is getting less than 1% of the vote in polls, and he's a target? Couldn't "they" have ambushed one of the frontrunners? Maybe "their" strategy is to get the weakest first and then pick the rest off one at a time.
Posted by: Nephos at July 25, 2006 10:06 AM (y6n8O)
3
Oh, but Nephos, the conspiracy is even better than you think. The DU nut isn't claiming that he was set-up, he's claiming that he isn't even really a Democrat, but merely playing one just to make the Dems look bad. Think about this, the DUer believes a loyal Republican was willing to become a Democrat and then rape and beat his mail-order bride just to make the Democrats look bad. Talk about jumping on a grenade!
Posted by: submandave at July 25, 2006 10:35 AM (UdYT0)
Posted by: Johnny at July 25, 2006 08:02 PM (Vtwo9)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
The Toddler-Threatening Community Rides Again
Not content to attack the individual children of Cheif Justice John Roberts and blogger Jeff Goldstein, they now wish to
kill Alan Dershowitz's children:
Forgive me for this but Alan Dershowitz's children should be hit by a 5000 lb. bomb made by an American military-industrial corporation, sold to Israel, and misfired into his home. Then he can talk to me. I will offer my sincere condolences. Then we will get drunk and talk about relative culpability. I'm sorry Alan. You're scum. Among the people in history that would gladly bitch-slap you are Jesus, Buddha, Zoroaster, Socrates, Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Jr., John Lewis, Nelson Mendala, Bishop Tutu, Pope John Paul II, and me. We'd all like to smack you for being a prick.
In Booman's defense, at least he didn't state that he wanted to molest them first.
h/t Protein Wisdom
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:17 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 151 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Somehow when I've asked the question "What would Jesus do?" I've never gotten the answer, "Bitch-slap Alan Dershowitz".
Posted by: Trish at July 24, 2006 03:40 PM (E3GCl)
2
Be clear, these are not my sentiments. However, I did crack a smile when I read a response to Booman's article....
Re: The Lord Will Smite (4.00 / 2)
"I've wished Cheney a heart attack more than once this week as for Bush, I'll spare you the gory details. Bad thoughts don't kill kids, American made bombs do."
by zeeland on Sun Jul 23rd, 2006 at 02:35:05 AM EST
Posted by: Johnny at July 24, 2006 07:32 PM (Vtwo9)
3
Johnny: I did not crack a smile at the nitwit adolescent rant you quoted against Bush and Cheney.
American bombs are aimed at terrorist jihadists, who are at war with America and with the democratically elected government in Iraq operating under a democratically adopted written Constitution. Terrorist jihadist bombs, in contrast, are aimed too often at non-combatant civilian life. Leftists wish to overlook the difference, but that is immoral on their part.
Posted by: Phil Byler at July 25, 2006 10:13 PM (/kIDl)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Yo ho, yo ho...
... the pirate's life for me.
Err, well, not me, but I did have a tiny role to play in it.
John of Castle Argghhh! is going on a little boat ride that you have to read to believe.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:04 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 47 words, total size 1 kb.
1
This is the day that WB has been waiting for, for a long time. I hope that this starts a ship gathering process that will get everything he has wanted, the last 3-4 years. Just wish that I could be there when she docks, but I will have to wait for the others to come HOME.. Dan BTC Texas
Posted by: Dan Howell at July 25, 2006 09:45 AM (NBNYb)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
The Silence of the Informed
Arlen Specter has written an Op-Ed in the
Washington Post that is apparently giving the left side of the blogosphere convulsions this morning, entitled,
Surveillance We Can Live With.
The section of Specter's editorial that seems to be giving most liberals fits is where Specter (according to them) misunderstands the Youngstown decision:
Critics complain that the bill acknowledges the president's inherent Article II power and does not insist on FISA's being the exclusive procedure for the authorization of wiretapping. They are wrong. The president's constitutional power either exists or does not exist, no matter what any statute may say. If the appellate court precedents cited above are correct, FISA is not the exclusive procedure. If the president's assertion of inherent executive authority meets the Fourth Amendment's "reasonableness" test, it provides an alternative legal basis for surveillance, however FISA may purport to limit presidential power. The bill does not accede to the president's claims of inherent presidential power; that is for the courts either to affirm or reject. It merely acknowledges them, to whatever extent they may exist.
Anonymous Liberal writes:
Good lord. Can someone please get Senator Specter a copy of Youngstown?
[snip]
Seriously, if Specter had written the above-quoted paragraph on a constitutional law exam, his professor would have flunked him. His description of the interplay between statutes and the president's article II authority runs contrary to the long-established Youngstown framework, which--as the Court's various opinions in Hamdan demonstrate--all nine of the current Supreme Court justices accept as controlling.
As Specter should know, there is a world of difference between what a president has the power to do in the absence of a statute and what he has the power to do in the face of a statutory prohibition. That's constitutional law 101.
Much has been made of Specter's willingness to legislate in the dark. He has, after all, agreed to sponsor legislation legalizing a program about which he has not even been briefed. But far more disturbing to me is his apparent inability to get his head around a basic principle of constitutional law. As I noted last week, the very wording and structure of his bill--like his op-ed--reflects a fundamental misconception of presidential authority. And there's really no excuse for that. Someone on Specter's staff really does need to sit him down and force him to read Youngstown. Or if he doesn't have time, footnote 23 of the Hamdan decision will suffice:
Whether or not the President has independent power, absent
congressional authorization, to convene military commissions,
he may not disregard limitations that Congress has, in proper
exercise of its own war powers, placed on his powers.
Senator Specter, please pay special attention to the phrase "whether or not." That's the key. It doesn't matter whether the pre-FISA cases you cite in your op-ed held that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless surveillance. A duly enacted statute, like FISA, may nevertheless place enforceable limits on the president's authority. This is not controversial.
If this as not controversial as Mr. Liberal and Marty Lederman state, then why is this issue still being debated at all?
Surely, if the issue is as cut-and-dried as these folks seem to suggest, then the army of NSA staff lawyers that specialize is this area of law and have reviewed the details and legality of the program would have condemned the program before it was implemented.
And yet, in the years before the program was exposed by the New York Times, not one patriotic NSA lawyer has "leaked" the damning details of the story to defend the nation.
Nor has the program been a concern for the man in charge of implementing it, General Michael Hayden, who knew its details. Nor has it apparently been a concern for the NSA team in charge of the program's implementation and monitoring. If the program was so clearly out of bounds as all of these expert pontificators suggest with their thorough lack of knowledge of the program, certainly some of the incriminating details of the program would have found their way to the Times. And yet, the literally dozens of people who know the program best, including the NSA lawyers that specialize in this are of law and the professionals that implemented it, a bevy of White House Counsel, and career Justice Department lawyers, have kept mum.
For that matter, the ten FISA Court judges that were briefed on the program have also kept quiet; surely if they had objections, they could have resigned from the court with no penalty, sending a very loud message. And yet, they have refused to do so.
Are we to assume, then, that all of these federal employees, many of which have public service dating back to prior Administrations, are so willing to give up essential liberties and are such Bush sycophants that they would willing engage in the undercutting of the U.S. Constitution?
This seems to be at the root of the libertarian and liberal allegation, in my non-legally-educated mind. In their ever-present desire to condemn the Administration, they presume that those who do know the program best are willing accomplices to the undermining of the nation. I could perhaps accept this explanation if so many people were not involved, but that is not the reality of the situation.
Uninformed doubters are of course free to object to the program quite strenuously as they have and certainly will continue to do, but from where I sit, the silence of the informed speaks volumes.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:36 AM
| Comments (20)
| Add Comment
Post contains 925 words, total size 6 kb.
1
One of the NSA court judges *did* resign in response to the revelations about NSA program. And the New York Times was only able to write about the program because someone in the NSA did leak it.
Justice Department officials also thought that the military commissions were legal, but we have since discovered that they were not. And remember, the OLC also wrote the torture memo saying that the President could legally torture people. They eventually backed away from that one, too.
You shouldn't assume that if employees of the President support something, that means it is necessarily legal or above board. There have been lots of scandals in this country where executive branch officials defended or even covered up for their higher ups because they thought it was their job to do so.
Posted by: Union Southerner at July 24, 2006 11:21 AM (drUUS)
2
Union: The "torture memo" defined torture. It did not say "you can torture people".
That you obviously disagree with that
legal definition of torture and consider that some of the things it allowed as a
legal opinion should be considered torture, does not mean that the memo said "the President could legally torture people".
It means you have an argument to make to convince us that your usage is correct and that of the legal staff who wrote the memo is wrong. Having read the memo, I can't say I agree with you. But simply asserting "torture" isn't very effective in convincing people like me you're correct in such judgements.
Posted by: Sigivald at July 24, 2006 11:33 AM (4JnZM)
3
Sigivald, the OLC torture memo did more than define torture narrowly-- a definition that the OLC backed away from later on, by the way. It also said that the torture statute would be *unconstitutional* as applied to the President. That meant that it was legal for him to torture.
The larger point is that just because the OLC or the Justice Department says that the President is right doesn't mean he is. The Hamdan decision rejected the President's claims about the legality of his proposed military tribunals. It also undermines the legality of the NSA program.
In the post Confederate Yankee argues that the President must be right because nobody objected to the NSA program. But he is not correct that nobody in the Administration or the FISA objected to the legality of the NSA program. People did object-- that's how the story leaked to the press. And one judge did in fact resign.
Posted by: Union Southerner at July 24, 2006 11:43 AM (drUUS)
4
Union,
FISA court judge James Robertson resigned months
before the court as briefed, and no member has resigned since.
Risen and Litchblau were certainly the recipents of leaks, but the lack of specific detail about the program would seem to indicate that the compartmentalized NSA groups dealing directly with the program (the ones I refer to in my post) were not involved.
The level of detail they printed was more in line with the high-level leaks you might get from a congressman... or perhaps a
senator.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at July 24, 2006 11:44 AM (g5Nba)
5
I think you are forgetting Russell Tice,the NSA employee/whistleblower. In the stories about him,Tice stated that the NSA's surveillance programs were used for millions of citizens but he did not reveal the details since he was under a confidentiality agreement.
He also admitted to being at least one of the whistleblowers with enough details as he worked for the NSA.
Posted by: TJM at July 24, 2006 12:02 PM (F9hZP)
6
Wow, there's some logical fallacy there! Without taking sides on the issue, here's the error that Union Southerner makes.
"It also said that the torture statute would be *unconstitutional* as applied to the President. That meant that it was legal for him to torture."
Saying a statute is unconstitutional does not mean that they are saying it is legal to torture someone. It just says that a certain statute doesn't make it illegal. Geeze. It may very well (and should be) illegal by some other means.
Posted by: Mike Rentner at July 24, 2006 12:13 PM (rr4ZT)
7
Specter's saying that FISA doesn't properly reach the presidential power in question. I guess he'd therefore say that in a Youngstown-Jackson test, the balance would tip the executive's way under part three or stand alone under part two. The business about the president's power either existing or not is correct so far as it goes. Youngstown, or at least its concurrence as sketchily adopted into law, may lead a court to conclude that the presidential power is outweighed by a congressional one, but not that it doesn't exist. That would produce a nonsensical situation absent any statute at all.
Anyway, isn't this bill about moving the surveillance controversy into Jackson's category one? Lederman, Balkin, et al can think Specter's a dumbass, but I can't see any constitutional barrier to Specter's rounding up the votes and changing Youngstown categories, thus resolving the mess.
