Too bad they worship someone other than the Obamamessiah:

Prosecutors said Craig's victims met him through a shared interest in Satan worship. They alleged Craig shackled his victims to beds, kept them in dog cages and starved them inside his Albany Street home.

He was charged with beating one victim with a cane and a cord and with raping a woman.

Johnson, who was third vice-chair of the Durham County Democratic Party and vice-chair for the Young Democrats, was charged with two counts of aiding and abetting. Prosecutors said she knew her husband planned the crime and watched as they were committed.

She has resigned her positions with the Democratic Party, said state Sen. Floyd McKissick, D-Durham.

When reached for comment this afternoon, Obama said, "this is not the Satan-worshiping third vice-chair of the Durham County Democratic Party that I knew."

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:05 PM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 157 words, total size 1 kb.

...is that though he has Wes Clark in his corner, the only person he knows with the experience of getting a bomb on target is Bill Ayers.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:32 AM | Comments (33) | Add Comment
Post contains 45 words, total size 1 kb.

This quote was from Medea Benjamin, co-founder of Code Pink, an organization that gave $600,000 in cash and supplies in "humanitarian aide" to an insurgent-controlled Fallujah several years ago in our current war (the Marines won anyway, which is perhaps why Code Pink is leading the assault against the Marines in Berkeley).

That is just one toxic outburst is a collection of indefensible comments from the radical fringe of the Democratic Party laughably called "progressives" in a series of personal attacks levied at Presidential candidate John McCain and chronicled by Ben Smith in a Politico article.

Prominent progressive blogger John Aravosis attacked McCain for breaking under brutal torture in North Vietnamese prisons, and labeled the unwilling use of McCain in a North Vietnamese propaganda film as "disloyalty." Tellingly, Aravosis has never uttered similar words of disapproval against Jane Fonda, who willingly and famously posed for propaganda photos on North Vietnamese antiaircraft guns that were used to shoot at American pilots like McCain.

Other angry souls associated with MoveOn.org, CounterPunch, the Huffington Post, and Mother Jones also have expressed interest in attacking McCain's military record.

Democrat Wesley Clark—notable for his scarcity of support in the military, notes fighter pilot Lex—also attacked McCain's military experience as an example of poor leadership experience, without, or course, expressing how Obama's thin resume has prepared him to lead anything as consequential as a Cub Scout Troop.

We've known that Barack Obama's base among the radical fringe would bring out some long-seated uglinesses in part of the Democratic Party that makes up his base, but I don't think that anyone could have expected it would come out this soon, this hard, this transparently.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:13 AM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 308 words, total size 2 kb.

An email fired out to supporters by the Obama Campaign:

Tonight is the crucial financial reporting deadline for June.

Right now is the time to step up and own a piece of this campaign. I need your help to take on John McCain, the Republican National Committee, and the shady so-called 527 groups that are dedicated to attacking this campaign using millions of dollars in unregulated contributions.

Please support this movement by making a donation of $25 by Midnight tonight:

https://donate.barackobama.com/deadlinejune

Together we are setting a new standard for how presidential campaigns will be organized and funded.

For the first time in a generation, a presidential campaign is putting staff in every single state for the general election. Our staff and the Obama Organizing Fellows are getting to work right now to build on grassroots energy in all 50 states.

And -- unlike John McCain -- we're going to do it without contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs that have held too much power for far too long in this country.

By putting our organizational and financial future in your hands, it's clear who will be responsible for our success and who we will be accountable to in the White House: the people.

But in order to match the resources of our opponents, we're going to have to do more and get more people involved than ever before. Your donation of $25 right now will help make that happen:

https://donate.barackobama.com/deadlinejune

I'm counting on you to take the lead and build this campaign.

The stakes couldn't be higher, and every American who hopes for something better from their government is counting on us.

Thank you,

Barack

We see Obama is still signing his name to an lie so obvious that even NPR is smacking him around for it. The only 527s of note have been those formed to support the election of Hillary Clinton... or Barack Obama. There are no significant Republican 527s in 2008, and none are expected. Obama's fundraising pitch is based upon a lie.

I guess we'll know soon how many of his supporters are willing to accept being lied to time and again.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:50 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 372 words, total size 2 kb.

22 fully-automatic assault rifles were confiscated by the BATF from Moyock, NC-based Blackwater Worldwide last week after a story was published in the Raleigh News & Observer questioning an arrangement between the private military contractor and the Camden County, North Carolina Sheriff's Department.

Blackwater financed the purchase of 17 Romanian AK-47s and 17 Bushmaster Bushmaster XM15 E2S for the Sheriff's SWAT team as it was forming in 2005. The Sheriff's Department had requested both weapons systems for trial. After training, deputies determined that the AK-47s did not meet their needs for SWAT use, and since that time, the 17 AK-47s and 5 of the17 XM15 carbines have been stored in a weapons locker dedicated to the Sheriff's Department at Blackwater's training facility armory. The other 12 XM15s are deployed with deputies. The department does not have an armory of it's own. Both the Sheriff's Department and Blackwater insist that the arrangement made three years ago is legal.

