Confederate Yankee: Because liberalism is a persistent vegetative state.

January 22, 2008

Thompson Withdraws

Via email:

Statement from Sen. Fred Thompson
McLean, VA - Senator Fred Thompson today issued the following statement about his campaign for President:
"Today I have withdrawn my candidacy for President of the United States. I hope that my country and my party have benefited from our having made this effort. Jeri and I will always be grateful for the encouragement and friendship of so many wonderful people."

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:37 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 72 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Damn.

Well, what now?

Posted by: Thus Spake Ortner at January 22, 2008 02:55 PM (r3L6K)

2 Support the lesser of the remaining evils. It's not a good option, but it beats the hell out of supporting the greater evils -- or allowing one of the greater evils to succeed through your inaction.

Posted by: Mark L at January 22, 2008 03:57 PM (ZO0u/)

3 Given the balance of competing interests in the coalition, go with Guiliani. Stronger on Defense (the primary constitutional role of the Federal Government) ,smaller government,and growth targeted tax relief. It's the Social Cons who are going to have to suck it up with a reliance on federalism and originalist judges.

Posted by: RiverRat at January 22, 2008 04:19 PM (ybWKw)

4 Should be a wake up call for how much support the one "true" conservative can muster

Posted by: John Ryan at January 22, 2008 04:36 PM (TcoRJ)

5 Step 1: Ignore the lefties like John Ryan. For all my hopes and dreams, Fred campaigned all too much like Bob Dole did in 1996, and the results are the same. It was the campaign, not the views, that doomed Fred. In hindsight, perhaps all the to-do about what would happen if Fred got into the race made him think it was his to lose... next time we should watch that. Step 2: Decide between Mitt and Rudy. The Huckster is fading fast, and I'd sooner open a vein (and I am a hemophiliac) than vote for McRINO, so that leaves only two choices. Step 3: Pray for the future of our nation.

Posted by: C-C-G at January 22, 2008 07:49 PM (F+vKR)

6 The longer Romney is in the race, the better he looks. And I think people are getting over the Mormon thing. By the fall, unless Hillary is the nominee, it will have faded into the woodwork. If she is, Romney will be depicted as the anti-Christ striding among us with horns.

Posted by: Banjo at January 23, 2008 09:41 AM (1DQ52)

7 We need to get behind Mitt now. He is the most conservative of the remaining bunch. I don't even consider Rudy to still be in the race....

Posted by: t.ferg at January 23, 2008 10:17 AM (2YVh7)

8 Mitt is posting odds of 10-1 to win the White House Hillary is at 2-1 Intrade,com http://www.intrade.com/# Will southern evangelical christians vote for Mitt ??

Posted by: John Ryan at January 23, 2008 02:57 PM (TcoRJ)

9 As a gun-owner I can't get behind Julie or Mitt and their easy managerial way of gun-banning - at least I know where I stand with Obama.

Posted by: DirtCrashr at January 23, 2008 05:59 PM (VNM5w)

10 It's easy to see why John Ryan is so absolutely wrong on so many issues... he trusts InTrade! At one point InTrade said Al Gore was more likely to be the Democratic nominee than Obama. Wrong, wrong, wrongeddy wrong!

Posted by: C-C-G at January 23, 2008 07:53 PM (F+vKR)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Scott Thomas Beauchamp's "Shock Troops" Statements

After the article "Shock Troops" in The New Republic had been challenged by critics , a documentary filmmaker/blogger by the name of JD Johannes narrowed down the search of the author to Alpha Company, 1-18 Infantry, Second Brigade Combat Team, First Infantry Division on July21.

Three days after that on July 24, the military began a formal investigation, which included taking statements from soldiers in Alpha/1-18IN.

Scott Beauchamp gave his initial statement on July 26, published here for the first time.

Later, Beauchamp returned and filed another statement. For reasons as yet unexplained, he backdated the time of the second statement to 1700, an hour an 40 minutes before his original statement at 1840, and yet he directly refers to his statement made at 1840. [Update: perhaps the original statement was made at 15:40 and his penmanship is just bad? That would make a lot more sense...]

At no point during these two statements does Beauchamp directly recant.

He does not provide any support to the claims made in his article, "Shock Troops." There does not appear to ever have been any documentary evidence to support this story, nor the author's two previous stories.

Franklin Foer, editor of The New Republic, penned a retraction of these stories five months later. Foer has yet to issue an apology to his critics or the military he maligned during the course of this story.

Update: Thanks to Jon Ham at The John Locke Foundation for enhancing the contrast of these images.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:00 AM | Comments (25) | Add Comment
Post contains 238 words, total size 2 kb.

1 not to defind the little fart but the time on the first report looks to me to be 1540but it may just be my eyes

Posted by: Rich at January 22, 2008 08:10 AM (siQqy)

2 Two pieces of lawyerly wording stick out to me in SB's statements: 1. He says he hasn't seen anyone hit a dog with a Brad "since I have been driving in the past two months" (statement 2) and, in an interesting parallel, " have not seen a dog hit in that time" (statement 1). This seems designed to open up the possibility for later testimony that he saw dogs deliberately hit by Bradley drivers before the time that he started driving. 2. "Also, there was no "mass grave", a term I never used, found...." This seems consistent with a later (post-discharge) statement that human bones were found, only not in a mass grave. Which is consistent with his story about the human skull cap thing. Don't get me wrong: I think this guy is a lying sack of canine feces. I'm just saying, a lot of us have been anticipating a post-discharge "revelation" from STB that claims: My stories were materially true even if some details, especially wording given by others ("mass grave") and of course the one little "mistake" I've already admitted, were misremembered. AND nothing in my sworn statements to the Army actually contradicted my TNR stories, right-wing bloggers notwithstanding. I see room being deliberately cleared in these statements for this kind of semi-non-retraction. Not of course that there's any actual evidence for its truth. I just wish the Army had pushed a bit harder for direct repudiation of the stories, on the record.

Posted by: DJ at January 22, 2008 08:44 AM (K8KnJ)

3 DJ- Very good points. Problem is- once an individual invokes his rights under the UCMJ, he cannot be "pushed" for "direct repudiation" on the record. Now that these statements are a matter of public record, you can begin to understand why the Army acted the way it did. STB refused to cooperate any further than he did by providing his own statements. There wasn't much else to be done at that point.

Posted by: Major L at January 22, 2008 08:52 AM (Jfe06)

4 If PFC Beauchamp goes on to finish his tour in Iraq, and his Army enlistment, in a manner that earns him an honorable discharge, then he deserves to be, if not forgiven, then at least forgotten. I had plenty of soldiers who misdirected their energy into pursuits that would bring discredit to themselves and their unit, were found out and disciplined, then went on to become good soldiers. Scott will have several options after he leaves the Army. He can continue his bullshit, which will be lapped up by his fellow delusional Lefties, he can slide into obscurity and write under a pseudonym, or he can write a book or series of articles about what really happened in this whole affair. There are probably several other options there as well that I've missed. Which option he chooses will show whether he learned anything at all about honor while working alongside honorable soldiers. Though hardly his intent, he did far more damage to the anti-Army side than he did to the soldiers serving honorably in Iraq.

Posted by: Diggs at January 22, 2008 09:15 AM (6T736)

5 I checked the New Republic's site yesterday and today. Foer is still hiding under his desk...

Posted by: sfcmac at January 22, 2008 09:23 AM (k6M4A)

6 Diggs, the best option seems to be #4... slide into obscurity and never try to write anything ever again. He may think he has skill as a writer, but I don't think he does.

Posted by: C-C-G at January 22, 2008 09:38 AM (F+vKR)

7 At least this "I must hurt my country & fellow human beings" spree is not quite as bad as the CIA. I'm none too pleased with the effectiveness of their screening process.

Posted by: wandering at January 22, 2008 10:12 AM (WoLky)

8 I credit Mr. Beauchamp for staying with his unit and apparently serving out his enlistment in an honorable manor (if available stories are accurate). I also credit his CO for giving Mr. Beauchamp more chances than I would have. However, Mr. Beauchamp's statements are carefully worded so that he leaves room for a post military discharge statement to the effect that statements he made in Iraq were made under duress. Mr. Beauchamp's AWOL and his fabricated stories paint an unflattering picture of a confused kid who thinks he is smarter than the world. This kid strikes me as the next John Kerry. Doug Santo Pasadena, CA

Posted by: Doug Santo at January 22, 2008 10:35 AM (UJ+v4)

9 I thought that due to privacy laws and such, that the written statements had to have the name of the soldier/writer/witness stricken out. Has Scott Beauchamp given his permission to have these public with his name on them?

Posted by: Gringo at January 22, 2008 10:40 AM (uBn2M)

10 I agree with the first comment: Beauchamp's first statement is dated 1540, with some kind of secondary stray mark that confuses the '5'. So, it really was the earlier statement. If you don't believe me, just compare to Beauchamp's real '8', written a couple of lines down on the same statement. When Beauchamp wants to write an '8', he moves the pen differently. And yes, the guy is a crapweasel. Clearly, if you match his sworn statements to his articles in some Clinton-esque fashion, he did leave himself several "outs" - while providing (and having) no evidence for the truth of his articles.

Posted by: tjmmz9843 at January 22, 2008 10:53 AM (QxD/9)

11 Hmmmm. We all know that Beauchamp left himself some wriggle room so he can later on claim he was right.

Posted by: memomachine at January 22, 2008 10:56 AM (3pvQO)

12 Gringo, PFC Beauchamp's name was probably not redacted from the documents as the content renders the source intuitively obvious to the most casual observer. Note that all PII (e.g. SSN) has dutifully been redacted IAW the Privacy Act of 1973.

Posted by: submandave at January 22, 2008 11:46 AM (ljAGw)

13 In a long career as a criminal defense attorney I have read thousands of witness statements. This statement undoubtedly reflects the issues his interrogators were pursuing, and the perspective in which those issues were framed. I believe, based on these statements, that the investigators were focusing on Beauchamp's own driving habits, and the possible desecration of graves. Why the investigators were focusing on those two issues is open to speculation. Beauchamp's fairy tales mostly detailed behavior which was deplorable and sickening, but not actionable by military justice, nor involving conduct which placed other soldiers or military assets at risk. My reading is that the investigators were focusing on behavior which was actionable from a military justice standpoint or putting persons or equipment at risk. I suspect Beauchamp was taking so much heat that his only concern at the time was avoiding discipline or court martial. Any wiggle room he preserved for himself to use later was unintentional. If he had the imagination to look that far ahead, he wouldn't have penned that pack of lies in the first place. On the other hand, I suspect he already fears a future filled with any number of folks willing to spit in his face (or kick his ass). I wonder if he really wants to risk the consequences of claiming his fantasies were true once he returns to civilian life.

Posted by: novaculus at January 22, 2008 12:28 PM (jL6zR)

14 DJ nailed it. Observe a devious little crapweasel in action. I'll bet he's already planning his book tour.

Posted by: Mike G in Corvallis at January 22, 2008 12:36 PM (qmdN5)

15 novaculus: "...but not actionable by military justice..." I beg to differ. The UCMJ covers his conduct (misbehavior) with the following: Article 15: Nonjudicial punishment (NJP) refers to certain limited punishments which can be awarded for minor disciplinary offenses by a commanding officer or officer in charge to members of his/her command. The Manual for Courts-Martial, 1998 edition, also indicates in Part V, para. 1e, that, in determining whether an offense is minor, the "nature of the offense" should be considered. This is a significant statement and often is misunderstood as referring to the seriousness or gravity of the offense. Gravity refers to the maximum possible punishment, however, and is the subject of separate discussion in that paragraph. In context, nature of the offense refers to its character, not its gravity. In military criminal law, there are two basic types of misconduct-disciplinary infractions and crimes. Disciplinary infractions are breaches of standards governing the routine functioning of society. Thus, traffic laws, license requirements, disobedience of military orders, disrespect to military superiors, etc., are disciplinary infractions. And this one, the "Catch 22": Article 134: Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, ALL CONDUCT OF A NATURE TO BRING DISCREDIT UPON THE ARMED FORCES,and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court. At the very least, he qualifies for an Article 15, but if they wanted to really fry his ass, they'd have no problem using Article 134.

Posted by: sfcmac at January 22, 2008 03:29 PM (k6M4A)

16 Keep in mind that the Left believed everything PFC Beauchamp wrote, long before he wrote it.

Posted by: Diggs at January 22, 2008 03:33 PM (6T736)

17 All of the criticism of Beauchamp is true. He IS a crapweasel, he IS a slimy little worm who defamed the U.S. military. But, he also is finishing his tour. He is a soldier in the United States Army, and we have to give him a bit of credit for that. I hope (but I don't expect) that he behaves in an honorable way when he leaves the military.

Posted by: Daniel at January 22, 2008 04:07 PM (nwJit)

18 I personally think Beauchamp is a Weasel. He's got two problems though. If his story is false...then he's got legal problems with TNR. He deliberately wrote a false story that damaged the reputation of TNR. The fact that TNR had their house lawyer on the phone during the last conference call means TNR is none too happy with Beauchamp.... So the JAG for Beauchamps unit does the right thing...gets enough evidence to get clear Beauchamp of any UCMJ violations but not but not enough for TNR to sue Beauchamp. Then advises Beauchamp to avoid talking with anyone who has a lawyer or recorder present. If the Army prosecuted every soldier that told a tall tale there probably wouldn't be an Army.

Posted by: Soldiers Dad at January 22, 2008 05:29 PM (YL5FC)

19 I also believe having looked over the statements that Douchechamp (sic) wrote that he allowed himself some 'wiggle room' in order to preserve his 'future' as a writer or a blogger even. As far as Santos statement of "I also credit his CO for giving Mr. Beauchamp more chances than I would have." I believe that in the current CYA mentality of the military, that his current commander, from Battalion CO to Company CO that they both are aware of the fire that Douchechamp lit with his accusations, and probably fear for the future in the respect that if mentioned by name, the BC ( a LT Chicken) and the CO (Capt) are probably fearful of having their names publically associated when he writes his "The Army Kept Me Down and other War Crimes I Saw" book that he writes later in his life. Having been one of the ones who helped Bob with this, it's apparent from these statements that, unlike the belief that he isn't thinking of the future, that scum sucking crapweasels (LOVE that term) like him do INDEED worry about having wiggle room down the line. Fact is, its been apparent in both people who knew him in Germany (former fiancee) and others, that he joined the military with the express idea of becoming the next Hemingway or other such War-Writing Luminaries. His actions, as reprehensible as they may be, and despite his attempts to 'straighten out' as documented by Blackfive, still show one thing. He had the expess intent of going to Iraq in order to become a 'war writer' and his subsequent actions, to include his questionable marriage to a factchecker at TNR, shows his intent, no matter what the cost, either to him, his people, his troops or anyone immeadiately surrounding him. His attempt to 'straighten out' in Iraq AFTER the fact can be simply explained that once his proclivity for smearing and degrading his fellow soldiers can be attributed to wanting to stay alive while he finished his in-theater tour. After all, friendly fire aint so friendly is it? Douchechamp epitomises (sp?) to me a true sociopath who cares nothing for anyone around him and would do anything to protect his own worthless hide. Nuff said.

Posted by: Big Countryt at January 22, 2008 05:32 PM (SIzGZ)

20 Soldier's Dad, He's got two problems though. If his story is false...then he's got legal problems with TNR. He deliberately wrote a false story that damaged the reputation of TNR. 1, He's judgement proof, or IOW, he's got no money to take even if they win. 2. In order to sue him, TNR would have to be trying to prove they got taken, a fact that they seem highly allergic to. For them, trying to sue Beauchamp would be like trying to drill an empty well with your face.

Posted by: Pablo at January 22, 2008 06:59 PM (yTndK)

21 I would not be surprised if Mr. Foer and/or some legal beagles from TNR advised Pvt. Beauchamp to leave himself some wiggle room in his statement.

