April 16, 2007
Multiple Shootings at Virginia Tech
At least one shooter eyewitnesses identified as an "Asian" male wearing military load-bearing equipment
has shot between 7-17 students and faculty members at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, Virginia.
One fatality has been confirmed, and one shooter is in custody as the campus remains on a lockdown while police search for a second gunman. The first shootings took place in a dormitory, and a second rounds of gunfire erupted in an engineering classroom building at the opposite end of campus hours later. The campus has been shutdown and students are locked down as police scour the campus for a possible second shooter.
Collegiate Times, the Va. Tech student newspaper, is stating that there are 22 fatalities, including one shooter. The web site also states that three men were arrested and escorted from the engineering building.
I'm not sure how accurate these accounts are, and cannot find a corroborating source to support these claimed fatalities. I would therefore recommend this being regarded as rumor for now. If true, however, this may be the deadliest collegiate shooting in modern history.
Update High number of fatalities confirmed, via AP.
Update: The following is an educated guess, and may be incorrect: Based upon the high number of fatalities among those shot, and the high number of victims overall, and the description of the shooter as wearing some sort of load-bearing vest, I'm going to make an educated guess and suggest that the shooter was likely armed with a 7.62x39mm semi-automatic rifle, probably patterned on the AK-47.
There are a couple of reasons why I feel this is probably the type of weapon used.
- The description a shooter "wearing a vest covered in clips." The witness seems to be describing load-bearing equipment, typically made for either 5.56 NATO or 7.62x39 magazines, the two most standard assault rifle calibers. The typical standard magazine for each weapon is typically 30 rounds.
- Of the two calibers, the 7.62x39 is a far more lethal bullet across a wider range of conditions than the 5.56 NATO or slightly less powerful .223 Remington variant that can be fired from the same weapon. People shot with 5.56 NATO rounds often survive after even being hit with multiple shots. The high number of fatalities suggests a more lethal caliber and/or cartridge.
- The rifles patterned after AK-series are typically far less expensive (often less than $500) than those patterned on the AR15/M16 platform (often more than $900-1,000), and are also often more plentiful for sale.
Obviously, our prayers go out to those Virginia Tech faculty, students, staff, and family members affected by this tragedy.
Update: I'd like to make one last statement about this after reading Allah's latest update, noting that a bill to allow students to carry handguns was recently quashed in the Virginia General Assembly.
When I was a T.A. in graduate school at East Carolina University in the mid-1990s, I knew several graduate and undergraduate students that illegally carried concealed weapons on a fairly regular basis. Contrary to what you might suspect, most of these students were female liberal arts majors. One of my students in the class that I taught brought a Browning .380 to class every day. I felt safe knowing my fellow students were armed. I also felt better when the left the building at night that they could protect themselves and others from any predators that may have been about.
Would the number of students shot at Virginia Tech today have been lower if student there were allowed to take a training class, get a permit, and carry a concealed weapon on campus? There is of course not way to be sure. I do think it is obvious that an armed student or faculty member could have at least made taking their lives a far more difficult.
I'd urge a far more somber Virginia General Assembly, and the General Assembly of other states, to consider letting student who have satisfied their state requirements to carry concealed weapons also carry those weapons on campus. The lives saved may belong to someone dear to them.
Update: 32 killed, 28 wounded. NBC is citing two anonymous law enforcement officials as saying that a pair of 9mm handguns were used in the rampage. This does not seem to match up with eariler reports of the shooter wearing what sounded like military load-bearing equipment, and if accurate, means my earlier educated guess was based upon inaccurate assumptions, as I noted it could be.
A clearer picture separating the fact from rumor will begin to emerge over the coming days.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:38 AM
| Comments (17)
| Add Comment
Post contains 764 words, total size 5 kb.
1
I work with a guy who still has close contacts at Tech. he says his friends told him the shooter caught his girlfriend in bed w/ an RA(?). then went out, got a gun and came back.
Honestly, this makes no sense, and it's second hand (from someone who's talked to students).
very sad, however.
Posted by: Lee at April 16, 2007 12:00 PM (z1P7a)
Posted by: Bill Faith at April 16, 2007 01:35 PM (n7SaI)
3
I'll wait until the facts are in on this one. I think few people would be able to know the difference between a 9 mm and .40 by just looking at it.
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at April 16, 2007 01:50 PM (oC8nQ)
4
initial reports say the killer was an asian man
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18134671/
Posted by: Ami at April 16, 2007 02:05 PM (OWDoH)
5
Wow, ami, that's very worrisome. Please keep us posted. Did they mention his party affiliation?
Posted by: Vance Maverick at April 16, 2007 02:57 PM (+UW68)
6
Latest information I have is two weapons. A 9mm and a .22 cal handgun and wearing a vest filled with ammunition/clips for the weapons.
Posted by: crosspatch at April 16, 2007 03:04 PM (pxZRL)
7
Glad you got your priorities straight. First, baselessly speculate on what kind of sexy firearms were used in the shooting. Then after that you can offer condolences to the family.
Don't forget to throw in your own personal political statements on gun laws in after the fact too, that way the sympathetic statement gets about 2% of the content.
Posted by: verplanck colvin at April 16, 2007 04:06 PM (TmSaI)
8
The tone of this post is fine.
Posted by: jpe at April 16, 2007 05:26 PM (/0hb2)
9
verplanck,
Um....
It is obvious from the tone and content of your post that you have your politics...errr...."priorities" straight.
I guess you can not tell the difference from people stating that the speculation as to what was used is inaccurate and "sexy firearm" sarcastic shinola.
Of course we all know that if this were some Islamofascist splodeydope or Gaia worshipping ecoterrorist with a bomb you would be praising and making excuses for his/her/its actions. You would probably be speculating as to whether they packed it with nails or ball berings.
Posted by: Ennis at April 16, 2007 06:34 PM (wmHnL)
10
Ami, what is your point?
Posted by: Sarah at April 16, 2007 06:39 PM (zpJBl)
11
Ennis,
Or I could do what I did today, mourn for the loss of life.
Posted by: verplanck colvin at April 16, 2007 06:40 PM (TmSaI)
12
"Of course we all know that if this were some Islamofascist splodeydope or Gaia worshipping ecoterrorist with a bomb you would be praising and making excuses for his/her/its actions. You would probably be speculating as to whether they packed it with nails or ball berings."
Equating liberals with terrorists or terrorist sympathizers is like comparing conservatives with fascists or Nazis. Both comparisons are inflammatory and irresponsible.
Sorry to go off topic, but even as a moderate, I found this a little hard to swallow.
Posted by: Come on at April 16, 2007 07:22 PM (6Frw1)
13
"Equating liberals with terrorists or terrorist sympathizers is like comparing conservatives with fascists or Nazis. Both comparisons are inflammatory and irresponsible.
Sorry to go off topic, but even as a moderate, I found this a little hard to swallow."
Accuracy is often the most jagged of pills.
Posted by: JD at April 16, 2007 07:56 PM (Hbrqi)
14
Yeah, continue slinging partisan insults. See where it gets you.
Posted by: come on at April 16, 2007 10:57 PM (fR1tJ)
15
Accuracy is often the most jagged of pills.
That doesn't even make any sense.
Posted by: Xanthippas at April 17, 2007 12:18 AM (yH6kI)
16
CNN was interviewing a doctor from one of the local hospitals this morning. He said all the victims had multiple gunshot wounds. It sounds like this guys primary goal was to end life. You don't need a high caliber weapon if you are going to double tap anyone you shoot. One eyewitness also said she saw the shooter reload, quickly dropping out one magazine and slamming the other one in like he trained for a quick reload. Police train for quick reloads, but its more likely that this guy watched a lot of movies and practiced this a lot.
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at April 17, 2007 07:23 AM (oC8nQ)
17
The problem is not all the guns we own, the problem is the media culture that glamorizes and glorifies shooting people with guns. We need to change that dynamic if we want to lower the rate of gun violence in this country.
Watching less TV would be a good start...
Posted by: swamp thing at April 18, 2007 12:26 AM (wwkbh)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 13, 2007
AOL Poll Results Thus Far: Can Rosie
It's not looking good for a certain 9/11 Truther.
As of 1:06 PM (EDT), 82% of 6,873 people casting votes in the America Online poll agree that Rosie O' Donnell should be fired.
The link for the Drudge Report probably isn't helping Rosie fans, but I doubt it is swinging things too much.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:16 PM
| Comments (35)
| Add Comment
Post contains 67 words, total size 1 kb.
1
"No, controversial is different than racist"
Yes, but she makes and has made racially insensitive comments as well. Does "ching chang chung" ring a bell?
Posted by: Hogarth at April 13, 2007 12:30 PM (F1thZ)
2
Sure, "controversial" is different than "racist", but it is also different from "lying" and "supporting the enemy". When Rosie lies about the perpetrators of 9/11 and says on her show that the government of Iran is telling the truth and the British government is lying, that is not controversial. That is lying, and deliberately spreading the propaganda of a nation that is in a proxy war against us. When the real truth comes out, Rosie is proved to be a liar and and a modern Tokyo Rose. Not controversial.
Posted by: David in New York at April 13, 2007 12:48 PM (457me)
3
What happened to Tokyo Rose after WWII?
Posted by: Rich at April 13, 2007 12:49 PM (9XOaQ)
4
Looking at those pictures, I think Rosie should donate some subcutanious fat to Imus! A direct lipo pipeline from one fathead to a cadaverous shrunken head.
Does anyone have that "If They Mated" morphing software? What would the spawn of Rosie and Imus look like? Strangley, I think they would balance-out!
Posted by: edhesq at April 13, 2007 12:51 PM (BKX7n)
5
It's time to purge the airwaves of "Truthers".
Posted by: anil petra at April 13, 2007 12:52 PM (dLZyb)
6
The second question is more worriesome; the idea that the witchunt will continue is winning by a similar margin.
Posted by: TC@LeatherPenguin at April 13, 2007 01:15 PM (roWez)
7
Polls never ever ask questions the way I think they should. I couldn't answer that one. It's sort of like answering "have you stopped beating your wife."
Should Rosie be fired? Heck yeah.
Does it have anything to do with Imus? Heck no.
Yet answering that Rosie should be fired is more or less agreeing that Imus should have been fired *now* for *this*.
If he should have been fired *now* for *this* then probably he should have been fired a very very long time ago.
Rosie isn't being rude and obnoxious, or racist, or anything else. From the sounds of it she's spewing the Truther lies that are not *opinion* but concern matters of fact. She's not getting into insult at this point but slander.
Posted by: Synova at April 13, 2007 01:17 PM (8HO37)
8
Tokyo Rose? Interesting story there...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_Rose
"the influential gossip columnist and radio host Walter Winchell lobbied against her. She was brought to the U.S., where she was charged and subsequently convicted of treason."
Mind you, this is after:
"After the war, she was investigated and released when the FBI and the U.S. Army's Counter Intelligence Corps found no evidence against her."
So basically you can blame the press for her conviction for treason (witnesses lied as well). She was pardoned by President Ford in 1977.
Posted by: Jeff at April 13, 2007 01:30 PM (yiMNP)
9
As of 1:30 PM CDT, there are now 13,756 votes with 81% siding with firing her.
I think she should be fired for saying stupid stuff like fire doesn't melt steel. Hasn't she, or anyone in her audience that cheered her on the view, ever heard of a steel mill, know anyone from Pittsburg, or even seen Terminator 2.
Posted by: Leland at April 13, 2007 01:33 PM (yDsrH)
10
Turn the lights on! It's time to let everyone know what everyone says. I suggest Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton be first in the tumbril.
Posted by: cris at April 13, 2007 02:17 PM (GE7hs)
11
notice the push bias in the question: "...as Delay wants."
Posted by: mike d at April 13, 2007 02:24 PM (uXlmD)
12
Polls never give me the options I want.
While what Rosie has said is appallingly stupid, I still don't think she should be fired. But not because "controversial is different than racist". I think she should be retained because she draws such attention to her stupid blabber. By arguing against Rosie's very public idiocy, hopefully the debunking of at least some of the pervasive conspiracy theories will become more well-known.
I say let the fool have her podium to spew from - so everyone can see and hear just how foolish her ideas are.
Posted by: Amelia at April 13, 2007 02:32 PM (s4lME)
13
Rosie is the fat version of Al Sharpton.
Posted by: Marie V at April 13, 2007 02:42 PM (po1ua)
14
the dundewrdhead ab oive me in the comments is venomous...Al used to be heavy. Is fat the next F word? Rosie may be consipracy nut then so too are a lot of Americans. I don't see sponsors willing to withdraw their money. Heyt. You don't likeher, don't
watch. Imus insulted gays, blacks, disabled, Am indians, and Jews....all on record. And Rosie?
Posted by: joseph hill at April 13, 2007 02:48 PM (8ETZO)
15
What the hell does Tom Delay have to do with how I see things. I think the question on the poll stinks. I don't want to be in the same boat with *Tom or Rosie* either of them. I'll fish with Don Imus any day! I think he has a good heart!
Posted by: Randy at April 13, 2007 02:50 PM (7ppVp)
16
Rosie should be fired out of a cannon, into the sun.
Posted by: damaged justice at April 13, 2007 03:21 PM (7JQXZ)
17
Too much prejudice here--Rosie is just a cruel, vile, dishonest person; is that any reason to dislike her?
Posted by: buddly larsen at April 13, 2007 03:34 PM (lCS93)
18
Rosie did make racist comments but against asians a politically weak group.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0HtTReGt08
Posted by: McAristotle at April 14, 2007 08:47 AM (V4Baq)
19
She's definitely a Truther based on recent remarks. She should be in a cage being poked with sharp sticks by rabid baboons.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at April 14, 2007 09:59 AM (UWdQL)
20
Fire Rosie? Maybe we should wait until next week...when she starts saying that eeevil neo-cons make their matzoh with the blood of liberal children. /sarcasm
Posted by: pst314 at April 14, 2007 11:16 AM (lCxSZ)
21
Ithink probably the best thing for supporteres of Imus is to try and make the story about others. Rap singers are also bad and Rosie too.
I used to try that defense with my mom, everybody else does it, but it never worked.
Posted by: John Ryan at April 14, 2007 04:12 PM (TcoRJ)
22
John,
It is not defending Imus. He said something stupid and apologized for it. Quite honestly the Rutgers players should have gotten on camera and given him the finger. That would have made things even.
The question here is what you do with others who say things like Imus did. Rosie, Jesse, Al, heck I even heard racist jokes on Jay Leno last night. Shouldn't the thought police be after all these people too?
Posted by: Specter at April 14, 2007 08:22 PM (ybfXM)
Posted by: MyFriendOtis at April 14, 2007 08:53 PM (bq6Sz)
24
There are many MSM faux journalists/circus clowns that are more offensive and dishonest and should be fired before a second rate politically incorrect comedian like Rosie. A short list would include Hannity, O'Rielly, Beck, Limbaugh, Coulter, Cheney, and the entire Bush administration. People who live in glass houses shouldn't start rock throwing contests.
Posted by: ec1009 at April 15, 2007 09:51 AM (xcGis)
25
Rosie should be fired out of a cannon, into the sun.
CY, whenever a Lefty says something like that about Coulter or Malkin or someone of that ilk, you and your Righty posters are quick to say something on the order of, "A-ha! 'Progressives' show their true colors! Notice how they advocate violence against those they disagree with. The Right never stoops to that level."
I know it's your blog and all, but wrong in one direction is wrong in the other as well, and you've always struck me as one of the most evenhanded of the Righty bloggers. Do you condone this? Also: how about the sharp sticks and the rabid baboons? That shite could hurt!
Posted by: Doc Washboard at April 15, 2007 02:16 PM (sps4Z)
Posted by: Purple Avenger at April 15, 2007 05:47 PM (UWdQL)
27
Doc,
Well - maybe CY used a little more of a metaphor than you like for "firing". But seriously, do you support the racist and "off-color" remarks that come out of the mouths of Rosie, Jesse, Al, Al Franken, Bill Maher, David Letterman, etc. Or is it OK if they say stuff like that? I mean I really need to understand the frame of thought here - and since you seem to rationally discuss most things (as opposed to say Lex Steele), maybe you can give me an answer.
And if they are saying things that are "wrong", do we all get together to censor them? Or do you really thin free speech is something we should all have.
Looking forward to your answer.
Posted by: Specter at April 15, 2007 07:16 PM (ybfXM)
28
The left are the ones who follow through Doc.
The only conceivable interpretation of this comment is that you're saying Malkin, Coulter and Rove
et al have, in fact, all been killed by angry Lefties.
Have you ever noticed that you never, ever make a scrap of sense, Avenger? Rational discussion is impossible after you've followed your scorched-earth policy against sanity.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at April 15, 2007 07:33 PM (sps4Z)
29
Specter:
Free speech is free speech. Imus seems like a dumbass, but I've never heard his show, so I'm not qualified to make a judgment. I think that what he said was reprehensible, but one of the cool things about living in America is that we get to say reprehensible things if we want to. Nobody has to listen.
The firing is tricky. On the one hand, the organization we work for gets to set a standard for dress, speech and so on. If we don't like it, we can work somewhere else. On the other hand, controlling speech through hiring and firing seems to go against the whole "free speech" thing. Both sides have a point, as is so often the case.
The rock-bottom test would be whether Imus gets to stand on the street corner and spout his stuff to anyone who'll listen. If he does, then we're in business. If he were to be officially stopped from doing this, we'd have a problem.
Both Rosie and Imus can bite me, as far as I'm concerned, but I don't have to agree with them to know that they have a right to say whatever the hell they want.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at April 15, 2007 07:45 PM (sps4Z)
30
Doc,
But see - you support the firing of Imus. But for some reason you can't seem to pass judgment on others who spout the same kind of hatred. Why is that? I don't understand why you support such a double standard. Can you explain that to me?
Posted by: Specter at April 15, 2007 08:48 PM (ybfXM)
31
Well, Specter, what I actually said was, "On the other hand, controlling speech through hiring and firing seems to go against the whole "free speech" thing. Both sides have a point, as is so often the case." What I meant by that was, essentially, that both sides have a point. It's difficult to construe that as "support[ing] the firing of Imus."
I also wrote that "I don't have to agree with them to know that they have a right to say whatever the hell they want" and "Nobody has to listen."
Further, you write that I "can't seem to pass judgment on others who spout the same kind of hatred." I don't know what others you're talking about. I haven't come down on one side or the other with respect to the issue of bloviating celebrities here or in any other blog, as far as I can remember.
You have a pre-fab narrative that you want to impose on what I said, and it won't work. You and I are, I think, in agreement on this issue. You'll need to fight with someone else.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at April 15, 2007 09:08 PM (sps4Z)
32
Doc,
Not pre-fab. I specifically asked you about your opinions of Rosie, Jesse, Al Sharpton, Al Franken, Bill Maher, David Letterman, and others. Why are you not passing judgment on them?
Posted by: Specter at April 15, 2007 09:41 PM (ybfXM)
33
And yes...overall Doc I do think we are in agreement...just so you know.
Posted by: Specter at April 15, 2007 09:42 PM (ybfXM)
34
To be honest, I don't know what some of the people you mention have done.
My situation is this: I don't get any TV channels where I live, and I only get the local public radio station, which mainly plays Celtic music and other cacaraca. I'm the wrong guy to ask about all this stuff. I know who the people are, but, for example, I've never seen Bill Maher on TV.
I know Al Franken only from his SNL work; I've never read one of his books or heard his radio show.
I was totally unaware that Letterman had done anything untoward, but, again, I'm out of the loop.
Rosie O'Donnell wore out her welcome pretty fast with her talk show, and I've never seen her on whatever show she's on now.
Sharpton seems like kind of a bozo, and Jackson appears to have outlived his political usefulness to the Left.
The fact of the matter, though, is that they all get to spout whatever they want to spout, and I don't have to listen to it. Same thing with Imus. I don't think he should have been fired for what he did. Certainly I would have, but my case is different.
Free speech is the order of the day, as far as I'm concerned. For example, anti-abortion protesters can say what they want, but as soon as they block the path of women going into the clinic, all bets are off. Anti-war protesters can make their point all they want, but as soon as they deface public or private property, all bets are off. Remember: I believe in free speech, not free whatever-the-hell-anyone-wants-to-do.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at April 15, 2007 10:04 PM (sps4Z)
35
CY, whenever a Lefty says something like that about Coulter or Malkin or someone of that ilk, you and your Righty posters are quick to say something on the order of, "A-ha! 'Progressives' show their true colors! Notice how they advocate violence against those they disagree with. The Right never stoops to that level."
I know it's your blog and all, but wrong in one direction is wrong in the other as well, and you've always struck me as one of the most evenhanded of the Righty bloggers. Do you condone this? Also: how about the sharp sticks and the rabid baboons? That shite could hurt!
Nonserious threats--those so comical that no one can take them seriously as a threat--aren't really threats, are they?
Obviously I don't agree with such commentary, and nor do most folks, but I don't think firing Rosie into the sun out of a cannon is anything other than someone venting.
And if they ever do load that cannon, I have no problem with Coulter also being a passenger.