Posted by: CS at July 24, 2006 12:15 PM (gyjAi)
8
TJM, Tice was never in the area working with this program. He knew there was a program, but I think he admitted he did not know the details.
He's also a stalker (which is why he was bumped out of the DIA) diagnosed with psychotic paranoia (which is why the NSA stripped his clearances and assigned him to the motor pool), but that is neither here nor there.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at July 24, 2006 12:25 PM (g5Nba)
9
Confederate Yankee,
I have gone back and forth about this with Anonymous Liberal
here. The basic jist, I think, is that Anon Liberal, and Marty Lederman, are misreading Specter's op-ed.
That being said though, I don't think that your argument about the "silence of the informed" has as much power as you think it does. Remember that the Bush Administration argues primarily that the AUMF authorizes the NSA program by satisfying one of the exceptions to FISA's warrant requirements. That's a debateable position, and could be the position that others in DOJ, NSA, the FISA court, etc. rely upon in deciding not to resign. But that issue isn't really the one that the Specter legislation addresses; Specter's not clarifying the reach of the AUMF. Rather, Specter is proposing to modify FISA so that the Administration doesn't have to rely on the AUMF argument any more.
So I think there are two different things going on here. One is that lawyers in the Administration now feel comfortable enough with the AUMF argument that they don't feel the need to resign. The other is that Specter proposes to amend FISA so that the AUMF argument wouldn't be necessary any more. But the one thing doesn't necessarily depend on the other.
Posted by: A.S. at July 24, 2006 12:50 PM (xamKk)
10
In the 1990s, I worked on national intelligence programs, with clearance to 4 SCI areas.
Confederate Yankee's meme re "silence of the informed" shows EXTREMELY deep ignorance of the Intelligence Community.
Why did George H Bush find it necessary to pardon
roughly 15 top-level CIA and military officers for Iran Contra (including Negroponte) if the "informed" blow the whistle? Iran Contra only came out because a plane crashed in Nicaragua and a CIA contract employee squealed like a pig.
Doesn't George W Bush and his appointees in the Executive Branch know they can wipe their behinds on the Bill of Rights today because the Democratic minority have no hope of mounting impeachment proceedings --or even an Iran Contra style investigation?
So what about the Intelligence rank and file? Well, they have to take polygraphs and most of them would have a hard time finding a job outside the Community due to their specialized work experience.
Plus Porter Goss passed a bill --deceitfully called the Intelligence Community WHistleblower Protection Act -- in 1998 which says that (a) an employee of the Community who wants to complain to Congress about a questionable or illegal activity must go to a member of the Intelligence Committees --NOT to the employee's Members of Congress and (b) said employee must notify officers of the Executive Branch that he plans to snitch on them 30 days BEFORE he contacts the Intel Committee. WHich pretty much dooms the employee's career.
But as usual, the right wing blogosphere cheerfully makes shit up --or in the case of Instapundit Glenn Reynolds, link to those who make shit up -- while criticizing the alleged errors of the Main Stream Media.
Posted by: Don Williams at July 24, 2006 02:17 PM (lpYeX)
11
Confederate Yankee,
I think you're confusing two things.
One is whether the NSA program was legal. That is indeed controversial (although few lawyers outside the administration think the program was legal.)
The issue that is not controversial is whether Congress views affect the program's legality. It is well settled that the president's constitutional authority shrinks or expands depending on whether what he is doing is prohibited, ignored, or authorized by Congress. What is frustrating about Specter's bill is that he says he's only providing for review of the NSA program's legality, but actually, he's legalizing it.
Posted by: AF at July 24, 2006 02:23 PM (ZdsvL)
12
Anyone recall how the NRA leadership was talking about "jackbooted federal thugs" a few years back in the Clinton Administration? Anyone recall them
arguing that we should accept the deaths of 10,000+ Americans EVERY year as the price of protecting the Second Amendment. Because someday, in the distant future, a dictatorship might arise and the American people would need to resist it.
So why is the NRA leadership now totally SILENT while the Republican President and Republican Congresses --that Wayne LaPierre put in power -- create a dictatorship TODAY?
That's why I refuse to give more money to the NRA and to renew my membership this year.
Posted by: Don Williams at July 24, 2006 02:28 PM (lpYeX)
Posted by: Toog at July 24, 2006 02:42 PM (IJedl)
14
It seems to me Youngstown (and now Hamdan) is being widely misconstrued as "the President has no Article II powers that cannot be overruled by act of Congress."
The salient fact about the Youngstown case was that it involved not allowing the President to nationalize a
domestic steel mill on the (fairly spurious) basis of war powers. It's a pretty big stretch to parlay a decision about property seizure into an argument against the President being able to wiretap calls for the purpose of fighting an international enemy, and an even bigger stretch to call it an accepted consensus.
And in Hamdan, Congress' authority over military rules comes from the Constitution.
Posted by: TallDave at July 24, 2006 02:43 PM (kVpo9)
15
How about the silence of the uninformed?
If you want to play the assumption game, what do you read into Bush personally blocking his own DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility from looking into it?
If silence does speak volumes to you, then duct tape across the mouth must be positively screaming.
Posted by: creepy dude at July 24, 2006 03:56 PM (ASlcz)
16
Talldave, we're talking about warrantless spying on American citizens in America. That's firmly within the core of the Youngstown concurrence.
It just says that a certain statute doesn't make it illegal.
Bzzt. The argument says that no statute could ever make it illegal.
Posted by: jpe at July 24, 2006 07:21 PM (TqwAG)
17
On the cover of CNN....
ABA: Bush violating Constitution
Bar association president says signing statements erode democracy
Monday, July 24, 2006; Posted: 11:05 a.m. EDT (15:05 GMT)
Save on All Your Calls with Vonage
Save 50% on your bill with Vonage unlimited local/long distance -...
www.vonage.com Feed a Child - Help Many
A $30 donation gives $240 in food. Feed starving children and families.
www.worldvision.org Bad Credit Refinance
Up to 4 quotes with 1 form. Serious refinance inquiries only please.
www.nextag.com
More Useful Links
• Theater Tickets
• Discount Travel
• Baby Registry
RELATED
• Greenfield: Why signing statements matter
YOUR E-MAIL ALERTS
George W. Bush
Judiciary (system of justice)
Supreme Court
White House
or Create Your Own
Manage Alerts | What Is This? WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush's penchant for writing exceptions to laws he has just signed violates the Constitution, an American Bar Association task force says in a report highly critical of the practice.
The ABA group, which includes a one-time FBI director and former federal appeals court judge, said the president has overstepped his authority in attaching challenges to hundreds of new laws.
The attachments, known as bill-signing statements, say Bush reserves a right to revise, interpret or disregard measures on national security and constitutional grounds.
"This report raises serious concerns crucial to the survival of our democracy," said the ABA's president, Michael Greco. "If left unchecked, the president's practice does grave harm to the separation of powers doctrine, and the system of checks and balances that have sustained our democracy for more than two centuries."
Some congressional leaders had questioned the practice. The task force's recommendations, being released Monday in Washington, will be presented to the 410,000-member group next month at its annual meeting in Hawaii.
ABA policymakers will decide whether to denounce the statements and encourage a legal fight over them.
The task force said the statements suggest the president will decline to enforce some laws. Bush has had more than 800 signing statement challenges, compared with about 600 signing statements combined for all other presidents, the group said.
Noel J. Francisco, a former Bush administration attorney who practices law in Washington, said the president is doing nothing unusual or inappropriate.
"Presidents have always issued signing statements," he said. "This administration believes that it should make clear ... when the Congress is getting close to the lines that our Constitution draws."
Francisco said the administration's input is part of the give and take between the branches of government. "I think it's good that the debate is taking place at a public level," he added.
White House Press Secretary Tony Snow said last month that "it's important for the president at least to express reservations about the constitutionality of certain provisions."
The ABA report said President Reagan was the first to use the statements as a strategic weapon, and that it was encouraged by then-administration lawyer Samuel Alito -- now the newest Supreme Court justice.
The task force included former prosecutor Neal Sonnett of Miami; former FBI Director William Sessions; Patricia Wald, former chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit; former Republican Rep. Mickey Edwards; and former Reagan administration lawyer Bruce Fein; and law school professors and other lawyers.
Posted by: Johnny at July 24, 2006 07:34 PM (Vtwo9)
18
It seems many on the left are ignoring a clearly elucidated part of Hamdan footnote 23: "
[The President] may not disregard limitations that Congress has, in proper exercise of its own war powers, placed on his powers." (emphasis added) FISA, to my understanding, is not concerned per se with war powers but rather law enforcement and is therefore not demonstrably an exercise of Congress' powers in contention with the President's.
Union: Like many on your side, you seem to be confusing a document saying "these are the legal issues and possible interpretations of the laws concerning torture" with a document saying "put 'em on the rack." It reminds me of a pointless argument I had with a WWII vet when I was discussing the reasons Japan attacked and he thought I was defending their actions. One may understand the motivations of a killer without agreeing, the same as one can study the conditions under which "torture" may be legally justified without condoning the practice.
Don: I'll not trade digraphs and trigraphs with you, but I, too, was "inside" in the '90s and can't agree with your general characterization of intelligence professionals. This, too, reminds me of a previous conversation I had. Despite my personal experience and background I could not persuade a conspiracy theorist that TWA 800 could not possibly have been downed by a super-secret submarine launched AA missile without at least one crew member coming clean. Further, I am curious as to the source for your price of 10,000+ Americans per year for protecting the Second Amendment.
AF: I am also curious as to the reasoning behind your assertion that few lawyers outside the administration believe the NSA program was legal. I could believe that few lawyers in your personal cirle believe such, but I have read several articles and posts from lawyers with no connection to the administration make the argument that FISA had no standing WRT the program and that it was completely within the scope of the President's war powers.
Posted by: submandave at July 25, 2006 10:20 AM (ljAGw)
19
So, if the people who know best are the people who are closest to the issue, then can I please quit hearing a single freaking word about fighting the War on Terror from Chickenhawks who've never spent a day in uniform? Hmmmm?
Or does that only apply when you say it applies?
How about for your next post: "Well Enron's lawyers said it was OK!"
Posted by: nitpicker at July 27, 2006 04:53 PM (9pd7W)
20
Hayden was fine with the illegal spying because he doesn't even know what our rights are, nor what the Amendments to the Constitution actually mean.
And nitpicker, my good man, according to these people, since the pResident is a civilian, then anyone who is a civilian should be able to support other people going and dying for illegal wars based on known lies.
"You go put your life on the line for my pie-in-the-sky democracy-experiment while I go eat cheetos in my basement, fighting the 'war of ideas' in between my World of Warcraft games."
Posted by: Shorter Rightwing Meanies at July 28, 2006 10:19 AM (4WJNx)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
"We are all Hezbollah now"
No, not this
demonstration in London, but this
equally shameless CNN reporting in Lebanon:
Politics creeps into the ward like the blood that runs on the floors. "Clearly he is Hezbollah," says one of the doctors outside the room -- sarcastically referring to 8-year-old Mahmood, whose screams can be heard from the hallway. His screams now blend with the wails of his mother, matching the baby's cries.
The hospital ward begins to teem with members of the international press. They all have blue flak jackets that say "press" on the front. They carry microphones, cameras, radios and satellite phones, and have local guides to translate.