Posted by: C-C-G at January 22, 2008 08:18 PM (F+vKR)

22 I think we should withhold criticism of Scott Beauchamp. He served his country in a combat zone. Plus Beauchamp did not hurt the reputation of TNR, he helped us see more accurately what that reputation should be.

Posted by: Buck Smith at January 23, 2008 09:41 AM (8Q9/2)

23 Buck, good point. the PFC couldn't have more clearly shined a light on TNR's poor journalistic practices and biases if he had intentionally set out to be a mole and catch them in a sting.

Posted by: submandave at January 23, 2008 12:50 PM (ljAGw)

24 sfcmac- Point taken. Had they wished they could have found a way to charge him. Nevertheless, I stand by my original premise that his statements reflect the investigators' focus. Taking your point into account, I would refine my analysis. There are two distinguishable areas of interest, (1) breaches of discipline which put persons or assets at immediate, identifiable risk, and (2) breaches of discipline that may violate the articles set out above but do not pose the same immediate, identifiable risk. The former demands action; failing to act is negligence and dereliction of duty for his superiors. The latter, as the regs specifically indicate, require a careful balancing of considerations. At the point in time of the investigation, I think an astute officer could well determine that the actual risk that Beauchamp's libelous fantasies would undermine morale or good order in the ranks was less important than the consequences of appearing to censure him for writing what he wrote. The inevitable consequence of initiating disciplinary proceedings over writing what he wrote would have been a national media frenzy over alleged stifling of dissent (no matter the utter falsehoods he employed). The focus of the media, and the story, would have been shifted from Beauchamp's libels and Foer's folly to the military's alleged "oppression" of Beauchamp and "suppression" of "free speech". On the other hand, investigating what personnel actually did (as opposed to wrote) which resulted in immediate, identifiable risk, is absolutely justifiable and not subject to the same criticism. I think someone was actually using his head here, and properly identified the important issues and appropriate focus of investigation. If I recall correctly, the only official rebuke Beauchamp got for anything he wrote was for publishing dates of movement for his unit on his blog, which was a clear violation of security. The libelous fantasies were well ignored by military justice. His veracity was already seriously in doubt, and I suspect his popularity with his fellow soldiers had reached a new low and was sinking. Beauchamp was getting a fair portion of heat for his libels as it was, and his immediate future had to appear pretty grim to him. The downside of investigating Beauchamp for writing what he wrote as opposed to what he or other soldiers may have done outweighed any military benefits. Which returns me to my original point. BeauchampÂ’s statements reflect the focus of the investigation, and were designed to clear himself of actual wrongdoing. They were probably also intended to deny his usefulness as a witness to wrongdoing by others. The perceived Â“wiggle roomÂ” is probably reflective of the focus of inquiry and his exculpatory intentions as opposed to a plan to preserve his options later. Whether he will actually attempt to split hairs later to justify further falsehoods remains to be seen.

Posted by: novaculus at January 23, 2008 02:35 PM (jL6zR)

25 Buck, while I honor him for his service to his country, he did write scurrilous lies that were purported to be fact. His service does not un-do that. Just because someone serves does not make them immune to all criticism. John Kerry tried that, now John McRINO is trying it, and it never, I say again, never flies.

Posted by: C-C-G at January 23, 2008 07:56 PM (F+vKR)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Yes, They Said It

Among the documents provided by FOIA requests to U.S. Central Command was this FOIA request from Peter Scoblic of The New Republic.

This particular paragraph is rich with... well, you know.

TNR's senior editorial staff, particularly Franklin Foer, has been the primary if not exclusive source for attacks against the integrity and credibility of the U.S. military investigation from the very beginning of the criticism over "Shock Troops," all the way through Foer's belated, unapologetic retraction.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:19 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 84 words, total size 1 kb.

1 The MSM is giving the NR a pass on this. The TNR is one of their own. If this had been a Republican magazine lying about, say...the Clintons, it'd be twenty-four/seven "news". All the unual double standards apply.

Posted by: Increase Mather at January 22, 2008 06:39 AM (gpcsn)

2 I would be interested in knowing what information they requested, and exactly when they requested it. For one, the date would say a lot about their due diligence (sp? no coffee yet) and for another, it would indicate if they were interested in learning the truth or if they were more interested in trying to find out dirt on people other than SB.

Posted by: Laughing Wolf at January 22, 2008 07:19 AM (vjd/1)

3 Ooops. Had caffiene, now followed the link. Interesting, as I've heard a rumor that they have now filed another FOIA after records pertaining to contact between PAO and others such as yourself in regards this matter. As if trying to establish improper contact or some other form of malfeasance as a way to discredit the investigation and results...

Posted by: Laughing Wolf at January 22, 2008 09:27 AM (oD9bS)

4 --hands LW another cup of coffee-- Of course, TNR never wanted confirmation of STB's story... to them, it fits The Narrative, so it must be The Trooth, and the facts be damned. All they want is some way of discrediting those who discredited TNR and STB. The Politics of Personal Destruction are still a vital part of the left.

Posted by: C-C-G at January 22, 2008 09:41 AM (F+vKR)

5 the TNR's reaction to this "public affairs officer" deigning to talk with a member of "the public" is telling. God help them if they find out that there's a "County Extension Office" where "citizens" can send things like their "soil samples" for "analysis" and/or have their "questions" answered ... for free. Or, more accurately, as "a service which is provided using revenue from taxes." I look forward to their article: Red Staters Benefit Most from Little Known, Perhaps Secret, Government Program. The willingness to pick up a phone and call somebody you don't already know about a subject you're willing to learn about seems to be the distinctive characteristic between MSM journalists and bloggers.

Posted by: Passerby at January 22, 2008 09:48 AM (UeP9e)

6 The line about "...the information sought...is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requestor." is also a side splitter. Remember when these were just stupid throwaway slice of life stories that no one should get worked up about? I do. And now, with TNR's goose on the spit, the information is a matter of national urgency because the PEOPLE NEED TO KNOW!!!

Posted by: Pablo at January 23, 2008 01:33 AM (yTndK)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

January 21, 2008

The Scott Thomas Beauchamp " Shock Troops" Military Investigation, Statements 1-6, 8-12.

Documents released by the Office of the Chief of Staff, U.S. Central Command at MacDill Air Force Base Florida, in relation to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests files for documents relating to the military investigation into the Scott Thomas Beauchamp "Shock Troops" article in The New Republic magazine.

The following are the never-before published statements of soldiers interviewed in the course of the investigation. Names are redacted per federal privacy laws.

Statement 1 (click image to enlarge)

Statement 2 (click image to enlarge)

Statement 3 (click image to enlarge)

Statement 3, Page 2 (click image to enlarge)

Statement 4 (click image to enlarge)

Statement 4, Page 2 (click image to enlarge)

Statement 5

Statement 6

Statement 6, Page 2

Statement 8

Statement 9 (click image to enlarge)

Statement 10 (click image to enlarge)

Statement 11

Statement 12

More documents follow. Check back in later.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:15 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 169 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Where have you gone New Republic, our nation turns its lonely eyes to you...woo, woo, woo. What's that you say, Andrew Sullivan, Franlin Foer's left and gone away? Hey, Hey, Hey. Hey, Hey, Hey. Do I need to send in some more crow recipies?

Posted by: Joe at January 21, 2008 04:35 PM (+GRGs)

2 Next time, please increase the contrast in the images.

Posted by: ForNow at January 21, 2008 05:05 PM (Xlpsj)

3 CY, you know, according to The Narrative, all these people have to be liars, because Scott Thomas Beauchamp simply cannot be wrong. It is imperative to The Narrative (rhyme unintentional) that Beauchamp's stories be The Trooth!

Posted by: C-C-G at January 21, 2008 07:09 PM (F+vKR)

4 I couldn't read them, even with the one click. Too bad I couldn't enlarge.

Posted by: Kathianne at January 21, 2008 07:37 PM (IY5Pw)

5 I increased the brightness, decreased the contrast, converted to 256-color bmp then to 16-color bmp, then to gif, brought into googlepages and much enlarged. All very readable. But your program won't let me include the googlepages URL. http://vrwcrwdb.googlepages .com/home (remove the space between "googlepages" and ".com")

Posted by: ForNow at January 21, 2008 07:40 PM (Xlpsj)

6 Oh, these look bad. For Beauchamp, anyway.

Posted by: Golden Bear at January 21, 2008 08:24 PM (yomTn)

7 Bob, do you have any guess if any of these are from Beauchamp? Which? If none of them are, is it because of the wording of the FOIA request? Another topic: It would have been nice if they had been asked directly whether they saw a skull being worn as a hat.

Posted by: mockmook at January 21, 2008 08:44 PM (gUMSz)

8 Mock, I do indeed have Beauchamp's two statements, and they'll be going out in what I hope is my final post on this affair.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 21, 2008 09:15 PM (HcgFD)

9 Am I reading statement 4 correctly? It seems to say Beauchamp was a Bradley driver. That's odd, considering how outrageous his claims regarding the Bradley seemed. You'd think he wouldn't exaggerate the capabilities of a vehicle he knew. On the other hand, maybe he himself aimed for dogs; whether he ever hit any is another matter the Bradley driver wouldn't be able to see that (as many commenters have pointed out). Likewise everything else in the stories--perhaps they all describe his own scummy behavior, but spiced up to seem interesting, rather than merely pathetic.

Posted by: clazy at January 21, 2008 09:52 PM (43dN8)

10 Thanks Bob; great work. That is an excellent teaser!!!! I can't wait :-)

Posted by: mockmook at January 21, 2008 11:02 PM (gUMSz)

11 ...[A]ccording to The Narrative, all these people have to be liars, because Scott Thomas Beauchamp simply cannot be wrong. Well, no. At least at the lefty sites I visit, the whole Beauchamp thing was conceded long, long ago. In fact, it was a subject of mirth that this and a few other sites kept pounding away at it as if there were some organized opposition--playing a ferocious game of tug-of-war when there was nobody pulling against them at the other end of the rope.

Posted by: Doc Washboard at January 22, 2008 09:18 AM (vfJdo)

12 Doc, please provide links to those lefty sites where they conceded that Beauchamp was wrong.

Posted by: C-C-G at January 22, 2008 09:42 AM (F+vKR)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

The Scott Thomas Beauchamp " Shock Troops" Military Investigation, Statements 13-24

The following are the never-before published statements of soldiers interviewed in the course of the investigation. Names are redacted per federal privacy laws.

Statement 13

Statement 14 (click to enlarge)

Statement 14, Page 2

Statement 15

Statement 16

Statement 17 (click to enlarge)

Statement 18 (click to enlarge)

Statement 19 (click to enlarge)

Statement 20 (click to enlarge)

Statement 21

Statement 22

Statement 23 (click to enlarge)

Statement 24 (click to enlarge)

More documents following throughout the day. Check back in later.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:57 AM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 153 words, total size 3 kb.

1 To my mind, the most damning statements (damning to Beauchamp, that is) are the following: Statement 19, made by a staff sergeant: "[At COP Ellis] We did see some goat feces and goat parts that were very old. Nothing out of the ordinary was found there. Cop Ellis was obviously a farm at one time." Statement 20, also by a staff sergeant: "No, I never saw any human remains at C.O.P. Ellis. There are some sheep bones and skulls there. (Illegible) 1/28 soldiers claim they found a decomposing body during the clearing of C.O.P. Ellis." Statement 21, another staff sergeant: "When COP Ellis was being built we found dog, cat and other animal bones. We pilled [sic] them up and got rid of it." Statement 22, no rank listed: "Q: Did you see anyone pick up a human skull and wear it? A: No I did not, what I saw was farm animal bones in a pile." It seems clear where Beauchamp got the inspiration for his "mass grave" story.

Posted by: Robin Munn at January 21, 2008 11:56 AM (LWLDF)

2 That is, among the new information that was uncovered, these statements are the most damning. We already knew that the FOB Falcon burned woman story was made up out of whole (tan, military-style) cloth, after all.

Posted by: Robin Munn at January 21, 2008 12:00 PM (LWLDF)

3 Yeah, but it all could have been true. Maybe Iowahawk can do the news media over, a la Beauchamp.

Posted by: Slartibartfast at January 21, 2008 12:46 PM (kC3nL)

4 Hey CF: How's about making those PDF's?!

Posted by: Macker at January 21, 2008 12:48 PM (4efNV)

5 I guess they don't keep logs in the Army. In the Navy you would have seen more all-caps print, although without lines, the text would have been similarly out of alignment. It makes me want to go practice my penmanship to improve my warfighting skills.

Posted by: Patrick S Lasswell at January 21, 2008 01:02 PM (W5JWo)

6 Great research! Congratulations, and thanks for sticking with it! There's only one problem: to the MSM, and especially to The New Republic, this will be "old news." The media will not report it, and TNR will not issue another statement -- hey, they've already issued one half-assed retraction, why should they say anything else? -- and Franklin Foer will keep his job. The one effect these facts will have ... is that Scott Beauchamp will have to learn how to look blank and innocent in case some interviewer is nasty enough to bring this up when he's on his book tour. But nobody will. And the folks on the left who want to believe Beauchamp's hardhitting frontline reporting on the hell of war -- the gutwrenching mindthoughts of a real patriot, not some chickenhawk! -- won't ever care about any of this at all. That's what we're up against, folks.

Posted by: Mike G in Corvallis at January 21, 2008 01:13 PM (qmdN5)

7 "And the folks on the left who want to believe Beauchamp's hardhitting frontline reporting on the hell of war...won't ever care about any of this at all." Worse, they will say these people were all in on the coverup.

Posted by: the wolf at January 21, 2008 01:28 PM (0nNH7)

8 I doubt it will advance the public debate, just because most had come to this conclusion long ago. But an extraordinary accomplishment, Mr. Owens. Thank you for your work.

Posted by: Richard R at January 21, 2008 01:35 PM (2ajJo)

9 Good job! I blogged about the faux diarist myself, and also published an e-mail I got from his First Sergeant. The whole thing reeked of bullshit from the get-go. TNR got punked by a problem child,and still won't apologize to those they slandered. They salivated over another military-bashing smear piece, and it back-fired.

Posted by: sfcmac at January 21, 2008 01:36 PM (k6M4A)

10 Hey CF: How's about making those PDF's?! These files came to me as a PDF... the file these were pulled from was 36MB after I ran them through a PDF compression utility. Sorry, but I can't post something that big, so I sliced and diced to publish the new and relevant information only. I've copied the majority of the sworn statements, with the exception of one of those that read as cookie cutter of a previous statement, and multiple copes of those denying the burned woman story at FOB Falcon, as they all said the same thing. I cut blank second-pages as well. More are on the way early this evening.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 21, 2008 01:44 PM (HcgFD)

11 I'm afraid we haven't seen the last of SB nor his BS. The Left has to rehabilitate him. I can see the meme now: "Scott Beauchamp, now a civilian and freed from the intimidation of his commanders is also free to tell us the truth about the atrocities he witnessed while fighting heroically in Iraq."

Posted by: Fred Beloit at January 21, 2008 01:51 PM (Yf/OH)

12 "I guess they don't keep logs in the Army." Yeah, we do, on DA Form 1594. All caps aren't particularly common in the Army, unless it's someone who can't type. For some reason, whoever invented the sworn statement never thought to put lines on it so it could be neat. BTW, Confed Yankee: make sure that whoever you got the PDFs from *properly* redacted the names. It's very easy in Adobe Acrobat to draw a text box over the names so it *looks* like they're gone but are still accessible to someone who knows what he's doing.

Posted by: ben at January 21, 2008 02:14 PM (IFfn3)

13 CF --- As the documents are public domain (I presume), making them available unaltered would be a good thing. Try uploading the PDF to MediaFire, or a similar service.