Just so you know. ;-)
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at April 16, 2007 07:08 AM (9y6qg)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Continuing to Cry Defeat
I must thank blog aggregator Memeorandum this morning for providing
this link about the latest
Charles Krauthammer column, which in turn, led to a
Melanie Phillips blog entry highlighting key points of a Fouad Ajami editorial,
Iraq in the Balance.
Among the subjects the Ajami essay touches upon are the long history of Sunni and Shia animosity, the failure of salvation for the Sunni insurgency, and the distrust of Iranian-backed Shia militias as Iraq enters what Ajami calls the "final, decisive phase":
There is a growing Shia unease with the Mahdi Army--and with the venality and incompetence of the Sadrists represented in the cabinet--and an increasing faith that the government and its instruments of order are the surer bet. The crackdown on the Mahdi Army that the new American commander, Gen. David Petraeus, has launched has the backing of the ruling Shia coalition. Iraqi police and army units have taken to the field against elements of the Mahdi army. In recent days, in the southern city of Diwaniyya, American and Iraqi forces have together battled the forces of Moqtada al-Sadr. To the extent that the Shia now see Iraq as their own country, their tolerance for mayhem and chaos has receded. Sadr may damn the American occupiers, but ordinary Shia men and women know that the liberty that came their way had been a gift of the Americans.
The young men of little education--earnest displaced villagers with the ways of the countryside showing through their features and dialect and shiny suits--who guarded me through Baghdad, spoke of old terrors, and of the joy and dignity of this new order. Children and nephews and younger brothers of men lost to the terror of the Baath, they are done with the old servitude. They behold the Americans keeping the peace of their troubled land with undisguised gratitude. It hasn't been always brilliant, this campaign waged in Iraq. But its mistakes can never smother its honor, and no apology for it is due the Arab autocrats who had averted their gaze from Iraq's long night of terror under the Baath.
...
One can never reconcile the beneficiaries of illegitimate, abnormal power to the end of their dominion. But this current re-alignment in Iraq carries with it a gift for the possible redemption of modern Islam among the Arabs. Hitherto Sunni Islam had taken its hegemony for granted and extremist strands within it have shown a refusal to accept "the other." Conversely, Shia history has been distorted by weakness and exclusion and by a concomitant abdication of responsibility.
A Shia-led state in Baghdad--with a strong Kurdish presence in it and a big niche for the Sunnis--can go a long way toward changing the region's terrible habits and expectations of authority and command. The Sunnis would still be hegemonic in the Arab councils of power beyond Iraq, but their monopoly would yield to the pluralism and complexity of that region.
"Watch your adjectives" is the admonition given American officers by Gen. Petraeus. In Baghdad, Americans and Iraqis alike know that this big endeavor has entered its final, decisive phase. Iraq has surprised and disappointed us before, but as they and we watch our adjectives there can be discerned the shape of a new country, a rough balance of forces commensurate with the demography of the place and with the outcome of a war that its erstwhile Sunni rulers had launched and lost. We made this history and should now make our peace with it.
Without any shred of a doubt, we are in the final, decisive phase of this war.
The "surge" of American troops into Iraq only half-begun as part of Commanding General David Petraeus' counter-insurgency doctrine will be the final major push of American forces into the Iraq theater. With the success of the surge, the stabilization of Iraq means that American forces should be able to start drawing down in victory. If the surge does not work, the American public will be able to elect a President in 2008 that will bring our troops home in defeat. Either way, the surge represents America's endgame, for better or worse.
Based upon the success of French Lt. Col. David Galula's counter-insurgency efforts in Algeria, General Petraeus literally wrote the book on American counter-insurgency, Army Field Manual FM3-24 (PDF).
The Baghdad security plan, expanding to other parts of Iraq, comes at a time when al Qaeda has lost support in its former base of al Anbar province, where Sunni tribes once loyal to al Qaeda have turned against it. Within the past months, Sunni tribesmen that have recently joined the Iraqi police and military by the hundreds and thousands have fought pitched battles that al Qaeda has invariably lost, and the Sunni supporters of al Qaeda in Iraq are continuing to fracture, as noted as recently as yesterday.
As Krauthammer states in his recent op-ed with a nod to Ajami:
Fouad Ajami, just returned from his seventh trip to Iraq, is similarly guardedly optimistic and explains the change this way: Fundamentally, the Sunnis have lost the battle of Baghdad. They initiated it with an indiscriminate terror campaign they assumed would cow the Shiites, whom they view with contempt as congenitally quiescent, lower-class former subjects. They learned otherwise after the Samarra bombing in February 2006 kindled Shiite fury -- a savage militia campaign of kidnapping, indiscriminate murder and ethnic cleansing that has made Baghdad a largely Shiite city.
Petraeus is trying now to complete the defeat of the Sunni insurgents in Baghdad -- without the barbarism of the Shiite militias, whom his forces are simultaneously pursuing and suppressing.
Meanwhile, John Wixted points out that the media-declared "civil war" in Iraq is not a civil war:
Again, these Sunni insurgent groups are unhappy (not happy) with al Qaeda for indiscriminately slaughtering Shiite civilians in Iraq. How does that fit into the "civil war" schema? Answer: it doesn't. Think about the Tal Afar bombing again, the one that you thought was just part of the cycle of violence in a escalating civil war between Shiite militias and Sunni insurgents. There is just one tiny little problem with that superficial analysis: the major Sunni insurgent groups are extremely displeased with bombings like that. That being the case, you should now be able to appreciate the fact that, contrary to the standard analysis, the Tal Afar bombing (like many similar bombings) was not carried out by Sunni insurgents in their civil war against Shiites. Instead, those bombings represent al Qaeda in action. They are, in effect, counterattacks in our war on terror, not retaliatory strikes in a civil war.
The Sunni insurgents have come to realize that al Qaeda is not helping them in their fight against American troops. Instead, al Qaeda is trying to provoke a civil war, which benefits al Qaeda alone. That is, al Qaeda is trying to get Muqtada al Sadr's Mahdi Army to once again start executing Sunnis in Baghdad. That's why the Sunni insurgents are not happy. They have no interest in a civil war because it does not benefit them in any way. They want al Qaeda to help fight the Americans, and that's what al Qaeda was doing for a while. It's what George Bush wanted al Qaeda to do as well (at least I suspect as much). But al Qaeda came up with a fiendish alternative plan, and it has been amazingly effective up until now. Predictably, in response to al Qaeda's repeated atrocities against Shiite civilians, most Americans and all Democratic politicians think they are watching a civil war unfold in Iraq and have become demoralized as a result (just as al Qaeda knew they would -- it's always that way with the weak-willed America).
[snip]
All of this should also serve to update your thinking about Muqtada al Sadr's Mahdi Army, which, contrary to what you might believe, was killing Sunnis in Baghdad in an effort to stop those atrocities being carried out by al Qaeda against Shiite civilians. But now the Mahdi Army is cooperating with the troop surge, so those executions have come way down. Perhaps Muqtada realized that he was just playing into al Qaeda's hands (and the truth is, he was).
Unfortunately, last month, al Qaeda successfully slaughtered many hundreds of Shiites, and that increase in violence offset the decrease in violence by the Mahdi Army, so overall civilian casualties in Iraq remained essentially unchanged. However, the fact that the Sunni insurgency is beginning to resist al Qaeda, and the fact that they have even implored Osama bin Laden to call off attacks against civilians by al Qaeda in Iraq could be highly significant. If the Mahdi Army continues to cooperate (and all signs suggest that they will despite the Tal Afar bombing) and if al Qaeda can be induced to stop slaughtering civilians, then the troop surge will be seen as a resounding success because civilian casualties will come way down.
In short, Sunni tribes former aligned with al Qaeda are turning against them and joining the Iraqi military and police forces by the thousands. At the same time, Shia militias are staying their hands (for the most part), while the more militant offshoots of the Madhi Army are being either rounded up or shot down as are their Sunni opposites.
All in all, there is a picture beginning to emerge that shows the more radical and divisive elements of both the Sunni and Shia sects are slowly but steadily being whittled away. Sunnis and Shias formerly loyal to al Qaeda or al Sadr quietly melt away, inform on their former allies, or actively join forces with the Coalition and Iraqi government. These extremists that now only exist to cause terror in a fractured nation tiring of war, are losing.
Aligned against these growing signs of progress, we once again encounter our ever-present enemy... Democrats:
A memo from a top House Democrat says party leaders must not yield to White House pressure on Iraq and should cast President Bush as increasingly detached from public opinion.
Bush has said he will not negotiate with Democrats on legislation that would finance the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through September if it sets an end date for the Iraq war. Holding only a narrow majority in Congress, Democrats do not have enough votes to override the president's veto.
In a memo to party leaders, Rep. Rahm Emanuel says that as long as Democrats continue to ratchet up the pressure on Bush, the president loses ground.
Like many Democrats, Emanuel shows that in his eyes, the real enemy in the War on Terror (a name, I'd add, Democrats are cravenly trying to change) is American President George W. Bush, not al Qaeda terrorists or Shia militiamen.
The gathering signs of progress in Iraq means that the window of opportunity to claim a "victory" for Democrats—a headlong retreat and possible genocide that could result from a too quick withdrawal before Iraq is stabilized, which they would then attempt to pin on Bush—is closing.
If signs of progress continue to cautiously crop up in Iraq, the media-determined and Democrat-supported narrative of defeat may slowly begin to fall away, which is the worst possible situation for Democrats.
Should the surge continue to prove effective and Iraqis continue towards a path towards a reconciliation and a fair division of assets among the sects, it is not hard to see that public opinion will begin to turn against the liberal Democrat leadership, who have done all that is within their power to lose the war. Nobody likes someone who cheers against the home team, especially if the home team(s) rallies to win.
Only time will tell if the "rally" in Iraq is successful, but that is a chance Democrat leaders such as Emanuel, Reid, and Pelosi aren't will to take, and why they endeavor to lose Iraq by forfeit.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:02 PM
| Comments (17)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1983 words, total size 13 kb.
1
CY:"The gathering signs of progress in Iraq ..."
... "Bomb Attack on Iraq's Parliament Building ... a stunning assault in the heart of the heavily fortified, U.S.-protected Green Zone" (Foxnews, Thursday, April 12, 2007 )
"A homicide truck bomb exploded on a major bridge in Baghdad early Thursday, collapsing the steel structure and sending cars toppling into the Tigris River below ..." (Foxnews, Thursday, April 12, 2007 )
A further example for the MSM-conspiracy against the US-strategy in Iraq?
Posted by: he at April 13, 2007 01:19 PM (qQGvX)
2
How many attacks in 4 years have there been inside the green zone?
1? 2? They got lucky, and only took one life. By objective strategic standards, no big deal.
Tragic, yes. A sign of a burgeoning, rampaging insurgency? No. A sign that the US has failed, and has no chance of acheiving its objectives in Iraq? No.
Unless thats what your hoping for.
Posted by: TMF at April 13, 2007 02:01 PM (+BgNZ)
3
A couple of other indicators worth mention:
First is the narrowing of focus by al Qaida in Iraq. Initially they focused on the MNF but that failed to gain the support of many Iraqis as the elections demonstrated. So they turned their attention to the Shiia. The idea being to intimidate the Shiites into turning their backs on the MNF in order to make the violence stop. This didn't work either as there was a severe backlash against the Sunnis for it. This resulted in calls from Sunnis for AQI to stop attacking civilians. That resulted in AQI narrowing their focus even further to "wayward" Sunnis. Again, they were going to intimidate the Sunnis into line in order to make the violence stop. But the Sunnis discovered they had an ally in the MNF and Iraq government. So instead of getting the Sunnis in line, they effectively pushed the Sunnis into the arms of the Iraqi government. So where at first it was a Muslim insurgency against "infidel" occupiers (broad focus), it then became Sunnis against Shiites (narrower focus), and has now become radical Sunnis against more moderate Sunnis (yet narrower focus) and the result is a splitting off from AQI of many of the groups ("franchises")under its umbrella.
The second development is to notice that al Qaida has now restarted operations in areas outside Iraq. We saw operations in Morocco and Algeria this week. That signals that al Qaida isn't sending their best and brightest to Iraq anymore. A year or so ago, the people who would be performing terrorist operations in those countries would have been sent to Iraq. Now they are staying home to fight.
I am seeing nothing but positive indications for us and dire indications for al Qaida.
Posted by: crosspatch at April 13, 2007 03:15 PM (y2kMG)
4
"Aligned against these growing signs of progress, we once again encounter our ever-present enemy... Democrats...."
I'll bet you any amount of money you can round up that you will be repeating this divel one Friedman Unit from today. The real enemy is Repbulicans. They are delusional. They hate America.
Posted by: TraitorHater at April 13, 2007 09:00 PM (N3gnV)
5
Remind me again which side of the aisle was comparing our troops to Nazis, TH. We're just handing you the rope until the country allows us to hang you with it.
Aux la lanternes!
Posted by: SDN at April 13, 2007 10:12 PM (CNYKS)
6
I'll bet you any amount of money you can round up
Petraeus is going to ensure the dems will be out of power again in 08' and rendered ineffective as enemies anymore.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at April 14, 2007 06:59 AM (UWdQL)
7
Just wanted to comment on the "green zone" attack. My FIRST thought was that the U.S. Capitol is a fairly secure place yet there was an attack there. What does that say about our country? That's it's a complete failure and it's time to get out?
All it shows is that a determined person or group can, eventually, breach any security.
Posted by: DoorHold at April 14, 2007 10:59 AM (WD3Yg)
8
Purple avenger is definitely existing in his own seperate reality.
Things are not going well in Iraq the American people know that, the policies of Bush have been all failures. A liberal (why is liberal only good over there) democracy flowering in Iraq ???
Posted by: John Ryan at April 14, 2007 04:18 PM (TcoRJ)
9
When the Imus affair can basically knock the Iraq off the headlines for a week, you know that things are getting better. The MSM will do anything it can to hide this fact.
Posted by: southdakotaboy at April 14, 2007 07:46 PM (WrPG5)
10
A liberal (why is liberal only good over there) democracy flowering in Iraq?
How long did it take to fight the revolution and ratify the US constitution again John?
Seems to me the Iraqis are WAY ahead of schedule. Of course your kind would have had Washington surrender rather than tough out the winter at Valley Forge. Your kind don't do difficult.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at April 14, 2007 07:46 PM (UWdQL)
11
"A gunman in a wheelchair opened fire on a crowded street in San Francisco's Tenderloin district early Saturday, killing a woman and wounding four other people, police said."
Yet another example that socialism in San Francisco is a failure....heh
Posted by: ray robison at April 15, 2007 09:37 AM (aW8TG)
12
"Without any shred of a doubt, we are in the final, decisive phase of this war."
Without any shred of doubt, this prediction will come back to haunt you in a year when the war in Iraq is once again damaging Republican election campaigns.
I don't see how you infer from the excerpts you posted that "the more radical and divisive elements of both the Sunni and Shia sects are slowly but steadily being whittled away" or that Sunni tribes are joining Iraq's police and military forces "by the thousands."
According to the Washington Post:
"Insurgent leaders, in interviews in person or by telephone, offered different explanations for their split. Many said their link to the al-Qaeda groups was tainting their image as a nationalist resistance force. Others said they no longer wanted to be tools of the foreign fighters who lead al-Qaeda. Their war, they insist, is against only the U.S. forces, to pressure them to depart Iraq."
"We do not want to kill the Sunni people nor displace the innocent Shia, and what the al-Qaeda organization is doing is contradictory to Islam," said Abu Marwan, a religious leader of the Mujaheddin Army in Baqubah, northeast of Baghdad. "We will strike whoever violates the boundaries of God, whether al-Qaeda or the Americans." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/13/AR2007041300294_pf.html)
This suggests that a split between insurgents and al-Qaida has more to do with shutting foreigners out of the insurgency and improving its effectiveness than a fundamental shift to support for the American forces. At any rate, it is not clear how the surge has promoted this.
You may also want to read this article in the Guardian: http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/marc_lynch/2007/04/insurgents_against_alqaeda.html
Ironically, as Lynch argues, this split might make it easier for the US to withdraw (by uniting Iraqi factions) even as it makes it more dangerous for us to stay.
There is no evidence to suggest that Iraq would become any more chaotic upon a US withdrawal than it already is, and some to suggest that it might acutally improve once our provocative presence is ended. Anyway, this thing won't be solved by sending more 19-year-old Americans to Iraq and further eroding the sovereignty of the Iraqi state. As a prominent American said:
"Any student of history recognises there is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq. A political resolution of various differences ... of various senses that people do not have a stake in the successes of Iraq ... is crucial."
The speaker? General Petraeus.
Posted by: R. Stanton Scott at April 15, 2007 04:00 PM (0sTNI)
13
"There is no evidence to suggest that Iraq would become any more chaotic upon a US withdrawal than it already is, and some to suggest that it might acutally improve once our provocative presence is ended."
Posted by R. Stanton Scott at April 15, 2007 04:00 PM
Congratulations! You just parroted John kerry nearly word for word in his argument to pull US troops from Vietnam which caused a full scale regional destabilization that killed MILLIONS! Nice....
Posted by: ray robison at April 15, 2007 06:29 PM (aW8TG)
14
ray,
I've looked high and low for information on a bloodbath in S. Vietname after 1975 and have yet to find it. Certainly, you can fold in the Khmer Rouge killings into that number to get to millions dead, but that's a specious argument at best and dishonest at worst.
Here's what I did find: Jacqueline Desbarats and Karl D. Jackson set out to prove that a bloodbath in South Vietnam did occur, in spite of media reports to the contrary. By conservative estimate they said that 65,000 people had been killed from 1975 to 1982.
Their work was refuted by Gareth Porter and James Roberts in 1988 in their article, “Creating a Bloodbath by Statistical Manipulation,” in Pacific Affairs.
In an essay published in 1990, Desbarats claimed “possibly more than 100,000 Vietnamese people” had been executed but didn't answer any of the problems brought up by Porter and Roberts’s critique of her methodology.
So, even if you read and believe the scholars who claim a bloodbath did occur, their numbers have never been more than 100,000+. Tragic yes, but still nowhere near your millions.
You can claim that our withdrawal from Vietnam caused the rise of Pol Pot and the subsequent mass murder, but I could make an equally persuasive case that Nixon's incursion into Cambodia is what destabilized that country, and both of our arguments would be irrelevant to what we have at hand in Iraq.
As always, I'm prepared to be educated. I don't know everything (even though my wife will tell you I think I do), and I invite links to credible sources for your numbers.
Posted by: David Terrenoire at April 16, 2007 12:09 PM (kxecL)
15
DT, the rise of the khmer rouge was a direct result of the power vacuum left when the US retreated
Here's more on the subject
http://www.411mania.com/politics/columns/47625
"During this period of Nixon's phased redeployment, the Khmer Rouge Communists took over the government of Cambodia leading to the extermination of roughly 25% of that countries population, or two million people. This horrendous slaughter on the order of magnitude of the Jewish holocaust might have been avoided if Nixon had not signaled American intentions to wash our hands of the region. And that wasn't even in Vietnam.
After Nixon withdrew all ground forces from Vietnam, the North Vietnamese broke their peace agreements (surprise, surprise) and took over Southern Vietnam that we had abandoned. Of course the Communist atrocities continued there and hundreds of thousands died. It was then that the North Vietnamese implemented the infamous "re-education" camps where the primary focus was to torture civilians into compliance.
Khmer Rouge forces invaded Vietnam, Vietnamese forces invaded Cambodia. The Chinese who supported Vietnam invaded Vietnam in retaliation for the invasion of Cambodia which was in retaliation for the Khmer Rouge invasion of Vietnam. How many more hundreds of thousands of people died because we decided the cost was too high and the war was immoral?"
There are people who still deny the jewish holocaust. I dont care if communist sympathizers deny the mass murder committed by the NV in SV. And yes, destabilization of neighboring countries that kills millions is a part of the equation an honest thinker must face. But feel free to ignore it.
Posted by: Ray Robison at April 16, 2007 12:57 PM (CdK5b)
16
I am constantly fascinated by those who find the killing of thousands of innocent people horrible and tragic--until the United States starts doing the killing.
"Destabilization that killed millions" in Southeast Asia resulted not from our withdrawal from Viet Nam, but from our presence there. This included, as Mr. Terrenoire points out, our incursion into Cambodia, as well as bombing civilian population centers, mining harbors to interdict trade, destruction of rural villages and agricultural capacity, execution of women and children, and support for an unpopular authoritarian government in South Viet Nam, itself as odious as the Communists we sought to "protect" them from.
Indeed, had we permitted the French colonial mission there to fail, instead of adopting it as our own, Ho Chi Minh may actually have established a government based on our own Declaration of Independence and Constitution--as was his stated goal during the 50s. As President Bush himself points out, we can know the intent of our enemies by listening to their own words.
But as Mr. Terrenoire also points out, Southeast Asian history has little to do with what we face today in Iraq (exept insofar as that experience shaped our civilian and military institutional biases). Southeast Asia was about colonialism and how local populations used communist rhetoric and assistance to end occupation of their land by Western powers.