Today, as I finish I am sitting in the same spot and the shells are still falling. Hezbollah rockets are firing toward northern Israel. I can imagine another reporter, in another flak jacket, standing over an 8-year old Israeli boy.
I'll finish by asking another question: Are any of us making a difference?
Certainly these "journalists" are trying to make a difference. CNN reports on this conflict have been reliably biased, and this is no exception, which becomes apparent if you read the rest of this article.
Focussing on the always sympathic victims, the women and young children killed and injured by Israeli bombs, the CNN reporter studiously avoids questioning the Lebanese Shia culture that supports and lionizes Hezbollah even now.
That would be too much like real, unbiased reporting, and we wouldn't want that, would we?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
01:11 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 252 words, total size 2 kb.
1
It is pretty disturbing how much time CNN has spent on reporting simply the Hezbollah/Lebanese side, with barely anything on the Israeli side.
They are showing their true colors, considering how much access they have to Hezbollah.
Posted by: William Teach at July 24, 2006 08:10 AM (TFSHk)
2
Maybe those doctors will support a Lebanese government that does not allow attacks on neighboring nations from their soil. Though that requires a little more thought than coughing up some cheap old "Mash" sentiment.
The through the looking glass sensibilities of the MSM and their chosen spokesmen is just amazing. Everything I hear supporting Lebanon/Iran/Syria's proxy killers (Hezbollah and other bad actors) seems to boil down to "they (Israel) aren't supposed to fight back when we kill them".
Posted by: iconoclast at July 24, 2006 09:53 AM (Jpc2l)
3
The 8 years old child is not a terrorist. He must not be attacked.
But what about his parents? They support the Hezbollah that aims to kill as many Israelis as possible. They host the Hezbollah terrorists and weapon. They have elected Hezbollah representatives as members of the Lebanese government and they support the Lebanese government that sits back and while Hezbollah attack Israeli civilians and soldiers at Israeli soil.
Posted by: msayag at July 24, 2006 10:36 AM (9AIpo)
4
Actually, the putzes at CNN would have to imagine it - no one in the western MSM is bothering to cover the Israeli casualties for fear of appearing to "support" Israel).
msayag is right, but he also forgets to mention that they are probably hosting the terrorists, and at this stage are probably related to them somehow.
A funny thing here: he describes a room teeming with international reporters, flak-jacketed (no doubt healthy) and shoving each other out of the way to stand next in line to profit off this child's misery. Just another day in Media Land, check your morals at the door. He imagines another reporter with an Israeli boy because it keeps him from having to admit to himself that he's a ghoul, just like every other reporter out there. "Are any of us making any difference?" Heck, yes, you scuzbag - you're aiding the enemy!
Posted by: Katje at July 24, 2006 06:59 PM (odotS)
5
the CNN reporter "studiously avoids" questioning the culture from which hezbollah springs, because this is plainly not an issue to the 8 year old boy who has been injured by israeli bombs. it is worth noting that out of the 384 people who have died in the latest conflict (at last count, in the newspaper today) only 40 have been israeli; the lebanese dead have been, overwhelmingly, civilians, and in exponentially greater numbers. there is no question of israel's right to exist, and to deal firmly with the terrorist guerrillas of hezbollah; at issue is the free pass it is getting to do so, with US-purchased weapons, in any way it chooses, with any and all civilian casualties on the lebanese side written off as an "unfortunate consequence." such "collateral damage" can only be excused if the civilian dead are outnumbered by military dead, and incidental, rather than central to, the military strategy being pursued. in the current conflict, israeli arms and men (subsidized extensively by the united states) have killed far more civilians than militants, and the overwhelming percentage of infrastructure destroyed has been civilian, rather than military. were an arab government to do to israel, in exactly the same way, what israel is doing now to lebanon, we would hear no end of allegations of "war crimes" and "hate-mongering." a point can be made about the moral bankruptcy of hezbollah. mainstream conservative commentators and the supposedly "liberal" media are making a different case entirely. by framing and reporting the issue as they do, they suggest that the wholesale murder of lebanese civilians, and destruction of lebanese civilian infrastructure, remain perfectly justified so long as israel's stated aims are retaliation against a militia group whose only relation to the majority of lebanon is a geographical location and a shared religion. our foreign policy objectives implicitly justify this, by asserting that only one of the belligerent parties, and moreover that with the most firepower (israel) has the right to ask concessions of the other.
Posted by: brad hunsinger at July 25, 2006 12:44 PM (FAGnY)
6
Brad
Allowing Hezbollah and other assorted vermin to control southern Lebanon, allowing those vermin to setup their CiC structure in Beirut, and allowing same vermin to commit acts of war against Israel means that Lebanon committed an act of war against Israel. Israel has the responsibility to destroy this threat to its people as quickly and as decisively as possible. Stating that Hezbollah has no relation to Lebanon--other than operating on their soil with their permission (since there have been NO Lebanese Army operations against Hezbollah)--is one of the stupidest remarks yet to be heard on Israel responding to acts of war committed against it.
As far as the disproportionate casualty rates--good. As many casualties as it takes to convince Lebanon to stop hosting killer vermin and allowing them to commit acts of war is enough. Lebanon does not show much indication to move against Hezbollah, so one can only assume that the Lebanese support Hezbollah. I'll bet the Israelis would change their battleplans if the Lebanese Army and police started killing and arresting Hezbollah vermin.
Also, I don't know if all the "civilians" were really civilians or how many were human shields, but as long as Hezbollah hides amongst civilians and uses civilian vehicles to transport their material then lots of civilians will be killed when Israel cleans thems out. I feel the same way about them that I would about German civilians killed during WWII--too damn bad. Next time, don't start a war and don't live as a human shield.
Posted by: iconoclast at July 25, 2006 05:21 PM (Jpc2l)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
The Red-Faced League
As of late,
Gaius seems to be channeling Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, as he "finds" Sherlock Holmes comments on
not one,
but two unrelated instances of blogosphere sock-puppetry.
Among liberal bloggers, it's spreading like the avian flu.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:39 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 43 words, total size 1 kb.
1
You've got to check out Wuzzadem's sock puppet drama - you'll really get a kick out of it (although you may want to keep a close eye on your false mustache collection in the future!)
Posted by: Katje at July 24, 2006 06:15 AM (odotS)
2
Virtually every Leftard is a sock puppet. They all have the same talking points.
Posted by: William Teach at July 24, 2006 08:15 AM (TFSHk)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Why Liberals Can't Win Wars
Ive seen some stupid posts reading liberal blogs, but with the exception of anything from Oliver Willis, this faux "we care about the troops" post from
Billmon piggy-backing on
Christian Science Monitor excretion (currently now offline—were they embarrassed of it?) might be the new gold standard:
Earlier this week I linked to a commentary from William S. Lind in which he warned that war with Iran could result in the loss of the 140,000 man army America currently has bogged down in Iraq. This may have seemed far-fetched, given the enormous military disparity between the two sides. But Col. Pat Lang, a former intelligence officer, explains how and why it could happen:
American troops all over central and northern Iraq are supplied with fuel, food, and ammunition by truck convoy from a supply base hundreds of miles away in Kuwait. All but a small amount of our soldiers' supplies come into the country over roads that pass through the Shiite-dominated south of Iraq . . .
Southern Iraq is thoroughly infiltrated by Iranian special operations forces working with Shiite militias, such as Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army and the Badr Brigades. Hostilities between Iran and the United States or a change in attitude toward US forces on the part of the Baghdad government could quickly turn the supply roads into a "shooting gallery" 400 to 800 miles long.
(Christian Science Monitor, via No Quarter)
There's a saying: Amateurs talk strategy; professionals talk logistics. And in the case of the U.S. Army, they talk it about a lot. This has been true almost as long as there's been a U.S. Army. During the 1944-45 campaign in Europe, for example, each U.S. division consumed 650 tons of food, gas, ammo and other supplies per day -- roughly three times what the German Army managed to get by on. Logistical requirements have only exploded since then. Those lobster tails they're eating at Camp Victory don't grow on the trees.
If the supply lines back to Kuwait were to be cut -- or even seriously interdicted -- the U.S. military presence in Iraq would quickly become untenable. I'm not even sure the Army could scrounge enough gas to keep the tanks and Humvees moving, given that Iraq already suffers from a severe refining capacity shortage and must import most of its gasoline from Kuwait.
He then breathlessly (and no doubt hopefully) adds:
In other words, in the event of a real world war -- as opposed to the kind that pundits pontificate about on Fox News -- Centcom would either have to "pacify" the transportation routes through southern Iraq quickly and ruthlessly (which might not be possible, given the troops available and the possibility some Iraqi units might turn on their putative allies) or try to evacuate some or most U.S. forces from Iraq, either by air or ground.
We're talking, on other words, about a potential debacle -- the worst U.S. military defeat since Pearl Harbor.
Pearl Harbor? Err, no. Laughably, no.
Billmon, thank you for once again proving why when it comes to discussing military matters, liberals aren't ready to move up from the kid's table.
Here is the reality of the situation.
According to credible sources Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army may number as many as 10,000 Iraqi Shia militiamen possessing mainly small arms (AK-47, light machine guns, RPGs). Only perhaps a tenth of that force has even minimal military training. Even with Iranian Revolutionary Guards providing some more modern weaponry and training, the Madhi Army has decisively lost every conflict it has engaged in against coalition forces in the past two years, including recent raids carried out by Iraqi government forces. A Madhi Army of lightly armed, poorly trained, and poorly led militiamen cannot hope to perform the feats required to fulfill the sick fantasy shared by Billmon and the CSM. Presently, it is a bit more occupied with not getting erradicated like crabgrass.
But what if they had help?
The quote Billmon pulls from the CSM article speaks of the "Badr Brigades."
I see that the crack staff of the CSM and Billmon are really up with current events, as the Badr Brigades haven't been called that for three years now, restyling themselves the Badr Organization and joining in the political process as part of the United Iraqi Alliance coalition.
They've played a lead role in fighting the insurgency around Karbala, and while occasionally at odds with the British forces in southern Iraq and seen as a sectarian militia by most, it has neither the manpower nor the weaponry (even with covert Iranian Revolutionary Guards support) to pose a military threat should it suddenly decide to forego the gains it has made as part of the political process. The several thousand man organization is even more lightly armed than the Madhi Army.
So who, praytell, will supply the OPFOR in "a 'shooting gallery' 400 to 800 miles long" that Billmon so fears?
The only discernible force left is Iran proper, and indeed, Pentagon planners have envisioned and planned for a multiple responses to the scenario of Iranian forces made a stab across the southern tip of Iraq in an attempt to cut off U.S. forces.
Sadly, the loss of life would be tremendous in such a campaign, but the victor of such a struggle has never been in doubt.
The Iranian Army numbers 350,000 with 200,000 being poorly trained and equipped (by U.S. standards) conscripts. It has only one true armored division and two mechanized infantry divisions, with no real air force or Navy to speak of, and air defenses severely outmoded even with the recent addition of Soviet TOR-1 batteries.
Iranian tanks—mostly T-72 variants that originated in the 1970s and T-54/55s that were originally designed at the end of WWII—would be the tip of the Iranian spear. Along with the hundreds of mostly-outdated infantry fighting vehicles they can bring to bear, these would all be inviting targets for allied air forces that unquestioningly own the airspace in the region.
Any southern invasion by Iran would be a replay of the Highway of Death on a massive, tragic scale.