Posted by: Ian Hamet at January 21, 2008 02:15 PM (wakuZ)

14 It's probably been said before, but it is worth saying again because we need to understand how liberals think: TNR did not "slander" the military by its own standards, because they were simply trying to reveal an ugly truth that they KNOW is there. Unfortunately, this guy did not really have the experiences he claimed he did, but they KNOW that ugly truth is still out there. All they are looking for is a MEANS to reveal what they already are certain of. See, TNR could no more "slander" the military than most of us could "slander" OJ Simpson - we are esentially certain he did it, so we would not be contrite if we quoted someone accusing him, even if it turned out didn't have any proof... simply because we don't think we NEED any proof! To TNR, the military is ugly by definition in the same way that OJ is guilty by defintion to most of us.

Posted by: sherlock at January 21, 2008 03:30 PM (ojW85)

15 Perhaps my memory is inaccurate, but didn't TNR claim to have interviewed corroborating "witnesses" to the things Beauchamp wrote in his articles? It seems clear now that either they did NOT conduct such interviews during their "internal investigation/stonewall" or that Beauchamp had people lie to the TNR "investigators" to support his story. Given the huge publicity and negative coverage these allegations attracted, I would have thought the Army would also have asked those other soldiers if they had provided any such "confirmations" to TNR or anyone else.

Posted by: Jim Addison at January 21, 2008 03:58 PM (uqc7t)

16 Sherlock gets it half right. Not only are Beauchamp in TNR correct because, even if the "facts" cited cannot be confirmed, there are surely unreported incidents at least as heinous perpetrated by the U.S. military in Iraq every day. But the left would, if necessary, carry that quasi-religious belief even one step further. It doesn't matter if such morally reprehensible actions are occurring. The fact that the U.S. military is an instrument for defense of Western culture and projection of its power is, in and of itself, an offense against all that is good and true. The U.S. military promotes white, patriarchal, Western values against those poor, oppressed "brown" cultures that cannot defend themselves. Ipso facto, U.S. military - bad - heroic resistance - good.

Posted by: boqueronman at January 21, 2008 04:08 PM (yg7jh)

17 Interesting that one statement, statement #6 from a Private First Class, mentions a human skullcap (not the complete skull) being found from someone he judged to be 5-10 years old at time of death. If true (and he did swear to it, so he must have been aware of the penalties for perjury) then it explains better where Beauchamp would have gotten the inspiration for his story. Still doesn't excuse the "the soldier wore it on his head" or the "mass grave" fabrications, though.

Posted by: Robin Munn at January 21, 2008 04:45 PM (LWLDF)

18 The sworn statement form is done that way so it can be typed, or have drawings made on it. Its Da Form 2823. I used to carry a type writer so it stayed neat. Some investigators draw lines when they have people with poor writing skills.

Posted by: Jeremy at January 22, 2008 10:59 AM (80eUk)

19 Oh, this is so ridiculous. Why doesn't TNR just do its dream cover story: SOLDIERS TRAINED TO KILL PEOPLE. Isn't that what this is all about? Sheer horror that an armed service exists? Confederate Yank, you have done a great service.

Posted by: Susan Katz Keating at January 22, 2008 02:22 PM (AiJXe)

20 Hey Bob, aren't these the documents that the stupid killbot Army refuses to release so they can impede TNR's "investigation" into the truthiness of the matter? Yeah, I thought so. I wonder how Frank Foer's FOIA request is coming along. TNR is silent on the topic today.

Posted by: Pablo at January 23, 2008 01:06 AM (yTndK)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Marine Hero's Widow Scammed, But Not Forgotten

1st Lt. Dustin Shumney with Conner, Jordan, Mallory, and Julie Shumney.

[text and images via patdollard.com.]

1st Lt. Dustin Shumney was a devout Catholic, dedicated officer, family man, and Iraq War hero.
His widow Julie, and their three children Jordan, 15; Mallory, 11; Conner, 6 were awarded the Bronze Star with the Combat Â‘VÂ’ device on August 4, 2005 as a result of his heroic actions in Fallujah, Iraq while serving as the commander of 2nd platoon, Charlie Company, Battalion Landing Team for Hawaii based 1st Battalion, 3rd Marine Regiment, 3rd Marine Division, III Marine Expeditionary Force.
He led his men fearlessly into Fallujah in November of 2004. ShumneyÂ’s confidence, proficiency and warfighting spirit made a positive impact on his platoonÂ’s ability to fight.
And fight they did. Few men have ever exercised the type of bravery exhibited by Shumney and his men. From throwing live enemy grenades that landed at his feet back at the enemy, to leading his men through dangerous minefields, to clearing houses filled with suicidal insurgents, all the while under sporadic mortar, RPG, and small arms fire.
Articles have been written. Heroes have been recognized. Medals have been awarded.
Many posthumously.
Lt. Shumney died on Jan. 26, 2005, when the CH-53E Sea Stallion helicopter he and his men were using for transport crashed due to a sandstorm about 200 miles from Baghdad near Ar Rutbah, Iraq killing all on board. Approximately 30 Marines and one sailor perished in the crash making it one of the deadliest days for U.S. troops since the initial invasion of Iraq in March 2003.
On that day, Julie Shumney became a widow, and the three children she and Dustin had lovingly brought into the world, Jordan, Mallory, and Conner, became fatherless.
One of the most noble things a person can do, is to help widows and orphans during their Â“time of trouble.Â“
The harshness of the reality that her soulmate would never walk through their front door again and take her in his arms, the emptiness that Daddy would never again tuck them into their beds, kiss them goodnight and chase away the boogeymen; the knowledge that he would never be there to lead, guide, play with, and love their children again, is a time of trouble no decent person would ever wish upon any other.
In times like those, friends and family should come together, band around the widow and the fatherless, and give them aid and comfort.
This is the tale of two men who preyed upon this widow and her fatherless children, in their time of trouble, and bilked them out of $57,000.
Arguably, one of the best ways a person can work through grief is to give oneself to a charitable cause. This is what Julie Shumney did. She held a Bible study at her house with people from her church, and through the course of those weekly meetings she came up with the idea to raise money to give to various Christian outreach programs around the country.
More specifically, a program that would give money to Iraq War widows and orphans. This was especially dear to her. She wanted to help those who would go through what she had been going through.
This is where Julie ShumneyÂ’s heart is, to help those truly in need.
Â“I just was wanting to give back,Â” Julie said.
Enter Jeff, an evangelist from her church, who also led the weekly Bible study in JulieÂ’s house, he seemed like a nice enough guy. And when the idea to help Iraq War widows and orphans came about, Jeff told Julie about a friend of his named Ken.
Jeff explained that Ken had had some success in an eBay business that revolved around buying truckloads of returned electronics merchandise from national chain stores like Circuit City and Wal-Mart at a greatly reduced price. They go through the items, salvaging what they can and putting them up for sale on eBay.
According to Jeff and Ken, their first investor, a man named Hencer, had fronted them the money needed to get that business going, and Hencer claimed he had received his initial investment back with no problem.
What could go wrong? The nice evangelist guy has a friend with a tried and true method that could help them raise lots of money to give to Iraq War widows and orphans. Her idea was that they would recoup the initial investment and give the profits to the widows and orphans charity, then take that initial investment and buy another truckload of reduced electronics, etc etcÂ…and continue the cycle of charitable giving.
Sounded like a good plan for a good cause.
They drew up a contract. Julie gave them a CashierÂ’s Check for $40,000 with the stipulation that $5,000 be used to help Â“start upÂ” the business, and that nobody made any profit off of the venture, that the profits would go to the charities. Contract signed, check handed over, Julie felt good. She felt that she might be able to help make a difference in the lives of those who would be going through one of the worst times of their lives.
Both Jeff and Kenneth had said that the project would be a side thing for them, that they would be volunteering their time with the project in the spirit of giving, and helping the Iraq war widows and orphans.
But soon afterward, things started to go bad. The contract they had signed had mysteriously disappeared. Whenever Julie would call Ken or Jeff to check on how things were going, she would get conflicting stories.
Things werenÂ’t adding up.
But Julie, being a good Christian, believed that because they were also Christians, brothers in the faith, she should give them the benefit of the doubt.
Then one day, Jeff the evangelist came to Julie in tears. He said he was unable to live with himself knowing what he knew and that he was losing sleep, and his conscience was eating away at him.
He told her that Ken had been pocketing the money. That Ken had bought a car for his wife with it, that he had been making his own house payments with it, that he had been simply spending it as if it were his own money. Jeff went on to tell Julie that he himself had been unfaithful with the funds, paying for an expensive school for his own son, as well as numerous other personal bills.
Julie said Â“Well, letÂ’s go get my electronics from your garage then. They belong to me.Â”
Jeff agreed. But Jeff said that Ken was a dangerous person with a criminal background. That there was no telling what he would do if he was confronted with his wrongdoing. So they decided initially, to not tell Ken that Jeff had informed Julie of the deception. Instead they took the merchandise, rented a warehouse, and moved it there. Then, Jeff told Ken that he was no longer part of the project.
Jeff then told Julie they needed to buy another smaller truckload of electronics to try and help recoup her losses, and Julie reluctantly agreed on the condition that she send the money directly to the company that was selling the truckload of electronics, and she did that.
Jeff brought in a man named Brandon, who was supposedly an honest guy, to help.
Soon after they started operating, Jeff said that Paypal kept shutting them down and they didnÂ’t know why. Jeff gave Julie some excuse about eBay, which she found hard to believe. Julie knew it was time to just shut it down. Brandon came to her and told her that things with Jeff were Â“not as they seemed.Â”
Julie ended recouping only $7,000 of her $57,000 investment. Ken had threatened her if she tried to come after him for her money back. Apparently these two guys run some ministry called John G. Lake.org.
I talked to Julie on the phone this afternoon. Her income, which was supposed to be from an annuity is gone because she had to liquidate the annuity. She is having a hard time making ends meet.
She wants to pursue the matter legally, but that also takes money that she doesnÂ’t have.
An Iraq War HeroÂ’s widow and fatherless children need your help.

Click above to donate directly to Julie ShumneyÂ’s Paypal account.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:56 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 1402 words, total size 11 kb.

1 I'll post a link to here at my blog.

Posted by: Foxfier at January 21, 2008 02:15 PM (s2ydv)

2 I'm missing something in this story - it's tragic that she got duped, no doubt about that, but what happened to 1LT Shumney's SGLI? That's about $400k if he did the smart thing and signed up for it all.

Posted by: SSG Jeff (USAR) at January 21, 2008 02:51 PM (yiMNP)

3 Also, what's being done about going after the scam artists?

Posted by: PookyBear at January 21, 2008 05:04 PM (Wry6A)

4 Is there a copy of the police report? Till I see it I'm reluctant to help. How do I know this isn't another scam?

Posted by: jharp at January 21, 2008 06:04 PM (H7KdF)

5 Why did you remove my posting? The Above Story is a lie. This is Kenneth Waters Â· I do not have a criminal background Â· I have never threatened anyone (Julie, you must have not known that this would put my family or I in danger) Â· I have not spoke to Julie since November 2005 (have never been contacted by a lawyer for that matter) Â· I was told it was $40,000. Which was deposited into JeffÂ’s personal account (where did the extra $17000 come from) Â· Julie told Jeff that I didnÂ’t owe her any thing. Julie, you have to stop this. This is not the truth. If it where you would have contacted a lawyer. I would urge you to. At least in court I can testify to what actually happened. You encourage my name and home address (where my wife and four kids are) on a website that proclaims God one minute and yet says their going to pay my family a Â“visit at 4:30amÂ” and Â“going to mow the grassÂ” the next. Yes, I had an ebay business. Jeff talked me into a partnership with Julie to start a larger business. Julie funded $40,000 to start it. We worked out of my house to keep cost low. (Julie, I told Jeff that I transferred $32.00 from his paypal to mine for payment. What did he tell you? I got fired over a $32.00 misunderstanding and now all these lies.) While I was Â“in businessÂ” with them I was paid and so was Jeff. I bought a $1500.00 white ford escort and made my regular monthly mortgage payments. My wife worked full time for Homeland Security. Julie, I moved all the merchandise from my garage to the warehouse. I left you my account information and contacts where you could by your product from for resale. I left you my forklift - $1500.00, four(4) pallet racks - $1200.00, a computer, icebox, all my testing equipment and tables. Guys, I could see how you can get angry reading this story. Man if I read this (with out knowing the truth) I would want something done. The truth is there is not validity to this story. Julie invested in a start up business that did not do well after I left. Julie, it was never my fault Jeff didnÂ’t know how to run an ebay business. Remember the Gensser and Jeff business? Jeff was only with us for three(3) months. He knew nothing about running that business, ask Chris, I ran it. I am a Christian, I have the light of God living in me through the Lord Jesus Christ. I pray that the Holy Spirit will put the truth in your hearts. Julie, I donÂ’t know what you want to accomplish by doing this, but be assured this is not the right way. Now JGLM, I have never worked for JGLM or represented them in anyway. There have been wrongful allegations brought forth and hateful emails. I ask in light of the truth that they stop. Curry has been a blessing to our family. I will accept any personal emails concerning this matter as no matter what is said after I post this I will not respond on this blog. I respectfully ask that the threats stop, my wife is calling me crying and scared. Man, what are yaÂ’ll trying to do? I donÂ’t know if there is anything that I can do legally or not but this story has to be stopped. Thank you and Be Blessed!

Posted by: Kenneth Waters at January 23, 2008 12:02 AM (6ugN5)

6 Why did you remove my posting. The above story is a lie! This is Kenneth Waters Â· I do not have a criminal background Â· I have never threatened anyone (Julie, you must have not known that this would put my family or I in danger) Â· I have not spoke to Julie since November 2005 (have never been contacted by a lawyer for that matter) Â· I was told it was $40,000. Which was deposited into JeffÂ’s personal account (where did the extra $17000 come from) Â· Julie told Jeff that I didnÂ’t owe her any thing. Julie, you have to stop this. This is not the truth. If it where you would have contacted a lawyer. I would urge you to. At least in court I can testify to what actually happened. You encourage my name and home address (where my wife and four kids are) on a website that proclaims God one minute and yet says their going to pay my family a Â“visit at 4:30amÂ” and Â“going to mow the grassÂ” the next. Yes, I had an ebay business. Jeff talked me into a partnership with Julie to start a larger business. Julie funded $40,000 to start it. We worked out of my house to keep cost low. (Julie, I told Jeff that I transferred $32.00 from his paypal to mine for payment. What did he tell you? I got fired over a $32.00 misunderstanding and now all these lies.) While I was Â“in businessÂ” with them I was paid and so was Jeff. I bought a $1500.00 white ford escort and made my regular monthly mortgage payments. My wife worked full time for Homeland Security. Julie, I moved all the merchandise from my garage to the warehouse. I left you my account information and contacts where you could by your product from for resale. I left you my forklift - $1500.00, four(4) pallet racks - $1200.00, a computer, icebox, all my testing equipment and tables. Guys, I could see how you can get angry reading this story. Man if I read this (with out knowing the truth) I would want something done. The truth is there is not validity to this story. Julie invested in a start up business that did not do well after I left. Julie, it was never my fault Jeff didnÂ’t know how to run an ebay business. Remember the Gensser and Jeff business? Jeff was only with us for three(3) months. He knew nothing about running that business, ask Chris, I ran it. I am a Christian, I have the light of God living in me through the Lord Jesus Christ. I pray that the Holy Spirit will put the truth in your hearts. Julie, I donÂ’t know what you want to accomplish by doing this, but be assured this is not the right way. Now JGLM, I have never worked for JGLM or represented them in anyway. There have been wrongful allegations brought forth and hateful emails. I ask in light of the truth that they stop. Curry has been a blessing to our family. I will accept any personal emails concerning this matter as no matter what is said after I post this I will not respond on this blog. I respectfully ask that the threats stop, my wife is calling me crying and scared. Man, what are yaÂ’ll trying to do? I donÂ’t know if there is anything that I can do legally or not but this story has to be stopped. Thank you and Be Blessed!