Our invasion of Iraq today is arguably a resurgent colonialism--great powers safeguarding natural resources necessary for their industrial productivity. But to the extent it really is about fighting terrorism, it happened because our government decided that criminal terrorist gangs could be destroyed by attacking associated states, and then associating states with the gangs. This does not surprise international relations theorists, who expect states to see problems in terms of the behavior of other states.
But it is unlikely to solve the real problem and stop the commission of the crime of terrorism. Internationally or domestically, crime will always exist, and the best solutions are to be found first in addressing the conditions that foster it and then developing the institutional structures needed to capture and punish those who continue to live outside the law.
Indeed, we only legitimize groups like al-Q'aida by declaring war on them and elevating them to the status of an organization that can effectively challenge a powerful state. This also leads us to apply a type of force to the problem that is least effective. Instead of permitting bin Laden the glory of standing up to the US, we should be shaming and demonizing him as a common killer of women and children.
The best way for the US to spread democracy and American values in the world is to develop organizational infrastructures that institutionalize small-l liberalism: open trade, individual rights, capitalism, and participatory, transparent government. This is most easily accomplished by talking to people, not shooting them.
Posted by: R. Stanton Scott at April 16, 2007 01:40 PM (8tSrK)
17
And yes, destabilization of neighboring countries that kills millions is a part of the equation an honest thinker must face. But feel free to ignore it.
Ray,
On the contrary, I wasn't ignoring it, I just don't buy the simplistic causality that our withdrawal caused the killing fields. And any article that contains a line like this:
But if you are a liberal who would not deign to be caught caring about American security or influence in the world (other than to point out how immoral that is), how about the humanistic component? How about the utter devastation left in South East Asia?
This loses all credibility. First, I'm a liberal and will happily display my security bona fides any time anywhere. No, this article is partisan BS, authored by a guy named Ray Robinson, and as you quote heavily from your own article to defend your own positions I feel obligated to point out that no where do you prove your point. You makes the assertion that the withdrawal caused the killing fields, but assertions are like opinions and we all know about those.
And I asked for a link to a number of South Vietnamese killed in what you claim was the resultant bloodbath. The only number I could find was 100K, and that from someone wanting to prove your theory, against all evidence to the contrary, that a bloodbath did occur.
I'm well aware of the re-education camps. I make no case for Hanoi or the takeover just as I would have a hard time defending the South Vietnamese regime. You and I can debate that war, and I'd be happy to engage over drinks, believe me, but I doubt if here it would produce anything more than long-winded, pointless posts.
But I did find this line in your article interesting:
So what was the cost of "phased redeployment" versus a strategy of victory? Well for one the US military was demoralized for decades.
Again, this is a complicated issue, but I can assure you that people in the military were seriously demoralized by 1970, years before our withdrawal. I know. I was one of them and I was RA.
So, I'm not trying to whitewash the tragedy that followed South Vietnam's fall, but what you've opened up here is a far more complicated argument. Finding a direct link from the withdrawal to the subsequent wars in SE Asia is simplistic and ignores a millennium of regional history.
To use this as reason to remain in Iraq is, I believe, a rather thin attempt to put this fiasco into a moral light and it sounds a bit desperate now, just as it sounded in 1971 when Nixon tried it.
Posted by: David Terrenoire at April 16, 2007 01:45 PM (kxecL)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Screening Outside the Wire
The Washington State University Young Republicans screened
Outside the Wire by JD Johannes, a former Marine, who joined the Marines
because:
... JD Johannes did not study hard or take his secondary education seriously, because he came from a rural, midwestern town, and because he had no other opportunities, Johannes was easily conned into joining the Marines by a high-pressure salesman in Dress Blues.
Just like U.S. Senator John Kerry said, JD Johannes got stuck in Iraq.
A synopsis of the screening is recounted on palousitics, including some barbed comments at Democrats who tried to upstage both the movie and the Iraq war veterans that were to address the audience and take questions after the film.
The young democrats expressed vivid interest in expressing opinions and produce questions to us, the WSU College Republicans. Dan Ryder and I articulated to the young democrats that no such exchange would take place in any shape or form. I was unequivocal in expressing that this documentary should leave you to derive your own opinions of the troops/war and that the WSU College Republicans did not feel qualified in hosting questions. After all, we did not serve in Iraq.
The young democrats "staged" a walkout upon hearing our truthful and legitimate response. This was a display upon epic proportions of the infantile demeanor of such a group that preaches the freedom of expression, ideas, opinions, etc. Their actions were pusillanimous in nature and a flat out slap in the face to the attendees, our organization, our great country and more acutely speaking, the Veterans of our brave service men and women present. They are a sickening disgrace. A classic display of uncouth trash.
The quote of the day, however, goes to one of the Iraq War veterans during a Q&A session after the screening to a question that was never asked.
One question that never came up was "can you support the troops if you donÂ’t support the war?" After the question and answer session ended a Vet replied, "Absolutely not, how can you support someone if you don't support what he or she is doing?"
I've wondered about that same question myself, and have yet to hear what I would consider a reasonable answer.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:54 AM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
Post contains 378 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Can you support the troops, but not support the war? I think you can.
Supporting the troops, I believe, means respecting them as individuals; that is, respecting their patriotism, courage, and willingness to serve in harm's way. Most of us don't have that kind of grit, and those who do deserve our respect and admiration.... and our support.
On the other hand, supporting the war means supporting a relatively small handful of politicians who make policy. Those politicians have to earn that support by being wise, prudent, and correct in their decisions. I don't believe they are allowed to hide behind the troops in harm's way, and demand that our support for those troops must translate as support for the policies of Washington.
Let's be frank: everything I've read about Iraq tells me that this country has fielded an incredibly professional military organizations (guts, brains, high morale), just as everything I've read tells me that President Bush is a walking, talking disaster as a war leader.
So, yeah, I feel like I support the troops (I know that I respect them greatly), but, at the same time, I believe they were put into harm's way and asked to do the impossible by an unread man of limited integrity and ability.
It's a dilemma.
But it's not a dilemma unique to this situation. I'm certain that conservatives supported our troops in Vietnam even as they hated the no-win, hand-tied-behind-the-back war policies of LBJ. Win the war, or get out, seemed to be the conservative mantra back in those days. Could we argue that they were hurting troop morale and emboldening the enemy?
Oh, and I'm reminded of those conservatives shouting at Bush I to go all the way to Baghdad during Operation Desert Storm. I'm sure they supported the troops, even as they decried the policies those troops were enacting.
Posted by: i'mjustsayin' at April 13, 2007 11:20 AM (5ymET)
2
CY:
I've wondered about that same question myself, and have yet to hear what I would consider a reasonable answer.
The Iraqis want us to leave. 72% of soldiers
think we should leave within a year.
"Support the troops" is a catchphrase you employ to stifle debate. It's the best you've got because the facts overwhelmingly paint you as dead enders.
You echoed disinformation recently about the recent Najaf rally. See
here.
Posted by: Lex Steele at April 13, 2007 11:33 AM (0bhUe)
3
So what's the only solution in both Vietnam and Iraq (both times) from the Left? Cut and run. Don't finish the job.
And what were the results. Genocide in Cambodia and Vietnam. Genocide of the Marsh Arabs in 91. Any bets that the third cut and run will result differently?
What's that definition of insanity again? something about doing the same things and expecting different results?
Posted by: SDN at April 13, 2007 10:25 PM (CNYKS)
4
These comments are legitimate arguments, albeit that they are from the perspective of losing or that we could never have won. Look, the glass is half empty while it is half full. Only time will tell. I only know that from all the soldiers I have heard from (and that is many, as well as the families of soldiers currently serving and of those who have made the ultimate sacrifice), aside from the few that the mainstream propaganda news outlets parade out there every time they find one, this war is no loss at all. All of a sudden, everyone is a general and can determine how long it takes for people to go from oppression from a murderous regime to being able to participate in their own government. I am with the coalition, the Iraqis and their future. I do not wish that we never went there and that Saddam was still in power. There may be some Iraqis that resent or hate us, and there can be many reasons for that, but we have free Americans right here that hate this country and everything about it. We have Americans right here that hope for our defeat and root for our enemies. We have an entire political party and its supporting mainstream media that undermines our national Security, our country, our President, every day. Of course, there are many here that do not see the cause for our military success in Iraq and for the Iraqi people. These are the same people that did not and/or would not, or don't and/or wouldn't care either way about the ethnic cleansing that took place in Viet Nam and would take place in Iraq if we just picked up and walked away. They would rather support the failure of a political adversary (the President, the Republican party, an alternative ideology) than the future of a free people. And they call themselves "liberals" or, better yet, "progressives".
Posted by: DJ at April 13, 2007 11:24 PM (n17DP)
5
Part of the problem about devise tactics is that they work best only when you are in the majority. Now that only 33% support Bush when you say all Democrats are supporters of terror it only serves to encourage the jihadists. "Yeah I read that 70% of the Americans are supporting us" NOT!!!
Posted by: John Ryan at April 14, 2007 04:23 PM (TcoRJ)
6
Regarding Vietnam, please bear in mind that the U.S. poured billions of dollars and tens of thousands of American lives into propping up the regime in Saigon. Unfortunately, for all that support, Saigon remained corrupt, and, worse, ineffecient, and its army, by and large, lacked the skill and ferocity of the VC and NVA.
In other words, we only Cut and Run when we realized that Saigon had squandered everything provided by the U.S. Also please consider that the highly-effective U.S. military had wreaked tremendous damage in South Vietnam, and accumulated huge body counts of VC and NVA. In the end, none of that mattered.
What happened in South Vietnam after the U.S. withdrew was bad enough, but it was far less bloody than Washington had predicted, and certainly did not rise to the level of genocide, as claimed above. Yes, there was genocide in Cambodia.... but how exactly was the U.S. supposed to stop the Khmer Rouge? Endless war in Southeast Asia? To what end? And how would such an endless war benifit the United States?
There's a lot of bad guys and bad places in the Third World. Why not endless war throughout the Third World? The U.S. cannot afford to be the world's policeman, and does not have the stomach for the job, anyway.
I'm rambling......
Posted by: i'mjustsayin' at April 15, 2007 04:47 PM (5ymET)
7
i'mjustsayin' said:
"What happened in South Vietnam after the U.S. withdrew was bad enough, but it was far less bloody than Washington had predicted, and certainly did not rise to the level of genocide..."
So how bloody did Washington predict it would be if roughly 2.5 million South Vietnamese slaughtered didn't reach the level [of genocide]? According to your way of thinking the United States should never have destroyed the Nazis either.
And when you say,
"The U.S. cannot afford to be the world's policeman, and does not have the stomach for the job, anyway." All I can say is speak for yourself.
You obviously don't have the stomach for it.
"The tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson
Posted by: DJ at April 15, 2007 10:41 PM (n17DP)
8
They would rather support the failure of a political adversary (the President, the Republican party, an alternative ideology) than the future of a free people. And they call themselves "liberals" or, better yet, "progressives".
I consider myself a liberal, but I'm not sure it means the same thing as you think it means.
Peope I know who think this war is a futile effort include military, retired military, active intelligence, former federal law enforcement and a whole bunch of average citizens just like you and me. Not a one of them hope or want Bush to fail. Predicting failure and then pointing out when your worst predictions come true is not a thing that gives me comfort.
As for not supporting the future of a free people, that's something the people themselves have to choose. It's not a gift we can pass along and then suddenly animosities that go back to the fifth century will vanish like a fart in a sea breeze. That's not going to happen.
I've stated in other threads the disaster I predict it will be if we pull out, but I've also said that I think this surge is far too little and far too late.
If we were serious about fighting this war, and this is just me, I'd put another 400K troops in there, create safe training places for the Iraqi military and police, draft a boatload of young American men and raise taxes to pay for it.
But that's not going to happen. And that means we're not serious about fighting this war. So if we're not serious, how can you ask your brother to pay with his limbs or even his life?
Vietnam? The VC and NVA weren't going anywhere and they'd demonstrated by kicking Japanese butt and French butt that they were willing to do whatever was necessary for as long as it took. The American people, for good reason, weren't willing.
My father was a staunch supporter of that war until he had two sons in uniform. He'd lost his brother and countless friends in one war, a good war, a war worth his sacrifice, and he would have and did send his boys off to serve. But when the reality of that homebound box hit home, he started asking why. It didn't make him a cut and run American. It didn't take away his patriotism and sacrifice. It made him question why and the answer he got was not one he wanted to hear, not worth his potential loss.
No American, left or right, wants our president to fail. Because if he does, it means we sacrifice our fathers, brothers and sons for a mistake.
I'm a liberal, but I take a back seat to no one when I say I love this country.
But I mistrust this government. And that's a whole different thing.
Posted by: David Terrenoire at April 15, 2007 10:54 PM (tk0b2)
9
DJ, the 2.5 million victims you cite were murdered by the Khmer Rouge. You are conflating, for obvious reasons, the genocide in Cambodia with what happened in South Vietnam after the communists prevailed in 1975.
Oh, your crack about who has the stomach for endless war and who doesn't was a bit ridiculous. So, again: how many years and how many lives should the U.S. have invested in an optional war like the one we fought in Vietnam?
Incidentally, David Terrenoire is the best thing about this website.
Posted by: i'mjustsayin' at April 16, 2007 01:03 AM (5ymET)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Not Quite Innocent
Terry Moran is sure to be creamed for this contrarian opinion, but I
tend to think he's right:
So as we rightly cover the vindication of these young men and focus on the genuine ordeal they have endured, let us also remember a few other things:
They were part of a team that collected $800 to purchase the time of two strippers.
Their team specifically requested at least one white stripper.
During the incident, racial epithets were hurled at the strippers.
Colin Finnerty was charged with assault in Washington, DC, in 2005.
The "Duke Three" are without a doubt innocent of the crimes of rape and kidnapping levied by a mentally-disturbed stripper and a dishonest district attorney, but they are not innocents. There is a huge distinction between being innocent of a crime, and some of the comments made during the defense lawyer's press conference that painted these three young men as almost being ripe for canonization.
They are part of a group that deserves criticism for their actions. These three young men are not criminals, but nor should they or their teammates be made into heroes. We should be able to redress the travesty of justice committed against them without making them into idols or figureheads of purity, when they clearly are not.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:34 AM
| Comments (19)
| Add Comment
Post contains 220 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Hmmmm.... Not so sure I agree. While it's true they are not pictures of purity, there aren't many young men in college who are. Moran's piece comes across as snarky and seems to try and justify the treatment they received because they're white and privileged. Podhoretz does a good job of taking apart the Moran post at The Corner, here:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTEzMGY2YmVkNzJkOWE4OGExNWUxMzgxZmRiMjIyMjk=
Posted by: mindnumbrobot at April 13, 2007 11:30 AM (d5LvD)
2
Main point to entire story is not students’ behavior. Definitely they are not heroes, idols or saints. They did not choose get into a spot light and never claimed sainthood. Main point of the story is that our legal system is corrupt from street cop and up. Unless there is no price to pay for those who falsely accuse and even worse covered and/or fabricate evidence we are all in a grave danger. I have been there. I know. I wish no one would have to learn that “the students way”.
Posted by: Martimon at April 13, 2007 11:36 AM (hjX2J)
3
Whoa, wait just a minute. There's no evidence that these three guys hired the strippers, or that they were in any way involved in name-calling or whatever else led up to the false accusations. In fact, there's solid evidence that at least one of them (Seligmann) and perhaps another (Finnerty) left the party before the strippers got down to business. It's certainly reasonable to assume, based on those actions, that they did not want any part of the strip show, thought it was inappropriate and took steps to remove themselves from the situation. That's behavior we should be applauding, not, as Moran does, ignore it and continue to smear these guys as sleaze bags.
To leap from being at a college party to being charged with forcible rape and sodomy--and kidnapping!--isn't just unfair, it's insane! These guys did NOTHING illegal (since there's no evidence that I'm aware of that they were drinking alcohol, even if it was at the party). Even if one of these three was guilty of underage drinking, to say that this action makes it okay to in essence say that they got what they deserved is grotesque.
Posted by: Martian Man at April 13, 2007 11:42 AM (8VScv)
4
I'm missing something ... What, exactly, does their prior behavior have to do with the case against them? They could be misogynist racists of the worst kind and that would have WHAT to do with being dragged through the courts on demonstrably false charges?
Posted by: DoorHold at April 13, 2007 12:02 PM (Ca5qr)
5
Perhaps I should clarify that I'm not agreeing with all of Moran's blog entry (I most certainly don't). I just agree with the sentiment that they are innocent, but not
innocents.
As I listened to the lawyer's press conference (local radio here) after the case was dropped, the lawyers swung the pendulum too far in the other direction, attempting to paint the lacrosse players as near saints.
I don't think these guys are bad kids (well, Finnerty in questionable), but absolutely normal college kids.
Trying to portray them as wronged saints or superbly moral young men as the lawyers laid it on thick during their press conference is just as stupid as trying to pin on them a crime they didn't commit.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at April 13, 2007 12:37 PM (9y6qg)
6
As pointed out above, two of the defendants cleared out as soon as they had a chance. It's been known about Reade Seligman for a while. Colin Finnerty's just spoken for the first time on his whereabouts that night
http://www.newsday.com/news/printedition/longisland/ny-liduke135169193apr13,0,5792628.story?coll=ny-linews-print
Dave Evans lived in the house.
As far as Colin Finnerty's DC incident, the judge set aside the verdict some time ago saying, in effect, "What the hell was I thinking?"
The lacrosse team made a dumb decision one night. They let the two liars into the house. Young people can make dumb mistakes from time to time. Any parent knows this. They've been telling the truth ever since.
Compare this to the long-term behavior of the so-called adults
1) A 27-yo woman lies about rape and continues to lie for a year and is lying about it to this day. She could have stopped any time.
2) The DA, a sworn officer of the court, uses this lie to exploit a racial divide for his own personal gain. He knew it was a lie and could have stopped any time. Any one of his ADAs or the DPD could have blown the whistle on the lie at any time. They were silent and are still silent.
3) Half the voting citizens of Durham buy into the lie even after it was clear the DA was trying to railroad three men. They had plenty of time and information to consider their vote.
4) A university faculty that rushed to start an on-campus cultural war using the lie as an exemplar aided and abetted by a (best you can say about him) passive university president. They are still unwilling to take responsibility for their acting on the lie. In fact, most of them continue to act as if the lie is true. "Fake but true".
5) A press, with a very few notable exceptions, that so bought into the lie that they promoted the lie as the truth. What happened to a skeptical treatment of the claims of the government?
Compared to the cold, calculating, craven, cowardly and malicious people who used one dumb mistake for their own self gain, the members of the lacrosse team ARE innocents. But after the behavior of the supposedly responsible people around them they are innocents no more.
With all that, anyone continuing to jump up and down on the remains of last year's lacrosse team has climbed into the same sinking ship with Nifong and the rest. The sharks are circling. Enjoy your swim.
Posted by: Locomotive Breath at April 13, 2007 01:45 PM (W7Snj)
7
Locomotive Breath, perhaps you need to realize that the "with us or or against" construct you're advocating is
precisely the flip-side of the same overheated, illogical rush to judgement of those you claim to revile.
As I said in the main post, in the comment directly above yours, and now this one, these young men made some mistakes. Trying to portray them as wronged saints or superbly moral young (as theri lawyers have done) men is a lie as well. They're just normal college guys.
Period.
Trying to say that those of us who aren't lining up to sing their praises as being in the same league as the strippers, Nifong, the press, and the "Gang of 88" is disingenuous, and more than a little craven.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at April 13, 2007 02:11 PM (9y6qg)
8
Confederate Yankee, I think that you've gotten yourself off on the wrong track. You say you wanted simply to say that Reade, Dave and Collin were "just normal college guys" instead of saints. Why didn't you simply say that if that was your intent? I watched the entire news conference of both Roy Cooper and later that of the attorneys of the three young Duke students who were exonerated. I recall not one statement implying that the three were saints or angels. I do recall statements that they were decent, hard working and yes normal young men. And that's about as good as it gets. Do you know any saints or angels? I don't. You took a gratuitous shot at their characters? What would make you want to do such a thing. I think that your words have said more about YOUR character than about the character of these three young men.
Posted by: Whippersnapper at April 13, 2007 02:33 PM (7igc6)
9
Just
wow.
I said they were "just normal college guys," said that they should not be made into heroes, and said that we should "be able to redress the travesty of justice committed against them without making them into idols or figureheads of purity."
To you, saying such obvious truths is "gratuitous shot at their characters"?
I hope you've got a good grip on that saddle; I'd hate for you to fall off such a high horse.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at April 13, 2007 02:40 PM (9y6qg)
10
"Locomotive Breath, perhaps you need to realize that the "with us or or against" construct you're advocating is precisely the flip-side of the same overheated, illogical rush to judgement of those you claim to revile."
Not so. In contrast to a year ago, the facts are now known and the balance can be weighed in its proper perspective.
The lacrosse team immediately admitted what they did do and have apologized for it profusely for over a year. They also told the truth about what they did NOT do and were called liers and far worse.
Ever had your photo on the cover of Newsweek with the word RAPE next to it?