This wuld be nothing like another Pearl Harbor as Billmon so hysterically intones, and would far more likely be another highway 80 in the first Gulf War, or the closing of the Falaise pocket Todesgang, or "death road" of World War II that sealed the German defeat in Normandy.
Start to finish, such an invasion would last less than a week, causing a discernable wrinkle to the supply lines (which would simply reroute westward for a short time) but fail miserably in its primary aim, while losing the bulk of the military force projected into Iraq in the process.
Of course were the Iranian invasion and massacre to come to pass, rest assured Billmon to be among the first to call for war crimes trials against the United States for crushing the Iranian invasion.
Of course, he'd probably screw that up as well.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:10 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1171 words, total size 8 kb.
1
Such an act would also free us up to take out the Mullahs as well as the Revolutionary Guard. Oh, and Ahmadinnerjacket, too. And nuke sites. Every time I'm ready to hit post, I think of another reason it would be good news. I suppose in that way, it would be like Pearl Harbor - a massively misguided attempt to take out the US which leads to the aggressor's ultimate destruction.
Posted by: Tim at July 24, 2006 10:50 AM (6cJ8H)
2
I agree for the most part, but urge you to not outright dismis the IRIN. While the materiel outcome of a Naval engagement with the USN cannot be questioned, their three Kilos and numerous Yugo-type SSMs provide both a credible SOF insertion capability along with a real potential to cause major damage or loss of a large warship. In light of the perpetual Chicken Little act the MSM and Democrats have continually played vis-a-vis Afganistan and Iraq we must unfortunately be aware of the political effect of a major SOF strike against US interests in Bahrain or Abu Dhabi or a CVN receiving several hits from a Kilo with several hundred casualties.
As the subject article itself so aptly demonstrates, the enemy doesn't even need to win a sigle battle to make enough noise to scare the naysayers.
Posted by: submandave at July 25, 2006 10:58 AM (UdYT0)
3
Another silly post. Sneering at pseudonymous lefty bloggers, or as you put it, "the crack staff of the CSM and Billmon," is easy sport. But I don't see you taking on the underlying opinions of the autorities Billmon cites in any substantive way. Now why would that be... Let's play compare the credentials!
Patrick Lang:
Lang graduated from the Virginia Military Institute (BA in English) and the University of Utah (MA in Middle East Studies). He is a member of Phi Kappa Phi. He is a retired senior officer of U.S. Military Intelligence and U.S. Army Special Forces (the Green Berets). He is a graduate of the U.S. Army War College, the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College and the Armed Forces Staff College. He is a highly decorated veteran of several of America’s overseas conflicts including the war in Vietnam. He was trained and educated as a specialist in the Middle East by the U.S. Army and served in that region for many years. He was the first Professor of the Arabic language at the United States Military Academy at West Point, New York. In the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) he was the “Defense Intelligence Officer for the Middle East, South Asia and Terrorism,” and later the first Director of the Defense Humint Service.” At the DIA, he was a member of the Defense Senior Executive Service. For his service in DIA, he was awarded the “Presidential Rank of Distinguished Executive.”
Confederate Yankee:
My real name is Bob Owens. I have Master of Arts in English from East Carolina University. IÂ’ve been a day laborer, college freshman composition instructor, salesman, sports writer, web designer, and technical writer. I've moved back south since starting this blog in New York, and currently blog from the vicinity of Raleigh, North Carolina.
...thank you for once again proving why when it comes to discussing military matters, liberals aren't ready to move up from the kid's table.
Are you sure that's the big table you're sitting at Bob? Looks kinda short to me. But hey, you might want to call West Point and let them know you're available. By the way, FDR kicked Hitler's ass. Chimpy couldn't even handle the invasion of a 3rd world dictatorship.
Posted by: Pinson at July 25, 2006 07:07 PM (HYGCT)
4
Pinson, I can cite a whole lot of folks with impressive resumes who don't know what the hell they're talking about.
I showed in the main post documented, linked facts from the world's largest private intelligence agency, and relevant analysis of current operations and capabilities of the forces in question. Your much vaunted expert with all the right credentials can't even get the name of one of the groups right.
Patrick Lang sure has an impressive pedigree. Too bad he doesn't seem capable of equipping to you play a game of "compare the facts."
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at July 25, 2006 11:44 PM (psJM2)
5
I guess that Billmon never heard of Inchon where McArthur ourflanked the North Koreans in a brilliant amphibious attack. I'm sure that if there is conflict between Iran and the USA we will hit them where they least expect it.
Posted by: docdave at July 27, 2006 08:50 PM (4Qaw8)
6
If the Iranians intervene in Iraq it will be through people like Al Sadr using guerilla war tactics. They will not be dumb enough to come across the border in conventional warfare style. The US supply line is long & open to hit & run attacks. These attacks probably could not cut the supply line, but they might well put a strain on re-supply enough to limit the missions the US military could undertake. Also it would force the US to send significant number of troops to secure the supply line, thus further stretching US troops over a bigger area. The Iranians could also send their armed speed boats, they have hundreds, to attack the oil tankers as they go through the narrow Straits of Hormenz. Again they would not have to suceed in closing the Straits, just trying to will be enough to drive oil prices up further. How do you think Americans will re-act to $5 dollar a gallon gasoline? Nuisance value, being the flea you cannot itch, is often the best way to suceed in guerilla warfare
Posted by: David All at July 28, 2006 04:26 PM (DBQQs)
7
Pinson, You're not well versed in the military history of WWll. While FDRUSA did help and had much to be proud of defeating the Nazis. The two most important figures leading to the defeat of Hitler were, and in this order: Adolf Hitler then Joseph Stalin/Russia. The Russians sacrificed far more, mostly from poor leadership, and contributed to the defeat of Nazi Germany, with the help of father winter, the vastness of the russian expanse, the poorness of the russian territory ( no real roads ) and the absolute idiotic leadership of the little corporal. The USA did a portion of the heavy lifting but in no way the magnitude of the russian contribution. This isn't new info, or anti USA, it's just the way it went down.
Best Regards!!
Posted by: teddy salad at July 30, 2006 10:15 AM (xXMGr)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 23, 2006
Stealth Retraction
Baghdad Bob works for Al-Reuters... or maybe Yahoo!
"Look at these pictures! These are the pictures you are not supposed to see!"
Nothing like a screaming red border around the frame and PICTURE KILL in all caps to get people to ignore the pictures you don't want them to see. And just in case people aren't sure which pictures, reshow all four, and post them on a major internet news site.
[note: content of all four images were digitally airbrushed out by me -- ed.]
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:27 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 75 words, total size 1 kb.
July 21, 2006
Enough
Pajamas Media blogger
Eugene writes
amid the air raid sirens in Haifa:
A few minutes ago the sirens started again in the distance; they were so faint that we were only made aware of them by watching Haifa on TV. Like Pavlov's dogs we react to the stimuli dutifully, almost mindlessly. It's a second nature now. But this time it was different.
On the way down we heard a large boom, my neighbor phoned his daughter across town as soon as the radio announced that Haifa was hit. Up until now he seemed to me the calmest person down there, but his expression changed. "It hit near you? The windows exploded?" His arm unknowingly touches the wall to support himself, "don't cry, don't cry.. Are you ok?". He hangs up and with resolve says that he's going down there, no tears but he's already changed. With shaking fingers he calls somebody else about the car...
There is something in the American psyche that resulted from never having been on the receiving end of enemy fire. Our veterans of course knew that feeling. It haunts some, and filled others with a resolve to live each day to the fullest, as they knew how fleeting and precious each and every individual minute on this earth is. On September 11, 2001, we were jolted out of the false calm we had created for ourselves in this world.
For many, if not most, that feeling of immediacy slipped away when more attacks ceased to occur, and we mentally retreated to that safe place, that false illusion, that we held before.
"It" is something that happens "over there."
A 17-year-old Israeli listening to air raid sirens and not-so-distant explosions, the war is immediate for Eugene. "Over there" is across town, as people try to kill him for simply being born who and where he is.
We have no concept of that here, not really. Try as I might, I can't relate to rockets raining in from above, death hanging in the air on a contrail, wondering if those I care about—laugh with, love—are dead or dying.
And so we expect that despite all the signs of escalation—the reservists being called up, the troops massing at the border, the intensifying bombardment—that somehow, there will be someone who finds a reason to stop, to halt the madness, to call it all off before it is Too Late.
But it is too late. It has been for quite a while.
Hezbollah, backed by Iran and their puppet Syria, have passed some sort of a breaking point not easily defined where Israelis seem to have said enough.
As so the bombardment of Lebanon continues, and the troops mass, waiting for that moment when they surge over the border. They go rifle in hand, knowing that any moment could be their last, hoping their sacrifice will buy lives back home from an enemy that wishes to drive them into the sea.
They should show no quarter, take no prisoners, but be filled with a terrible resolve that there will be no "next time."
As Onkar Gate stated Wednesday from the Ayn Rand Institute (h/t Cox & Forkum):
To achieve peace in the Middle East, as in any region, there is a necessary principle that every party must learn: the initiation of force is evil. And the indispensable means of teaching it is to ensure that the initiating side is defeated and punished. Decisive retaliatory force must be wielded against the aggressor.
[snip]
If we truly seek peace, we must reverse this perverse lesson. We must proclaim the objective conditions of peace. This means declaring to Arab nations that Israel, as a free country, has a moral right to exist, that the Arabs and Palestinians are the initiators of the conflict and that aggression on their part is evil and will not be tolerated. And it means encouraging Israel not to negotiate and compromise with its current assailants, but to destroy them.
Only when the initiators of force learn that their actions lead not to world sympathy and political power, but to their own deaths, will peace be possible in the Middle East.
Eugene will never know peace a long as Hezbollah remains. Israel must crush Hezbollah, and Lebanon too, if it refuses to evict these terrorists in their midst. Many Lebanese will die in coming days, and many of them will be civilians, but only through that terrible lesson will they learn that allowing terrorism is supporting terrorism.
I simply hope that the survivors on both sides learn, so that this lesson does not have to be taught again soon.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:10 PM
| Comments (18)
| Add Comment
Post contains 771 words, total size 5 kb.
1
"If you harbor terrorists, you are a terrorists" Seems someone once said that, and it's still true today even if the lefties don't believe we are only a gunshot from suffering the same thing as Israel. The terrorists are here and are being harbored and protected by the lefties and the anti-american Arabs that claim to be Arab-Americans. They are all dangerous and the sooner more people figure this out the safer we will be. Arab=hate...Left wing=hate...Islam=hate.
Posted by: Scrapiron at July 21, 2006 07:57 PM (Ffvoi)
2
Generalizations=stupid.
People are dying. Stop with the slogans.
Posted by: Juan Manuel de Rosas at July 21, 2006 10:35 PM (VrUvi)
3
I'm (just) old enough to remember the fallout shelters, doing "duck and cover" drills in grade school, and the public fear during the cuban missile crisis.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 22, 2006 06:10 AM (26Aj9)
4
Wow....Juan said in two words what I've been trying to say in many.
Generalizations=Stupid
I couldn't say it any better Juan.
People have been dying in the Middle East for thousands of years (much longer than the U.S. has even existed). If it is the human suffering that is really causing the American conscious so much grief, we'd be in Darfur right now.