Posted by: Kenneth Waters at January 23, 2008 12:08 AM (6ugN5)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

January 18, 2008

Chicago Lawyer Jay R. Grodner's Day in Court

The anti-war lawyer that defaced a Marine's car had his day in court.

Justice was served, and though the case is over, Google will remember him forever.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 05:20 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 43 words, total size 1 kb.

Gun Control Legislation Fails in Virginia

Though that isn't quite the spin put on it by Larry O'Dell of the Associated Press:

Emotional pleas by relatives of Virginia Tech shooting victims failed Friday to persuade a legislative committee to close a loophole that allows criminals and the mentally ill to buy firearms at gun shows.
The House Militia, Police and Public Safety Committee voted 13-9 to kill legislation that would require unlicensed sellers at gun shows to conduct criminal background checks on buyers. Such checks now are required only on transactions by federally licensed gun dealers.
Thirty-two people were killed at Virginia Tech on April 16 by a mentally disturbed student who committed suicide as police closed in.

The Committee made the right choice, as the proposed legislation was ignorant, irrelevant and unworkable, just as this article's lede is prejudicial and purposefully misleading.

The "gun show loophole" is mostly a fable, and always has been, with only 2% of guns used in crimes being tracked back to gun shows. Most criminals obtain their firearms from family or friends who obtained firearms legally or illegally from another source.

This proposed legislation would have forced private individuals to conduct background checks on perspective buyers at gun shows, an idea not very well thought out, as it would mean that private individuals would have to turn over sensitive personal information —name, date of birth, address, driver's license number or other form of picture ID, social security numbers (optional, but many buyers don't know that), etc—to other private individuals they don't know and would probably never see again to run though the background check. In this day of increasing identity theft, what could possibly go wrong?

Real criminals, lazy, but not stupid, would certainly be willing to sell a firearm at a gun show for several hundred dollars in exchange for personal information to which they could fraudulently charge thousands. The background check would be done through FFL holders, for an additional fee.

In addition, the background check and associated hassles would only would only be applicable at the gun show, and nowhere else.

Citizens who didn't want to go through the hassle of paperwork would simply complete the transaction at another location, entirely legally. Be honest, would you drive five minutes to save 20-30 minutes of paperwork, and a processing fee?

So would most other people.

It was bad legislation borne of emotionalism, exploited by the cynical, creating serious problems and accomplishing little or nothing.

Gun control forces tried to exploit the still-fresh tragedy of the Virginia Tech massacre to force this legislation through, and went so far as to bring family members of those wounded and killed to plead their case in from of the committee.

The proposed law would not have had any effect on Seung-Hui Cho. None. It would not have saved one life at Virgina Tech.

Cho passed criminal background checks and purchased his pistols from licensed dealers who followed the letter of the law, as O'Dell finally brings himself to mentions in the very last paragraph of his article.

As for O'Dell, his inability to research the critical flaws in this legislation before posting his article is childishly irresponsible. It's too bad the Associated Press couldn't have had a serious, thoughtful journalist write this article, where people might have actually learned something useful.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 05:07 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 561 words, total size 4 kb.

1 Your inability to research the legislation before posting this criticism of the law and the AP article is childishly irresponsible. This legislation would not have required prospective purchasers to give personal information to people they do not know. In fact, it would have forced promoters to conduct background checks on prospective vendors, making it difficult for a criminal to sell a gun just to get personal information. Under this law, promoters would have to designate a dealer who would perform background checks for unlicensed sellers in return for a fee. Unlicensed sellers could not steal identities, and your worry about such a possibility shows that you know no more about this law than Mr. O'Dell. I cannot for the life of me understand why you think that gun sales and purchases should be completely unregulated. This makes no logical sense, and forcing a background check for each sale would not in the least infringe on the rights of law-abiding citizens to own firearms except for verification of their status. Whether or not Cho obtained his weapons this way makes no difference. Some criminals have, and should terrorists decide to begin operating in the US you would permit them to legally distribute firearms to each other with no government oversight of any kind. But if you want to make the case for a gun regulation policy that allows criminals and terrorists to buy and sell firearms, you should do so on the merits, and not by inventing silly scenarios out of thin air. As someone who constantly whines that others speak without knowing the facts, this is a glaring failure on your part to do the same. It's too bad a serious, thoughtful person did not write this blog post--people might actually have learned something useful.

Posted by: R. Stanton Scott at January 19, 2008 11:46 AM (G/KDP)

2 I corrected the post regarding the background checks, but it was still a stupid, irrelevant law. You don't seem to grasp that private sales are not regulated in most states, and implementing a hair-brained scheme that would only implement it in gun shows--typically held one weekend every couple of months, without implementing it in any other circumstance, at any other time--is moronic. As for your fear-mongering, statist views--admitting that this law would have made no difference at VT, but as the liberal whine goes, if it saves one life we should try it--grow up. Criminals will always get guns despite laws because--see if you can follow this--they arecriminals. They will break whatever law you pass, and therefore, these laws only annoy the law abiding. As for your statement--"I cannot for the life of me understand why you think that gun sales and purchases should be completely unregulated," quit flogging your strawman in public. I've never said such a thing or supported such a position. You are simply a liar. In the real world, I've sent people to jail for firearms law violations... few can claim the same. I support rational, intelligent, effective laws with this manifestly was not. This was a pathetic excuse by cynical gun-grabbers to exploit a tragedy to pass an unrelated, incremental step towards a total ban. I do, however, love how you state that I "would permit them [criminals and terrorists] to legally distribute firearms to each other with no government oversight of any kind," and then go on to attack me for "inventing silly scenarios out of thin air" in the very next sentence. You're cute. Angry, irrational, dishonest and gullible, but cute.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 19, 2008 01:04 PM (HcgFD)

3 Sticks and stones, baby. At one time or another, I have been all those things. When someone speaks about or to you in the same terms you like to use for others, it seems to hit a nerve. Except for a quibble about how much gun regulation you would support, your response amounts to name calling--your usual tactic. If slippery slope and "statist" are the best you got, your preachin' ain't gettin' past the choir. Gun shows happen more than "once every few weeks," at least here in Richmond. You support the right of people to hang about in the parking lots of these shows and sell guns from the trunk of their cars with no oversight and no regulation. No one knows who they are now, or who might begin to use this method to distribute guns to certain people in an organized fashion. You "would permit them [criminals and terrorists] to legally distribute firearms to each other with no government oversight of any kind." This is the status quo, and you don't think our legislature should change this. How this is a "silly scenario" is not clear to me. In what way, exactly, would you regulate this trading in firearms? Only if federally, so private sales are regulated everywhere? Of course, criminals will always be able to get guns from somewhere. But why make it easier?

Posted by: R. Stanton Scott at January 19, 2008 08:19 PM (DjnGX)

4 What would AP do with a serious journalist? Is there any such thing?

Posted by: arch at January 20, 2008 05:40 AM (ccr5J)

5 You "would permit them [criminals and terrorists] to legally distribute firearms to each other with no government oversight of any kind." Suggest reading all relevant parts of 27 CFR before making further statements like this. You sound ignorant of existing federal law.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 20, 2008 12:04 PM (ERV3B)

6 I think Mr. Scott needs reading comprehension classes. There was a lot of substance in CY's reply, which Mr. Scott apparently was not able to grasp. Some highlights: private sales are not regulated in most states And: admitting that this law would have made no difference at VT And: In the real world, I've sent people to jail for firearms law violations... few can claim the same. Yet Mr. Scott not only passes over such substantive statements, he then goes on to accuse CY of doing just that. Look up "projection," Mr. Scott. And I ain't talking about what happens in a movie theater. And if you can't hold a decent debate, go back to DailyKOS or DU. You seem out of your league here. (Any of my conservative buddies here wanna bet me that the paragraph above is the one Mr. Scott latches on to?)

Posted by: C-C-G at January 20, 2008 03:19 PM (F+vKR)

7 So Mr. R. would have me do a background check if my neighbor wanted to buy a shotgun or rifle off of me? Here's a newsflash for you, it's NONE OF YOUR FRIGGIN BUSINESS. You know who wants law abiding cits to register their private gun sales? People who ultimately want all guns banned from the hands of the citizenry.

Posted by: Conservative CBU at January 20, 2008 03:25 PM (La7YV)

8 "... It was bad legislation borne of emotionalism, exploited by the cynical, creating serious problems and accomplishing little or nothing. ... The proposed law would not have had any effect on [the criminal act exploited to promote passage of the law]. ... " Now WHERE have I heard this before? Oh, right, every time firearms legislation is proposed that gun-banners support.

Posted by: DoorHold at January 20, 2008 03:26 PM (lBACd)

9 But, but, but....TRUNKS! AND PARKING LOTS!!! Maybe we should just outlaw those.

Posted by: Pablo at January 20, 2008 05:28 PM (yTndK)

10 Knives too, Pablo. And baseball bats. And frying pans.

Posted by: C-C-G at January 20, 2008 06:14 PM (F+vKR)

11 So Mr. R. would have me do a background check if my neighbor wanted to buy a shotgun or rifle off of me? Newsflash: if you know or have reason to suspect your neighbor may be a disqualified person, you're already breaking the law as it exists today selling them something in a private sale.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 20, 2008 09:30 PM (ERV3B)

12 Interesting that you automatically assume that if I had prior knowledge to DQ them from buying a gun, I'd sell it to them anyway. What exactly is it you decided to base this nonsense on?

Posted by: Conservative CBU at January 21, 2008 12:04 AM (La7YV)

13 I comprehend what I read very well, thank you very much--well enough at least to know that poor regulation of private sales, Virginia Tech, and Bob Owens' history as an enforcer of gun laws have nothing to do with the central question of whether government should regulate multiple firearms sales by unlicensed dealers at gun shows. This is not a discussion about banning guns, or about whether or not you can sell your shotgun to your huntin' buddies. It is not about knives and baseball bats. And it is not about my assumptions about whether CBU would knowingly sell to a criminal. I think firearms sales should be regulated so criminals and terrorists will have to work harder to get them--because it is my "friggin' business" whether terrorists and criminals are armed. 27 CFR does NOT regulate gun sales by unlicensed dealers at gun shows. It does not even require that they maintain records of the sales they make. In 2000, the ATF found that these unlicensed dealers had diverted about 26,000 firearms from legal to illegal commerce. This is a non-trivial conduit used by criminals to obtain weapons, whether the VT shooter used it or not. Nor is the notion that terrorists might use these shows to traffic in firearms a "silly scenario." Ali Boumelhem was convicted of conspiracy to ship weapons to Hezbollah in Lebanon. He and his brother Mohamed had purchased a large number of shotguns and weapons parts at gun shows without background checks. Another terrorist, a Pakistani named Asrar, frequented gun shows for seven years, and bought several weapons, allegedly for al Qaeda, without background checks. If you don't want to make it harder for people like this to arm themselves, you can just say so without insulting those of us who would try to interdict this trade in weapons to terrorists. But I find it strange that you think this makes you a patriot.

Posted by: R. Stanton Scott at January 22, 2008 06:26 AM (9dREO)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Homeland Under Fire From Raging Veterans

David Burge is typically known for his satirical efforts at Iowahawk, but like many great satirists before him, his work is often merely a cover for a razor-sharp wit addressing pressing social ills in a more palatable form.

In light of recent developments in the media, I've broken cover regarding my day job, which I've rarely discussed until this point, in an in-depth interview with Mr. Burge featured in his latest article, Bylines of Brutality.

Read it all, and wonder how we've allowed the problem to go on for as long as it has without getting these veterans the psychological care they so desperately need.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:33 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 117 words, total size 1 kb.

An Ayatollah from Arkansas

A day before the South Carolina Republican Primary, David Limbaugh has cast his support behind Fred Thompson:

Commentators are citing the unpredictability of the Republican primary contests as proof that Reagan conservatism is dead when precisely the opposite conclusion is warranted.
The main reason the conventional wisdom is being shattered in the primaries is that conservative voters, so far, have not been persuaded there is an electable, reliable conservative in the race.
But as I've stated before, I believe Fred Thompson is a reliable, consistent conservative. There are others in the field I could support, but not without some reservations. The more I learn about Fred and observe him in action, the more convinced I become that he's the right choice...
...Supporters have asked Fred to step up, and he has -- he has shone brilliantly in the last month, setting himself head and shoulders above the pack in many cases. Now it's time for conservative voters to step up and quit placing artificial limitations on Fred, and on themselves.
Fred has answered the conservatives' call. Shouldn't we answer his?

For those of you who don't know, David Limbaugh is the brother of talk radio powerhouse Rush Limbaugh, who refuses to endorse any Republican candidate during the primaries as a matter of policy—a policy, I may add, that has not kept Rush from slamming many (if not all) of the other Republican candidates—while singing Thompson's praises on more than one occasion.

The "conventional wisdom" (which I think is batting "O-fer" this primary season, so take it FWIW) is that South Carolina will knock either Thompson or Mike Huckabee out of the race with a poor showing.

I've made no secret that as an evangelical Christian myself, Mike Huckabee makes me cringe, and that of the candidates we have, I think Thompson is certainly the best choice.

If South Carolina is a "race for survival" between Thompson and Huckabee, I hope that South Carolina Republicans who generally support the other candidates—Huckabee, Romney, McCain, Giuliani, and Paul— would instead consider casting their vote for Thompson tomorrow.

Why?

I have to tell my fellow conservative Christians that Mike Huckabee is the worst possible representative of our faith and our conservative principles in the race.

His stated intentions to change the Constitution to follow his interpretation of the Bible will only earn us distrust among the vast majority of Americans who aren't Southern Baptists, and his unsolicited support for the Confederate flag is politically tone-deaf and will alienate many voters not already turned off by his desire to ban political free speech—except when his supporters use it to tar other candidates, that is.

We deserve better than an ayatollah from Arkansas.

I'd like for you to consider casting your vote for Fred Thompson if you want a Southerner to continue in the race, but I'd ask that whatever you do, you vote against Mike Huckabee.

Our religion, our region, our party, and our country deserves better.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:18 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 500 words, total size 4 kb.

1 Hear, hear! This conservative, Reformed Christian thinks exactly the same.

Posted by: Grey Fox at January 18, 2008 11:26 AM (j91RE)

2 To paraphrase Something Positive, not everything that wears a cross is a brother of mine. Huckabee is the Jimmy Carter of the Republican party and will be a disaster of Clintonian proportions if elected.

Posted by: DaveP. at January 18, 2008 12:48 PM (1AZTv)

3 Yankee, The Paul people will vote for Paul only. The poll numbers are irrelevant. The Paul people will vote with their conviction of the U.S. Constitution not whether someone is electable. I will vote for Paul only. Rudi and Thompson are the fringe candidates now. BTW, your conviction is to be commended. You are endorsing Thompson even though he is considered a long shot. I disagree with your endorsement but I respect you.