Ever had a "wanted poster" spread all over your campus and had people hunt you down and harass you on a daily basis and call you a liar?
Ever had anyone stand outside your house banging pots and holding a banner that says "Castrate"?
Ever had a portion of the faculty of your school calling you a bigot and liar and leading the witch hunt?
Ever had the administration of your school stand by and do nothing while that was going on and meanwhile the President launches into long soliloquies about the seriousness of the crime with which you're charged?
Ever had the administration, initially, at least, tell the New Black Panther Party that they believe in free speech so an on campus march would be just fine? (The admin finally came to their senses and halted the NBPP at the edge of campus.)
Ever been ordered to flee your dorm room during finals week in fear for your life because the NBPP was coming to town promising justice?
Ever had a member of the NBPP shout "Dead man walking" to you in a court of law and had the judge blithely ignore it?
Ever had to put your life on hold for 13 months because someone told an obvious lie about you?
Ever had to spend $3,000,000 to keep from going to jail for 20-30 years?
There's much more. Want me to go on?
In short, whatever their faults and mistakes, they've put PAID, PAID and PAID again to any debt they might have.
On the day of their complete and historic exoneration (yes historic - ever heard an AG say "completely innocent" before?), for anyone to even BRING UP their many-times acknowledged and paid-off mistakes is a small-minded and petty attempt to tarnish a completely one-sided vindication and does, in fact, put them in the same boat with the people who tried to railroad them because that's EXACTLY what those people are saying. There is no nuance or moral equivalency today.
Posted by: Locomotive Breath at April 13, 2007 03:05 PM (W7Snj)
11
Confederate Yankee, have you read Terry Moran's article in its entirety? I'm assuming you have since you stated that you "tend to think he's right". By saying that you've laid your blessing on the thinking that he has espoused. And I believe that he's grounding much of his apparent belief in the intrinsic badness of "priviledged white males". You may think that's a wonderful bandwaggon to jump on, but I don't and I don't respect any one who jumps on such beliefs. I guess you're feeling your way toward the mainstream media. Well, I'm off to get on my high horse and ride away.
Posted by: Whippersnapper at April 13, 2007 03:20 PM (6yHgW)
12
So what you are saying, LB, is that the horrors they have been exposed to for things they didn't do, completely exonerates them for any of the things that they did do.
Gotta go.
John McCain was tortured in a Vietnamese prison camp, so I own him an apology for opposing his campaign finance reform bill.
/sarcasm.
Just like those you say you are not emulating, you're attempting to whip up an emotional response, and you give in to that emotional response on your own, whipping yourself into an indignant lather, convinced above all that those who disagree with you in any way are the scum of the earth.
I have made the profoundly profane statement that these young men should not be canonized or made into idols. I furthered the blasphemy by stating they were "absolutely normal college kids."
Wow.
What harsh, unforgivable language I used.
Perhaps I should be beheaded with a lacrosse stick, and my skull nailed to the front door of Duke Chapel as a warning to others who dare not bow to the feet of three otherwise ordinary men.
Ever had your photo on the cover of Newsweek with the word RAPE next to it?
No. the closest I ever got was the opinion section of the Washington
Post beside Charles Krauthammer.
The words next to my headshot?
Not Rape.
Toodles. Gotta write that letter asking forgiveness from St. John of Arizona.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at April 13, 2007 03:37 PM (9y6qg)
13
I think the offending graph in his piece wsd where he compared the Duke lax players as with the Rutgers team and said their lives won't be so bad now that they've been exonerated.
It smacked of haughty left-wing elitism:
As students of Duke University or other elite institutions, these young men will get on with their privileged lives. There is a very large cushion under them--the one that softens the blows of life for most of those who go to Duke or similar places, and have connections through family, friends and school to all kinds of prospects for success. They are very differently situated in life from, say, the young women of the Rutgers University women's basketball team.
http://newsbusters.org/node/12002
Posted by: Ken Shepherd at April 13, 2007 04:25 PM (Kvgcl)
14
Confederate Yankee:
Perhaps I should be beheaded with a lacrosse stick, and my skull nailed to the front door of Duke Chapel"
No you just need a good kick up the backside.
These kids have suffered for well over a year now and any gracious person would allow them their day in the sun.
It takes a vicious small-minded fool to throw trivial and irrelevant allegations at them.
The racists in this saga have uniformly been on the side attacking the boys.
Posted by: Blue at April 14, 2007 04:06 AM (90v6c)
15
Confederate Yankee,
I think we all realize these college kids are just that. Certainly they are no saints, and you have subsequently made clear in the comments you agree with this point.
I just think your initial post did not do an effective job of conveying that. At all.
Further, I suppose I see you point, and find it has some merit. But -- and don't attack me, this is just my very subjective personal opinion -- your focus is a bit off. I know that bloggers need to "differentiate" themselves, especially if they want to post on topics de jure that other bloggers are posting on. But, in trying to do so, I think you've missed the forest for the trees.
You come off as a sympathizer with all those who play the victim and the rest of those towing the line of the liberal mindset. I have read some of your other posts when they are linked on Memeorandum. This is fairly sub-par by standards you have previously displayed.
Not your best work. Hope your skin is thick enough to take some constructive criticism.
Posted by: mjs1_23 at April 14, 2007 05:33 AM (h/fR0)
16
I must say this has given me a whole new opinion of you and believe me, it's not favorable. Whether they're innocent or not has nothing to do with the fact that their life has been hell this past year. They've been falsely accused and declared guilty of a heinous crime and both you and Moran are guilty of reverse bigotry.
Posted by: CajunKate at April 14, 2007 01:00 PM (ox+7Q)
17
Well of course if they were mysongist racists than there would be a higher likelyhood of guilt. Mysoginst racts are more likely to do the things that they were accused of doing.
Posted by: John Ryan at April 14, 2007 04:25 PM (TcoRJ)
18
and the Black Panthers called them white devils and threatened their lives, please do not get into moral equivalence, those strippers mocked those boy with comments such as "small di**ed crackers, you get what you give and just because you get angry and give it back does not mean you go to jail for 30 years, give me a break.
Posted by: Rightmom at April 16, 2007 10:08 AM (0lpqx)
19
I'd expect a comment like this from the Duke administration not from someone with any insight. Exactly what is the crime of these men that caused them to have their reputations destroyed and have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees? How much more noble they seem than the prosecutor, the accuser and the Duke staff, along with the MSM that judged them guilty based on their race.
They fought against incredible odds. They didn't give in. That goes along way with me. In contrast we have those who painted them as tainted corrupt people. I know who I'd pick. Its easy if you think.
Posted by: Thomas Jackson at April 16, 2007 11:54 PM (YXXuO)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Black Panther Calls Malkin a Prostitute
Ah,
leftists in action.
On the show she apparently creamed him, according to Don Surber:
You could almost feel the delight in her as she knew she had him. She stuck to her guns while he sputtered and locked into the name-calling mode. He is so stuck in the '60s (although he is far too young to have lived much then) that he could not understand that women really are the equal of men and that they can think for themselves — and mature into the same conservatives that educated men become.
Malkin's response to Malik Shabazz's name-calling is here.
It's rather sad in this day and age that women and minorities, especially women who are minorities, are treated so horribly if they have political opinions that stray from what some people think that their skin color should believe.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:15 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 151 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Who cares about the Black Panthers? Do you honestly believe they represent mainstream liberalism? If I debate someone from the Aryan Brotherhood can I score some big points for liberals?
Posted by: Lex Steele at April 13, 2007 11:41 AM (0bhUe)
2
...And myleaky shabby is a prostitute for islam,which has enslaved and brutalized his race FAR WORSE,than Whitey ever has,and for over 1,000 longer;the amount of time Whitey "enslaved" blacks,is a drop in the ocean,compared to islam's enslavement and brutalization.
Posted by: kelly at April 13, 2007 12:15 PM (vd4Fg)
3
"the brown, female mouthpiece for racist drivel." = doesn't know her place on Retief's plantation.
Just no point to debating the Left.
Aux les lanternes!
Posted by: SDN at April 13, 2007 10:20 PM (CNYKS)
4
"Who cares about the Black Panthers? Do you honestly believe they represent mainstream liberalism?"
Even today, many leftists defend the Black Panther Party.
Posted by: pst314 at April 14, 2007 01:32 PM (lCxSZ)
5
Obviously the Black Panthers do represent mainstream Left thinking. Why is it that no Leftists denounce them or their allies Jessie and Al?
The only thing that differentiates them from the Left is they are more candid in their canards.
Posted by: Thomas Jackson at April 16, 2007 11:59 PM (YXXuO)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 12, 2007
Because Unfair Charges are Wrong
One day after normally cautious North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper blasted the handling of the Duke Lacrosse rape case and took the extraordinary step of declaring the charged players innocent of all counts, disgraced Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong has issued a trite
semi-apology:
Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong acknowledged today that three former Duke University lacrosse players were "wrongfully accused" of sexual assault.
Nifong released a statement one day after N.C. Attorney General Roy Cooper dismissed the charges against the lacrosse players and declared them "innocent" and the victims of an "unchecked" prosecutor who rushed to judgment.
"It is and has always been the goal of our criminal justice system to see that the guilty are punished and that the innocent are set free," Nifong wrote. "No system based on human judgment can ever work perfectly.
"Those of us who work within that system can only make the best judgments we can," Nifong continued. "To the extent that I made judgments that utimately [sic] proved to be incorrect, I apologize to the three suspects that were wrongly accused. ... It is my sincere desire that the actions of Attorney General Cooper will serve to remedy any remaining injury that has resulted from these cases."
But Nifong disputed Cooper's assessment of him as a "rogue" prosecutor.
"The fact that I instead chose to seek that review should in and of itself call into question the characterizations of this prosecution as 'rogue' and 'unchecked,'" he wrote.
Shorter Mike Nifong: "I'll accept that charges shouldn't have been brought, but don't call me a "rogue" just because I conspired to hide evidence that would have exonerated the accused and used a mentally-disturbed girl's inconsistent stories as a battering ram to bludgeon my way into an elected office I promised to the governor himself I would not run for.
"Why, it is horrible to stigmatize someone with an inaccurate description.
'Cause that would, you know, be wrong."
Nifong faces a hearing at the North Carolina State Bar's Disciplinary Hearing Committee tomorrow afternoon at 4:00 PM, which will determine if he will be stripped of his law license.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
03:37 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 363 words, total size 2 kb.
1
The closest Nifong should ever be allowed to a courtroom in the future is as part of the night cleanup crew.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at April 12, 2007 04:19 PM (UWdQL)
2
Sorry Purple - I hate to disagree but I think he should be allowed back into a courtroom...as a defendent. Didn't this yahoo do some justice obstuctin'?
Posted by: sami at April 12, 2007 05:12 PM (lj7cz)
3
William "cold cash" Jefferson !!!
Never indicted but tried in the press don't we ALL feel badly for having pre-judged him also ?
Posted by: John Ryan at April 14, 2007 04:27 PM (TcoRJ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Ten Fred Thompson Facts
From
U.S News & World Report:
- Fred Thompson has two speeds: Walk and Kill.
- Fred Thompson once shot down a German fighter plane with his finger, by yelling, "Bang!"
- Fred Thompson has counted to infinity. Twice.
- Fred Thompson is the only man to ever defeat a brick wall in a game of tennis.
- The opening scene of the movie "Saving Private Ryan" is loosely based on games of dodge ball Fred Thompson played in second grade.
- When Fred Thompson goes to donate blood, he declines the syringe, and instead requests a hand gun and a bucket.
- Fred ThompsonÂ’s house has no doors, only walls that he walks through.
- When taking the SAT, write "Fred Thompson" for every answer. You will score a 1600.
- The show Survivor had the original premise of putting people on an island with Fred Thompson. There were no survivors and the pilot episode tape has been burned.
- Fred Thompson ordered a Big Mac at Burger King, and got one.
At least I think that is from U.S News & World Report.
I hired Katie Couric's producer as my fact checker, and now I'm not so sure.* *
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:51 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 190 words, total size 2 kb.
1
LOL... a welcome break from the Chuck Norris Facts(tm).
Posted by: Jeff at April 12, 2007 01:15 PM (yiMNP)
2
You sure that you're not getting Fred confused with
Jack Bauer?
Posted by: lawhawk at April 12, 2007 02:20 PM (a8MXW)
3
Yeah, I want to be Jack Bauer because everywhere I go there would be a satellite I could use to see what is around me and there would NEVER be a cloud between me and that satellite.
Posted by: crosspatch at April 12, 2007 03:23 PM (y2kMG)
4
This article, and those items, #1 through 10, has been plagerizied by the Katie Couric Crew! It should read Nancy "Grandma" Pelosi in lieu of Fred Thompson!! At least that's what Charles Gibson over at ABC probably thinks. Upon discovery of this blatant reversal of facts it is believed Gibson exclaimed..."Well I'll be a nappy-headed hoe!"
Al Sharton wasn't notified of this alleged incident, apparently he was too busy for comment, as he was "handlin bidness" looking for more D sized batteries for his bullhorn. Ex- D.A. Nifong refused comment, but with head in hands, mumbled something about not touchin another hoe with a 10 foot pole (not sure if this was a reference to people of Polish descent). That's all for now. Hey! Who put the chopped ham in my Koran?!
Posted by: jihadgene at April 12, 2007 10:40 PM (FTAjp)
5
Here are some others on Fred.
1 His current wife is younger than his oldest daughter would be (if she hadn't died from a drug overdose)
2 He was the one that coined the phrase that killed Nixon's presidency "what did the President know and when did he know it"
3 Most of his adult life was spent as a lobyist for big corporations
4 He doesn't look as good or as well in real life as he does on TV
5 How can someone who strongly supports the Cuban embargo always be smoking those Cuban cigars ?
Posted by: John Ryan at April 14, 2007 04:32 PM (TcoRJ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Meanwhile, in the Other War...
I think the casualty figures are probably inflated, but the overall impact is still
worth noting:
President Gen. Pervez Musharraf said Thursday that tribesmen have killed about 300 foreign militants during a weekslong offensive near the Afghan border and acknowledged for first time that they received military support.
The fighting that began last month in South Waziristan has targeted mainly Uzbek militants with links to al-Qaida who have sheltered in the tribal region since escaping the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan in late 2001.
"The people of South Waziristan now have risen against the foreigners. They have killed about 300 of them, and they got support from the Pakistan army. They asked for support," Musharraf said in a speech at a military conference in Islamabad.
This amounts to a stronger enemy force killing off a weaker enemy force, and not something that I'd necessarily say is worth celebrating. However, if enough Taliban tribesmen and al Qaeda-linked militants kill each other, it might bleed their enthusiasm to take their jihad to NATO forces in Afghanistan for the time being.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:25 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 187 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Oh yeah things are going just GREAT there also
Posted by: John Ryan at April 14, 2007 04:33 PM (TcoRJ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Smoking Kills
Mike Yon reports from within a British Army assault on al Sadr-alligned Shia militia forces, a fight that saw 26-27 militiamen killed and 4,000 rounds of ammunition expended.
The British forces suffered no wounded, at least until after the battle was well over....
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:04 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 47 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Everyday in that neighborhood about 100 guys turn 21. Population 3,000,000 1/2 male do the math.
Posted by: John Ryan at April 14, 2007 04:36 PM (TcoRJ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 11, 2007
Duke Players Innocent / Media Outs Accuser
Read
Ace for the analysis of Attorney General Roy Cooper's press conference stating the Duke Lacrosse players were innocent of all legal charges brought against them.
The Raleigh News and Observer, perhaps upset that the public furor, class warfare and racial acrimony they helped stir up turned out to be false, reacted by "outing" the accuser.
Her identity was an open secret for months on the Internet, but the decision to publish the name of someone that might be less than stable in the community where she lives seems punitive in nature, and perhaps more than a little dangerous.
Update: The N&O explains why they outed her.
Fox piles on. Hard.
Most other media outlets display a little bit of class.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:44 PM
| Comments (16)
| Add Comment
Post contains 135 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I haven't commented on this anywhere, not even my own blog, even though I live in Durham.
I was embarrassed for our town for a lot of reasons, not the least for attracting the attention of idiots like Rita Cosby and Nancy Grace.
But it had everything needed to become the distraction du jour - race, sex, poor vs. rich, townie vs. university kids. That Nifong pushed it so hard to curry favor with our politically-powerful black community didn't help.
Now these rich kids are probably going to sue the city and I can't say I blame them. The trouble is, it'll come out of my pocket.
I hate to see innocent people wrongfully accused (one of the reasons I'm a liberal) and these lacrosse kids didn't deserve what they got, but they were no angels. The entire team was out of control and the coach deserved to lose his job. It wasn't unusual for the team to take over one of the sports bars downtown, get roaring drunk, puke on the tables and then stiff the waitress with no tip or, sometimes, an unpaid check.
Because they were Duke athletes, they got a free pass. So there was no sympathy for them in this case, but it was, in the end, an injustice.
As with so many things in life, there are no good guys in this story.
Posted by: David Terrenoire at April 11, 2007 03:09 PM (kxecL)
2
David,
While I understand what you are saying, that is really arguing apples and oranges. That the locals (bar owners, police, etc) allow the star athletes to get away with acting like idiots is not even remotely the same thing as someone taking the power of the state to persecute innocent people, all for political gain.
Your town deserves to have a huge civil judgment against it and for the victims (the lacrosse players). Maybe that will help wake the powerful black community up. Anyone with one iota of sense would have realized that Nifong was pandering and it was clear pretty early on that the lacrosse players were innocent.
Where was your town then? Maybe if some people in your town had the conscience to step forward way back when and do something about Nifong and deal with this case, the town would not get what is coming to it.
Simply saying bahh, everyone is a bad guy is moral relativism at its worse, and is why I am NOT a liberal. There were good guys and bad guys here. The good guys were the innocent lacrosse players. The bad guys were Nifong, your town's police department, other prosecutors in your town's DA office, your town's electorate, and the college teachers and administration.
Sorry, but maybe you should think a little harder before trying to claim these guys got what they deserve b/c they acted like drunk college kids. Your town, and the liberal class/race victim mentality is about to reap what it has been sowing for all these years in your town. It is a reckoning that is going to come to more and more towns in the future as well, as people abrogate personal responsibility for the greater meta-narrative of class and race victimology, and the vast majority of Americans get sick enough of it to lash back.
As to whether the accuser should have her identity published - I say yes. And, I don't care that she may be mentally unbalanced. Maybe she, or her therapist, or someone in her family should have thought of that before they allowed her to try and ruin innocent people's lives. Maybe liberals should re-think their position on not allowing us to involuntarily commit the mentally ill. If we could have put her in a mental institution, where she allegedly claims to belong, maybe this would not have happened.
Posted by: Great Banana at April 11, 2007 03:42 PM (JFj6P)
3
To try and explain my point above a little more,
In almost every civil rights false arrest, malicious prosecution, excessive force claim that I deal with (I defend municipalities in such cases), the plaintiff is usually someone with a fairly lengthy records, people who have a lot of contact with the police.
Then, in some incident, they may have a case as to false arrest, or excessive force.
Should we as a society say - bahhh, they are all bad guys here and not allow the plaintiff's civil suit to go forward b/c of his previous record? Should the police be allowed to use excessive force on people b/c they were bad in past incidents?
that's just one example of the kind of reasoning displayed in the "no good guys here" type of argument in order to try and wallpaper the reason this case got to where it is today.
Posted by: Great Banana at April 11, 2007 03:48 PM (JFj6P)
4
Great Banana,
There were plenty of people in this town who did exactly what you suggested.
And pleasedon't read into what I wrote that I think the lacrosse players were wrongly accused. Look back and you'll see I used the word "injustice." I don't use that word carelessly.
No, these kids were out of control but they didn't deserve what they got. When I said there are no good guys in this case, I stand by that. They didn't deserve what they got, but they deserved some discipline before.
The coach deserved to lose his job. The kids should have been kicked out of school for their behavior. They should not have been prosecuted.
I hope that's clear enough. Again, read what I originally wrote, not what you think I wrote.
Posted by: David Terrenoire at April 11, 2007 04:00 PM (kxecL)
5
And please don't read into what I wrote that I think the lacrosse players were wrongly accused.
That should read, ...that I don't think the players were wrongfully accused.
They were.
Just wanted to clean up that typo.
And Great Banana, we agree on everything except that "no good guys" statement. Those kids were punks and someone should have kicked their butts (like their parents) a long time ago. They are not good guys, but that doesn't make them rapists.
Posted by: David Terrenoire at April 11, 2007 04:08 PM (kxecL)
6
It wasn't unusual for the team to take over one of the sports bars downtown, get roaring drunk, puke on the tables and then stiff the waitress with no tip or, sometimes, an unpaid check.
IOW - they behaved like college students.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at April 11, 2007 04:38 PM (yHGOW)
7
>>>I hate to see innocent people wrongfully accused (one of the reasons I'm a liberal)>>
You have got to be kidding me. Funniest thing I've read in weeks. Oh, man, this from a guy who has pics on his blog of Karl Rove being led off to prison. Gosh, David, see please tell me all the crimes that Rove has committed. Or are you just wrongfully accusing someone you disagree with, and maybe that's the reason you're a liberal, hmm?