In my view, you have to take this situation in one of either two ways:
First, these nations are sovereign countries. Yes, they have a lot of issues and messed up people over there....There governments are different, etc....but this is their own business and the oil is rightfully their own. The conflicts are their own, and it is none of our damn business. Kudos they were born on tons of black gold. Not a realistic view of the world and how things work, but I think this is all true, and the truth can never be disputed.
Second, go over to the Middle East and stabilize the region by taking out the worst governments and dictators, support our only true partners, Israel and the Saudi Royals, and drill that black gold out of the ground until we tap that jewel out. Sound familiar? Hopefully by then...we'll have another viable source of energy to support industrial nations, and hopefully industry is wrong about global warming. Actually, I think it is industry that knows all about global warming, but an corporate entity does not care about the future or the environment. It is what it is...an institution, system, or mechanism in place, only focused on profitability and growth. Exxon Mobile's annual report, I believe states there is no viable replacement forseen by 2030. I don't have it in front of me now, but it is in my office. If global warming is worst case scenario, we won't be able to use all the oil over there, so our efforts and resources to support this business will be wasted. Environmentally, we'll be forced to take on a new source of energy, that is if we want to live. Problem is...how can we get the other biggies to comply, mainly China, Russia, India, and any other growing industrial nation whose trying to get a nut in this world? Perhaps, we've simply started something that cannot be stopped and we are in deep you know what....My only comfort in this situation is....even the George Bush's and other oil tycoons of this world have to live on the same planet and breath the same air.
I'm fitting a lot in this comment, but hopefully the message makes some sense.
To conclude, I think the U.S. needs to be over there, and support Israel, but come on....Be real about "why" we are over there....If you buy into this "spread the democracy" crap and "stop the terrorist", then you simply don't get it. We are fighting for marbles over there...nothing more, nothing less.
Your "security" from the boogie man on American soil is obviously not a priority to Bush. If it were, we'd be securing our borders. How easy would it be for one of those towel heads to pass as a Mexican? They don't even need to "pass". They can simply cross our border in the desert or Canada!
Leftists or anti-Bush people are tired of being viewed as naive. There are many liberal people who are very saavy business people and tough. Thing is....we don't like being lyed to. Just tell it like it is....Stop touting we are the freedom fighters spreading democracy across the world. I guess this is what it takes to get the rank in file in order to get it done.
Posted by: Johnny at July 22, 2006 09:33 AM (Vtwo9)
5
If it is the human suffering that is really causing the American conscious so much grief, we'd be in Darfur right now
Actually, we're not in Darfur because it would ignite a conflict between our forces and the French "peacekeepers" who are tacitly aiding the Janjaweed.
If it was me, I'd frankly tell the French to back off and that their oil deal isn't going to be worth a shooting war with the US military.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 22, 2006 11:44 AM (26Aj9)
6
Not trying to be a smart ass PA, but we didn't listen to the French going into Iraq, so I don't see why we'd be listening to them about Darfur. Once again, I am hearing all the arguments, but then we clearly see action that contradicts those arguments.
Posted by: Johnny at July 22, 2006 01:52 PM (Vtwo9)
7
but we didn't listen to the French going into Iraq, so I don't see why we'd be listening to them about Darfur.
The French are part of the reason Darfur is happening you dolt. They want the 20 year old $200B oil deal (made with the muslim govt) reinstated that John Garang disavowed before he was killed.
I should hope we wouldn't be listening to them in that regard.
Its clear to me you know nothing at all about what's going on in Darfur. For a $200B deal the French would sell their own grandmothers into slavery.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 22, 2006 02:41 PM (26Aj9)
8
I was keeping it clean PA, but anyone calling themselves "The Purple Avenger", as if they were some type of super hero, can't be all that bright.
We wouldn't dare step on the French, over a business deal. Give me a break. Do you think we give a damn about the French and an oil deal? You are obviously not a businessman by your comments. I bet you are some type of government employee who works for the state or something and likes to talk the talk. Anyway...No business arrangement should take precedence over people suffering and dying you "dolt", as you put it.
Hopefully you are a veteran to have the stones to call yourself "The Purple Avenger", I should hope. I bet your one of those dudes with a Vietnam veteran license frame, and tell 'Nam stories to anyone who would listen. Those are the types who were stationed in Hawaii and never saw action.
Why don't you try writing your own comments, instead of copying and pasting mine for a change.
Posted by: Johnny at July 22, 2006 04:46 PM (Vtwo9)
9
"Purple Avenger" has nothing to do with the military, although I did serve. Its an inside joke I had with an ex-NYPD detective who was a dear friend (now deceased).
Do you think we give a damn about the French and an oil deal?
Nope. I think we give damn about getting into a shooting war with them (via proxys) over it though. They've already used their "peacekeepers in the region" to militarily threatened AU troops attempting to actually keep the peace.
The PRC is involved in the oil deals too, but you already knew that of course...right?
And of course you already knew Harvard has moved to divest itself of PetroChina investments over the Darfur kerfluffle...right?
And of course you already knew the French actually oppose UN sanctions against Sudan for what's going on there...right?
Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 22, 2006 05:18 PM (26Aj9)
10
Quote snips in emails/usenet groups and blog comments have traditionally been provided as a
courtesy to other readers. It gives them context without having to scroll back and forth and reading through pages of turgid drivel to find what someone is remarking on.
But net courtesy doesn't appear part of your stock and trade so I don't expect you'd care about that now would you? Cueless net noobs with a Circuit City computer have changed the face of things in the past 10 years haven't they?
Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 22, 2006 05:34 PM (26Aj9)
11
PA,
It is worthless to read Johhny's posts, let alone debate him. He spouts only the things he reads in WaPo, NYT, LAT, or Newsweak. He has a horrible sense of current events and almost no knowledge of history. He believes in isolationism - don't try to help the world - just ignore it all and blame it on someone else. Over the years I have found that there are leftists that actually can hold a conversation/debate on an intellectual basis. Johnny is not one of them. Mindless.
Posted by: Specter at July 22, 2006 09:34 PM (ybfXM)
12
"Cueless net noobs with a Circuit City computer have changed the face of things in the past 10 years haven't they?
Posted by: Purple Avenger"
You can say that again!
Posted by: Warren at July 22, 2006 09:39 PM (kMENv)
13
What were we talking about again?
Posted by: Juan Manuel de Rosas at July 23, 2006 02:01 AM (/rI2l)
14
Oh Johnny, you are aware of course that France continued to sell Saddam weapons systems as recently as 2002 right? Good, I thought so.
You're of course also aware that France was Saddam's #2 weapons supplier, #1 being the Russians. But you already knew that right?
And you already knew that the US's weapons sales to Iraq only lasted for a few years and only then during the Iran/Iraq war near its end, and came to only $300M or so total. For comparason, Brazil, those wild and crazy south American dudes, sold Saddam more weapons than the US did.
But you already knew all this stuff.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 23, 2006 08:00 AM (26Aj9)
15
Purple Avenger, I already know the French are bad, all the more reason (as I was saying) to go into Darfur. Tell me and our readers something we don't already know. Use some more spicey words to make us all think you are an intellectual will you? 'Bout time for you to go back to yet another one of your government jobs and waste some more of my taxpayer money while I take care of business.
Posted by: Johnny at July 23, 2006 09:18 AM (Vtwo9)
16
This conversation is digressing (obviously). I can't stop laughing though....I am talking about Iraq, making a making a comparison that references Darfur. The rightwingnuts argument as to our lack of attention to the human crisis is "the French". That is rich. I gotta go! Next topic please. Hahahahahahh.....
Posted by: Johnny at July 23, 2006 09:34 AM (Vtwo9)
17
all the more reason (as I was saying) to go into Darfur
Cool - so what's your plan? Sketch it out in broad strokes for us. Logistics, order of battle, transit agreements with neighboring countries, stuff like that.
For starters, you might want to research the number of viable heavy lift capable airfields in the area since there are well...no seaports in the region. I can tell you right now, the number is single digits since I did research it a while ago.
Gas stations are similarly scarce. Modern armies run on oil. Gonna have to get the go-juice to the blackhawks and hummers somehow...and since we'll be queering a $200B French oil deal, its unlikely they'll let us tank up on their juice.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 23, 2006 06:26 PM (aZQsA)
18
"Gonna have to get the go-juice".....ahhhhh you hit the nail on the head, hence the reason we are so concerned about the people suffering in the Middle East.
So now what I am hearing is we wouldn't go into Darfur to help those people because:
a) We don't want to step on the French. That would be rude.
b) Our boys in uniform can't get it done in Darfur, or....it would be too dificult for them to be worth the trouble.
Next topic please.
Posted by: Johnny at July 23, 2006 09:26 PM (Vtwo9)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Master of Puppets
Roughly 24 hours after the Glenn Greenwald sock puppetry scandal broke, it appears folks on both sides have already firmed up their positions, floating all sorts of theories. Let me see if I can separate the wheat from the chaff.
more...
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:11 AM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1742 words, total size 11 kb.
1
You get points for the Metallica reference, that's for sure.
As for what folks are saying about Greenwald, I think that Greenwald doesn't really have a good excuse.
There is a good circumstantial case that he's engaging in sockpuppetry, and his defense that others can access his account from his house is undermined by the style of those other identities being suspiciously similar to each others' writing style.
So, it could be:
1) Glenn engaging in sockpuppetry himself;
2) Someone else in Glenn's house engaging in sockpuppetry;
3) A completely random and innocent convergence of postings saying substantially the same thing;
4) A combination of 1 and 2
I think the odds of #3 are quite low. It could be any of 1, 2, or 4, but the end result is that Glenn doesn't look good no matter what, unless Glenn and his cohort(s) come clean. Honesty and all that counts for something.
Posted by: lawhawk at July 21, 2006 10:39 AM (rRNqo)
2
As with the LATimes case this stinks of ego preening even fawning over oneself.
A really smart guy would sock puppet and dis himself (unfairly, of course) and then preen as duped defenders jump in.
That would however, take confidence.
Posted by: lonetown at July 21, 2006 10:49 AM (6q//N)
3
This is a great post, very concise. A few comments:
--It has to be emphasized that Greenwald's roommate, the main suspect other than Greenwald himself, is Brazilian and presumably a native speaker of Portuguese, not English. I've studied foreign languages for most of my life, and have taught English as a second language for two years, and no one is going to convince me that the posts were written by a Brazilian. No way.
--Another commenter (at Patterico I believe) has taken a look at the verbage used and has found some overlap in several rather obscure expressions among Greenwald's posts, and some of the alledged sock puppets.
--I'm not sure there are any serious legal ramifications to all this. No one has been harmed, and there was no material gain to be acheived from the posts. However, the damage to credibility is something else entirely. Who could take him seriously after this?
--The whole episode is too embarrassing to admit, and probably impossible to prove without depositions, which aren't going to happen. Greenwald can hide behind plausible denial and ignore our discussions. What else could he do? If he admitted to this, he would be finished.
Posted by: Gotta Know at July 21, 2006 12:22 PM (Qoe61)
4
And one more: Where are Greenwald's water-bearers--Ellison, Wilson, etc--now that he needs them? Why have they suddenly gone quiet? Why are they not stumping and reminding us of Greenwald's credentials?
Posted by: Gotta Know at July 21, 2006 12:50 PM (Qoe61)
5
Then again, I suppose Greenwald could have mulitple personality disorer, and his alternative personalities find it necessary to support the dominate one. Without his knowledge and on his own computer, of course.