Posted by: TTexas at January 18, 2008 01:30 PM (4p+U5)

4 We are all Reagan military moderate Republicans in this household and get as nervous when we hear this constant talk of a "true conservative" as we do at the word liberal. I think the further West you come, the more likely the candidates are to run into those who equate the "true conservative" label with far right social conservatives. We are hardline national security/economic Republicans. As much as we like Fred Thompson, the more he is pushed as the "only true conservative," the less appealing he becomes to about 2/3 of those who are looking for a candidate with more Reaganesque inclusiveness. When I talk to Republicans in my area, So. Calif., I hear from those who rarely go to church, are often active duty or retired military, very patriotic, spiritual but not overtly religious, pro-life, pro-business. While doing a stint at the local Repub. HQ phone bank recently, a man said to me, "what is with those Eastern states? Do they really think we want a Jimmy Swaggert in the White House?" referring to Mike Huckabee. The consensus was that Mitt Romney is a more "well rounded" Republican, so I think he plays very well out here. Those who supported McCain, who was trounced in this area in 2000 by GWB, do so more as a fallback than because they really want to see McCain get the nod, although when taxes are mentioned, McCain has serious trust issues with this group. Duncan Hunter is popular, but considered unelectable nationwide. And since we live everyday with the fruits of a porous border, border security is #1 on the list, but at the same time, most found the use of the word "shamnesty" offensive and out of touch with the facts on the ground as we know them. Where Thompson makes points, it is on his position of providing the fence and electronic border surveillance and employer sanctions while allowing attrition to do the rest. And now, with the collapse of the real estate boom, many are looking to Romney as the man most able to handle a declining economy. And, if the Chargers beat the Patriots and go on to the Super Bowl, no one in this area is going to be paying any attention to politics between Sunday night and February 3rd, two days before Mega-Tuesday. My unscientific mini-poll of about 60 Repub. activists might not be the whole story, but it is certainly indicative of my large So. Calif. county.

Posted by: Sara at January 18, 2008 01:32 PM (Wi/N0)

5 Sara, Reagan was never that inclusive. He told it like it was... if you agreed, you were welcome, if not, you were invited to find another party. The "Big Tent" is a media-fabricated myth. There is no such thing, and never has been. The media wants the GOP to become "Democrat-lite," still advocating a bigger government, just at a slower pace... and that's what we got with Dubya. I stand firmly behind Fred.

Posted by: C-C-G at January 18, 2008 08:17 PM (F+vKR)

6 "I have to tell my fellow conservative Christians that Mike Huckabee is the worst possible representative of our faith and our conservative principles in the race." Amen, Amen, Amen!

Posted by: CliffA at January 19, 2008 09:08 AM (kKrFz)

7 Let the Ron Paul kamikazis do what they like. Their irrelevance is bound to sink in to the brighter ones sooner or later. The others are free to join the Church of Scientology. The Republican party doesn't need 'em. If Fred Thompson was serious about this, he would have gotten hair plugs like Joe Biden and a face lift to get rid of those bags. In case you've noticed, it's been a while since an old, unattractive man was elected president. Sorry, but that's the way it is. Rudy's dragging too much personal baggage. That leaves Mitt and the preacher man.

Posted by: Banjo at January 19, 2008 09:50 AM (1DQ52)

8 My, my... what deep consideration, basing one's vote on hair plugs.

Posted by: C-C-G at January 19, 2008 10:21 AM (F+vKR)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

One Rag To Smear Them All

Ralph Peters of the NY Post has dropped his second editor bomb on the New York Times for their smear of American veterans in a column titled "The New 'Lepers.'"

A taste:

The purpose of Sunday's instantly notorious feature "alerting" the American people that our Iraq and Afghanistan vets are all potential murderers when they move in next door was to mark those defenders of freedom as "unclean" - as the new lepers who can't be trusted amid uninfected Americans.
In the more than six years since 9/11, the Times has never run a feature story half as long on any of the hundreds of heroes who've served our country - those who've won medals of honor, distinguished service crosses, Navy crosses, silver stars or bronze stars with a V device (for valor).
But the Times put a major investigative effort into the "sensational" story that 121 returning vets had committed capital offenses (of course, 20 percent of the cases cited involved manslaughter charges stemming from drunken driving, not first- or second-degree murder . . . ).
Well, a quick statistics check let the air out of the Times' bid to make us dread the veteran down the block - who the Times implies has a machine gun under his bathrobe when he steps out front to fetch the morning paper. In fact, the capital-crimes rate ballyhooed by the Gray Lady demonstrates that our returning troops are far less likely to commit such an offense.

His previous editorial on the subject generated a huge response as well.

Why?

The Times article—the first in a series of vet-bashing articles that the Times has prepped to smear our soldiers—is fundamentally dishonest.

Out of all veterans that have been to Iraq and Afghanistan—estimates are that there are 1.5 million them, with roughly half still serving and half (749,932) discharged—the Times was able to compile just 121 deaths.

Read the Times article, and you are treated to five vignettes culled from those 121. The first four encompassing the majority of the article, telling the stories of Matthew Sepi, Archie O'Neil, Stephen Sherwood, and Seth Strasburg, are all about men who "snapped" and shot people to death.

What the Times did not print were those stories that didn't fit their template, and indeed, perhaps should not have been included in their count of 121 at all.

As I noted in my Pajamas Media article published yesterday:

Of those 121 summaries, 40 do not show direct ties between the stresses of deploying to combat zones and the homicides for which these veterans were charged, and of those, 14 were of highly dubious nature.

The appropriately named Travis D. Beer, an Army reservist deployed to Iraq, pleaded no contest to motor vehicle homicide, and had two prior arrests for driving under the influence. The Times does not note if those prior arrests occurred before he deployed to Iraq.
Jonathan Braham, a Marine veteran of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, shot a man whom he thought had sexually abused his stepson. According to the Times’ own reporting, he was adamant that his service in Iraq did not play a role in his decision to shoot the alleged abuser.
Brian Epting was sentenced to six years for vehicular homicide when he lost control of his car while drag racing in 2005 and killed Robert Duffy, a World War II veteran. Is the Times seriously implying that his deployment to Iraq in 2003 is to blame for a drag racing death?
Michael Gwinn Jr. has a history of domestic violence.

Robert G. Jackson was diagnosed as a schizophrenic, as was Johnny Williams Jr., which cannot readily be tied to military deployments. Likewise, James Pitts has psychiatric problems predating his deployment to Iraq.
Michael Antonio Jordan had a juvenile criminal record and was involved in gang activity.
Christian Mariano was acquitted for acting in self-defense, and yet the Times still included him on this list.
Jason R. Smith, a National Guard veteran and Atlanta narcotics officer, shot elderly Kathryn Johnston in an infamous no-knock raid, and is currently being treated for post-traumatic stress disorder, but his attorney cannot say what the proximate cause of his PTSD may have been.
Aaron Stanley's sideline occupation as an alleged methamphetamine and marijuana dealer may have had more to do with his homicides than his deployment to Iraq. Vernon Walker killed two fellow soldiers while dealing drugs.
Larry Jaimall West was a member of the Crips street gang.
Jared Terrasas had a conviction for misdemeanor spousal abuse prior to his deployment to Iraq
Jessie L. Ullom had already been charged with abusing his infant son before he saw combat.

The only criteria the Times seems to have followed was to list all veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan who have killed someone upon returning to the United States, and they included those with mental illnesses that could not be attributed to military service (schizophrenia), vehicular homicides involving alcohol or drugs (manslaughter, not murder), cases where the veterans have not even had trials, and even one case where a soldier was tried and acquitted on the grounds of self defense.

Obviously, the would have preferred that this veteran, Christian Mariano, had not gone to picked up a female friend that had been beaten up by her boyfriend. They would have preferred that when he was attacked by a group, that he had not defended himself with his pocketknife. The would have rather that Khyle Dittrich had succeeded in strangling Mariano.

Then he would have been a veteran that they could support in death, the only kind of veteran the Times seems to like, other than those that join their favorite discount customer, MoveOn.Org, and similar groups.

Bu the New York Times has no interest in telling the true tale of a veteran who only wanted to help a battered woman.

Better to make him part of a dishonest statistic.

They have no interest in telling the story of the 1.5 million veterans of this nation's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan who lead productive lives, and save lives, and contribute to our communities, and freedom. Instead, they highlight four atypical veterans out of 1.5 million to smear the all.

Once again, the New York Times engages in the vilest kind of yellow journalism.

Walter Duranty would be proud.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:11 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 1052 words, total size 8 kb.

January 17, 2008

Family Politics

Should the exploits of relatives harm the chances of a Presidential candidate? (h/t Gateway Pundit)

Jimmy Carter wasn't responsible for the actions of his brother Billy, and it could hardly be said that Roger Clinton's problems are in any way the fault of brother Bill. Likewise, Hillary isn't to blame for Hugh Rodham's cash-for-pardons scandal.

So would it be fair to hold Barack Obama's feet to the fire for the Kenyan government's claim that his cousin Raila Odinga is behind ethnic cleansing in Kenya that has so far taken 600 lives?

Odinga is having to defend himself and his supporters from charges brought by the Kenyan government of ethnic cleansing following disputed Presidential elections in that African nation. He has condemned one of the most shocking incidents, where his supporters—reputedly Odinga's fellow Luo tribesmen—blocked the doors of a Christian church and burned dozens of Kikuyu men, women, and children alive inside.

Odinga's father led the communist opposition party during the Cold War and he was educated in East Germany. His brother is named after Fidel Castro. Far more troubling than his past, however, is Mr. Odinga's current pact with the National Muslim Leader's Forum, an hardline Islamist organization. Odinga has promised to institute harsh Sharia courts throughout the country if he was elected, and to ban Christian preaching.

But what does this have to do with Obama?

Daniel Johnson had this to say in a recent article in the NY Sun:

In August 2006, Mr. Obama visited Kenya and spoke in support of Mr. Odinga's candidacy at rallies in Nairobi. The Web site Atlas Shrugs has even posted a photograph of the two men side by side. More recently, Mr. Odinga says that Mr. Obama interrupted his campaigning in New Hampshire to have a telephone conversation with his African cousin about the constitutional crisis in Kenya.
What should Americans make of Mr. Obama's Kenyan connection? If he has been putting tribal or family considerations above America's national interest by supporting Mr. Odinga's anti-Western candidacy, it raises serious questions about his judgement.
At the time of his visit in 2006, President Kibaki's spokesman complained that Mr. Obama was behaving like a "stooge" of Mr. Odinga—which was at best undignified for a visiting American senator, and at worst unwarranted interference in the internal politics of another country.
Even more serious are the doubts raised by Mr. Obama's attitude toward Islam, which has so far received much less scrutiny than might be expected in a post-September 11 presidential election.
If Mr. Obama did not know about Mr. Odinga's electoral deal with the Kenyan Islamists when he offered his support, then he should have known. If he did know, then he is guilty of lending the prestige of his office to America's enemies in the global war on terror. We need to know exactly what Mr. Obama knew about Mr. Odinga, and precisely when he knew it.

To be fair to Barack Obama, he has no direct control over Mr. Odinga or the actions of his party or their fellow Luo tribesmen in a country on another continent.

Nor do I think he is putting distant tribal ties ahead of those of his own country, and I find the insinuation about his "attitude toward Islam" a bit much, considering Obama's well-known membership in a Chicago congregation of the Church of Christ (yes, even though Obama's pastor is a fan of racist Muslim leader Louis Farrakhan).

It simply isn't fair to judge Obama on any merits but his own.

But his judgement is part his own merits, and associating with an anti-western political leader, even when that leader is a relative—and perhaps precisely because that leader is a relative—brings up issues that Obama would do well to tamp down now, before another candidate seizes upon the issue.

Bill and Hillary Clinton can only distance themselves from their brothers but so much. They are, after all, brothers.

Obama, however, is not even on the same continent as Odinga, and would do well to let people know that their views are thousands of miles apart, as well.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:02 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 684 words, total size 5 kb.

1 While I agree with you there is a HUGE difference between drinking too much (billy carter), selling pardons and snorting coke (roger clinton) and genocide.

Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at January 17, 2008 04:29 PM (Lgw9b)

2 Yeah, but the Klintoons are part of the NWO. I'd rather have a president that did a little blow that Hilterly ushering in the new world order.

Posted by: at all costs at January 17, 2008 06:12 PM (Mhb4u)

3 However, I do judge Barack Obama by his embrace of a black oriented church with repugnant racial politics that sees blacks as victims of an American captor society: Disavowal of the Pursuit of "Middleclassness" Classic methodology on control of captives teaches that captors must keep the captive ignorant educationally, but trained sufficiently well to serve the system. Also, the captors must be able to identify the "talented tenth" of those subjugated, especially those who show promise of providing the kind of leadership that might threaten the captor's control. Those so identified as separated from the rest of the people by: Killing them off directly, and/or fostering a social system that encourages them to kill off one another. Placing them in concentration camps, and/or structuring an economic environment that induces captive youth to fill the jails and prisons. Seducing them into a socioeconomic class system which while training them to earn more dollars, hypnotizes them into believing they are better than others and teaches them to think in terms of "we" and "they" instead of "us". --Trinity United Church of Christ, "The Black Value System" At the very least, Obama should have the sense to steer clear of a church that proclaims such values to the world, in addition to honoring Louis Farrakhan with a Lifetime Achievement Award. If a Republican politician attended a church that spoke constantly of the White Race and the European homeland, and gave an award to David Duke, we would know what kind of a church that was. Why does Obama get a pass on this?

Posted by: huxley at January 17, 2008 07:05 PM (sDucG)

4 US strategist to help Kenya presidential challenger* Dick Morris was suppporting this guy. http://africa.reuters.com/top/news/usnBAN447825.html

Posted by: davod at January 17, 2008 11:39 PM (llh3A)

5 After reading up on Obama's church he's not far away from the Islamist terrorists. As a fact I think we may find out the hard way that he is one of them.

Posted by: Scrapiron at January 18, 2008 12:15 AM (AiJXe)

6 Kinda puts his refusal to wear an American flag pin into perspective, doesn't it? Frankly, in the sense of having his primary allegiances to the USA or to Christ, I don't consider Obama an American or a Christian. He seems to be using both as means for transnational, multiracial agendas. It's fine with me if wants to be some kind of 21st century Malcolm X, but IMO he has no business running for President of the United States. There is something very wrong here and people need to be asking Obama harder questions. What the heck is Obama doing going to Kenya to lend his support to a fellow tribesman/relative in the politics of a foreign country?

Posted by: huxley at January 18, 2008 01:08 AM (sDucG)

7 "As a fact I think we may find out the hard way that he is one of them." Thanks for what could be the most ignorant comment I've read all week...priceless.

Posted by: ozymandias at January 18, 2008 01:10 AM (6I6OG)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

At PJM: The New York Times Hits Veterans Yet Again

Did you read the article at the New York Times this past Sunday about the astronomical homicide rates among veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan?

If you didn't, Samantha Sault captured a nice roundup of earlier blog reaction, which discovered that the Times left out key statistics in order to complete their smear.

It only gets worse from there.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:31 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 78 words, total size 1 kb.

1 In Cincinnati, Ohio, an Operation Iraqi Freedom veteran Jason Roach is being excessively charged with voluntary manslaughter and murder for the death of Kelly Douglass. At this time, he is being held in jail on $500k bond. Kelly was a friend and a co-worker of both Jason and his wife Misty. There were allegations of an affair between Kelly and Misty, which are still unclear at this time. Kelly wanted to come to their home to discuss the situation with Jason. Jason and Misty told Kelly not to come to the house but refused and came to the house, which is when an argument broke out and Jason told him to leave. A scuffle ensued and while they were fighting, Kelly slipped on a patch of ice causing him to fall and hit his head on the ground, which is when Kelly went unconscious. Immediately Jason started screaming for help and called 911. The media has made Jason appear as a deranged veteran who savagely beat Kelly to death. Some reporters want to know more than just what they have to print. Others could not care less and as long as they make their deadline, they do not have to worry about what the rest of the story is. In this case, if it was a savage beating then why did Jason attempt to drag Kelly out of the road in order to avoid getting hit by a car? Secondly, he tried to get Kelly in to his vehicle to take him to the hospital because the ambulance was taking too long. Does that sound like Jason savagely beat him to death? What has been left out in the media is the fact that Kelly came to the house with a cache of weapons that included a loaded gun bought the day prior, which he was not registered to carry and conceal. If the he had not died, I am sure the tables would be turned and it would be Kelly in jail for felony weapon possession along with aggravated assault and battery. No one is saying a crime should go unpunished, but what is right, what is just, is to know what justice is. We will not do the right thing unless and until we actually look beyond what is right in front of our face and we stop treating combat veterans like they are uncaged animals that will attack at any given moment. They are not like anyone else you know. They are rare in this nation and they are not "normal" which we should thank God for. Normal people are not willing to lay down their lives for someone else. Normal people are not willing to do what they do. Normal people do not have to see what they see on their own street because they are willing to go beyond normal. There is nothing normal about combat and it is high time the rest of us stopped thinking they are just like the rest of us. It is time that we stop the media from attacking the integrity of our nation's heroes.