Fully-automatic weapons have always been legal to own in the United States according to federal law, though they are prohibited or further restricted in some states. There are more than 240,000 machine guns registered with the BATF as of 1995. Roughly half of those are owned by civilians, and the rest are owned by government entities such as police and sheriff's departments.

As a matter of policy the BATF will not comment on pending investigations, but the most likely cause for the confiscation was the determination by the BATF that the arrangement may have constituted a "strawman" purchase. On the most basic level, a "strawman" occurs when someone who is legally authorized to purchase a firearm knowingly purchases it for someone who they know or suspect cannot buy a firearm on their own. Additional scrutiny applies to the purchase, transfer and possession of machine guns under the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) and the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA). NFA places a $200 tax on the transfer of firearms, and FOPA banned the possession or sale of machine guns to civilians manufactured after May of 1986.

The BATF may claim that the three-year-old arrangement, where the Sheriff's Department stores their weapons at Blackwater's armory is a violation of the transfer and possession requirements of NFA and/or FOPA. Anne Tyrrell, spokesperson for Blackwater Worldwide, argues that FOPA does not apply "because we never owned the weapons. The Camden County Sheriff's Department own them."

Tyrrell further claims that BATF agents have known of the arrangement with the Camden County Sheriff for an extended period of time, saying via email:

"All aspects of our contract with a local Sheriff's Department are valid and lawful. Some of the same ATF agents involved in the current inquiry have long been aware of this arrangement as a result of visits to our facility and audits of our firearms programs at Blackwater's request. As a company that is fully licensed to sell, provide training on, or even manufacture weapons---including machine guns---we have worked closely with the ATF to ensure we are in compliance with all applicable federal firearms laws. We look forward to cooperating with the government to resolve this allegation."

Pro-Blackwater blog Blackwaterfacts backs Tyrrell, claiming that the AFT did a full inventory of the facility in 2005, including the Camden County Weapons locker, after Blackwater alerted the ATF to two employees that worked in the armory were engaged in illegal activity.

If it is accurate that BATF agents had "long been aware" of the existence of the Camden County Weapons locker at Blackwater, but had not seen fit to confiscate them until now, it suggests that new details may have emerged. That detail may have been provided in articles from the News & Observer and the Elizabeth City, NC-based Daily Advance, which note that in addition to merely storing the Sheriff's Department weapons, they may have been used to train police and military units.

Blackwater, which also manufactures vehicles and airships, is the largest security contractor for the U.S. State Department and operates one of the largest tactical firearms training centers in the world. Critics of the company have attacked it as a mercenary army, and Blackwater security personnel in Iraq have been accused of using excessive force in numerous engagements, including a September 2007 incident in Baghdad's Nisour Square where 17 Iraqi civilians were killed.

correction: Moyock, NC not Mynock, as noted by "EC" in the comments.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:31 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 749 words, total size 5 kb.

In a story about the Federal ATF raid to confiscate assault rifles (real ones for a change) that Blackwater International held in a secure vault for the local Camden County Sheriff that owns them, Associated Press report Mike Baker twice claims that it is illegal for private citizens or companies to purchase automatic weapons.

Fair-use, non-lede quote:

Federal laws prohibit private parties from buying automatic weapons, but allows law enforcement agencies to have them.

This claim is absolutely and unquestioningly false.

The National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) imposed a tax on machine guns, but did not make them illegal to own by private citizens or companies. While extremely expensive, one can legally purchase machine guns from a wide variety of vendors.

Due to a Clinton-era restriction, machine guns manufactured after 1986 are not available for private sale, but this has had the side effect of making these machine guns an investment, and they are being marketed that way.

The media's ignorance of the subjects they write about never fails to amaze me.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:35 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 191 words, total size 1 kb.

Tell the Democrats we're running out of people to which we can surrender.

Abu Khalaf (a pseudonym) was the top al Qaeda leader in Mosul, al Qaeda's last reputed stronghold in Iraq, until American soldiers shot him full of holes. Further south, al Sadr's Madhi Army may be falling apart, with perhaps as few as 150 military members.

So, will someone please bring me up to speed on Barack Obama's position this hour? Is he still insisting that it is 2006 in Iraq, that the situation is untenable, and that the best thing we can do is withdraw all our forces in an expensive, resource-abandoning retreat that many experts suspect could trigger a regional war that makes today's gas prices look like a bargain and trigger a worldwide depression?

I ask, because it's rather difficult to keep up with his positions these days as he continues to throw his principles, campaign promises, friends, mentors, and supporters under the proverbial bus to bow at the alter of political expediency.

I kid, of course.

I don't seriously think Obama will change his position on Iraq being lost, as that is the only viable issue of his campaign once you eliminate his Carteresque economic schemes, head-in-the-sand energy policy, his Clintonian heathcare plan, and his beautifully empty platitudes. What he and his allies will try to do is attempt to redefine losing and winning, and try to cast obvious developing successes as defeats. If he can't successfully redefine success into failure, Barack Obama is finished as a viable candidate.