Posted by: a commenter at April 11, 2007 06:59 PM (RtCfp)
8
a commenter,
There are things in the world called jokes, even jokes with an edge, and then there's the real world.
And there are things that are against the law and then there's behavior that, while not illegal, is certainly disgraceful.
I know the difference.
Posted by: David Terrenoire at April 11, 2007 11:12 PM (tk0b2)
9
Posted by David Terrenoire at April 11, 2007 11:12 PM
I understand where you are coming from. I do disagree on one small point. The players should be held accountable for their own actions, that the police and townspeople chose not to allowed them to believe their actions were accepted. Since the town implicitly allowed them there "steam blowing", the fault lies with the town, not the players. The town had no control. Put the blame where it belongs so you that live there can stop this from happening again. Make the officials do their jobs, not turn away.
Posted by: Retired Navy at April 12, 2007 05:20 AM (BuYeH)
10
If leaving small/no tips is a crime, we'd have to indict the whole country of Canada. Canadians during tourist season in FL are notorious no tippers.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at April 12, 2007 10:05 AM (yHGOW)
11
David T.
You are moralizing (in fact you may be racist using the criteria applied to Imus). You are trying the players based on your concept of how people should act. They did not break the law by drinking and getting sick. They did not deserve to be brought before the law and condemed in the manner that occured.
The faculty at Duke used your brand of moralizing to condeme these men based on very little evidence available to them and thus made their lives even more miserable.
I have been to Durham. I found the town to be extremely racist. But it was black on white, not the other way. In that environment it is easy to understand how this tragedy occured.
I certainly hope that the town is bankrupt by this action and that the same occurs to Duke and the "88".
Posted by: David Caskey,MD at April 12, 2007 12:07 PM (G5i3t)
12
David Caskey MD,
Apparently they hand out MDs to people who have little reading comprehension.
Sweet Jebus. Here. In short sentences. In few syllables:
The boys did not deserve what happened to them.
The boys were undisciplined punks.
The boys have every right to sue.
Now, if anyone can find "moralizing" whatever that means (and if it means calling bad behavior bad then paint me guilty), or "moral relativism" in those three sentences, it's because you have pulled it out of your own bigoted backside.
And Doc, if you can't stand a little rough and tumble, Durham is not the town for you. Try Cary. It's boring, it's bland, it's beige, and I think it's just your speed.
Posted by: David Terrenoire at April 12, 2007 12:45 PM (tk0b2)
13
David T.
Perhaps I can read a bit better than you can express yourself. In one part of your comments you indicate that you are so sorry for these people, but then in another you bring up their priviledged behavior. To a reader or listener this negative counters the positive statement and implies that you really like that something bad happened to the boys. I am not the only one on this blog that got the message.
The personal attack is true to what I have seen of liberals.
As to being able to "take it". You obviously missed the point. The people of Durham (for what ever reason) are prejudiced against whites. It takes only about 5 minutes in a public setting to get this message. Thus any white will not get fair treatment at their hands and their actions are the result of their hate. Notice that whites are not allowed this priveldge.
Posted by: David Caskey,MD at April 12, 2007 01:39 PM (G5i3t)
14
Here's the Coleman report which was issued in the aftermath of the party last spring. I encourage Confederate Yankee readers to have a look. You will soon realize that characterizing the lacrosse team as "undisciplined punks" is a gross overstatement. Yes they liked to party, but you don't achieve near national champion status with a 10 year 100% graduation rate by being undisciplined.
http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/mmedia/features/lacrosse_incident/lacrossereport.html
The underlying problem is that Duke about 10 years ago made an effort to push alcohol off campus. We (I'm an alum) used to have our keggers on campus where we could be loud and rowdy and not bother the locals. Everybody was happy except for the neo-prohibitionists. So now the law of unintended consequences takes over and we have unconstructive interactions between students and locals.
Posted by: Locomotive Breath at April 12, 2007 01:52 PM (W7Snj)
15
I meant to add...
"the decision to publish the name of someone that might be less than stable in the community where she lives seems punitive in nature"
An unstable woman who maintains for a year multiple rape stories that are untrue and causes the mess she has needs to be identified so the rest of us can stay the hell away from her. If that's punitive it's far less than the 30 year incarceration that she deserves for trying to get these three guys sent to jail for the same 30 years and is a small enough price to pay.
Posted by: Locomotive Breath at April 12, 2007 01:59 PM (W7Snj)
16
Well...I'm not sure whether here ID should have been published. But I will say this - the young men's names were published, and they were dragged through hell - and who ended up being the victims? Newspapers in general do not publish the names of the "victim" of a sex crime. But as it turns out, this woman was not a victim. The guys were. So what is fair? My own POV is that no names are published until the proceedings are done. There are way to many false allegations happening in this country.
BTW David T. - As I understand it, not all of the three boys were "rich kids". Maybe you are unaware of how much it costs to defend yourself in court nowadays. Figure loosely about $100K per year before trial, and another $100K at trial. Realism hurts, doesn't it?
Posted by: Specter at April 13, 2007 08:48 AM (ybfXM)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Fisking Fisk
The man who has been wrong so often that he
became a verb, is
at it again:
Faced with an ever-more ruthless insurgency in Baghdad - despite President George Bush's "surge" in troops - US forces in the city are now planning a massive and highly controversial counter-insurgency operation that will seal off vast areas of the city, enclosing whole neighbourhoods with barricades and allowing only Iraqis with newly issued ID cards to enter.
The campaign of "gated communities" - whose genesis was in the Vietnam War - will involve up to 30 of the city's 89 official districts and will be the most ambitious counter-insurgency programme yet mounted by the US in Iraq.
The system has been used - and has spectacularly failed - in the past, and its inauguration in Iraq is as much a sign of American desperation at the country's continued descent into civil conflict as it is of US determination to "win" the war against an Iraqi insurgency that has cost the lives of more than 3,200 American troops. The system of "gating" areas under foreign occupation failed during the French war against FLN insurgents in Algeria and again during the American war in Vietnam. Israel has employed similar practices during its occupation of Palestinian territory - again, with little success.
Mr. Fisk claims that the style of counterinsurgency to be used in Baghdad had its "genesis" in the Vietnam War. This is especially troubling, considering that in the very next paragraph, Fisk brings up the French war in Algeria as another example.
The seminal work of counter-insurgency, Counterinsurgency Warfare: Theory and Practice was written in 1964 by French Lt. Col David Galula, eight years after he first implemented them in 1956 in Greater Kabylia, east of Algiers.
The United States did not bring ground troops into Vietnam until the first detachment of 3,500 Marines was dispatched on March 8, 1965, nearly a decade after Galula began modern counter-insurgency tactics in Algeria.
I'm quite curious: does Robert Fisk conduct his research using "alternative history" books as a guide?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:46 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 347 words, total size 2 kb.
1
You could interpret this phrase:
"The campaign of 'gated communities' - whose genesis was in the Vietnam War..."
as referring to the American military's adoption of the technique - sloppy writing instead of a mistake - as he gets the chronology correct later in the quoted piece here:
"The system of 'gating' areas under foreign occupation failed during the French war ... in Algeria and again during the American war in Vietnam."
I'm not so interested in whether Fisk got his chronology wrong as I am whether he's right about the 'gating' idea. I assume he's talking about strategic hamlets in Vietnam and, in that case, they were a monumental failure mostly because we moved people away from their homes which went against deeply engrained cultural norms.
That seems to be a whole different kettle of
nuoc mom than what we're proposing in Iraq.
If that's what he's referring to then Fisk is indeed wrong, but for much more significant reasons than merely getting his history bolloxed.
Posted by: David Terrenoire at April 11, 2007 01:43 PM (kxecL)
2
Fisk is an idiot. nuf said.
Posted by: 1sttofight at April 11, 2007 01:53 PM (+gb4I)
3
David,
From the best I can determine via
Google fu, you are very correct on Fisk's micharacterization of how "gating" was applied in these different countries. I considered writing about that aspect of the story as well, but wasn't sure if it was worth the effort.
In both Vietnam and Algeria, what Fisk calls "gating" was accomplished by moving locals from one location to another, and based upon what I can tell from a few storeis I looked up, the Algerian experience with that technique was even more dismal that the Vietnam attempt.
What Petraeus may be considering--and at this point, considering Fisk's track record, that is very much up in the air--is simply controlling access to existing communities. These are, as you point out, quite different things that Fisk tries to conflate into being one, and a tactic that seems to be a "no-brainer" on the surface. If there is evidecne to suggest that people are moving from one area to another to carry out attacks (there is), then restricting their ability to reach their targets seems to make a great deal of sense.
You can't blame Fisk for trying, however. He didn't become Osama Bin Laden's favorite western journalist without putting for this kind of effort.
As a side note, please don't bring up
nuoc mom again. My stomach is a little queasy today as it is. :-)
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at April 11, 2007 01:59 PM (9y6qg)
4
Thanks, Bob.
And I promise, no more
nuoc mom.
But like other things in this world, once you get used to the smell, it's really quite tasty.
Sorry. I couldn't resist.
Posted by: David Terrenoire at April 11, 2007 02:28 PM (kxecL)
5
"Faced with an ever-more ruthless insurgency in Baghdad"
Interesting choice of words. "Ruthless" is subjective. It can't be measured. There could be fewer attacks or less casualties but the attackers could be more "ruthless". It also can't be argued against because how does one go about proving that people are more or less "ruthless" than before?
Fisk is entertaining if not particularly informative.
Posted by: crosspatch at April 11, 2007 09:54 PM (y2kMG)
6
I guess not being ruthless means you're a murderer who doesn't just drop bodies on any old street corner. You have a concern for the environment and don't litter.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at April 12, 2007 05:40 AM (yHGOW)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Is the Associated Press At it Again?
You'll likely remember that the Associated Press uncritically published an Association of Muslim Scholars
claim on November 25, 2006 that 18 Sunni worshipers were killed in an "inferno" at the Al Muhaimin mosque in the Hurriyah neighborhood of Baghdad:
And the Association of Muslim Scholars, the most influential Sunni organization in Iraq, said even more victims were burned to death in attacks on the four mosques. It claimed a total of 18 people had died in an inferno at the al-Muhaimin mosque.
The claim has never been substantiated.
To the contrary, the Iraqi military forces reported no evidence of a fire having ever occurred inside the mosque, a conclusion also supported in U.S. military accounts. A photo of the interior of the mosque taken the very next day proves there was no "inferno."
The Associated Press has never issued a retraction or a correction for this clearly fabricated claim.
But why throw away a perfectly good source, just because they've been caught fabricating stories?
Today, the Associated Press once again used the Association of Muslim Scholars as a quite dubious source:
The Muslim Scholars Association, a Sunni group, issued a statement quoting witnesses as saying Tuesday's battle began after Iraqi troops entered a mosque and executed two young men in front of other worshippers. Ground forces used tear gas on civilians, it said.
"The association condemns this horrible crime carried out by occupiers and the government," the statement said.
But the witness in Fadhil said the two men were executed in an outdoor vegetable market, not in the mosque. The Iraqi military was not immediately available to comment on the claim.
Why does the Associated Press continue to use an organization with an obvious political agenda, ties to al Qaeda, and a documented history of providing false information as a source?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:47 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 315 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Why? I will tell you why because it supports the story they want to run, nothing more, nothing less.
Posted by: Rightmom at April 11, 2007 12:01 PM (0lpqx)
2
... because the Iraqi military was not available to comment on the "claim," perhaps? Odd though that the AP readily uses sources like the MSA but has no one available within the military to confirm or deny their stories before they go to print.
Posted by: DoorHold at April 11, 2007 02:06 PM (QTJvw)
3
That's a rhetorical question, right? Heh.
Posted by: Bleepless at April 12, 2007 10:02 PM (0+yKR)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Pelosi Diplomacy: Legitimizing Terrorism
When Democrat Presidential candidates Clinton, Obama and Edwards dropped out of the Congressional Black Caucus Institute debate that was going to be co-sponsored by Fox News, many liberals crowed over the decision. It is their contention that Fox News is an "illegitimate" news source (or a "
propaganda machine," or
not even a news outlet at all. Someone should tell
Nielsen), and that if these candidates had answered the questions provided by the CBCI in a televised debate on Fox News, it would "legitimize" the network.
Their central argument seems to be that if these Democrat candidates appeared on Fox, that their very presence would legitimize the news network.
Using that same logic, what then, should they make of this?
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Tom Lantos, D-San Mateo, just back from a trip to Syria that sparked sharp criticism from Republicans and the Bush administration, suggested Tuesday that they may be interested in taking another diplomatic trip - to open a dialogue with Iran.
The Democratic speaker from San Francisco and Lantos, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, were asked at a press conference in San Francisco Tuesday whether on the heels of their recent trip to the Middle East they would be interested in extending their diplomacy in the troubled region with a visit to Iran.
"Speaking just for myself, I would be ready to get on a plane tomorrow morning, because however objectionable, unfair and inaccurate many of (Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's) statements are, it is important that we have a dialogue with him,'' Lantos said. "Speaking for myself, I'm ready to go -- and knowing the speaker, I think that she might be.''
Pelosi did not dispute that statement, and noted that Lantos -- a Hungarian-born survivor of the Holocaust -- brought "great experience, knowledge and judgment" to the recent bipartisan congressional delegation trip to Israel, the Palestinian territories, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia in addition to Syria.
Pelosi has already been hammered for undermining U.S. foreign policy and possibly committing a felony when she visited Syrian President Bashir Assad, leader of a Baathist dictatorship that serves as a conduit for weapons bound for terror groups Hezbollah and Hamas, and is a regime that is implicated in the assassination of Lebanon's former prime minister.
Not content with botching her last and possibly illegal attempt to create her own foreign policy separate from that of the official position of the United States, Pelosi seems open to the idea of visiting Iran, a brutal mullacracy that provides munitions and training to terrorist groups, whose officials will be indicted for murder, a regime that has conclusively shipped a significant quantity of weapons into Iraq that have killed American soldiers.
Apparently, the double standard is this:
Liberals are solidly behind the idea of boycotting a news network to avoid giving them legitimacy, but they are in favor of defying their own government's foreign policy to lend legitimacy to yet another terrorist state that has sponsored attacks on our allies and are actively engaged in trying to kill U.S. soldiers.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:03 AM
| Comments (37)
| Add Comment
Post contains 517 words, total size 4 kb.
1
Correct me if I'm wrong. Current policy is
NOT to negotiate with terrorist entities in the event of a hostage situation? If so I encourage her to go.
Posted by: Boss429 at April 11, 2007 09:31 AM (a+Mxg)
2
For the record, I'm a liberal and I think all those candidates should go on Fox. Otherwise they're just gutless punks, much like a certain Commander in Chief and his manufactured town meetings.
I also think we should talk to our enemies, just as the Iraq Study Group suggested. Otherwise you have the Paris Hilton/Nicole Richie foreign policy that is working out so well for this administration.
More to the point, this is all last week's outrage. We've moved on to Don Imus' gaffe - this morning on MSNBC and Anna Nicole's baby's daddy - this morning on Fox. I don't know what was on CNN but I'm going to guess it was something equally vacuous.
Posted by: David Terrenoire at April 11, 2007 09:36 AM (kxecL)
3
The reason Dems shouldn't go on FOX is not because it might legitamize FOX as a news organization (they're politicians, not miracle workers), it's because it's a waste of their time.
If they wanted to go into a hostile environment, they could just go to Iraq.
BTW, nice job on that Iraq War. Now the whole world knows if you mess with America, we'll send our military over to lose a war to your teenagers.
Posted by: Robert at April 11, 2007 12:35 PM (VTtVl)
4
If Ms Pelosi did indeed commit a felony stop carping about it and CHARGE her. Apparently Mr Bush did not have any prior knowledge of her trip or did he?
Personally I would love to see the results of a Logan Act charge against the House speaker, so go ahead we dare you do it.
As to a dialog, with our enemies we know only wusses like the Brits talk first and shoot later or not at all.
Fox nooz is as any good Republic will tell the word of God spoken though Bill O'Reilly and God really does want to see Iran enveloped by a mushroom cloud ask Bill himself, the voices tell him it is so
Posted by: patx77 at April 11, 2007 12:57 PM (2kVOV)
5
first off...fox is not a news network by any definition.
second...you right wingers sure are torqued off that the adults are actually interested in pursueing an effective foreign policy. i know... big changes can be scary. karl has y'all so scared to death of the middle-eastern boogeymen that you can't even think straight.
Posted by: jay k. at April 11, 2007 01:16 PM (yu9pS)
6
Are you saying that Bashir Assad isn't the legitimate ruler of Syria?
Or are you saying that because Syria has a foreign policy that isn't in line with our own, Bashir Assad shouldn't be "legitimized"?
Either way, your thinking is convoluted and illogical.
Posted by: ME at April 11, 2007 01:24 PM (HsdZl)
7
Yeah, charge Pelosi with a felony...right after you charge the Republican congressmen who went BEFORE, DURING and AFTER Pelosi's trip.
But apparently, the double standard is this: Conservatives are solidly behind the idea of hypocritically attacking any Dem they can, but they are in favor of letting Bush ruin the worldwide goodwill we had from 9/11, forgetting that he still hasn't captured Bin Laden, and sitting idly by while he loses a war for us.
Nice work!
Posted by: MattM at April 11, 2007 01:46 PM (NZ/aJ)
8
NOTE: As if you couldn't tell by the off-topic, disjointed, and otherwise "reality-based" comments dropped by the last few commentors, this post was linked by Salon.com.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at April 11, 2007 02:06 PM (9y6qg)
9
NOTE: You can put all the quotation remarks around the words "reality-based" you want, but it doesn't change the fact that it is the Bush administration and it's zombie cheerleaders like yourself that are living in la-la land.
Posted by: Super90 at April 11, 2007 02:26 PM (j8Wg4)
10
Christ. It's a virtual moron convention around here.
"...sitting idly by while he loses a war for us."
As opposed to cheering on a loss like moral cretins like you. Do you losers realize that we're going to face intractable foreign enemies long after Bush is out of office. Do you really believe that nation states don't act on their own volition without provocation from the US? Are you that invested in hating Bush that you really think all of the world's and our problems will magically float away once he's gone. Are you
that imbecilic? Do you really think it's a winning political strategy to coddle our enemies? What part of "death to America" is so hard for you retards to understand?
Posted by: kelly at April 11, 2007 03:12 PM (5pSKg)
11
First off, Leatherfac Pelosi's visit isn't what was illegal, it was her trying to implement her own foreign policy over that of a standing presidnent (who has ultimate authority on foreign policy that made it illegal...and Jay K...you're a moron...I'd like to see what definition your talking about that defines Fox News as NOT a news organization (wikapedia doesn't count here) I'm sure by whatever definition you're "definging" fox news would also define other news sources (NPR, CNN NBC) as not news sources. MattM...you're another moron...the visit itself...although fround upon...is not the reason for the potential felony. You're just another glaring example of how emotionally driven liberal thinking is. I mean really, what else can you say about politicians who don't have enough courage to stand up to a news organization but are willing to suck the nuts of murderous dictators. It also says alot of what they think of certain Americans. So...I guess "all animals are equal bus some are more equal than others" can apply here.
Posted by: marco at April 11, 2007 03:27 PM (ZmIE8)
12
Kelly, I'd love you to show me where I said I was "cheering on a loss" or where I said our problems will "magically float away". Maybe you could point me to where I wrote that "a winning political strategy is to coddle our enemies"?
No really. I'll wait.
No? Can't find where I said that? Maybe you were just too busy calling me childish names and making up fantasies about what I said.
Maybe when you're through, you can explain to me how it's a winning strategy to keep killing more and more of our soldiers without ever changing strategy despite Iraq's continuing downward spiral.
Maybe you can explain how it's a winning political strategy to get thousands upon thousands of Iraqis (who were supposed to greet us as liberators, remember?) to flood the streets and demand we stop occupying their country?
Perhaps you can help me understand how ignoring almost every single recommendation of the Iraq Study Group is a smart move.
No really. I'll wait.
Can't do that either? Then I guess name calling and lying is all you have left. Which fits - because that's all your dumb-ass president has left, too.
Posted by: MattM at April 11, 2007 04:08 PM (NZ/aJ)
13
"I mean really, what else can you say about politicians who don't have enough courage to stand up to a news organization but are willing to suck the nuts of murderous dictators."
Marco, you're absolutely right. I can't believe Bush wouldn't conduct a single televised Town Hall meeting without handpicking his audience, and now has the nerve to talk with Kim Jong Il, and use rendition to deliver foreign captives who haven't been convicted of anything to be tortured in other countries with murderous dictators!
The hypocracy is stunning.
Posted by: MattM at April 11, 2007 04:14 PM (NZ/aJ)
Posted by: Bill Faith at April 11, 2007 04:15 PM (n7SaI)
15
Well, gee, Matt, noting the bile you disgorge over Bush and jumping to unproven (at the least) claims that whatever the strategy we're doing in Iraq, it's not working, I'd say you're pretty well invested in your hatred of all things Bush.