Posted by: Johnny Waltz at January 17, 2008 08:49 AM (rLLsr)

2 Johnny Waltz' story is not the only distortion in the NYT 121 killings. (NB: These are not murders they are deaths.) The lead off case is Matthew Sepi, who was attacked and fired on by two armed men in an alley behind a convience store. Young Matthew pulled out an AK47, killed one and wounded the other. Another vet found an armed man breaking into his car. In the confrontation, the robber was killed. Another vet developed a taste for ether and had a fatal auto accident. These incidents, tragic as they are, fall well short of murder. This NYT article is just a rehash of the crazed Vietnam vet smears so popular in the 1970s. They were lies too.

Posted by: arch at January 17, 2008 09:41 AM (ccr5J)

3 If anyone is interested in apples to apples, the data are available on line. One error that many of the commenters are making is that 121 is over six years while murder rates are annual. Since 2002, the US has averaged about 16,500 homicides per year for a rate of 6.5 to 5.5 per 100,000. 90% of all murders are committed by males who constitute only 49% of the population. If these returning military vets are in the age range 20 to 34, that population commits 53.5% of all murders where offender's age is known. The US Census estimates the 20 to 34 population at 20.9% of the total. (Males 10.24%.) The rate for 20-34 American males is 26 per 100,000. I have found varying numbers of returned vets from 800,000 to 2,000,000. To build an accurate model, these data would need to be time phased from 2002 forward. If we use the NYT numbers the rate would be 1 to 2.5 per 100,000, well below the 26 per 100,000 in the same demographic nationally. The Times did another military hit piece

Posted by: arch at January 17, 2008 10:19 AM (ccr5J)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

January 16, 2008

Huckabee Supporters Caught Push-Polling Fred Thompson

Supporters of the budding theocrat who would like to change the U.S. Constitution to bend to his idea of God's will, are the obvious suspects.

The more I see of Mike Huckabee, his temper, ever-changing positions, and his sweet-as-sugar deceptiveness, the more I think he damages the image of Christians in the eyes of other Americans.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:11 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 68 words, total size 1 kb.

1 ...the more I think he damages the image of Christians in the eyes of other Americans. And this is why the Dems are drooling at the prospect of a Huckabee nomination.

Posted by: Pablo at January 16, 2008 07:23 PM (yTndK)

2 The Huckster is imploding.

Posted by: C-C-G at January 16, 2008 08:55 PM (F+vKR)

3 I doubt that he damages the image of Christians anywhere as much as they do it themselves. What do the Huckster's religious supporters believe, if anything? Which statements by Huck do/did they support? What will they support after the next shift in alleged policies? This whole phenomenon truly is disgusting.

Posted by: Bleepless at January 16, 2008 09:21 PM (bAYPp)

4 Bleepless, I have long believed in the quote from Christian rock groun dcTalk: "The single biggest cause of atheism is Christians who acknowledge Jesus with their lips, walk out the door of the church, and deny Him by their lifestyle. That is what an unbelieving world simply finds... unbelievable." What The Huckster has done, and is apparently doing, is not Christian at all, yet he claims to be the Christian leader. I call Bravo-Sierra, and have been doing so quite frequently in my humble corner of the blogosphere for a while now.

Posted by: C-C-G at January 16, 2008 09:32 PM (F+vKR)

5 Oooooooops! That should be "group," not groun... no idea how that n got in there.

Posted by: C-C-G at January 16, 2008 09:32 PM (F+vKR)

6 He's an idiot. Huckabee wants to have adulterers, homosexuals and rape victims stoned to death. He also wants to make alcohol and music videos illegal, and make women 2nd class citizens and to take all girls out of school. Oops, my bad, that's another 'religion'. Hey, anybody but the PIAPS! if youÂ’re MAD punish your country VOTE for Hillary http://haltterrorism.com/ http://absurdthoughtsaboutgod.blogspot.com/ .

Posted by: U. Space at January 17, 2008 01:42 AM (I0/6M)

7 I have doubly disliked Huckabee because he not only seems intent on destroying my Party but also bringing scorn on my Faith. Oh yeah, Reason seems to think this might be prosecutable: http://reason.com/blog/show/124432.html ....hmmm

Posted by: TBinSTL at January 17, 2008 04:43 AM (2vLkB)

8 Other than abortion, how does Huckabee differ from Jimmy Carter? Not the Jimmy Carter of today, but the Jimmy Carter of the '76 election campaign. Why are we even considering nominating a democrat?

Posted by: GeorgeH at January 17, 2008 09:39 AM (chLFa)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Harper's Defaults on Horton's Credibility

It appears that Roger Hodge, Editor of Harper's, Ellen Rosenbush, Managing Editor of Harper's, and Vice President of Public Relations Giulia Melluci, will not support claims made by Harper's contributor Scott Horton, who made the claim on August 24, 2007 that an unnamed "thuggish neocon" journalist fabricated a story while Horton was in Iraq.

Horton has refused to provide evidence of the story in question, as have his editors and Harper's Public Relations. We can only conclude at this time that such a story never existed, and that Horton's claim was fraudulent.

Mr. Hodge, Ms. Rosenbush, and Ms. Melucci were contacted to provide support for Horton's article on August 29 and December 29, 2007, in addition to previous docuemented attempts to Mr. Hodge and Ms. Rosenbush on August 27 and Ms. Melucci in a separate August 27 email, with a follow-up email to Ms. Rosenbush and Ms. Melucci on August 28. All of these followed an unsuccessful attempt to get Scott Horton to provide support for his claim on August 24.

This apparently fraudulent claim is not Horton's only ethical lapse; in a Pajama's Media article posted on January 4, I revealed that Horton's clear conflict of interest in writing about Associated Press photographer and terrorism suspect Bilal Hussein. Horton had been a member of Hussein's defense team, and his former legal partner is Hussein's present counsel.

Ironically, Horton's most recent post quotes Nietzsche:

He who does battle with monsters needs to watch out lest he in the process become a monster himself. And if you stare too long into the abyss, the abyss will stare right back at you.

If Harper's had any remaining pride, ethics, or editorial judgment, that quote would be his epitaph.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:14 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 296 words, total size 2 kb.

1 I wonder what it is about certain kinds of "lawyers," such as Mr. Horton. He shares numerous characteristics with that other blogging and reputed lawyer, Gleen Greenwald. Both are exceedingly verbose, often to no obvious purpose, leading one to conclude that their compensation as "lawyers" was based on word counts. Both excell at use of the anonymous, but well placed, sources in all levels of the government, a result that increasingly appears to be highly doubtful given the absolute rarity in which such "disclosures" are subsequently confirmed. The words, "pompous ass," quickly come to mind after scanning any of their various brain farts.

Posted by: Terry at January 16, 2008 11:00 AM (d/RyS)

2 Another left wing publication caught publishing a fabricated story. Ho hum. Tell us something new.

Posted by: Banjo at January 16, 2008 11:17 AM (1DQ52)

3 I read the most recent post and maybe he is saying that he "became a monster" because he was battling monsters. Of course this may become his excuse why he made up the story.

Posted by: BGP at January 16, 2008 11:40 AM (ioIw2)

4 Bob and all, Cut Horton some slack. As the entire staff of TNR shows, along with such MSM luminaries as Mike Barnicle, Dan Rather, Peter Arnett and Charlie LeDuff you're nobody in lefty journammentary until you've made up a story or three. Extra points if you just typed somebody else's story in, like that TNR hack did with the Ron Paul newsletters.

Posted by: Kevin R.C. 'Hognose' O'Brien at January 16, 2008 03:07 PM (LkeNv)

5 Frankly, the guy probably really believes this is what happened. A reality check on Lefty nostrums regarding the war, BushCo, global warming or any other issue perpetually reveals absolutely NO substantive foundation. None. So wedded are these shlubs to their fantasies that no Iraqi election or surge related events or revealed fabrications of science or indeed, ANYthing can penetrate. I seem to recall Sullivan backed this guy with his own repute. Looks like a wash all around.

Posted by: megapotamus at January 16, 2008 03:55 PM (LF+qW)

6 Remember when Randi Rhodes and her entourage of 14 bloody marys got attacked by a neocon sidewalk? Things happen, people.

Posted by: Pablo at January 16, 2008 07:19 PM (yTndK)

7 IIRC, in 2004, Lewis Lapham (sp?) the then editor of Harpers wrote an article that was supposedly a report on his visit to the Republican convention. Unfortunately, it was published before the convention began. Details, details, details.

Posted by: Fat Man at January 16, 2008 08:03 PM (kuCYZ)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

January 15, 2008

Birds of a Feather

Glenn Reynolds notes this from the Detroit Free Press:

The Michigan Democratic ballot is a sham that was rigged by Hillary Rodham Clinton, her husband and her supporters to give the nation the impression that she's the leading candidate in Michigan, an angry former Sen. Don Riegle said Monday.
Riegle appeared at a rally in Detroit today to encourage would-be supporters of Barack Obama and John Edwards to vote uncommitted in Tuesday's primary. Riegle said he supports one of the two, but wouldn't say which.
"What happened in Michigan is not very different from what used to happen in the old Soviet Union," Riegle said. "The Clinton machine manipulated the ballot. They donÂ’t care how they win, only that they do. It's wrong and people need to know that."

I wonder... where would Hillary have learned such a vile trick?

Perhaps from one of Barack Obama's previous campaigns:

The day after New Year's 1996, operatives for Barack Obama filed into a barren hearing room of the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners.
There they began the tedious process of challenging hundreds of signatures on the nominating petitions of state Sen. Alice Palmer, the longtime progressive activist from the city's South Side. And they kept challenging petitions until every one of Obama's four Democratic primary rivals was forced off the ballot.

I presume former Sen. Don Riegle would support Edwards, then?

(Note: I vaguely recall another blogger brought up Obama's prior history earlier today, but I can't recall who it was to give them credit).

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:19 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 261 words, total size 2 kb.

Murderous Marine's Vehicle Found

In Morrisville, NC... my wife works nearby and says the helicopters are still overhead:

Morrisville police are at a Microtel hotel were they believe they have found the vehicle belonging to the killer of a pregnant Marine.
A nationwide manhunt is under way for Marine Cpl. Cesar Armando Laurean, who is wanted for killing Lance Cpl. Maria Lauterbach, 20. She was 8 Â½ months pregnant at the time.
Video shows that license plates on the truck at the hotel matched those on a black Dodge pick up that police said belonged to Laurean. The hotel is off Airport Boulevard near Interstate 40.

Though near RDU International Airport, there is no indication he attempted to get a flight out of North Carolina, and the last suspected sighting of Laurean placed him in Louisiana.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:11 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 140 words, total size 1 kb.

1 That's right down the road from me! Guess I'm going to have to find an alternate route home what with all the gawkers that will be out.

Posted by: Dan Irving at January 15, 2008 03:24 PM (zw8QA)

2 I heard the tailend of a short news story this morning. Something about a woman finding one of the slain pregnant Marine's Visa card being found near a N.C. bus station, like it had been dropped in the grass.

Posted by: Sara at January 15, 2008 03:28 PM (Wi/N0)

3 Shouldn't that read "alleged killer"?

Posted by: Doofus at January 15, 2008 05:31 PM (R9wkJ)

4 Lefties using this incident to smear all Marines as murderous thugs... in 3... 2...

Posted by: C-C-G at January 15, 2008 07:46 PM (F+vKR)

5 CCG, it will either be that, or the "SEE? This guy is traumatized by this war! He's a VICTIM TOO!" garbage.

Posted by: Conservative CBU at January 15, 2008 09:36 PM (La7YV)

6 FYI - the perp, nor the victim didn't deploy to the sandbox...and he better not be headed this way (29 Palms)...Doc don't like Marines that cause harm to women and children...especially pregnant women. Doc helps make these POS ex-Marines..

Posted by: fmfnavydoc at January 15, 2008 10:05 PM (I6QiV)

7 Doc, I understand your point, but do ya really think the lefties will let a little thing like the truth get in the way of a good smear of America's armed forces?

Posted by: C-C-G at January 15, 2008 10:23 PM (F+vKR)

8 Ol' Scotty B wasn't where the libs claimed he was, and they ran with it anyway...

Posted by: Conservative CBU at January 15, 2008 11:56 PM (La7YV)

9 My point exactly, CBU. To a lefty, smearing the armed forces is more important than the truth... at least so long as the armed forces are mostly conservative politically. The lefties only have uses for leftist armies, and then only as a means of putting down the populace in order to impose or enforce a totalitarian regime... which is the true goal of the lefties. Therefore, any armed force that may oppose such a totalitarian regime--such as the current United States armed forces--is to be reformed in the lefties' image or, if that is not feasible, torn down by any and all means necessary.

Posted by: C-C-G at January 16, 2008 01:09 AM (F+vKR)

10 Mooresville is less than an hour from me. Sure hope they get the SOB

Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at January 16, 2008 05:47 PM (Lgw9b)

11 Judging from the Marines I know, he'd better hope the cops catch him before the Marines do.

Posted by: C-C-G at January 16, 2008 08:27 PM (F+vKR)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

SockPuppet Super Lawyer

For a reputed legal scholar, Glenn Greenwald has an awfully poor understanding of the law that even this layman can poke gaping holes in.

In his typical long-winded, tedious style, he bloviates in support of Dennis Kucinich's attempt to sue his way into the Nevada Democratic debate:

The complaint (.pdf) filed by Kucinich is simple and straightforward. He alleges that he had a binding contract with MSNBC once they offered and he accepted the terms of his participation in the debate, and that MSNBC's refusal to allow him to participate constitutes a breach of that contract. He also alleges that his exclusion violates the mandates of Section 315 of the Communications Act, which requires broadcasters -- who operate the public airways, i.e., airways which are public, not private, property -- "to operate in the public interest and to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of public importance."
Nobody can opine meaningfully on the propriety of the court decision here without first knowing about, and then analyzing and resolving, those legal claims.

So according to Greenwald, Kucinich's claim rests upon two points:

that he has a binding contract with MSNBC.
That his exclusion violates Section 315 of the Communications Act.

Is either claim valid?

As The Liberal Journal points out, MSNBC's lawyers argue (.pdf) that the Federal Communications Act does not apply to a debate being broadcast on cable television, as the Act applies only to broadcast television (Section 315 [47 U.S.C. Â§315] (c)(1): "the term "broadcasting station" includes a community antenna television system" .

The MSNBC lawyer's also claim that Kucinich failed to exhaust his adminstrative remedies by not filing his claim first with the Federal Communications Commission. Kucinich, essentially, attempted to short-circuit the process.

Second, MSNBC claims that an invitation does not constitute a contract.

And then there is the question brought up by Political Machine of whether or not a state judge even has the jurisdiction in a national cable broadcast.

There is no Constitutional right to free airtime on cable television, nor a Constitutional right to participate in a debate, nor even anything like a valid contract here.

Kuncinich has no case, and as is often the case, Greenwald has no credibility.

But then, Glenn Greenwald's credibility was never very high to begin with.