Posted by: Sybil at July 21, 2006 01:12 PM (hqlzt)
6
I comment on many blogs, and always with a different name on each blog to eliminate the search engine tracking capability of a persons persuations.
I am a non important zit on life, but at least I don't have cheerleaders exorting me.
I wish I could be as socially aware and give breaking news. However that goes back to my prior admission of being a zit.
Hey at least I am not a lurker!
Posted by: dubiousnerd at July 21, 2006 11:03 PM (1aM/I)
7
As I have said before. Glenn always uses his own name on my blog, as you say he has here Bob.
You make a very good argument. The way I see it though no matter if the truth ever comes out or not. This only makes Greenwald a martyr in the lefts eyes. It will not harm his credibility at all.
Hilzik only lost his blog because he was accountable to an MSM entity (LA Times). He didn't even loose his job and he is a professional journalist.
The left never stopped loving Hilzik and defended him as well.
The right already thinks little of Greenwald so even if you are right, I don't think it changes anything.
Posted by: The Ugly American at July 22, 2006 12:51 AM (Qugk5)
8
I agree with Ugly. It's ironic, whether Greenwald has credibility or not as far as the right is concerned is really neither here nor there. It's more important to his fans, and judging from the comments on his site he has quite a few.
Personally, if I were convinced a conservative blogger were playing sock puppets in the way that Greenwald probably did, he'd be through as far as I were concerned, I would never, ever go to his site again. I would be embarrassed.
But then, I would also never spend time on a guy so hell-bent on tooting his own horn, and a pretty mediocre horn at that.
Posted by: Rick O'Shea at July 22, 2006 08:10 AM (Qoe61)
9
Glenn always uses his own name on my blog
You've checked every commenter's IP?
One data point does not a trend make.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 22, 2006 11:46 AM (26Aj9)
10
What GG is alleged to have done is not illegal, but simply dishonest. "Fraud" in the loosest sense. The only psuedo-plausible argument for illegality that I can conjure is that his sockpuppetry amounts to fraudulent testimonials for his book. Yet the "testimonials" are hardly related to his book sales, and are not clearly false (i.e., he's not falsely claiming that buying the book made him lose 30 pounds in 30 days). He's just defending his arguments anonymously, in a manner that creates the illusion of dedicated supporters. Now, if his blog were behind TimesSelect, there might be a legal claim, but he offers his opinion for free. It's only as good as his personal reputation, which he's also giving away for nothing.
Posted by: ss at July 22, 2006 01:02 PM (B56sv)
11
I've had to deal with "sockpuppetry" quite frequently as the administrator of Internet forums and blogs. If nothing else, its dishonest.
But to anyone paying attention this, "revelation" about Mr. Greenwald, comes as no surprise.
Posted by: Warren at July 22, 2006 09:28 PM (kMENv)
12
Of course GG won't lose much credibility among his lefty devotees. But he, and they, have to remember from here on out that he was exposed and humiliated, his denials testifying to the humiliation rather than exonerating him.
GG, I'm sure, despises those on the right who disagree with him; but that doesn't mean that his daily awareness now of having been exposed as having an ego so desperate for confirmation from others that he needed to invent some others to provide it. That's gotta sting. And he's gotta go on now knowing that we're out there shaking our heads and laughing, and wondering who among his adoring acolytes might secretly be doing the same.
Posted by: Levans at July 22, 2006 10:50 PM (7Mu2o)
Posted by: Jane at July 23, 2006 01:00 PM (Ffvoi)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 20, 2006
Babe
Michelle Malkin digs up a picture of a
young Helen Thomas.
Smokin'.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:50 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 14 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Way too funny.....I think in reality that HT is an Entwife.
Posted by: Specter at July 20, 2006 07:11 PM (ybfXM)
2
Could be her twin. If it was Helen she would be shouldering an entire tank.
Posted by: Scrapiron at July 20, 2006 11:08 PM (Ffvoi)
3
Ewww.
I actually
clicked on that link. Schmuck.
Now I need another beer. Like I need the excuse.
Besides, I
know that's not a young HT! Proof? If it were, she'd be shouldering a
Panzerfaust-44, not an RPG-7.
Posted by: Casey Tompkins at July 21, 2006 02:04 AM (xdVg/)
4
LOL Casey...or maybe even better a water-cooled Maxim...
Posted by: Specter at July 21, 2006 09:23 AM (ybfXM)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Deadly Harvest
As you sow,
so shall you reap:
Israeli troops met fierce resistance from Hezbollah guerrillas Thursday as they crossed into Lebanon to seek tunnels and weapons for a second straight day, and Israel hinted at a full-scale invasion.
Israeli warplanes also launched new airstrikes on Beirut's southern suburbs, a Hezbollah stronghold, shortly after daybreak, followed by strikes in the guerrillas' heartland in the south and eastern Bekaa Valley.
The strikes followed bombings Wednesday that killed as many as 70 people, according to Lebanese television, making it the deadliest day since the fighting began July 12.
Russia sharply criticized Israel over its onslaught against Lebanon, now in its ninth day, sparked when Hezbollah militants captured two Israeli soldiers. The Russian Foreign Ministry said Israel's actions have gone "far beyond the boundaries of an anti-terrorist operation" and repeating calls for an immediate cease-fire.
Russia is somewhat correct; this is "far beyond the boundaries of an anti-terrorist operation" as they claim. This is not an anti-terrorist operation, but a quite conventional war.
Would the Russian Foreign Ministry be so kind as to answer what their response would be Hezbollah launched over 1,600 rocket and mortar attacks deliberately targeting Russian civilians? What if Hezbollah had fired these same 1,600 missiles and mortar shells into France?
We know their answer in advance. Beirut would already resemble another Dresden or Hiroshima, and the few hundredShia dead now would number in the thousands.
I can find very little sympathy for the Lebanese Shia who have so closely embraced Hezbollah and their tactics over the past decades. Every suffering Shia child you see in a Lebanese hospital is there because Israel was forced to respond against Hezbollah's incessant attacks.
I have very little sympathy for so-called "civilian" populations that willingly support terrorist groups, whether that population are Lebanese Shias south of Beirut, Palestinians in Gaza, or Pashtun villages in the tribal areas of Pakistan. They accept and often celebrate the terrorists in their midst, accept their philosophies, share their goals, and their successes. The flip side of this is that they must embrace the repercussions against terrorism as well.
Terrorism cannot be eradicated as a tactic if the populations that support it do not pay the price for that support. Terrorism will die when the civilian breeding grounds of terrorist support shares in the pain that terrorism causes.
Lebanon's Hezbollah-supporting Shia are now feeling some of that pain both physically and politically. Whether or not it is enough for them to change their ways remains to be seen.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
01:42 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 424 words, total size 3 kb.
1
No no no no. Beirut would most certainly not resemble Dresden or Hiroshima. It would resemble GROZNY.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grozny
Posted by: Tim at July 20, 2006 04:30 PM (WiHUE)
2
This is precisely what happens when you submit to the Islamofascists. The plight of the Lebanese, while lamentable, is still largely of their own making.
The choice they had was to fight Hezbollah and suffer great losses or allow Hezbollah to live amongst them. They are now suffering significant losses, with many more to come, I'm sure.
It's an object lesson that should be learned by all who do not embrace the Islamofascist ideology- appease and die another day or fight to win.
Posted by: Allan at July 20, 2006 10:10 PM (wWKro)
3
Now Hamas wants a cease-fire, which will free up more air assets for the north. I don't expect much movement on ground units for the moment, but I can't believe the Hizb are too happy about this Hamas offering.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 22, 2006 02:45 PM (26Aj9)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
An Army of Greenwalds
Sock-puppeting is the dishonest and unethical practice of posting on web sites and blogs under assumed identities, often to praise or defend yourself.
L.A.Times columnist Michael Hiltzik lost his blog over it, as this practice clearly violated the Times ethics guidelines.
Now liberal blogger Glenn Greenwald stands accused of posting under at least three four five different identities other than his own, using the aliases "Ellison," "Wilson," "Sam Matthews," "Ryan," and "Thomas Ellers" to either flatter or defend himself across a host of conservative political blogs.
All of these identities are apparently tracked back to the same unique IP address in Montevideo, Brazil, where the best selling author of How Would a Patriot Act? lives as an apparent expatriate, fraud, and master sock-puppeteer .
For the details:
Shawn at The Sky is Red can take credit for noting that something was fishy, while Patterico (the man who caught Hiltzik) and Ace of Spades bring the pain.
Update: Greenwald denies the charges, saying in part:
I have never left a single comment at any other blog using any name other than my own, at least not since I began blogging. IP addresses signify the Internet account one uses, not any one individual. Those in the same household have the same IP address.
It must be a very large house.
Update 2: It seems Greenwald's sycophants aren't real big fans of these allegations being revealed.
Instead they'd rather change the subject by attacking the messenger with false charges of pedophilia, and international sources, and even pictures!
Classy.
Update 3: Greenwald, as evidenced in the quote above, seems to be trying to lay the groundwork for the claim that someone else in his house left the comments, with the obvious insinuation that this boyfriend did so. How loyal.
But "Birkel," posting in the comments at Ace of Spades, seems to torpedo that avenue of retreat as well:
According to Patterico one of the comments including the allegation that the poster/puppet had E-mailed Gleen for his point of view.
If you live in the same house why would you E-mail somebody for their opinion? Does that make any sense?
No it doesn't.
It would make perfect sense, however, for someone building sock puppet identities.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:49 AM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
Post contains 378 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Incredible. Glenn Greewald....he has to have other fake identities to pat himself on the back. What a coward.
Posted by: Specter at July 20, 2006 10:01 AM (ybfXM)
2
Is this yet another example of the "fake but accurate" phenomenon? :-}
Posted by: tcobb at July 20, 2006 10:59 AM (dH5v0)
3
"If you live in the same house why would you E-mail somebody for their opinion? Does that make any sense?"
Maybe this was while Greenwald was in New York. Glenn says in his post that he spends half his time in each country. So it is possible (in fact one might say its a fifty fifty chance) that this was Glenn's boyfriend wile Greenwald was in NY.
Posted by: tom in texas at July 20, 2006 01:57 PM (cHPNp)
4
Well...if that is the case then his bf has multiple personalities. LOL
Posted by: Specter at July 20, 2006 03:03 PM (ybfXM)
5
Oh, Lord, I don't want to sound like a GiGi defender, but...
The 'inside the house' email nonsense is still logically consistent with the 'my significant other did it' defense.
Why? If you were truly a syncophant attempting to provide cover for your housemate you would not want to relate a communication as mere pillow talk, then you would be too easily dismissed. Instead you dress it up as an email conversation between two emotionally detached individuals.
Regardless, GiGi needs to come clean. If he wants to blame it all on someone else in the household he needs to be very specific. As in 'I spoke to so-and-so and he fessed up.' It still stinks to high heaven but this is the only way he would ever retain a shred of credibility.
Because even then it's pretty damn embarassing.
Posted by: ThomasD at July 20, 2006 07:06 PM (HDgen)
6
tom in texas, if Greenwald was in NY would his IP address still register Montevideo, Brazil?