Your concern with our soldiers is touching though. Why don't you let them finish the job? Do you read any milblogs? Do you know anyone in the military?
You think it's that hard to get five thousand idle Iraqis to join up for an anti-American march?
Your gullibility isn't as touching.
The Iraqi Study Group? Did you read it? Did you find any reference to...winning? Me neither. Why not call it by its real name: the Iraqi Surrender Group.
As for your sneering back at me, I will admit my comment was a bit intemperate with name-calling. FTR, it wasn't directed at you personally beyond lifting your quote. And further FTR, I'll criticize any pol who thinks she can rewrite the Constitution.
Posted by: kelly at April 11, 2007 04:47 PM (5a01y)
16
In a couple of years, a new president is going to have to begin the process of repairing the damage that Bush has done to America's reputation and national power, rebuilding the wounded military and mending fences with a variety of countries. Pelosi is just getting a head start on this project by establishing lines of communications to the people that we'll eventually have to do business with. In any case, her meetings with Assad and other were utterly unremarkable granted the practice of legislators over the last several decades. State department officials accompanied her at every meeting, and the whole thing had been vetted in advance.
Smearing Pelosi is probably good business from a cynical point of view, though these days you have to be pretty much a mindless tool to still find the umpteenth rendition of the swift-boat tactic credible. Ah, but you'll tell me that there is no shortage of mindless tools to exploit; and, of course, you're right.
Posted by: Jim Harrison at April 11, 2007 04:57 PM (YecKR)
17
Kelly,
Conservatives couldn't give 2 shi*s about our soldiers.
It's all about their vanity. "If we leave Iraq we'll look weak", is their mantra.
The soldiers are a prop for conservatives.
They don't want our enemies to know we're weak. Instead they want our enemies to know we're stupid.
BTW, the War is over. We lost. Denial will get us nowhere (other than more dead US soldiers--which, as we know, is no big deal to Conservatives).
Posted by: Robert at April 11, 2007 04:57 PM (VTtVl)
18
Let them finish WHAT job? Would that be trying to find WMDs? Maybe toppling Saddam? Oh wait, it's to bring Democracy to Iraq. What's that you say? All that stuff is done? Crap, what do we do now?
Kelly, the question is, which Milblogs do you read?
Maybe you should try:
Veterans against Iraq War: http://www.vaiw.org/vet/index.php
or maybe this:
http://www.traveling-soldier.org/9.06.majority.php
How about:
http://www.ivaw.org/
Or maybe this site:
www.appealforredress.org
Posted by: MattM at April 11, 2007 05:20 PM (NZ/aJ)
19
Robert,
How old are you, twelve? The left loathes the military and aren't too shy about it. cf William Jefferson Clinton. Guess what? If the war is lost, it won't be just one political party in the US to reap the consequences. Just a friendly tip.
Jim,
Tell me how many countries were involved with Oil For Food? Huh? Who was prez during that time? Mindless ignorance of facts doesn't forward your case.
Posted by: kelly at April 11, 2007 05:23 PM (5a01y)
20
You folks won't be happy until we're paying the Jizya. It's WW3, clowns, and no amount of denial and appeasing by you Quislings is going to change that fact. They've got us by the balls, all right: a martyr cult enabled by the propagandists of our own Fifth Column. The hell with you, you totalitarian America-haters. Wittingly or not, you and vile and villainous Pelosi and Lantos are trying to get us killed -- or at least offer us all up as hostages. You wield your ever-shifting standards (of feminism, greenism, communism, multiculturalism) like an upraised cudgel. You are not anyone's betters. You have abandoned all moral authority in favor of a sliding moral scale. You befoul the memories of those who have died, have been maimed or grievously scarred in this crusade (for, like it or not, that's what it is, my dhimmi fellow travelers). You afflict this country and are merely trying to assuage your own blinkered consciences until you pass into (you'd better hope) your atheistic oblivion. You are, to put it mildly, verminous.
Posted by: Alex at April 11, 2007 05:26 PM (kenTX)
21
Well, Matt, tell me, what would be
your plan for Iraq? You seem to have all the answers.
Posted by: kelly at April 11, 2007 05:27 PM (5a01y)
22
Come on.
a) Please show one thing that Pelosi said or did which contracted the White House in *any way*.
b) Please show one thing that Pelosi said or did which the White House wasn't told BY PELOSI she would do before she left.
c) Please show how Pelosi's visit is substantively different than Republican congressmen's visit before, during and after her own.
If you can't show these, then please move on.
Posted by: jim at April 11, 2007 05:35 PM (QAh+h)
23
Kelly, my plan for Iraq?
How about something different from the last 4 years?
And I'm not being coy. Bush f***ed it up in the beginning by not sending enough troops and then disbanding the Iraqi army. And now we're at a point where even sending another 100,000 troops wouldn't make any difference - other than to up our military body count.
So why not try a deadline and see if the Iraqi government finally holds up its end of the deal?
Or try diplomacy with neighboring countries.
Or break the country up into three parts for the Sunnis, the Shiites and the Kurds.
There's no shortage of smart people with potential ideas. The problem is, good old commander in chief is too stubborn to even listen to any of them, let alone try them.
Posted by: MattM at April 11, 2007 05:45 PM (NZ/aJ)
24
Ahem...in above post, I meant to type "contradicted the White House in *any way*".
Posted by: jim at April 11, 2007 05:48 PM (QAh+h)
25
So she told the White House that she was going to set her own foreign policy? From http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8OB9KC80&show_article=1
Our message was President Bush’s message,” Pelosi said in a phone interview with The Associated Press from Portugal, where she stopped briefly en route back to the United States.
...
It became clear to President Assad that even though we have our differences in the United States, there is no division between the president and the Congress and the Democrats on the message we wanted him to receive."
She told the white house that her message was the same one President Bush would have delivered would he have gone to Syria? Is that what you're saying Jim? I just told you how it was different moron! That you have an ostrich atitude is not my fault. Even the WaPo thinks Pelosi was an idiot. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/04/AR2007040402306_pf.html. Not enough? What about the statement she made pretty much claiming that Isreal was ready to resume peace talks...yeah that was also not true. She was is and will always be a power hungry leather face. So JHimmie, move along kid nothing but reality, which doesn't interest you, here.
Posted by: Marco at April 11, 2007 05:51 PM (ZmIE8)
26
Because "stay the course" has been working sooooo well for Bush, huh Marco? I mean, "stay the course" has made Iraq so safe that McCain can walk through a market in Baghdad without body armor.
Yeah...that's all sarcasm.
Posted by: MattM at April 11, 2007 06:00 PM (NZ/aJ)
27
Matt M, so your plan will be "something different"? Brilliant! What a great plan! Why didn't you say anything before you military strategy maverick!? (Note: this is sarcasm).
Posted by: marco at April 11, 2007 06:02 PM (ZmIE8)
28
Marco: see my above comment.
Posted by: MattM at April 11, 2007 06:09 PM (NZ/aJ)
29
Marco: of my 3 points, you only appear to respond to the first -
"a) Please show one thing that Pelosi said or did which contracted the White House in *any way*."
Your response is: "http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/04/AR2007040402306_pf.html. ...What about the statement she made pretty much claiming that Isreal was ready to resume peace talks...yeah that was also not true."
Here are some facts for you.
http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?p=215
"Speaker Pelosi accurately relayed a message given to her by Israeli Prime Minister Olmert to Syrian President Assad.
The tough and serious message the Speaker relayed was that, in order for Israel to engage in talks with Syria, the Syrian government must eliminate its links with extremist elements, including Hamas and Hezbollah.
Furthermore, the Speaker told Assad that his government must also take steps to block militants seeking to cross the Syrian border into Iraq and that it must cease its ongoing efforts to destabilize Lebanon and to block the international communityÂ’s expressed desire for an international tribunal to investigate the assassination of former Lebanese premier Rafik Hariri....
The PostÂ’s editorial misinterprets a statement issued by the Israeli Prime MinisterÂ’s Office...The Speaker neither said nor implied that this message was a change in IsraelÂ’s position.
Most troubling, the editorial contradicts the ****Post’s own reporting**** [emphasis mine]...From the Post’s reporting by Elizabeth Williamson today: “Foreign policy experts generally agree that Pelosi’s dealings with Middle East leaders have not strayed far, if at all, from those typical for a congressional trip.”
"...In fact, as The New York Times reported, ****Pelosi herself stated that she supports the PresidentÂ’s policy goals in Syria**** [emphasis mine]."
Posted by: jim at April 11, 2007 06:38 PM (QAh+h)
30
I find it amusing how well the ignorance and immaturity is spread throughout the internet. It does show that some of the trolls are atleast exposed to truth. Those of you who think what Pelosi did was ok and legal must have skipped 8th Grade, never taken a course in U.S. Government or Polical Science. Your knowledge of the constitution is extemely limited. It is interesting how the lefts limited intellect reflects on blogs. The stupidity expressed here is just like that express at atleast one other blog. Only the names have changes, or have they?
Posted by: Zelsdorf Ragshaft III at April 11, 2007 06:58 PM (Jfbhw)
31
So if what Pelosi did was illegal, then CHARGE HER WITH A CRIME.
Come on. Please. Pretty please. I'm begging you to do it. Seriously. Otherwise, shut up.
Posted by: MattM at April 11, 2007 07:15 PM (TqZrA)
32
I counted at least five already debunked lies in this post. Ya'll need to talk Drudge and Hindraker to at least make an attempt to respin things that have already been unspun.
Fox is not a legitimate news source. It is a blatantly dishonest right wing propaganda organ. Comparing a sanctioned (and in the current leadership vacuum necessary) diplomatic visit with enabling home grown fascism is just silly.
Posted by: John Gillnitz at April 11, 2007 07:20 PM (jhc0N)
33
I'm still waiting for any of the right-wingers here to explain why Pelosi's visit was illegal, but the visit by Issa and other Republicans was not.
Posted by: WilliamH at April 11, 2007 08:16 PM (np4rB)
34
William, one was authorized by the State Dept one wasn't.
Matt, we would love to charge her, but she has our Justice Dept all in a tizzy over 8 Attorneys.
Maybe they will use it for payback?
Have either of you read any of the links in the above article? Because you really do sound silly.
Posted by: JoeH at April 11, 2007 08:57 PM (VrTMT)
35
I did read the story. I've also read several other articles that state that officials from the State Department were with her during the course of the entire trip and attended every meeting she had.
The bizarro world logic on display regarding this entire "incident" is getting tiresome. Several Republican politicos meet with the same people and nothing is said; Pelosi meets with them and she's a traitor.
Posted by: WilliamH at April 11, 2007 09:24 PM (np4rB)
36
There is no REAL support for either Bush or the debacle in Iraq. West Point grads are NOT staying in the Army, they are leaving at the first opportunity in higher numbers than at any time in the last 35 years. The Army National Guard now accpts people who score as low as 16th percentile in the AFQT.
Posted by: John Ryan at April 12, 2007 01:52 PM (TcoRJ)
37
Well I should also say that only in 34 states will the Army National guard accept people in the 16th percentile. I am not sure but here is my guess: in those 34 states more than 1/2 are "red states". I would like to see an accurate figure on this even if it proves my guess incorrect
Posted by: John Ryan at April 14, 2007 03:32 PM (TcoRJ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 10, 2007
tbogg: Imus wannabe
"Nappy-headed ho's" had been overused, so he went with the
next best thing.
Sure, tbogg's a hypocritical racist, but making a racist attack on a conservative black woman is perfectly acceptable behavior for liberals.
Anticipate other liberal bloggers coming to his defense by sundown.
Update: tbogg's comments echo those of Doonesbury cartoonist Garry Trudeau from April 7, 2004, which prompted this response:
Recently, TrudeauÂ’s political observations ran a red light in referring to the nationÂ’s National Security Advisor, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, a black woman, as "brown sugar." Frankly, the political satire in the April 7, 2004 Doonesbury escapes me and most women I know, black or white, liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican. It draws on centuries of deep-rooted, wicked and indefensible portrayals of black women. In doing so, it is decidedly unfunny. The only purpose served by this cartoon strip is that it proved one sad fact: despite the contentions of many, in 21st century America, race and gender still matter.
[snip]
The fact is that black women at the apex of power have struggled long and hard for respect. The struggle still continues. This is why in this context, references to black women as brown sugar are not funny. It reminds us of the historical exploitation of black women in America. It reminds us that there are those who believe that no matter how accomplished we may become, no matter how educated we are, and no matter how many books we read, black women should remain in "their place," figuratively or literally. This place is one that is out of public view.
tbogg joins a long list of liberals that feel it is their right to use racial slurs against black conservatives.
Some of these past racial attacks on Secretary Rice included Garry Trudeau's "Doonesbury" comic strip having President Bush refer to her as "Brown Sugar," Ted Rall's cartoon suggesting she was a "house nigga" needing "racial re-education" and Jeff Danziger depicting her a the slave "Prissy" from the movie "Gone With the Wind." Additionally, former entertainer Harry Belafonte referred to Secretary Rice as a "house slave" and "sell-out," while NAACP chairman Julian Bond called her a "shield" used by the Bush Administration to deflect racial criticism.
And lest we forget, liberal Steve Gilliard's Sambo smear against another black conservative, Michael Steele.
Tolerance. It's a liberal value.
Except when they don't feel like it.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
03:39 PM
| Comments (17)
| Add Comment
Post contains 401 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Liberals know how to bring the hate in a really professional manner.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at April 10, 2007 04:39 PM (yHGOW)
2
Shouldn't that be 'whateveh'?
I'm done caring about who says what about whom. Really. It's gossip. We've got far more important things to mull over.
Posted by: Cindi at April 11, 2007 12:51 AM (asVsU)
3
Um, "brown sugar" = "nappy head hos"? Really?
Seems like a bit of a reach to me...
Posted by: Kodos423 at April 11, 2007 04:11 AM (U3VUB)
4
Anticipate other liberal bloggers coming to his defense by sundown.
Why? It's not like he's being attacked by anyone who really matters.
Posted by: Realist at April 11, 2007 06:43 AM (0wTC3)
5
Kodos423, "brown sugar" is a racist sexual reference. If you don't believe me, look up the lyrics to the Rolling Stones song "Brown Sugar".
Posted by: MikeM at April 11, 2007 07:42 AM (myTC8)
6
How exactly does "Brown Sugar" equate to "nappy-headed hos"?
Hey, at least you're not just pointing out this insignificant statement by a blogger to score some cheap points.
BTW, I think the fact that he capitalized "Brown Sugar" is an obvious reference to the Stones song and its ilk. I suppose you find Mick and Keith "intolerant" too.
Another BTW, "Confederate" is a term which "draws on centuries of deep-rooted, wicked and indefensible portrayals of black women" too.
Hackneyed and obtuse - must be a republican.
Posted by: jlo at April 11, 2007 07:49 AM (yfw+T)
7
I see the Defender Corps has arrived!
I like the logic - since ours is "small 'r' racist stereotyping, and we think yours is "big 'R' racist, we get a pass.
To use the reductio in absurdum filter... oh, never mind, people usually don't get the 'absurdum' part when applied to their POV.
Posted by: John of Argghhh! at April 11, 2007 08:59 AM (HgYAW)
Posted by: David M at April 11, 2007 09:39 AM (6+obf)
9
Really? The satire in Doonesbury escapes you? It's not that complicated. Perhaps Family Circus is more your speed. Don't even begin to take on Tbogg. He is way out of your league.
EL
Posted by: dre at April 11, 2007 09:39 AM (iD7Q5)
10
Dre - satire makes it all okay, then. Oddly, I don't often see that defense as being deemed acceptable when it's the right being satirical.
You personally (whatever your political persuasion) may not suffer that peculiar myopia, but it's at the heart of the Bob's point.
Posted by: John of Argghhh! at April 11, 2007 10:16 AM (HgYAW)
11
Actually, dre is right John. You're not in remotely the same league as racist, sexist bloggers.
Curious that anybody is.
Posted by: lex at April 11, 2007 11:22 AM (/A3c5)
12
"I see the Defender Corps has arrived!
I like the logic - since ours is "small 'r' racist stereotyping, and we think yours is "big 'R' racist, we get a pass.
To use the reductio in absurdum filter... oh, never mind, people usually don't get the 'absurdum' part when applied to their POV.
Posted by: John of Argghhh! at April 11, 2007 08:59 AM"
---------------------------------------------
John: I'll see your fallacy in logic charge and raise you one more:
STRAW MAN
Description: It is a fallacy to misrepresent someone else's position for the purposes of more easily attacking it, then to knock down that misrepresented position, and then to conclude that the original position has been demolished. It is a fallacy because it fails to deal with the actual arguments that one has made.
I never said that CY is a racist because he uses "confederate" in his blog handle, but instead sought to point out the weak position of someone who argues that another blogger they don't like is a racist because he called a black woman "brown sugar" when he happily employs an online identifier that is (at least in this country) explicitly associated with the cause of maintaining slavery by both law and custom.
Now, I'm just pointing out the inconsistency there, not actually accusing CY of being racist or having a sub-consicous racist intent in choosing to use the term confederate. I don't regularly read this blog, much less know anything about its author, so I would never dare to spread such scurrilous charges without a lot more evidence.
I am a regular reader of Tbogg though and find his insights often biting and hilarious. Why he chose to refer to Ms. Rice as "Brown Sugar" is beyond me, but I would guess the twin pop icons of the Rolling Stones and Doonesbury are the likely antecedents. Does that make what he did right? I would posit the more pressing question is: "was it wrong"? It certainly doesn't make him racist without anymore evidence.
Lastly, your plea to except the cases of satire from knee-jerk cries of "racism", "sexism", etc. is right and should be obvious (but sadly is not to many), which is exactly my point in distinguishing Tbogg (who is making a political point) from the likes of that mean-spirited hag Imus (who made his statement rashly and insensitively with no intent to do anything other than hurt someone).
However, what example of right-wing satire do you specifically refer to? I don't remeber any right-wingers attempting to satirize something that left-wingers attacked as being racist in intent when the opposite was clear to any objective viewer.
I'm sure someone as astute about logical fallacies as yourself wouldn't be introducing a classic red herring in your response to Dre.
Posted by: jlo at April 11, 2007 01:10 PM (yfw+T)
13
Why he chose to refer to Ms. Rice as "Brown Sugar" is beyond me
What does Occam's Razor suggest? He's simply a racist.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at April 11, 2007 04:41 PM (yHGOW)
14
jlo: maybe you can kid yourself, but do not try and kid everyone else, tbogg's caption is clearly racist (negative comment based on color of skin); you can continue to defend tbogg, but read over caption and ask yourself, is this how I would want to be portrayed if that were me (caption is based on color of skin rather than merits of acccomplishment); the answer is NO, whether you will admit it or not.
Posted by: Bored at Work at April 12, 2007 07:22 PM (zu8Ks)
15
And I am loving the idea that Imus insulting a female basketball team was "satire". What exactly was he satirising?
Posted by: Dr Zen at April 13, 2007 05:12 AM (OWLWF)
16
Why he chose to refer to Ms. Rice as "Brown Sugar" is beyond me
What does Occam's Razor suggest? He's simply a racist.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at April 11, 2007 04:41 PM
-----------------------------------------------
Purple - Occam's Razor could also suggest that you're simply a disingenuous authoritarian who loves to declare someone a racist upon the most paper-thin evidence, particularly when you disagree with his political stance. I'm sure if Imus was Rush, you would be on the other side arguing against "pc culture" run amok.
Maybe not, but Occam's Razor analysis does concern itself with nuance, does it?
----------------------------------------------
jlo: maybe you can kid yourself, but do not try and kid everyone else, tbogg's caption is clearly racist (negative comment based on color of skin); you can continue to defend tbogg, but read over caption and ask yourself, is this how I would want to be portrayed if that were me (caption is based on color of skin rather than merits of acccomplishment); the answer is NO, whether you will admit it or not.
Posted by: Bored at Work at April 12, 2007 07:22 PM
---------------------------------------------
Bored - Is this site always so supercilious? How is it "clearly racist" to point out that someone is black? By that standard, anyone who remarks that Barack is a "black candidate" running for Prez in '08 is a racist? And clearly, by your standard, Rush Limbaugh's comments about Donovan McNabb were "clearly racist" as he was basing his criticisms of the media on his perception that McNabb's celebrity was based almost exclusively upon his skin color. Race is a social construct we are forced to live with until our society does a lot more growing up. Until then, toughen up or stay home.
As to the "caption" you refer to, it's a snippet from a larger post about Wolfowitz's possible corruption problems at the World Bank. So, yes the issue is the "merits of her accomplishments", the quality of which reasonable men can differ about.
-----------------------------------------------
And I am loving the idea that Imus insulting a female basketball team was "satire". What exactly was he satirising?
Posted by: Dr Zen at April 13, 2007 05:12 AM
------------------------------------------------
Dr - I don't know if you were directly responding to my comment, but if so - I have to wonder if you somehow missed the part where I said this:
"which is exactly my point in distinguishing Tbogg (who is making a political point) from the likes of that mean-spirited hag Imus (who made his statement rashly and insensitively with no intent to do anything other than hurt someone)."