Update: Kucinich gets tossed by the Nevada Supreme Court. The lower court "manifestly abused its discretion in determining tha a contract existed between the parties," and they tossed the Section 315 claim as well.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:01 AM | Comments (47) | Add Comment
Post contains 415 words, total size 4 kb.

1 The level of your stupidity never ceases to amaze me. Do you know how to read basic English? Squint your eyes and concentrate on these sentences: The important point here is neither Morrissey nor the Kucinich decision. The court didn't yet issue a written ruling and I have no idea whether the court's decision is reasonable, defensible, or right. The contract claims require application of Nevada contract law to the specific communications between Kucinich and MSNBC, and the Section 315 claim requires all sorts of analyses as to whether its mandates apply to a cable channel such as MSNBC, whether Kucinich can be excused by the time imperatives from the statutory requirement of first seeking relief from the FCC before suing, etc. I'm focusing here on the reaction to the decision, not the decision itself, because it's so illustrative of what happens every time there is a court ruling that conservatives dislike. Precisely with morons like you in mind, I went out of my way to explain slowly what any literate person would have understood without the explanation: namely, that I was not writing "in support of Dennis Kucinich's attempt to sue his way into the Nevada Democratic debate." My post had nothing to do with that issue. Yet even with the slow, clear explanation I provided, you still waddled away confused and disoriented -- thinking that the post you read included a defense of Kucinich's claims. Seriously ponder the level of stupidity required for that to happen.

Posted by: Glenn Greenwald at January 15, 2008 10:35 AM (BCguL)

2 And you might want to see this

Posted by: Nikki at January 15, 2008 10:44 AM (YXmuI)

3 CY, it appears you've been sissy-slapped by a crusty sock. It's on, baby!

Posted by: everydayjoe at January 15, 2008 10:54 AM (d3xkN)

4 Um, CY? You wrote: "Second, MSNBC claims that an invitation does not constitute a contract." Yeah, so, I didn't need to go to law school to figure this out (although I did go to law school), but an issue of whether a valid contract exists isn't settled as a legal matter just because one party says there was no contract. I'm not saying one way or the other whether I think there was or was not a valid contract between Kucinich and MSNBC, just that it's patently absurd to simply take a defendant's word for it without applying Nevada contract law to the underlying facts to determine whether a contract exists. I could just as easily write this: "Second, Kucinich claims that the invitation constitutes a contract," and then claim that my point has been proved, and that therefore you have "an awfully poor understanding of the law."

Posted by: EdTheRed at January 15, 2008 11:16 AM (kRsLl)

5 So... the point of your bile was "focusing here on the reaction to the decision, not the decision itself," and doing so as an excuse to attack Morrissey and other "right-wing ideologues," while completely passing on "whether the court's decision is reasonable, defensible, or right." You have to know or at the very least suspect, that the judge rendered a very flawed decision and that MSNBC's lawyers have very strong arguments, but you pass on examining the very issues you bring up so that you can go on the attack against conservatives. What a passive aggressive coward you are.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 15, 2008 11:26 AM (vxbTC)

6 CY: Again, and this is from a professional viewpoint, when you write that "[y]ou have to know or at the very least suspect, that the judge rendered a very flawed decision and that MSNBC's lawyers have very strong arguments," you're assuming way too much. It's not really possible to know anything about the strengths of MSNBC's case, or whether the judge's decision is flawed. Contract law differs from state-to-state, so even you were an expert in contract law in, say, New York, you would first have to read the relevant statutory and case law in Nevada before you could make such a judgment. And while it is more reasonable to "suspect that MSNBC's lawyers have very strong arguments" (primarily because they've got deep pockets and likely brought in a very qualified team of very bright lawyers), it is not unreasonable to also suspect that Kucinich's lawyers made "very strong arguments," since Mr. Kucinich also likely has access to some very fine legal minds, who may well have been willing to work the case on a pro bono basis. Making up your mind about the relative strengths of these competing arguments takes a lot of reading, and a lot of time. Simply assuming that one side in complex litigation made "very strong arguments," without extending the same benefit to the other side is naive; especially when you haven't taken the time to read and digest the filings in the case, as well as the relevant case law cited in those filings...and without the benefit of a published written decision from the judge (it takes time for those to come out, and they aren't always published), it's not exactly prudent to reasonably call the judge's decision "very flawed."

Posted by: EdTheRed at January 15, 2008 11:47 AM (kRsLl)

7 Surely, CY, you think that the quality of thought and discourse on the right is a subject worthy of discussion? That's what Glenn was addressing. And do you really think that the notorious judicial activists of Nevada only decided this way because they're biased for Dennis Kucinich? And/or filled with righteous, left-wing anger for MSNBC? Consider the possibility that sometimes court cases are decided on legal grounds, and that a case that doesn't come out the way you want it to isn't only explicable by bias.

Posted by: Elvis Elvisberg at January 15, 2008 12:12 PM (I6hTa)

8 Jeez, CY, the first rule when you're in a hole is to stop digging. GG quite clearly states that, as the court's decision hasn't been published, he can't make a good judgement as to the merits. GG wasn't "going on the attack against conservatives," he was critiquing the response of one specific and very stupid conservative. God only knows why you felt the need to proudly don your dunce cap alongside Ed, but I'm sure he appreciateds the company. But you've just added to Glenn's point: both you and Ed are opining on the merits of the case despite knowing absolutely nothing about the relevant laws. Hell, the reason we have courts is so that someone with expertise can judge the strength of each side's arguments. Why bother with all that if we could just let some jackass on the internet take a glance at a lawsuit and give it a thubs up or down?

Posted by: Larv at January 15, 2008 12:54 PM (6YCw9)

9 Couldn't he claim detrimental reliance on the contract and thus sue for performance?

Posted by: Thus Spake Ortner at January 15, 2008 01:33 PM (r3L6K)

10 Credits, however slim, for having the b*lls at minimal honesty to at least attempt to discuss GG's points on the merits, or at least something sort of relating to the merits. Demerits for misinterpreting GG's point, which is that Captain Ed's post and reasoning was wildly ignorant of basic facts. You don't confirm or deny this, you sail right past it. Cowardice and honesty added, then subtracted. Sadly, it puts you ahead of a lot of your compatriots, but still not worth regularly reading for intelligent nonpartisans.

Posted by: glasnost at January 15, 2008 02:08 PM (n+5+h)

11 And out of the woodwork come the moonbats. Don't you people have some ranting for Ron Paul to get busy with today?

Posted by: Conservative CBU at January 15, 2008 02:23 PM (La7YV)

12 Shorter Conservative CBU: "Look -- a jackalope!"

Posted by: Bombadil at January 15, 2008 02:28 PM (nX3lF)

13 For the record, I am supporting CY, just posing a question. No sock puppet supporter here.

Posted by: Thus Spake Ortner at January 15, 2008 04:09 PM (r3L6K)

14 Can I sue Kucinich for wanting to be on a Cable TV program when I only get broadcast?

Posted by: DirtCrashr at January 15, 2008 06:11 PM (VNM5w)

15 You know, generally speaking, at the most elementary level, offer + acceptance = contract. But what do I know? I've only been practicing law for 28 years. Doubtless you have some superior insight . . . . http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Jan/1/241463.html

Posted by: rea at January 15, 2008 06:56 PM (AiJXe)

16 I predict that in November Kucinich will sue every American voter for not voting for him to be President

Posted by: jec at January 15, 2008 07:18 PM (AiJXe)

17 Geez, I missed the excitement. It was a democrat primary debate so why the hell was Greenwald concerned about conservative reactions in the first place. Were they voting? How did it work out for Dennis the Menace? The Nevada Supreme Court slammed the door shut. No contract, no jurisdiction. CY 1, Greenwald 0. Nice overwrought rant on Greenwald's part though. Will he admit he was wrong - never.

Posted by: daleyrocks at January 16, 2008 03:38 AM (0pZel)

18 Greenwald specifically says he is not looking at whether the judgement was "defensible or right." He says the judgment could be legally wrong. Thus, the ruling getting overturned does not make Greenwald wrong in the slightest. He was not arguing that the first ruling was correct. He clearly states that is not his objective. What he does clearly state is that one must know quite a bit about Nevada contract law before one can pass judgment in any sort of intelligent manner. Any kneejerk reaction to equate "Kucinich losing = Greenwald is wrong" only highlights the complete lack of critical thought that Greenwald was discussing since Greenwald did not once even attempt to "defend" the decision. The issue is not whether or not the Kucinich loses, but whether or not conservatives will look at the legal framework vs. instinctively labeling any decision they do not like as "activist". Kucinich winning or losing has nothing to do with the point. In the decision to "support" CY or GG, the two sides can be represented as: GG: "Lets take a close look at what the law is and what the case is and then decide whether a judgement was correct or incorrect. Kucinich winning or losing is irrelevant. The important thing is to not jump to any conclusions that are not rooted heavily in fact and legal analysis." CY: "We do not need a thorough examination of the law in order to know that any decision I disagree with must be the work of an activist judge. Kucinich losing means I win!11one!"

Posted by: Nylund at January 16, 2008 08:08 AM (stu/m)

19 Daley - why should he? he wasn't wrong. His post, since you obviously haven't taken the time to read it, was about the favorite right-wing bogeyman, "judicial activism" - something the wingnut pundits love to evoke, even when they have no idea what they're talking about. "Nobody can opine meaningfully on the propriety of the court decision here without first knowing about, and then analyzing and resolving, those legal claims. That's how the law, when properly applied, works. You don't get to pick which outcome you think is most desirable or "fairest" in some vague philosophical sense and then, based on those preferences, decide if the court correctly adjudicated the questions before it. A court adhering to the rule of law, by definition, applies the law and legal principles. Self-evidently, to know if the court acted properly, a basic knowledge of those laws and legal principles -- at minimum -- is first necessary." - snipped discussion about Ed Morrisey's article and how it had no basis in fact - "Our public discourse has taught conservatives that any time a court issues a ruling that produces an outcome that they dislike, that's "judicial activism." But that's a cruelly ironic lesson because, to the extent "judicial activism" has any meaning at all, it means doing exactly what right-wing ideologues have learned to do when talking about court rulings: judge the rulings based solely on their affection for the outcome." THAT, my pet, is why Greenwald isn't wrong and why CY is a buffoon for his assertion that Greenwald's article was about the case, itself, when it so clearly wasn't - well, it wasn't for anyone with reading comprehension and retention skills above those of a 4-year-old.

Posted by: USinUK at January 16, 2008 08:13 AM (DUvEV)

20 As "rea" says: offer + acceptance = contract Funny, I thought that conservatives were, like, all in favor of upholding the validity of contracts. But I guess I neglected that other important equation: conservative + keyboard = moron which just goes to show that you have to take all of the relevant factors into account.

Posted by: Snarkilicious at January 16, 2008 09:09 AM (HWWJg)

21 Greenwald's kneejerk reaction to CY's post and the continuing support of his drooling unthinking minions is amusing to see. Greenwald claims: "Then -- without bothering even to learn what those issues are, let alone bothering to read anything about them -- they start condemning the court's decision as some sort of lawless expression of "judicial activism."" For those sockpuppet fans who bothered to read CY's post, Bob dissected both the contract claim and the 315 claim. Greenwald standard that people shouldn't write or express opinions about things without knowing all the facts if actually applied it to himself would force him to go silent half the time. His ridiculous posts on the mechanics of the TSP and the interrogation of prisoners of war, where it is absolutely clear he does meet his own standards of knowledge claimed in this post related to the Nevada primary would force him to go silent. Put that in your socks and smell it puppets in training.

Posted by: daleyrocks at January 16, 2008 12:23 PM (0pZel)

22 Bob dissected both the contract claim and the 315 claim. Are you really that dense, Rocks? Okay, really simply for ya. GG stated: The court didn't yet issue a written ruling and I have no idea whether the court's decision is reasonable, defensible, or right. You are talking about the decision. GG is discussing a specific reaction of a conservative blogger and its relationship to the bastardized, right-wing term "judicial activism" based soley on desired outcome, not the facts of the case which can't be known until without full understanding of Nevada contract law and the text of the full Judges opinion. Typical: Ignore the actual point being made to continue to push your irrelevant agenda. Once you get on the same page as the rest of us we can chat more. Cheers

Posted by: Simp at January 16, 2008 12:45 PM (oxe+5)

23 Bob dissected both the contract claim and the 315 claim. Are you really that dense, Rocks? Okay, really simply for ya. GG stated: The court didn't yet issue a written ruling and I have no idea whether the court's decision is reasonable, defensible, or right. You are talking about the decision. GG is discussing a specific reaction of a conservative blogger and its relationship to the bastardized, right-wing term "judicial activism" based soley on desired outcome, not the facts of the case which can't be known until without full understanding of Nevada contract law and the text of the full Judges opinion. Typical: Ignore the actual point being made to continue to push your irrelevant agenda. Once you get on the same page as the rest of us we can chat more. Cheers

Posted by: Simp at January 16, 2008 12:50 PM (oxe+5)

24 daleyrocks, no one in the US is interrogating prisioners of war. There are no prisoners of war. Only unlawful combatants. Please polish your doublespeak.

Posted by: iLarynx at January 16, 2008 01:06 PM (Yp6V0)

25 Defenders of the good Captain are trying to reduce this to "Glenn agreed with Kucinich; Ed disagreed with Kucinich; The state Supreme Court disagreed with Kucinich; Ed wins!" This is a blatant distortion of Glenn's original post. He pointed to Ed's claim that "constitutionally, this case belonged in federal court, which has jurisdiction on any interstate commerce complaints" and that Kucinich "filed his tort in state court hoping to find a sympathetic, activist judge who didn't know much about the law, and apparently succeeded." He pointed out that there was a CONTRACT claim involved, not a tort, and that this meant state law would prevail. The higher court overturned the decision of the lower court - a decision which Greenwald had not taken a position on - because the federal law at issue did not create a private cause of action, and because they did not believe that a contract had indeed been created. They arrived at this decision via reasoning that has little if anything to do with Captain Ed's. This isn't about whether Kucinich had a good case or not. It's about the fact that too many people feel free to opine on the merits of such cases without any understanding of the legal principles that govern the decision. The ultimate decision in this case, if you read it, was based on legal rules and precedent governing administrative law and contract law. Ed clearly had no grasp or even awareness of these, yet saw fit to declare that the judge's decision was not only wrong, but an outrageous instance of judicial activism.

Posted by: Jason at January 16, 2008 01:38 PM (ohQkO)

26 It still doesn't sound like any of the Gluppets have read CY's post and are merely repeating what Clenn said, which is incorrect. CY took a position on the law. That position turned out to be correct. Glenn claims he didn't take a position in his Salon post because he didn't know the facts, but when has that ever stopped Glenn before, as I pointed out in the case of FISA asnd the TSP, the MCA and the interrogation of prisoners, Plamegate. Glenn has the audacity to command when others should and should not write on certain subjects yet does not follow the same protocols himself. He is a model of HYPOCRISY. His claim that he was not supporting Dennis the Menace's right to speak is debatable, presenting only one side of the argument, Dennis'. Who let the socks out? Bob, you know you are doing something right when you get under their skin like this. Perhaps it was all your good work last year exposing media malfeasance that put them over the edge. Have you checked the ISP's to make sure that the comments are coming from more than one sender?

Posted by: daleyrocks at January 16, 2008 03:25 PM (0pZel)

27 In summary, Capt'n Ed remains a dunce, CY is dumber than Capt'n Ed and GG blog is like catnip to the dumb and the dumber. Same as it ever was...

Posted by: Aaron Adams at January 16, 2008 04:13 PM (c6u0X)

28 No, daleyrocks, not quite. Let's go to the CY post, shall we? Its thesis starts out with a statement that's not only false to fact ("he bloviates in support of Dennis Kucinich's attempt to sue his way into the Nevada Democratic debate"), but is actually contradicted by the quote from Glenn he includes. CY also did not so much "take a position on the law" as cut and paste parts of MSNBC's opposing argument and link to another unqualified commentator's opinion on the law. Try again.