Posted by: Old Soldier at July 20, 2006 07:30 PM (owAN1)
7
Stormy;
I repeat -- Greenwald wasn't in New York all the time. By his own admission he spends half his time in America. One easy way to determine whether or not this "Wilson" or whichever imaganary friend was talking to him or not would be to check those same IP addresses. Greenwald essentially is claiming he has two computers -- Brazil and New York. This can be verified. First, has he posted under two IP addresses? If he only has one, than surely he is lying about living in two places. If all the false names come from his Brazilian account, but his New York IP address only contains comments from Greenwald himself, than his explanation of a crazed undercover Brazilian boyfriend posting under pseudonyms would have gained some small shred of credibility.
Posted by: Tom in Texas at July 20, 2006 11:04 PM (cHPNp)
8
Apologies -- the previous comment was directed at Soldier.
Posted by: Tom in Texas at July 20, 2006 11:05 PM (cHPNp)
9
ThomasD,
Why don't you go down to Brazil and check it out for us. Tell us how many men Glenn is living with. Maybe you'll want to stay.
It's obvious that this is sock puppeting. So we come to a new term:
GiGing: v. meaning to be a sock puppet or to make use of sock puppets to enhance your ego.
Posted by: Specter at July 21, 2006 09:33 AM (ybfXM)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 19, 2006
Bush Vetoes Cancer
As he promised he would do, President Bush vetoed a bill that would have lifted restrictions on federally funded human embryonic stem cell research:
"This bill would support the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for others," Bush, speaking at the White House, said after he followed through on his promise to veto the bill. "It crosses a moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect. So I vetoed it."
In it's reporting, the Washington Post couldn't help but jump at the chance to make a charge it couldn't actually support:
Such research is controversial because it holds the promise of finding cures for major diseases, such as Parkinson's, but requires destroying human embryos to extract the cells.
The reality of the matter is that embryonic stem cell research hasn't been able to get past a single fundamental hurdle that of unrestricted cell division, so that "promise" is nothing but a pipe dream.
Wikipedia reminds of what many of us forgot since high school:
Cell division is the biological basis of life. For simple unicellular organisms such as the Amoeba, one cell division reproduces an entire organism. On a larger scale, cell division can create progeny from multicellular organisms, such as plants that grow from cuttings. But most importantly, cell division enables sexually reproducing organisms to develop from the one-celled zygote, which itself was produced by cell division from gametes. And after growth, cell division allows for continual renewal and repair of the organism.
But cell division must be regulated by the body, and a great deal of the genetic code we carry makes sure that growth is regulated and eventually terminated.
Embryonic stem cells, as I stated before, have a problem with unrestricted cell division.
There is another name for that problem, and many scientists seem to agree that it could take a decade or longer to fix that problem in embryonic stem cell research, if it is ever fixed at all.
Frankly, I'm with the President on this one: I'm against killing human embryos to create cancer, when adult stems cells are already clinically proven to work.
Update: As if cued up for a comic relief, the reliably clueless Oliver Willis writes a breathless post, The Republican Culture of Ignorance and Death, where he repeatedly accuses the president of banning "stem cell research," conflating the two quite different lines of research into one. Of course, this is simply not the case.
In addition, Bush didn't ban any research whatsoever, he merely banned the federal funding of dubious embryonic research. Bush actually increased federal funding of stem cells obtained from adults, umbilical cords, placentas and animals during his presidency.
Once again, Willis shows that the culture of "ignorance and death" is assuredly his own.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
03:16 PM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
Post contains 468 words, total size 3 kb.
1
No need for ethical considerations to enter into, once one realized this is just another earmark. You want it, fund it privately.
Posted by: Stormy70 at July 19, 2006 05:50 PM (YRPBe)
2
Forgot an "it" up there, sorry.
Posted by: Stormy70 at July 19, 2006 05:51 PM (YRPBe)
3
This is a real tempest in a teapot. The vast majority of research on Stem Cells is being done by private industry, not by the government. If the country feels that Federal money should not go to funding research that involves human tissue, that will not stop the research. Most major breakthroughs will come from the pharmaceutical companies, not from government research.
Posted by: Steve at July 19, 2006 06:11 PM (Xq0Cz)
4
I have to agree with Steve. The progress of any significance will most likely be private research. Bush is just playing politics to suffice his base. This issue is damaging to the Republicans, thus the reason they are dealing with it now rather than later. Many moderates feel Bush and Republicans are on the wrong side of this issue. Republicans are saving all the gay bills for November, playing that same song just one more time and tweaking out the stem cell bill early. Not an admirable move, but politically smart.
Posted by: Johnny at July 19, 2006 07:51 PM (Vtwo9)
5
Been doing a little more reading since
I posted on Bush's veto earlier today. Before Bush took office, there was no federal funding for this kind of research. After he took office, in August 2001, he agreed to fund a limited number of embryonic stem cell lines.
There are no limitations on private financing of embryonic stem cell research except the usual medical/ethical requirements for all medical research.
So, Congress wanted to expand the program, despite five years of federal financing finding going nowhere. Bush said no, still using the same arguments made when he signed the original in 2001.
The thing is, that Bush should have saved his first veto for McCain Feingold, not this. But I digress.
Posted by: lawhawk at July 19, 2006 08:00 PM (6nwe7)
6
I don't know much about this issue, but when Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell support it, it's a good bet that the other side is right.
Posted by: PoliticalCritic at July 19, 2006 09:40 PM (1nHnP)
7
It is close to an election cycle so all of the lefties and some of the righties want to start throwing billions of taxpayer dollars around as political payoffs. Simple purpose of the bill. The truth is that government funded research seldom accomplishes anything and not one dime is ever returned to the taxpayer when something works. The money always ends up in someone else's pocket. Private enterprise will win out every time at 10% of the cost.
Posted by: Scrapiron at July 19, 2006 11:05 PM (y6n8O)
8
He vetoed a bill that would have expanded federal FUNDING! not, as you say "lifted restrictions."
He vetoed a bill that would have funded an as yet untested, an as yet unsuccessful, an as yet uncertain method of treatment when adult stem cells (my sister in law, on the eve of her marriage to my brother, recieved chemo, and the following day an adult stem-cell (her own, not her dead babies) transfusion injected into her lymphatic system, and while "non-hodgekins lymphoma" is only "50 percent survivable" at the time, my sister is alive, thanks to her own body, not because of the body of a dead child, that she now PRAYS she might have.
See? we hear stories about michael J Fox who wants to live, and I appreciate that, but so far, dead baby flesh hasn't yielded ANY treatments other than the bizarre creation of ears on mice, with mouse DNA, meanwhile my sister in law (the only woman in my immediate family that isn't my mother) wants to have a baby with my brother.
My sister in law has said this, as my brother stayed quiet containing tears, I know my brother, he was on the edge of tears listening to the woman he loves say this "If (my brother) wants a child, and if he would accept it, I would gladly give him 3 armed mutant, Why the FUCK are these women willing to sell their babies to frankensteins, while I would BEG for the baby the discard" I might have made the statement more eloquent, but pretty much every inflamatory word came from my NOW STERILE sister in law, who is alive only because of ADULT STEM CELLS, commenting about embryonic stem cells, because she isn't gonna make a baby, unless it is with a man like my brother.
The president didn't veto an "autorization for stem cell research" he veto'd "FEDERAL FUNDING for EMBRYONIC stem cells" and I agree. If it is irrational to create an ammendment against flag burning (I disagree with the flag burning ammendment) based on the idea that it would REMOVE rights from citizens, I think it is just plain retarded to think that it's okay for citizens of the nation (unborn children) to be slaughtered for an equaly important purpose, although, there has YET to be a valid purpose for the embryonic stem cells.
EVERY! dead baby, aborted from it's parent can be used for research if the almost mother, consents, but it can't be researched with FEDERAL FUNDS!
When will the left stop lying about this?
Posted by: wickedpinto at July 19, 2006 11:53 PM (QTv8u)
9
Followed you over from your comments at left coaster. It's like a part of their brains are missing. Trying to debate with those folks is more difficult than trying to reason with a 3-yr old child.
You might get a kick out of this link about Bush's veto. From
Blame Bush, a blog that parodies our friends on the left.
Posted by: muckdog at July 20, 2006 06:25 PM (dE5CK)
10
This might be the most ignorant collection of people on the planet. Enjoy your political masturbation, friends.
Posted by: Jim at July 20, 2006 06:42 PM (q/kR+)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
The Toddler-Threatening, Sniper-Watching Community
And the spiral downwards towards terminal madness continues among the
liberal elite:
I am still beyond anger at a recently published photo from New York Times Photographer Joao Silva of a Mahdi Militia sniper about to fire on American Soldiers.
Only by coincidence searching Memeorandum for other topics of the day did I come across this post by Glenn Greenwald. I felt compelled to ask him a question. Again I am stunned.
Here is my question:
Would you stand there and watch a terrorist shoot at Americans and take a picture?
Here was his answer:
Personally, I would not, because I'm not a jouranlist. But if I were a photographer assigned to that region and to cover the insurgency, of course I would. I'd want Americans to see the reality of the forces we are fighting, rather than suppressing their images...
Glenn Greenwald, ladies and gentlemen, stating in his own words that he would sit there and take pictures as a sniper tries to kill fellow Americans because it's just part of his job.
But don't question his...
Yeah. Whatever.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:23 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 188 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Not weighing in on the Glen G stupidity of arguing over hypotheticalÂ’s...
However, I'm wondering if this will matter for those that want to chest-thump and flag-wave, but the guy who took the photograph, Joao Silva, isn't an American. He was born Portuguese and lives in South Africa. He works for the NYT as a contract photographer.
Notice all the right-leaning blogs calling him a NYT photographer? Leaving out the very critical detail that the man is not an American citizen and thus doesn't owe any allegiance to the US. NYT, of course, is a different story.
So a non-American is standing there and take pictures of someone shooting at American soldiers? Yeah, we don't like it, we are the good guys and itÂ’s our guys getting shot at but if the guy isn't American, why can't he take pictures? That would be a worthy debate.
I can understand getting upset with NYT IF they contracted this guy to go out and SPECIFICALLY take pics of a sniper shooting at US troops (and that should be looked into as that would be like putting a contract out on our troops i.e. treason) but most likely this guy went out, "embedded" himself into local population, figured out who to talk to and took some pictures they allowed. Shopped them to NYT who paid for the most provocative ones.
If it were me, I would be alerting the soldiers, but then I'm an American. Mr. Silva isn't.
Sorry, continue with the flag-waving....
Posted by: matt a at July 19, 2006 01:39 PM (E+3yy)
2
Thank you for yet
another irrelevant comment. We know that Joao Silva is not an American, and that has absolutley no bearing whatsoever on Greenwald's comments.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at July 19, 2006 01:47 PM (g5Nba)
3
Glen Greenwald has proven time and again what a bottomfeeder he is, so honestly his position fails to surprise or dismay me; personally I'd probably faint from shock if he admitted (in an honest, genuine manner) that he wouldn't, but would somehow find a way to notify our troops or botch the sniping instead. But as we all know, such pipedreams merely distract us from the point at hand, which is figuring out how best we can help our national and international interests, as well as supporting our troops abroad.
Posted by: Katje at July 19, 2006 04:00 PM (odotS)
4
irrelevant...hmmm, only to the chest-thumpers. If you are going to hype the FUD, expect someone to distinguish fact from fiction soon enuf. From the Liberal Elite link you provided, Real Ugly American states:
"Would you as an American allow this to happen? Furthermore personally profit from it? Either financially or by gaining praise from your fellow feckless, unconscionable, amoral peers?
Without question Mr. Silva is all the above and more.