Where I come from, when someone makes the point of "distinguishing" two elements under examination, he or she is not equating the two.
A powerful undercurrent of good satire is anger, which can be expressed in terms that others who don't share that anger find bewildering and offensive. What Tbogg was attempting to do was satirize the atmosphere of corruption that clouds the current administration. On the other hand, Imus was just be an old white asshole with no substantive point at all.
You can disagree with Tbogg, but calling him a racist for what is an ambiguous (at best) statement is just a cheap diversion from meeting his political points head-on.
Posted by: jlo at April 13, 2007 09:20 AM (yfw+T)
17
jlo:
Is asking you to read something over and think about it actually haughty or treating you or subject matter with disdain, I do not buy it. Try this, forget context and who said what (your original point was comparing caption to Imus comments), or switch them; are you saying that if Imus used some expression equating Rutgers team or certain members as "brown sugar", that would be acceptable to you? It may not have caused the same hue and cry, but is it really acceptable?
In any event, learn to read, or read it again, caption does not point out C. Rice is "black" it labels her "Brown Sugar" (if you refuse to concede that connotative meaning of "Brown Sugar" is racist and replete with negative racial overtones (and the SOLE reason that tbogg used that expression) - it makes it pretty hard to take you seriously). With that in mind, I am not sure who or what you were actually responding to in first paragraph addressed to me.
One final note, I do note beleive that caption has anything to do with rest of tbogg entry (I beleive that first paragraph relates to Wolfowitz and current ethics problems and second paragraph refers to C. Rice and G. Bush), consequently, label says nothing or portrays nothing or is not even remotely about, C. Rice's "accomplishments".
Posted by: Bored at Work at April 13, 2007 03:03 PM (zu8Ks)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Some of the News That's Fit to Print
Gateway Pundit correctly nails the leading regional and world media outlets for vastly over-exaggerating the actual number of protestors making noise on behalf of Tehran resident Mookie al Sadr in an anti-U.S. protest over the weekend.
A sampling of the media's inaccurate mis-reporting:
- The Associated Press: "Tens of thousands of Shiites..."
- New York Times: "Tens of thousands of protesters loyal to Moktada al-Sadr..."
- Reuters: "Tens of thousands of people waving Iraqi flags..."
- Gulf Daily News: "Hundreds of thousands of chanting Iraqi Shi'ites burned and stamped..."
- Guardian (UK): "Hundreds of thousands of supporters of the radical Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr..."
And now, a reality break.
As Bugs Bunny says, "That's all, folks."
Even Duke University football games get better turn-out than the 5,000-7,000 shown in the image above.
I'd be very interested to discover which organizations actually had reporters in Najaf for the protests, if those reporters were bureau reporters or local stringers, and where they came up with their figures. Thinking I'd actually get a response to any of these questions from these news organizations is, of course, absurd. The media doesn't like the idea of accountability.
I'll update this with more detail if information becomes available.
Update: Crap! I screwed up. the photo above was clearly captioned as being from Baghdad in the MNF-I article , and I did the "assume" thing, and thought that Gateway Pundit captioned the photo correctly (he didn't), and got it completely wrong.
SSG Craig Zentkovich said via email that he shot this picture from the top of the Sheraton hotel in 2005. You have my apologies.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:38 PM
| Comments (17)
| Add Comment
Post contains 275 words, total size 3 kb.
1
"Even Duke University football games get better turnout..."
That's cold, Bob. Cold.
Posted by: David Terrenoire at April 10, 2007 02:59 PM (kxecL)
2
Wow Lex,
The major news outlets never, ever slant something do they? Time for a reality break - take off that tin foil hat and COUNT THE NUMBERS. So I guess we can now rule out any of these groups (and ABC, NBC, and CBS who all reported the same thing) from hosting debates. What's left? The Cartoon Channel?
Posted by: Specter at April 10, 2007 04:45 PM (ybfXM)
3
The real story is it was JUST a protest.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at April 10, 2007 06:54 PM (yHGOW)
4
It's kind of funny that you knock the MSM for not fully reporting their stories, when you don't bother to report yours. If you read on in the NYT, there was a 'graph with this little tidbit:
"Estimates of the crowdÂ’s size varied wildly. A police commander in Najaf, Brig. Gen. Abdul Karim al-Mayahi, said there were at least half a million people. Colonel Garver said that military reports had estimates of 5,000 to 7,000. Residents and other Iraqi officials said there were tens of thousands, and television images of the rally seemed to support their estimates."
You see, when you actually report stories (as opposed to, say, sitting at home blogging on your computer in the United States), sometimes there's conflicting information. So you highlight that in your article.
There are some other issues you fail to address:
1) When was the photo taken? If that was a photo from early in the day, then couldnÂ’t it be possible that more people came later in the day?
2) How many Iraqis came and left during the day? While there only may be 5,000-7,000 Iraqi protesters in the photo, itÂ’s entirely possible that protesters came and went throughout the day, raising the numbers to the indicated level.
3) What about those side streets that are conveniently cut off in the photo? Were there more protesters down those streets? If you look at the photos featured in the NY Times article, it seems that the protest extended down the side streets.
Sorry if IÂ’m being nitpicky here, but it really bothers me when bloggers make specious claims about war correspondentsÂ’ journalism. Just like the troops, our journalists are risking their lives in Iraq. And as someone who knows both troops and journalists working in Iraqi, it kind of pisses me off when people half-thought-out claims about their integrity.
Posted by: I read the whole Thing! at April 10, 2007 07:21 PM (RQlSa)
5
the duke LACROSSE team gets bigger crowds.
when you add the 30 million dem lefties rooting for al sadr and assad, then the crowd is really rather big.
Posted by: reliapundit at April 10, 2007 08:45 PM (xz4sV)
6
I read the whole Thing,
Who are you trying to kid. The journalists of which you speak do not go out and report. They sit in a bar in the Green Zone and hire local stringers to go out and gather the news. What a joke.
Posted by: Specter at April 10, 2007 08:50 PM (ybfXM)
7
Specter,
This was all fun and games until you posted that. There have been 62 (last count) journalists killed covering this war. These people go out every day in neighborhoods you wouldn't fly over just so you can sit on your backside and make snarky remarks.
That's just shameful. Christiane Amanpour has bigger huevos than anyone you've ever known, met, or had lunch with.
Posted by: David Terrenoire at April 10, 2007 09:33 PM (tk0b2)
8
And what percentage of that 62 was red-on-red? Inquiring minds want to know. Or are they still considered journalists if they give up their cell phone to trigger the IED?
And as for Christiane, no, don't theenk so, Lucy.
Posted by: SDN at April 10, 2007 09:48 PM (5dXHo)
9
According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, over 99 journalists have been killed while reporting in Iraq. Of the 99 killed 78 were from Iraq and 3 were from other Arab countries. Even if you look at it from the extremely cynical (and incorrect) viewpoint that all of the Iraqi and Arab journalists were insurgents, that still leaves you with 18 western journalists killed while reporting in Iraq.
But I'm sure they just, you know, died from drinking too much in a bar in the Green Zone.
Seriously, I had a friend go over to Iraq as a war correspondent. It was extremely scary. You can trivialize his work (His name is Amit Palay and he worked for WaPo in Iraq for 6 months during mid-2006. You can check out his work on Lexis Nexis, and maybe in the free archives if they go back that far), but I personally think that's sick — especially when it's coming from stay-at-home bloggers. It’s kind of akin to trivializing the work of the U.S. soldiers, although they obviously face a much more direct and daily risk. I don't mean to be rude, but this is personal.
Posted by: I read the whole Thing! at April 11, 2007 12:11 AM (RQlSa)
10
And as for Christiane, no, don't theenk so, Lucy.
Wow, SDN, that's hilarious. Do you take this act on the road?
Or, I should ask, does your mom let you take this act on the road?
Posted by: David Terrenoire at April 11, 2007 06:07 AM (tk0b2)
11
Well, a few more of these mistakes and you will qualify for MSM status.
No, wait. You have to make the mistake and cover it up, not apologize for it, to qualify for MSM status. You have a long way to go.
Posted by: old_dawg at April 11, 2007 08:32 AM (7nc0l)
12
Where's your comment Lex. You dared someone to show you where the big guys bend/lie about there stories. Here it is. Why are you so silent?
Posted by: Specter at April 11, 2007 09:47 AM (ybfXM)
13
Good for you I read the whole Thing. Now tell us, of the 18 western journalists who died, how many were in the original push into Iraq, embedded with the troops? That will pare your numbers down a lot. Now - like I said in my original post, most of our western MSM hires local stringers to go out and gather the news. The information posted here actually shows that. OK - you had a friend that went there, and maybe that friend was different than most reposts (So is Michael Yon BTW), but surely you aren't trying to tell me that all of the hundreds of western journalists "on the ground" in Iraq are out in the streets gathering news every day? Are you serious?
Posted by: Specter at April 11, 2007 09:51 AM (ybfXM)
14
Specter,
Nobody says that all journalists are intrepid reporters out in the country covering stories. However, you painted with a very large brush.
Tell this to Bob Woodruff.
Every day there are reporters risking their lives to get the story in what is, by all accounts, an incredibly dangerous place, especially if you're an American.
To question whether they're putting themselves in enough danger, especially from the comfort of your toasty home, is like questioning whether a combat vet really shed enough blood to earn a Purple Heart.
Oh, wait, the GOP has already done that.
Posted by: David Terrenoire at April 11, 2007 10:26 AM (kxecL)
15
Specter's a bit of a chump minimizing death. Thank you for your words David and RTWT.
Temple
Posted by: Temple Stark at April 11, 2007 10:47 PM (mqk12)
16
Specter,
You don't show much class by taunting me in threads that I'm not involved in. I read these comments for the first time just now.
Now that I have --
oh dear.
Posted by: Lex Steele at April 12, 2007 12:37 AM (0bhUe)
17
Specter,
Where's your comment Lex. You dared someone to show you where the big guys bend/lie about there stories. Here it is. Why are you so silent?
The media bend the truth all right, but to sell ads and to suck up to various people. It's childish to think they support jihad. You want a scapegoat because your perfect war is a disaster.
How rich that it is actually your fellow dead enders who are bending the truth.
Posted by: Lex Steele at April 12, 2007 10:05 AM (0bhUe)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Democrat Iraq War Grandstanding Angers Veterans' Groups
Both the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) and American Legion have issued statements hammering a Democrat Congress that continues to play games with Iraq War funding.
From the VFW:
"The funding package contained artificial troop withdrawal deadlines that would ultimately break the morale of our troops in the field and directly jeopardize their safety," said Lisicki, who ascends to national commander in August and was here today to host a meeting of future leaders from the VFWÂ’s 54 departments.
"I am calling on all the members of the United States Senate and House of Representatives to, for now, reserve further debate and provide the funds needed by our troops to prosecute the Global War on Terror," he said, noting that Iraq was clearly the centerpiece of that war on terrorism, and that the House and the Senate funding packages were also loaded with extraneous spending not related to the war on terrorism.
"This isnÂ’t a Democrat or Republican issue. It's about American men and women tasked with fighting a war, and who are now being told their effort and sacrifice doesn't matter because a date on the calendar will send them home whether they've finished the job or not," he said.
Lisicki, Vietnam veteran from Carteret, N.J., said that when Congress reconvenes, they need to approve funding for war-related requirements only, and debate the other issues in separate legislation.
"We ask Congress to never cut or withhold funding for troops deployed or being deployed to a war zone," he said. "They must ensure that those who are sent to war have the best equipment and our strongest support. Give them the tools necessary to complete the mission you sent them on, and do it without further delay."
From the American Legion:
"This is an attempt to implement a congressional strategy by imposing timelines for the withdrawal of military personnel from combat zones through a "slow bleed" process by eventually reducing military funding," Morin said. "Rather than the President's and General Petraeus's reinforcement policy that is making progress in securing Baghdad."
The American Legion is supportive of many of the other provisions contained in the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health, and Iraq Accountability Act, but we strongly believe the President's initial request is not the vehicle for these provisions, especially the specific language that sets congressional deadlines and mandatory troops movements. The other emergency funding recommendations to the FY 2007 budget should be openly addressed in a subsequent appropriations package in a timely manner.
"The men and women of the armed forces in the theater of operation are dependent on this emergency funding to sustain and achieve their military missions," Morin explained. "Members of Congress should not be armchair generals."
"Recognizing our history as a Nation, The American Legion supports the Commander in Chief, the commanders on the front lines, and the men and women serving in harms' way," Morin said. "We entrust Congress to do the right thing in supporting our military men and women who are fighting to protect our values and way of life.
Thank God there was no mandated timetable after the Battle of the Bulge or Iwo Jima. Thank God, there was no mandated withdrawal or imposed exit strategy at Valley Forge or our Country would have lost the American Revolution."
In addition to these veterans groups, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Michael G. Mullen, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. T. Michael Moseley and Marine Commandant Gen. James T. Conway have also issued a letter imploring the Democrat Congress to quit playing games with the funding of our soldiers:
"Without approval of the supplemental funds in April, the armed services will be forced to take increasingly disruptive measures in order to sustain combat operations," the four general and flag officers wrote in their letter. "The impacts on readiness and quality of life could be profound. We will have to implement spending restrictions and reprogram billions of dollars."
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:18 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 674 words, total size 5 kb.
1
When I came home in '71, the VFW and American Legion were openly hostile to the vets of my generation. Perhaps that's changed, but my animosity towards them has not.
To hear they've taken a right wing stand is about as surprising as hearing that Rosie O'Donnell is fat.
Posted by: David Terrenoire at April 10, 2007 12:11 PM (kxecL)
2
It's only playing games if you don't mean it. Congress really seems to mean for the fighting to end and for troops to come home. It's only the Right that sees that stand as a game. The very idea that someone might want something other than what the Administration wants is, apparently, a foreign one to the president and his advisors.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at April 10, 2007 01:11 PM (nrafD)
3
Doc, you really think the fighting stops when we come home?
Posted by: JoeH at April 11, 2007 09:54 PM (VrTMT)
4
Wholesale killing of Americans will stop, yes.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at April 11, 2007 11:23 PM (+Rao3)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
The Stories They Don't Tell
As is typically the case for many media organizations in Iraq, CNN this morning chose a lede for their Iraq coverage focusing on the day's
body count:
In two separate incidents, bombers in Iraq targeted a college district in Baghdad and a police recruiting center in Diyala province killing at least 15 people on Tuesday, local authorities told CNN.
Meanwhile, coalition forces pounded insurgent targets across Iraq on Tuesday, the military said. They launched raids in Anbar, in the west of the country, and Baghdad and continued their Operation Black Eagle push that began last week against Shiite militias in the southern city of Diwaniya.
That effort so far has killed 14 people and wounded 61 others, among them Shiite militia members, an Interior Ministry official told CNN.
This is hardly surprising. Body counts provide concrete numbers, even if those numbers don't tell the entire story of a war that they and other media outlets determined long ago was already lost. Sadly, this reliance on body counts tells only a fraction of the story of the events taking place in Iraq.
Five paragraphs into the story, we get a hint as to another part of the story of the Iraq War, one that they chose not to cover in detail.
Dressed in a black abaya -- a traditional Muslim robe, usually black in color, covering the body from head to toe -- the woman detonated her explosives belt in a crowd of about 200 police recruits, police and hospital officials told the Associated Press.
The police recruiting center targeted by this suicide bomber in Muqdadiya is located in the Diyala province, where insurgents have fled from security operations in Baghdad.
Iraqi police typically suffer far greater casualties than either Iraqi or American military units, and yet two hundred Iraqis were lined up to join.
Joining the Iraqi police is the most dangerous occupation in Iraq, with the IP suffering greater casualties day in and day out than either the American or Iraqi militaries. Iraqis who join the police not only take immense personal risks; their families are often targeted for retaliation by terrorists as well. It is far safer to remain civilian and avoid these risks... and yet they join, not just in Diyala, but in Ramadi, Karbala, Baghdad, and Fallujah.
Why do they join?
The answers will certainly vary from recruit to recruit, from province to province and from city to village, but the fact remains that they continue to join the most dangerous job in Iraq in large numbers.
It would be nice for CNN, the Associated Press, and other news outlets to spend some time asking these recruits why they take such risks not only with their own lives, but with the lives of their families.
Are they militiamen looking to infiltrate the police? Are they simply tired of the random violence that threatens their families and hoping to stop it? Are they merely looking for work, any work, no matter how dangerous that work may be? Do they actually think that joining the police might help bring stability to their war-torn cities and towns?
We do not know.
It is far easier for the media to ask the simple questions of who died where, and provide copy about orchestrated protests, or produce photos of suffering and death. "If it bleeds, it leads," has been, and continues to be, the mantra of a news media interested in covering only the obvious and superficial sotires of the day.
The deeper, inner struggles, the jihad of ordinary Iraqis who purposefully take extraordinary risks, goes unremarked upon... and still they come by tens and hundreds, from across Iraq. They join the police and don uniforms, knowing that doing so makes them certain targets.
I'd like to know why, but no one seems interested in telling their stories.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:48 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 647 words, total size 4 kb.
1
Unfortunately, this is common across the board. Most news outlets cover events, not ideas. Why? Because it's easier and cheaper.
That's why we need to read books.
Posted by: David Terrenoire at April 10, 2007 10:18 AM (kxecL)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Our Would-Be Fearless Democratic Leaders Run Away From... A Television Network?
It seems that two more Democrats
have fled the unspeakable horrors of a debate on Fox News.
I'm not sure that re-establishing that they will "bravely run away" at the first sign of a differing thought is the message they will want to keep reinforcing, is it?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:11 AM
| Comments (18)
| Add Comment
Post contains 69 words, total size 1 kb.
1
It's the right thing to do. Fox isn't a legitimate news source. The make things up and bend the truth repeatedly and intentionally. Look at
these screen captures from Fox. They are lies.
Obama and Edwards would validate Fox by participating in the debate.
Posted by: Lex Steele at April 10, 2007 01:07 AM (0bhUe)
2
In order... he was aquitted of lying to the FBI; he was found guilty on 4 of 5 counts, but no crime was ever proven because we still don't know if the female's status was secret; how is the phrase "hunting accident controversy; how is VP... feeling?" a lie? A question, by definition, is not a lie; it's a non-scientific poll, where's your proof of lying; and again; another question; Iraq less violent than DC was a study based on the entire country vs DC-- and it is more peaceful, although Bagdad is less peaceful than DC; another question; ooooh, a mistype, I'm so worried; a statement by a fellow; and two more questions.
You really need to figure out what "lie" means.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie
Posted by: Foxfier at April 10, 2007 01:17 AM (J7GMo)
3
Foxfier:
You really need to figure out what "lie" means.
Hardly. You need to re-read the page you own linked to:
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression;
Foxfier:
he was aquitted of lying to the FBI; he was found guilty on 4 of 5 counts
That's trying to convey a false impression all right. The big news was not that Libby was found "not guilty" of one crime, but that he was found guilty of four.
but no crime was ever proven because we still don't know if the female's status was secret
Libby was convicted of perjury actually. Anyway, Plame was covert all right. Henry Waxman vetted some questions with the director of the CIA in preparation for a congressional hearing, and he accepted the statement that she was covert.
how is the phrase "hunting accident controversy; how is VP... feeling?" a lie?
It promotes a false sense that Cheney's feelings are the important thing, not the fact that he shot someone or the health of the victim.
A question, by definition, is not a lie
Wrong, see the definition of 'lie' to which you linked but didn't read or couldn't understand.
"Civil War in Iraq: Made up by the Media?" is an attempt to convey a false impression, so yes it is a lie, at least how I was raised.
I notice that you didn't address the fact that Fox called Mark Foley a Democrat. Do you consider that a lie or not?
You tried to refute an artificially narrow version of my argument, namely that Fox didn't strictly speaking lie. You failed even to do that.
Posted by: Lex Steele at April 10, 2007 02:01 AM (0bhUe)
4
Fox isn't a legitimate news source.
Does this mean a democrat president would pull the press credentials for Fox in the Whitehouse press pool?
Posted by: Purple Avenger at April 10, 2007 05:25 AM (XFDY6)
5
Either the candidates don't want to answer tough questions on camera or they don't want to answer tough questions on a network with such a large viewing audience.
For being such a crummy network they sure kick butt in the ratings...odd that.
Posted by: markm at April 10, 2007 06:35 AM (hVOTO)
6
Lex, I've heard you and countless other liberals claim that Fox News isn't a "legitimate" news source, but merely repeating that canard in your echo chamber doesn't make it true. By what
objective measure do you make that claim?
Certainly, screen captures taken out of context do not show truth, as I can produce similar captures from
any news outlet that shows bias or inaccurate reporting equaling or surpassing that of those chosen. What your carefully chosen link shows is simply a cherry-picked selection of images, sans context, that shows what you desire to be "true enough" to support your contention.
The simple fact of the matter is that Fox News is a legitimate news source by any objective measure, and one that the Groseclose/Milyo study,
A Measure of Media Bias found to be one of the most objective in their news reporting.