Posted by: DarrenG at January 16, 2008 05:23 PM (qGlSN)

29 DarrenG - Weak, very weak. Did you happen to notice CY's opening sentence? It reads as follows: "For a reputed legal scholar, Glenn Greenwald has an awfully poor understanding of the law that even this layman can poke gaping holes in." The fact that he uses excerpts from others to achieve his end does not mean he did not get there. Greenwald's assertion that he did not want Dennis K to participate in the debate and publicly call for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney is, as I mentioned earlier, highly debatable in spite of his disclaimer to the contrary. That's one of Glenn's favorite tactics, to slant a post one direction and then claim he is not favoring one side or another. If he had truly wanted to do that, any reputable lawyer could have pounced on the failing in the Kucinich claims which CY pointed out. Greenwald's claims about right wing bloggers not knowing what they are talking about also ring false, especially in the case of CY, given that he has no idea who they may have talked to or the research they may have done before posting. It more narcissistic pearl clutching on the part of Glenn in an attempt to preserve what little there is of his reputation on the loony left.

Posted by: daleyrocks at January 16, 2008 06:41 PM (0pZel)

30 Nobody can opine meaningfully on the propriety of the court decision here without first knowing about, and then analyzing and resolving, those legal claims. And that isn't possible because? Seems that's exactly what CY did, Gleens. And by golly, he got it right! And that's without being a Constitutional law expert with an NYT bestseller who broke a story reported on the front page of major newspapers and whose blog has been quoted on the Senate floor. Good DAY, sir!

Posted by: Pablo at January 16, 2008 07:40 PM (yTndK)

31 CY? Don't you have some posts on Beauchamp to get back to? We need a Beauchamp update.

Posted by: Ted at January 16, 2008 08:11 PM (toVPN)

32 Pablo, Opine means to give your own opinion. The only opinion of his own that CY gave was that GG's credibility is low, everything else was the opinion of others. And a good day to you, Sir.

Posted by: Twisted_Colour at January 16, 2008 08:20 PM (1g4CK)

33 Twisted - Of course words mean what YOU want them to mean, but take a another look at CY's first sentence. He accomplishes his goal through the use of the material of others. Greenwald is a hack lawyer and a hack idealogue blogger. Have you ever noticed when legal developments arise that Glenn is reluctant to express an opinion without first checking Balkinization, Lawyers,guns and Money and others. He doesn't have original thoughts. He's a chickenblogger.

Posted by: daleyrocks at January 16, 2008 08:42 PM (0pZel)

34 It still doesn't sound like any of the Gluppets have read CY's post... Oh, we read it. We just can't stop laughing about it.

Posted by: dave™© at January 16, 2008 08:50 PM (XSxxV)

35 Reading is Fundamental, Twisted_Color. You might want to try it for comprehension. I know, I know. You're shocked by referential links that actually say what the linker tells you they say. But it's OK to use such things in support of your own opinion. You really don't have to misrepresent other people to express an opinion of your own. Maybe a glass of warm milk would help soothe you.

Posted by: Pablo at January 16, 2008 09:21 PM (yTndK)

36 dave - I don't blame you for laughing. I would have too, wondering why that idiot Greenwald, who claims to be a lawyer, couldn't analyze the situation the way CY, a layman did in his post. No wonder Greenwald doesn't get any respect. The fact that the Nevada Supreme Court backed CY up makes Greenwald's post even more laughable, doesn't it? And Greenwald's claim that he wasn't supporting Kucinich's right to be in the debate, another laughable claim. Take a look at the following comment from Greenwald from the comment thread to his post where he states he has problems with Kucinich's exclusion. As usual, Glenn fails to tell the truth. ________________________________________________ Associative Individualist: it fails to address the cardinal issue involved in the objection to giving Dennis Kucinich a platform like the Democratic debate for espousing his views: the man is, as one of the authoritarian commenters in this forum so incisively and eloquently puts it, a "nutjob." I know you're speaking ironically here, but still, with regard to his exclusion -- I don't think it's fair to say that he's being excluded based on his views. After all, MSNBC originally decided to include him. It was only after he got less than 1 % of the vote in the first two states -- less than 1% -- that they sought to exclude him. This isn't like Fox's exclusion of Ron Paul -- where Paul surpassed other included candidates using every relevant metric. Having said that, what's bothersome about the MSNBC decision is that it was made retroactively, with the specific intent to exclude Kucinich. I have no problem with networks having objective criteria to determine inclusion. That has to happen, given the huge numbers of people "running for President." But where -- as here -- it's applied inconsistently and retroactively, that's when the problems arise. -- GlennGreenwald [Read GlennGreenwald's other letters]Permalink Tuesday, January 15, 2008 08:34 AM ________________________________________ Elsewhere in the comments Greenwald states that MSNBC has cited what appears to be firm case law in favor of their position, but he (Glenn) doesn't know. The man is a blatant hack. He wants a result and is willing to deceive his readers in support of it. Business as usual for Glenn.

Posted by: daleyrocks at January 17, 2008 12:00 AM (0pZel)

37 Yet another informed comment from a Gluppet! Heh. Accepting what Greenwald writes requires a willing suspension of disbelief.

Posted by: daleyrocks at January 17, 2008 10:50 AM (0pZel)

38 This is an amazing thread. I never would have thought so many conservatives would so deliberately and presistently argue away from the point and ignore matters of clearly established fact--just because they don't like those facts. This is actually scarey.

Posted by: zak822 at January 17, 2008 11:07 AM (FXioW)

39 daleyrocks, do you have a link to the Greenwald quotes you posted? The material is not in the 1-15-08 blog post under discussion. Your stuff has the same date, but it ain't in his blog. Makes it look like you're quoting out of context to distort the mans position.

Posted by: zak822 at January 17, 2008 11:58 AM (FXioW)

40 zak - Straight cut and paste. Time stamp is on the comment. Look again. Can't post complete links here. Does arguing away from the point mean ignoting the fact that Glenn didn't have the testicular fortitude to take a position on the legal issues involved in Tinfoil Dennis' challenge while others did and that the positions of others, whether or not exactly mirrored by the Nevada Supremes, prevailed? Does arguing away from the point mean pointing out that Glenn lied about wanting Dennis in the debate? What exactly are you saying zak? Please elaborate.

Posted by: daleyrocks at January 17, 2008 12:25 PM (0pZel)

41 daley, found it in the comments.

Posted by: zak822 at January 17, 2008 12:28 PM (FXioW)

42 daley, found it in the comments. My error.

Posted by: zak822 at January 17, 2008 12:41 PM (FXioW)

43 daleyrocks, It is possible to post complete links here.

Posted by: iamwil at January 17, 2008 03:02 PM (K8cCG)

44 shorter, way to say absolutely nothing while attempting to take the high ground. High five, dude! And here's a pudding cup for you.

Posted by: Pablo at January 17, 2008 04:25 PM (yTndK)

45 iamwil, Once again, Greenwald is babbling. The Fox criteria for inclusion was double digit national polling. Ron Paul didn't make the cut. Paul did NOT surpass "other included candidates using every relevant metric", despites The Gleens' bleatings. But where -- as here -- it's applied inconsistently and retroactively, that's when the problems arise. You'd think that a "Constitutional law expert" would be able to recognize that private entity can invite whoever the hell it likes, and disinvite in the same fashion. But then, Gleens are a hack, in every sense of the word.

Posted by: Thomas Ellers at January 17, 2008 04:32 PM (yTndK)

46 shorter, shorter - Glenn's got to be right about something, I just haven't figured out what. Meanwhile, I'll take a few potshots.

Posted by: daleyrocks at January 17, 2008 05:01 PM (0pZel)

47 I guess, according to Mr. Greenwald et al, if I invite Mr. Kucinich to my home for dinner, then change my mind and cancel the invitation, that Mr. Kucinich has a right to sue me to force me to provide him a free dinner. Is that not essentially what the case boils down to? And lawyers wonder why they're so disliked.

Posted by: C-C-G at January 17, 2008 07:41 PM (F+vKR)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

January 14, 2008

Send in the Emoting Clown

Oh, Erica Jong, could you be any more of an argument against Hillary Clinton if you tried?

I am so tired of pink men bombing brown children and rationalizing it as fighting terrorism. I am so tired of pink men telling women (of all colors) what to do with their wombs--which connect with their brains--in case you forgot. I am so tired of pink men telling us we should stay in Iraq for generations. I am so tired of pink men buying bombs and cheating schools. I am so tired of pink men having wives who stand behind them and nod sagely on television. I am so tired of pink men expecting that someone--a brown, black, yellow or white woman--will trail behind them changing light bulbs, taking out garbage, washing laundry, keeping food in the house, taking care of kids of all ages, of parents of all ages. I am so tired of pink men whose wives double or triple the family income thinking they can spend it without doing a damn thing at home. I am so tired...

This not so-subtle plaintive wail in support of Hillary Clinton, full of high drama and lacking in substance, is perhaps precisely the reason we shouldn't elect a feminist of Jong's generation President. Unable to rationally argue from an intellectual position on why the former First Lady has the experience, integrity, or policy positions to warrant her ascension, Jong instead insists that merely being female is reason enough to be President.

Is this the best argument that she can put forth, that a woman should be elected because of her gender, not because she has superior talents or ideas?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:04 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 287 words, total size 2 kb.

1 What the hell is a "pink man?"

Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at January 14, 2008 02:42 PM (Lgw9b)

2 What's with this "pink" stuff? Is she calling "them" gay? What a homophobe!

Posted by: George Bruce at January 14, 2008 02:43 PM (tj2NC)

3 Y'know, Erica, if you really are that tired... relief is just an overdose away. Just sayin'.

Posted by: DaveP. at January 14, 2008 02:59 PM (1AZTv)

4 This is just another example of how low our standards of political thought are. The ultimate expression is "identity" politics. Ideas on individual rights and responsibilities vs. those of the state, taxation, adherence to the constitution, etc. are totally unimportant to most voters. With identity politics, each candidate plays the hand they are born with, they have no choices. So Edwards throws the Class card. Hillary counters by playing the Gender card. Obama is now attempting to trump with the Race card. Maybe Edwards will come back with a Hair card. Who knows? I, however, prefer ideas. Debate and argument over policies and issues attempting to persuade the voter, not just "identify" with them. These people are either not bright enough to defend their positions, or don't actually believe the bilge they are pumping, or think we're too stupid to notice or understand. And our supposed defenders, the MSM, are either unwilling to challenge these candidates through fear or personal bias, or they're just dumber than a box of rocks. For those willing to find out for themselves, fortunately we have bloggers who not only report and investigate but provide cites to back up their info. To paraphrase Patrick Henry, "Give me blogging or give me death".

Posted by: thenakedemperor at January 14, 2008 03:33 PM (1RIcI)

5 She is Â“so tired of pink men having wives who stand behind them and nod sagely on television.Â” IsnÂ’t that what Mrs. Clinton did. My wife would have castrated me for doing what Mr. Clinton did to her. Does a real woman put up with such crap from such a man. Not unless she needs the man to support her; in Mrs. ClintonÂ’s case for her political advancement. Yea, that is a real strong, independent feminist.

Posted by: amr at January 14, 2008 03:54 PM (AiJXe)

6 Erica Jong is still alive? I'm tired of leather-skinned old bags who wrote one book that titilated teenage boys decades ago thinking they have something of substance to contribute to the real world. I am so tired....

Posted by: Jonn Lilyea at January 14, 2008 06:04 PM (Pkb13)

7 Any woman who is taking out the garbage when she has a man around deserves what she gets.

Posted by: Sara at January 14, 2008 06:05 PM (Wi/N0)

8 Is this the best argument that she can put forth, that a woman should be elected because of her gender, not because she has superior talents or ideas? It is depressingly common thinking among younger women. I was having dinner with some of my more liberal friends a month or so ago, and politics came up. I asked for a reason to vote for Hillary. The only ones put forth were 1) she's be getting advice from Bill, and 2) she's a woman. There are people think that's enough. I hope there aren't many of them, tho.

Posted by: rosignol at January 14, 2008 08:08 PM (jpBGs)

9 One wonders if Erica would gush so at the candidacy of Dr. Condoleeza Rice, who is not only female, but is black, and comes from Birmingham, Alabama, one of the centers of the civil-rights fight. I suspect not. Erica's gushing is probably limited to females of one party and one ideology only.

Posted by: C-C-G at January 14, 2008 10:59 PM (F+vKR)

10 The hate, it is strong in this one. Sounds like her No Fear of Flying lifestyle didn't give her a whole lot of happiness.

Posted by: Mark in Portland at January 15, 2008 12:45 PM (+45yf)

11 The world is long past tired of Erica Jong.

Posted by: Dusty at January 15, 2008 12:48 PM (GJLeQ)

12 May Erica sip habanero soup in Hell after some Cuban dental care.

Posted by: Mockin'bird at January 15, 2008 04:58 PM (whgfR)

13 She is "so tired of pink men"? Perhaps she is looking for a Zipless Final Solution.

Posted by: pst314 at January 16, 2008 11:39 AM (OA547)

14 Erica, STFU, get back in the kitchen, and bring me a beer, I'm tryiin' to watch the game!

Posted by: SicSemperTyrannus at January 17, 2008 11:28 AM (Mv/2X)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

"Most of the these people are not rational"

Oh, you've just got to love the fruits, nuts, and flakes attracted to one Ronald Ernest Paul:

The voices came from everywhere. California. Ohio. Florida. Michigan. Very few were from New Hampshire.
A man from Texas e-mailed that he was "contacting, by certified mail, the Attorney General of New Hampshire . . . and requesting a complete investigation and prosecution of any and all parties involved."
A police dispatcher in New London said yesterday she'd received inquiries about the clerk's office phone.
Call got a handful of calls that night at home, refusing to pick up whenever an out-of-state number appeared on her screen.
She got about five more the next day in her office. She tried to get work done. She called the Massachusetts company that makes the licenses for dog owners in her area. The guy had heard of her.
"Wow," the man said. "This is the second time this week I've seen your name."
"Where?" Call asked.
"I've gotten a dozen e-mails about how you've destroyed the New Hampshire primary."
"Why?"
"We make voting machines."
"The problem is," Call said yesterday, "we don't use voting machines."
She went home and locked her doors. She called her mother in North Carolina. She cried. The calls kept coming. She unhooked her answering machine and requested an unlisted number.
"I was drained emotionally and physically," Call said. "That's when I really started to freak out. Thursday it hit me, that most of these people are not rational. That's when I became scared."

Jennifer Call is Sutton New Hampshire's town clerk. Her "crime" was to initially post that Ron Paul garnered zero votes out of 920 cast in her town.

He actually got 31.

Out of 920.

For this, irate and unhinged Paul supporters from around the nation have bombarded her office and home phone with cries of fraud and treason, and even a death threat.

Over a human error in transcribing results, an error that was corrected the next morning.

Let it be known far and wide that Ron Paul got a whopping 3.37% of the primary vote in Sutton, New Hampshire.

And leave this poor woman alone.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:44 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 374 words, total size 2 kb.

231kb generated in CPU 0.0394, elapsed 0.1208 seconds.
72 queries taking 0.0943 seconds, 405 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Search Thingy

Monthly Traffic

Pages: 70518
Files: 370
Bytes: 2.1G
CPU Time: 72:56
Queries: 2649123

Content

Posts: 3653
Comments: 35960

Feeds

January 22, 2008

January 21, 2008

January 18, 2008

January 17, 2008

January 16, 2008

January 15, 2008

January 14, 2008

Search Thingy

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives

Blogroll

Monthly Traffic

Content

Feeds