You tell me what is the proper degree of separation to make it journalistically ethical to stand by and watch someone murder another American?"
So RUA is basically mis-informed, but don't let the facts get in the way of hyperventilating over the answer to a hypothetical scenario based on criteria that turned out to be inaccurate.
The accurate question would be to ask if Greenwald would stand there take pictures of a sniper shooting Brazilian (or one of your choice) troops? And then of course, most Americans wouldn't care how he answered cause they don't care about the question...
Posted by: matt a at July 20, 2006 07:44 AM (E+3yy)
5
whats the toddler threatening reference about?
Posted by: Ray Robison at July 20, 2006 11:21 AM (CdK5b)
6
I did point out in the post that Silva was not an American Matt.
I didn't realize there were rules to posing hypothetical questions.
I in fact did ask greenwald if he would have taken the picture and he said yes.
Pretty sure he understood the question as we had an extensive email exhange after the fact.
Posted by: The Ugly American at July 20, 2006 04:57 PM (TEE0r)
7
Loyalty test: Time to declare war on the enemy
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/DianaWest/2006/07/21/loyalty_test:_time_to_declare_war_on_the_enemy?page=full&comments=true#postComments
Posted by: leading terrorists agree, the western media is their best weapon at July 21, 2006 07:33 AM (UwUis)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Hearts and Minds
Hezbollah might be trying to claim the title of "The World's Dumbest Terrorist Group."
Already decimated and mocked in continuous air and artillery strikes from the Israeli Defense Forces, roundly condemned by the international community and abandoned by prominent Arab nations in the region, Hezbollah seems intent on inflaming sentiment among the world's Christians and Israeli Arabs, killing several in rocket attacks on Nazareth.
Via Fox News:
A Hezbollah rocket slammed into a building Wednesday in the mainly Arab town of Nazareth, the hometown of Jesus, killing three people, including two children, Israeli authorities said.
Smoke billowed from the damaged a building and its roof appeared mostly destroyed, television footage showed. Local residents ran to the building and helped fire fighters unwind their water houses.
It was not immediately clear if any of the holy sites in the town were damaged.
Mohammed Assawi, who saw the attack, told Israel's Channel 10 that the rocket that killed the two children struck in the middle of a downtown street.
"It's a vacation and it's afternoon so where will they go if not to play in the streets?" he said. "It is unpleasant to say what we saw."
Police later said that a third person was killed and two other people were wounded.
Hezbollah has only two true friends remaining in Syria and Iran, and quite frankly, Syria's support could be made to waiver rather easily with targeted air strikes, destabilizing Assad's precarious regime.
I think Krauthammer is correct: the only correct exit strategy in Lebanon is over the grave of Hezbollah, and there are those that see this as a distinct possibility.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:52 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 276 words, total size 2 kb.
Get Along, Little Debbie
Via
The Jawa Report, I came across a story this morning so mind-numbingly unsupported that I was certain it had to be written by the
Lord of the Dunce himself.
Unfortunately, the post in question, one accusing most Americans in Lebanon of being Hezbollah supporters, comes from one Debbie Schlussel.
She states:
One thing is lost in all the press coverage of the whining Americans who went to Lebanon of their own accord and now want us to pick up the tab to get them out.
THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS IN LEBANON ARE HEZBOLLAH SUPPORTERS.
Most of them are Shi'ite Muslims, many of whom hold dual U.S. and Lebanese citizenship. Many are anchor babies born here to Muslims in the U.S. illegally. Some are illegal aliens who became citizens through rubber-stamping Citizenship and Immigration Services (and its INS predecessor) coupled with political pressure by spineless politicians.
Of the 25,000 American citizens and green-card holders in Lebanon, at least 7,000 are from Dearborn, Michigan, the heart of Islamic America, and especially Shia Islam America. These 7,000 are mostly Shi'ite Muslims who openly and strongly support Hezbollah. Ditto for many of the rest of the 25,000 that are there.
If these allegations are supportable, it would be a major bombshell of a story.
So where is Schlussel's proof?
There isn't any. Schlussel's "proof" seems to consist mainly of blind assertion and links back to her own site.
It would be nice—not to mention customary—for someone making a factual claim to provide some sort of a link to credible sources to support her contentions.
For example, what proof does Schlussel have that 7,000 Dearborn residents are in Lebanon? Does the U.S. State Department or the Dearborn Chamber of Commerce provide her with those numbers?
If there are Dearborn 7,000 residents, what is her evidence showing that the Dearborn residents in Lebanon are Muslims? Lebanon doesn't even know what percentage of their population is Muslim—they haven't done a census since 1932—and Debbie somehow knows? I doubt it.
What evidence is there that they are Shia Muslims? Shia Muslims only make up 30%-40% of the Lebanese population, and they are among the poorest of the religious groups, meaning they are less likely to have the funds to immigrate to other nations at all. Christians and Sunni Muslims—not huge fans of Hezbollah, for those of you keeping score at home—make up the bulk of the rest of Lebanon's population, a nation which has no less than 18 recognized sects of varying religions.
What evidence does Debbie Schlussel have that if there are Dearborn Shia Muslims in Lebanon, that they "openly and strongly support Hezbollah" as she charges?
Mere assertion that they belong to a Dearborn Lebanese cultural center. These are serious charges, seemingly implicating an entire community of what is essentially treason in a time of war, and Schlussel provides no credible evidence at all of her charges. None.
By her incredibly loose standards, it appears one could label every Irish American in Chicago that ever bothered to travel to Ireland as a member of the Irish Republican Army.
Please forgive me if I find it nearly impossible to take any slanderous thing she says seriously.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:24 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 538 words, total size 4 kb.
1
That does seem a rather bold assertion. Maybe she's taking writing lessons from the NYT and just making stuff up.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 19, 2006 03:51 PM (26Aj9)
2
She got agreement from a
Lebanese born Christian (who now may live in Israel), but she also offers no proof, and is pretty angry at muslims for killing her mother in '75.
I wonder how you could prove this? Would any American admit to support for Hezbollah if asked?
Posted by: Kevin at July 19, 2006 06:30 PM (++0ve)
3
She gives Conservatives a bad name.
Posted by: William Teach at July 19, 2006 10:03 PM (doAuV)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Sadly, Pwned!
What happens when an assistant DA catches a
nazi sympathizer's lawyer and his sycophants in the act of propagating the same kind of "hate speech" they so noisy condemned, and then catches them trying to cover it up?
Absolute carnage.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
06:10 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 44 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Went to all of the linked sites and read the bulk of all the responses - I can see where some of the misunderstanding comes from: Misha posts in the over-the-top way that many of us would like to in our first knee jerk reaction (or long-term frustrations) to different people and events, as a sort of venting mechanism, in addition to pointing out some very valid considerations.
The Left, on the other hand, uses most of their blogs in this manner, expressing unbelievable amounts of hatred at the President, dissenters from the Party Line, conservatives. What they can't seem to filter past their Moral Equivalency Feature is the difference between ranting and hate speech. Or between scatological language and rude suggestions and physical threats to a poster's children. For people that create such noise about "nuance", they show a surprising lack of tolerance for any divergence, however slight, from their own view.
It would be too naive of me to hope that any side would condemn a person who'd gone beyond the pale, so I don't expect it, but neither should people (esp the Left in this case, as they tend to support their own no matter what, if a conservative has been hurt or offended) circle wagons around a git like Greenwald or Sadly, no, (or Kos, Firedoglike or such) just because they're pulling the "Well, they did it first!" argument. It always helps to read these things with a mom's eyes, because no mom worth her salt would buy such a sorry excuse. Now if only we could send them to their rooms for the rest of the day and ground them from the tv and computer...
Posted by: Katje at July 19, 2006 11:03 AM (odotS)
2
I have been seeing these argument go back and forth between the right and left for several years. Along with arguments about "outing" anonymous bloggers or commentators, or providing contact info for bloggers and/or commentators.
Let's face it, you can probably go back and find just about everyone wrote something that is over-the-top hyperbole or could be seen as instigating violence, or somesuch. With the internet, we can now pretty much look at every word written and most words spoken by people.
So, the question becomes, at what point do you have to refuse to link to someone who at some time in the past said something offensive and/or hyperbolic? does it matter if we are linking to their site for factual reporting versus opinion? What if they allow ads that we consider offensive on their site? How long before we can link to something that person writes?
Do we have to condemn things they write? Things they wrote in the past? How far do we have to go in our condemnation?
Why can't we be allowed to link to articles / posts that we find interesting without such links being in some way considered support for all things the poster has ever said or done?
I think this argument of my side has cleaner hands then your side is foolish, and can never be won - as both sides have their share of crazies, or people willing to say offensive things, etc.
Ultimately, why does it even matter? why do we keep arguing about these types of things, when they have no bearing on the real issues of the day. Whether or not Greenwald supports or condemns Frisch has no bearing on whether or not social security should be privatized, or whether the Iraq was was the right policy, or what we should do re: Isreal and Hezbolla.
Proving that Frisch is a nut-job who said despicable things on Goldstein's site does not make all leftists bad people, nor does it make their arguments wrong (hint, their arguments make their arguments wrong).
Ultimately, these condemnation v. support arguments are arguments over who the better people are. Frankly, I don't see how anyone can "win" that argument. Leftists are going to rationalize their own behavior to themselves and we rightists are going to do the same. Thus, we will always believe we are "better" people and they will believe the opposite.
But, by engaging in these arguments, we paint ourselves into a corner, as we then have to worry about whether or not linking to some article or post means we support some other article or post. Who has time to do all of that due diligence?
- GB
Posted by: Great Banana at July 19, 2006 01:45 PM (JFj6P)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 18, 2006
The Deploravity Must Stop
I've simply had enough of the
deplorable personal attacks... the
depravity,
the blogosphere brawl war profiteering... have simply gone along too far, and I must speciously condemn, forthwith, this
deploravity that has taken hold.
I condemn it all.
Update: I also happen to hold the view, unlike Misha, Patterico and Xrlq, that liberal blogger Glenn Greenwald is not a "douche" as so many have rudely pronounced. A douche reportedly brings a fresh feeling according to Summer's Eve advertisements that have plagued the airwaves over the years, and the stench emanating from Glenn Greenwald can hardly be considering sanitary in nature.
Rather, Greenwald is more like the colostomy bag of the liberal blogosphere as any simple perusal of his dishonest commentary readily reveals.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:23 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 130 words, total size 2 kb.
1
I made a
similar point last week, but the more I think about it, the more apt the analogy is after all. The health benefits of douching are debatable, at best, and there's evidence it even causes certain
infections.
Posted by: Xrlq at July 18, 2006 11:05 PM (ZZHVm)
2
Glenn G. is desparately trying to attract new people to his site. He could be facing the NYT cliff drop....
Posted by: Specter at July 19, 2006 07:58 AM (ybfXM)
3
In this piece Chuck Schumer seems to have a "moment of reality."
"His imaginary couple,
Schumer says, are glad people can get rich -- so long as they don't get hurt in the process. But they don't like to be preached at either, he seems to be saying, observing at one point that "the hard left has a moral eliteness that is obnoxious."
Seems that even Chuck gets it, for a moment anyway.
Posted by: Neo at July 19, 2006 10:57 AM (Yozw9)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
165kb generated in CPU 0.031, elapsed 0.1167 seconds.
70 queries taking 0.0968 seconds, 303 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.