Unlike CNN, Fox News has never covered up torture for more than a decade to maintain a field office inside a brutal dictatorship, nor have they run terrorist propaganda as news. Unlike CBS, they have never tried to peddle fake documents in a failed attempt to influence an election. Unlike the Associated Press, they have never used faked sources (Jamil Gulaim Innad XX XXXXXXX, aka "Jamil Hussein." Heard from him since we "outed" him? didn't think so.), nor bluntly lied about a general said to support their case as did Steven R. Hurst's January article that was directly disputed
by the General himself. I can go on and on, if you so desire, but I don't think you will.
Obama, Hillary, and Edwards don't validate Fox News; their huge viewership does that. What they did validate is that the screaming radicals of the far left end of the Democratic party scares them far more does than does the Congressional Black Caucus Institute (Democrats all), the group actually holding the debate on Fox.
Why do Democrats hate black people, Lex? I jest, of course.
No, what pulling out of the Congressional Black Caucus Institute/Fox News debate shows is that these Democrat presidential candidates aren't concerned over bias or "legitimacy" that a debate would bring to a very legitimate (and very successful) news source, but instead, betrays a pandering fear of nutroots radicals.
It shows that they are easily cowed by their fringe supporters, and provides us with a glimpse into their mettle. Candidates who are so easily influenced and bullied by a such a sizable minority of their constituency stand little chance of developing a spine once elected. What Edwards, Obama, and Clinton have shown is that they are easily influenced followers, and not leaders.
We need leaders in this country, regardless of political party, and the three Democratic front-runners are showing they are incapable of leadership, a fact only born out by their undistinguished voting records as senators. I thought and still think the other Democrats running have no chance of winning, but at least they do occasionally show signs of character, values, and leadership, even if I disagree with those values and where they would lead.
Hillary, Obama, and Edwards have only shown they will pander to any group that they think will provide them with a temporary advantage. That isn't leadership, and the moderates who typically decide Presidential elections will notice the craven triangulation toward the radical base, and hopefully they will remember it when the successful candidate angles for the middle after winning the primary, leaving a shrieking, wailing wall of netroots,quivering in rage at being "betrayed."
They shouldn't be surprised, nor upset (though they will be). They'll only be getting precisely what they ordered.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at April 10, 2007 07:48 AM (9y6qg)
7
Nice rebuttal CY. Much better than what I was thinkin'.
Posted by: Specter at April 10, 2007 10:03 AM (ybfXM)
8
Bob,
I agree with everything you said except that Fox News ratings are anything but huge. It's number one in cable news, but miniscule compared to the networks.
Ratings for everyone are slipping, even Fox News, but even Bill O'Reilly, Fox's rating champ, still draws only about 2.5 million viewers compared to networks' 20 million. And when you look at the demographics, all broadcast news skews heavily to people over 54. Not exactly prime ad markets.
Aside from that, I agree the candidates should man up and show up.
Posted by: David Terrenoire at April 10, 2007 10:31 AM (kxecL)
9
CY:
By what objective measure do you make that claim?
See
here for one such study: "Those who primarily watch Fox News are significantly more likely to have misperceptions, while those who primarily listen to NPR or watch PBS are significantly less likely."
Certainly, screen captures taken out of context do not show truth,
Pshaw. There is no context in which Libby's "not guilty" or Mark Foley is a Democrat or etc.
as I can produce similar captures from any news outlet that shows bias or inaccurate reporting equaling or surpassing that of those chosen.
First, you admitted that Fox is biased. Second, I don't believe you can produce such captures. Go ahead and do it then. Don't bring up the doctored photos of Lebanon. That was a the work on one photographer.
What your carefully chosen link shows is simply a cherry-picked selection of images, sans context
Again, these are intentional lies no matter the context. How is it cherry picking to assemble a pack of lies?
one that the Groseclose/Milyo study, A Measure of Media Bias found to be one of the most objective in their news reporting.
I looked this over, and it seems to cover just one show on Fox, a 24 hour network.
CNN ... covered up torture for more than a decade to maintain a field office inside a brutal dictatorship
That's terrible if it's true. I won't defend CNN.
Nor have [CNN] run terrorist propaganda as news.
Baloney. Give me one example. CNN Time Warner is a huge corporation who has every interest to support the powers that be in the US, and zero reasons to embrace jihad.
Unlike CBS, they have never tried to peddle fake documents in a failed attempt to influence an election.
That was embarassing. I don't care for CBS much either. However, like the AP doctored photos, this is an error clearly traceable to one man, not the entire network.
I followed you link regarding Jamil Hussein. It's Pajamas Media quoting... you. What more need be said?
Obama, Hillary, and Edwards don't validate Fox News;
Sure they would if they appeared on it.
their huge viewership does that.
Not really. Nearly half of the people in the US don't believe in evolution, but that doesn't make it false.
what pulling out of the ... debate shows is that these Democrat presidential candidates aren't concerned over bias or "legitimacy"... but instead betrays a pandering fear of nutroots radicals.
You called Fox viewers nutroots radicals. And why would they be scared? 50% of US citizens identify as Dems now, as opposed to 35% that identify as Repubs. Are they afraid of pro-abortion, incestuous Giuliani? Straight Talk McCain? Waffles Romney? Come on.
It shows that they are easily cowed by their fringe supporters, and provides us with a glimpse into their mettle. Candidates who are so easily influenced and bullied by a such a sizable minority of their constituency stand little chance of developing a spine once elected. What Edwards, Obama, and Clinton have shown is that they are easily influenced followers, and not leaders.
What drivel.
Appearing on a news network endorses that network. You're just pretending like you don't understand this.
Posted by: Lex Steele at April 10, 2007 11:08 AM (0bhUe)
10
David T: This is a network which called Mark Foley a Democrat after he was determined to be a sex predator. It announced "Libby found not guilty." Do you deny that the Dem nominees would validate Fox by debating on it? Why not have the debate on a more neutral network? I don't understand your reasoning.
Posted by: Lex Steele at April 10, 2007 11:32 AM (0bhUe)
11
Lex,
They should show up for much the same reasons I come here.
1. It's an opportunity to address issues with people you wouldn't reach otherwise.
2. Unless Fox is given edit control, each candidate's words will be theirs, in their entirety.
3. We shouldn't pick and choose what is safe, like Dick Cheney who is reduced to going on Limbaugh's show because he knows he'll get pitched softballs.
4. These candidatews want to be president of all Americans, even those who think Fox News is real news.
5. This makes the candidates look weak and petty, like Bush did with his cleansed town hall meetings. It wasn't right for our CINC to look so cowardly, and it's not right for any future CINC to appear the same.
Posted by: David Terrenoire at April 10, 2007 12:00 PM (kxecL)
12
He can't handle being in front of a reporter but still wants the job as president?
That certainly fills me with confidence.
Posted by: Mikey NTH at April 10, 2007 12:36 PM (O9Cc8)
13
The PIPA-sponsored link you cite is a press release of a push poll that addresses three specific questions asked in 2003. This study was so biased itself that PIPA was forced to issue the following statement...
The Wikipedia page you linked admits to controversy. If PIPA ever had this disclaimer on their website, it's not there now. Anyway, it's just disclaimer. The numbers speak for themselves: Fox viewers are indeed more likely to believe things that are wrong about Iraq.
Libby's "not Guilty and Foley's "Democrat" labeling lasted precisely how long, Lex? Minutes on both counts. These are mistakes, not biases.
I say you're making that up. Show me the retractions. This would be incompetence if it were accidental.
You don't believe other networks are guilty of biased reporting?
I didn't say that. However, lots of what you see as bias is actually mainstream. For instance in another thread you just complained that it's biased to disclose body counts. Most of us regard that as crucial.
I did take the lead in this [Jamil Hussein] story
That's one way to describe it anyway.
The examples of photo bias you submitted are not pro-terrorist bias, they are biased towards generating buzz. That's bad, but not pro-jihad.
The CNN video you linked to in no way promotes terrorism. There is no way anyone is going to watch that and sympathize with the jihadists. You're being paranoid. It's important to see the other side in a debate. Presenting the other side is not evidence of terrorist sympathies.
Of the 24 people AP claimed died...
Look, even if AP intentionally exaggerated the body count, you shouldn't infer that the AP is pro-terrorist. They're just trying to make a buck. Why on earth would any sane person in the US be pro-jihadist, much less a huge corporation. Jihadists want to kill or convert us. You are on a nonstop witch hunt for liberalism and terrorist sympathizers.
Okay, Mary Mapes and Dan Rather. What, now it's a conspiracy?
Appearing on a news network does not endorse that network... frankly, that is just stupid.
Sure it does. If Bush granted an interview to Alternet, it would legitimize Alternet. There's nothing debatable about this.
Find me one Stalin fan.
Posted by: Lex Steele at April 10, 2007 02:46 PM (0bhUe)
14
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression;
Which means that you must prove that they give a faulse impression. Or you are the liar.
Posted by: Foxfier at April 10, 2007 02:59 PM (J7GMo)
15
Foxfier: Fox called Republican sex predator Mark Foley a Democrat. Does that give a faulse impression or not?
Posted by: Lex Steele at April 10, 2007 09:12 PM (0bhUe)
16
Given the fact that Democrats re-elect confessed sex offenders like Gerry Studds, I'd say not.
Posted by: SDN at April 10, 2007 09:55 PM (5dXHo)
17
Whoot, a mistype. Like I said and you ignored-- twice now? I am *so* worried about the morality of that.
That reminds me, perjury is
the willful giving of false testimony under oath or affirmation, before a competent tribunal, upon a point material to a legal inquiry.
No crime proven-- and the very existance of the crime removed from consideration-- and you've got a straw house.
By your definition, there aren't any legit news outlets, as they've all had mistypes.
Posted by: Foxfier at April 10, 2007 10:46 PM (J7GMo)
18
Seeing as you're obcessed with it.... a few moments of google brought me this:
http://www.cjrdaily.org/politics/theres_no_conspiracy_behind_an.php
Hey! The screen said D, the actual SPEACH said Republican. Mebbie you should have the sound on for those screen shots....
Or is Fox News ritually unclean?
Posted by: Foxfier at April 10, 2007 10:52 PM (J7GMo)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 09, 2007
Imus: An Appropriate Response
Radio talk show host Don Imus got himself in a world of trouble for referring to female basketball players at Rutgers University as "nappy headed ho's" last week, a comment still being discussed today, in the
New York Times, on the Imus show itself, and elsewhere.
Predictably, there are those calling for Imus to be fired for the comments, and perhaps their argument would have some merit in a perfect world, but ours is not a perfect world. Should Imus get fired for this incident, a bidding war for his services would likely soon erupt, and Imus might very well profit from his transgressions, not learn from them.
There is another option, however, that would hit Imus on a more personal level, and would potentially remind him that the words he chooses to use in the future may have repercussions.
The City of New York, where Imus works and maintains a residence, issues "may issue" concealed carry licenses, allowing the police to determine who is allowed to have a concealed handgun. This is according the Sullivan Act, and in practice, it means that very, very few permits are issued.
Don Imus has a well-known history of alcohol and cocaine abuse in his past, and while he claims to have been clean for many years, his substance abuse history is certainly enough reason to deny him a permit even in "shall issue" areas. It is clearly his fame, and fame alone, that has afforded him the privilege to carry a gun in New York City.
It only seems fitting that his infamy caused him to be stripped of this privilege as well.
There is very little reason to think that Don Imus has any greater need to carry a concealed weapon in New York than anyone else, and there are some very good reasons that should have precluded him from ever getting a permit at all. By stripping Imus of his privilege and the false sense of security that comes with it, it might serve to remind Imus that he is not a law unto himself, and it may remind him in the future that the words he chooses to use may place him in harm's way.
If carrying a gun can give some people a false sense of invulnerability, then stripping someone that has (undeservedly) had that privilege may serve to bring them down to earth. Let him face the world without a Glock to lend bravado to his racism, misogyny, and homophobia. I think a disarmed Imus would prove to be a defanged one as well, and one less inclined to attack others with such reckless abandon.
Update: Double-secret probation?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
05:10 PM
| Comments (21)
| Add Comment
Post contains 449 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Huh? Are you saying government ought to bestow certain privileges on people based on whether they toe the company line? And are you suggesting Imus said what he did because he has a permit to carry a gun?
Posted by: steve sturm at April 09, 2007 05:34 PM (XBWtm)
2
I think what CY's saying is that maybe Imus would mind his Ps and Qs a bit more if he weren't walking around strapped, which he really ought not be doing anyway, because he's got a history of substance abuse.
Is not condoning bigotry a "company line"?
I guess I agree with CY on this one but I don't agree with CY on this one. I'd like to see jackasses like this off the air, but it's not up to the government to censure Imus, it's up to the listeners. People will support him if they will, which is where the problem lies -- not with the government. And while it makes me uncomfortable to know that people like this are carrying a gun, I don't think it's the gun that is giving him the false sense of security to say stuff like this, it's probably a poor upbringing.
Posted by: paully at April 09, 2007 05:48 PM (75YCX)
3
yeah, not condoning bigotry is toeing the company line, inasmuch as the government is bestowing favors to people based on whether they think the way government wants them to. put another way, if it isn't up to the government to censure Imus, then why is it okay for the government to deny him a gun permit based on what he said?
Posted by: steve sturm at April 09, 2007 06:46 PM (XBWtm)
4
Am I saying I believe we should deny Imus the privilege of having his CCW based upon what he said?
Yeah, I guess that is what I said, isn't it?
I guess I'm guilty of sending a bad message here (perhaps in fairness I should be censored), but as Imus shouldn't have a CCW to begin with based upon his substance abuse history, I was thinking it was a prefect way of righting two wrongs with one long-deserved solution.
My personal thoughts on CCW are in favor of "shall issue" permits, but even in most "shall issue" states, Imus would not be allowed to have a CCW based upon past alcohol and drug use.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at April 09, 2007 07:18 PM (HcgFD)
5
I guess the same rules apply to you too CY -- if people don't like what you have to say, they don't have to be a part of your audience -- something I'm sure you're well aware of.
For what it's worth, I kind've agree that [substance abuse aside] giving a guy like Imus a CCW is asking for trouble. Being able to draw down legally on someone who was threatening him based on his hateful rhetoric would boost his ratings, and he knows it. That seems like a pretty dangerous game.
Posted by: paully at April 09, 2007 07:58 PM (75YCX)
6
What Imus said is something that is say and celebrate in hundred of rap and pop song. He did nothing wrong. The suspension was a cop out from corporate hq who fear "black" boycott. I think they give black too much credit and power. But Imus is under they employment so he have to take the lump. But from a personal viewpoint, the call a ho for a ho.
Posted by: Anh at April 10, 2007 09:43 AM (ScKRZ)
7
I am sorry. Perhaps something is wrong with me but for the life of me I can not understand what Imus did wrong. If you listen to the dialog of the event, the phrase he used is meant to be funny and in no way is racist. I would not have said this but would define Imus' use of the term or any other as that is his job. He is supposed to be funny. Sometimes he isn't and sometimes he is. But the nature of his dialog is such that to restrict him is to lessen his ability to talk in a manner that is supposed to be relaxed and entertaining. What needs to happen is that blacks need to mature. Simply because someone says something a bit off does not make them racist or hateful. The women on this basketball team are not "ladies". As Imus was trying to say, they look tough, play tough and dirty. I have watched particularly back teams play basketball and it is not anything like whites playing. It is mean and they usually try to inflict injury. These girls were likewise tatooed and not very pleasant to observe. As to working to get through college. That is a joke. We all know that players get priviledge and are often passed along in their education.
I would think that what you need to look at is why is Imus being singled out for this type of treatment. Who is to gain. I would vote that Hillary is behind the push as he is an out spoken critic of that witch.
Posted by: David Caskey at April 10, 2007 10:07 AM (G5i3t)
8
Black players play to hurt and whites don't? what? Ever heard of kevin Mchale? You guys should really read your comments before posting. Those girls are not "nappy headed ho's" , and they do not qualify as public figures either. A nice slander suit might shut his fat mouth.
Posted by: luther at April 10, 2007 10:22 AM (uV3yK)
9
Hmmm, interesting approach. A lot of pinheads have falsely defended the KKK-Man with a First Amendment argument. Yours is the first Second Amendment argument--one would not feel so emboldened to speak one's mind, were one not able to defend one's self with deadly force.
Quite a provocative statement. If nothing else, having an issue of Imus' CCW made publicly would add to the stigma of his inability to reign in his sophomoric hijinks.
Posted by: Jimmm at April 10, 2007 10:23 AM (Rywie)
10
Bob,
This is clever and entertaining, and I suspect somewhat tongue-in-cheek. But I don't know if Imus was ever convicted or if he's just outed himself. If he has not been convicted then taking away his concealed-carry would be the worst kind of gun control.
And yes, I am a strong 2nd Amendment liberal.
Hoo-uh.
Posted by: David Terrenoire at April 10, 2007 12:06 PM (kxecL)
11
David,
Imus has admitted past additions to alcohol and drugs, and this would seem to come within a lawyer's argument of keeping him from even purchasing a firearm (see ATF form 4473, question 12 e.), if you buy the argument of "once an addict, always an addict." Knowing his history, I would refuse to sell him a firearm,and would have every legal right to deny such a sale.
CCW goes beyond the scope of the 2nd amendment, and states have the right to more stringently enforce who can carry upon their person a concealed weapon. I strongly doubt that a former drug addict and alcoholic would be permitted a CCW in even most "shall issue" states, and were it not for his celebrity status, he would assuredly not have the right to carry in NYC, with it's draconian "may issue" history.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at April 10, 2007 01:39 PM (9y6qg)
12
...this would seem to come within a lawyer's argument of keeping him from even purchasing a firearm (see ATF form 4473, question 12 e.)
I wasn't aware of that, Bob. Thanks. You learn something new every day.
But I was only half serious, as I imagine you were with this post.
Posted by: David Terrenoire at April 10, 2007 01:44 PM (kxecL)
13
And Bob,
I hope you take this as a compliment. I've bookmarked this page because I'm truly enjoying your posts. I hope you don't think my comments are anything but sincere even when I disagree.
Posted by: David Terrenoire at April 10, 2007 01:49 PM (kxecL)
14
I might be slightly more than half-serious, but only because I take gun safety very seriously. I'm very leary of giving admitted addicts firearms, whether they claim to be sober now, or not...
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at April 10, 2007 02:02 PM (9y6qg)
15
he could just hire a body guard, or he already does..
a good test is whether he would say it to thier faces
Posted by: judson at April 10, 2007 02:26 PM (msNKe)
16
Did someone just spill a can of stupidity???
A man said something that many found offensive while their children were paying to hear rap artists(??)to say similar or worse.
As the stupidity washes over you, you decide the appropriate response is for the government to step in and revoke a CCW permit. God, what if he didn't have one; could we get his drivers license??
Hey, electric companies are public utilities we could have his electricity cut off. Maybe the housing authority could throw him out.
By the way, I don't like what your saying so what are you going to pay. Maybe "we the Government" should take away your freedom.
Oh rats, stupid constitution says you can say what you want and so can the other side. Rotten deal. Its better when you can back up your argument with the coercion of law.
Posted by: RFYoung at April 10, 2007 03:11 PM (WqZCc)
17
I have watched particularly back teams play basketball and it is not anything like whites playing. It is mean and they usually try to inflict injury.
That's some pretty potent stupid right there. My days of playing pick up basketball in NYC playgrounds are over but when I showed up to play I needed to foul all the time to be competitive with the black guys. I was made to understood that this made me typical for a white guy. You get respect by having skills and nobody wants to be know as a hacker.
Back to the point of the post though, I'd be all for disarming Imus and all other recovering alcoholics and drug addicts out there but does this mean Bush doesn't get to pack heat when he leaves office?
Posted by: Lawnguylander at April 10, 2007 04:59 PM (00ME/)
18
Hmmmm, I wonder what other American celebrity has a past history of alcohol and cocaine abuse that goes terminally unmentionned on this site? Ah yes, right, I remember, it's Shrub, the dimwit president of the united states of 'merica.
Posted by: Jacques at April 11, 2007 12:42 PM (Hrf+D)
19
Hey Caskey, you sniveling twit, I had one of the Rutgers players in class. She was an excellent student. I don't coddle athletes. I have not time for that b.s.
And if you cannot understand why what he said was racist and, particularly, sexist, well, you've only proved the point...
Posted by: truthout at April 12, 2007 01:52 AM (io8dG)
20
get over it a mistake is just that. what about duke team u dont even her the acuser name they spend long time in jail, ther blameing prosucter double stand ill say;
Posted by: bill at April 12, 2007 10:45 AM (A5s0y)
21
This is something that all must know in a time that racial tensions occur. You have no one to blame but yourself, when making comments about something you know absolutely nothing about. All the years that black people have existed and manage to survive all the atrocities that have fallen on us based on the color of our skin. I leave you with this:
Imus be happy to be nappy, but I have never been nor will ever be anybodies ho. Now Imus be in the crappy after talking about who's nappy.
Posted by: Bernice at April 12, 2007 05:25 PM (XVL2z)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
278kb generated in CPU 0.0625, elapsed 0.1408 seconds.
72 queries taking 0.0978 seconds, 439 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.