Update: Dr. Krauthammer is equally unimpressed with Obama's constantly shifting positions, and the media's unwillingness to challenge him.

It's an odd relationship Obama has with journalists. He treats them with the arrogant disdain of last night's 2:00 AM hookup, and still they pine over him, happily used, as they're shown the door.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:47 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 317 words, total size 2 kb.

The Supreme Court issued a 5-4 ruling supporting the individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment today, and within moments, a commenter to the liberal blog Crooks and Liars said Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority decision on the case, should be murdered.

David Ehrenstein, an entertainment industry liberal, made the comment. He blogs at Fablog.

Update: As noted by a sharp-eyed "Jabba the Tutt" in the comments, this is the same David Ehrenstein that created the meme of Barack the Magic Negro. Quick, somebody tell Rush!

Update: Wiped. Crooks and Liars has finally scrubbed Ehrenstein's comment.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:26 AM | Comments (48) | Add Comment
Post contains 127 words, total size 1 kb.

Yet another uncomfortable Obama associate has found his way under the treads of the Hope and Change Express.

This time it was former Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist) chairman Michael Klonsky, a long-time friend of Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dorhn, Barack Obama's long-time terrorist friends. Ayers and Klonsky have co-authored several works together, and trace their relationship back to their days in the 1960s as radicals in Students for a Democratic Society, back before the Weathermen split off and began active domestic terrorism.

Klonsky had a blog on Obama's community web site. The page was quickly "disappeared" overnight by the campaign with an efficiency that Che-loving Obama fans will certainly admire.

For those of you keeping score at home:

The lists is off the top of my head and is no doubt incomplete, and doesn't include the various countries and/or regions the freshman Senator from Illinois has irritated or infuriated with his gaffe-a-matic pandering to his left-wing domestic base and woefully inadequate foreign policy inexperience.

Still it illustrates just how bloody the undercarriage of the Obama bus is, as the candidate who promised a new kind of campaign shows he's lied to the media and his supporters when he promised something other than politics as usual.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:38 AM | Comments (23) | Add Comment
Post contains 303 words, total size 3 kb.

So says the Supreme Court.

There is a macabre old urban legend that has floated around for years in which an exceedingly bad person—a wife-beater, a child-abuser, or other such societal dreg—is found perforated with bullets, and knowing local law enforcement officials note that the miscreant's death was a serious suicide, where the deceased if found having shot himself in the head and/or back multiple times, in some variations even taking the time to reload an empty weapon and fire again.

Such stories, of course, are told with a knowing smile.

We find before us—and perhaps a bit beneath us—a Supreme Court of the United States that in this session has found more sympathy and more previously unknown rights for suspected terrorists and child rapists than it has for the average American.

From Bagram to Baltimore, expect to hear some names and dates begin to be associated with this and similar urban legends.

It is a truism of the human experience that when a people sees their system of justice fail due to inequities in the judicial process, they will find justice on their own.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:06 PM | Comments (23) | Add Comment
Post contains 201 words, total size 1 kb.

Like many of you I saw the insipid MoveOn.org "Not Alex" ad, in which a young liberal mother proves her lack of knowledge of our military (we don't draft), ignorance of term limits (John McCain won't still be President in 17 years), parental consent laws (at 18, Alex can make his own decisions, including joining the military is he so desires) and selfishness (send someone else's child to defend her freedoms). At least we can be thankful that Alex's mother didn't exercise her option for "choice"... this time, at least.

Over at Hot Air this morning, Ed posts a rebuttal video from the family of Eric Egland, an Air Force veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan.

I don't know if it is simply a matter of perception, an artifact of the campaign season, or a real and growing divide, but it seems that the values and ideals held by those on the far left are becoming more and more divorced from those traditional values generally credited with this nation's success up until now. They don't seem to be pushing away from just the right, but from the center as well.

Is anyone else seeing anything like this?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:26 AM | Comments (24) | Add Comment
Post contains 204 words, total size 2 kb.

You won't easily find it on Fox News or CNN or Google News, but somewhere, between the shocking news that Don Imus might have a race-relations problem and the ground-breaking development that Palestinians have engaged in self-defeating random violence, most of us seemed to miss that a dream is more than halfway towards completion.

Al Anbar province in Iraq, once described as all but lost, will become the tenth Iraqi province handed over to Iraqi government control:

The U.S. military will transfer control of security in Anbar Province to Iraqi forces this week, the governor of the region said Monday, a remarkable turnaround given that the region was considered lost to insurgents less than two years ago.

Anbar will be the 10th of 18 provinces in Iraq to return security matters to Iraqi control since the U.S.-led invasion of 2003, but it will be the first Sunni Arab region to do so.

Mamun Sami Rasheed, governor of Anbar Province, said the handover ceremony would take place Saturday. "We have been dreaming of this event since 2003," he said.

With ten provinces down and eight to go, we are passing a milestone of sorts. More than half of the country will be under the control of a democratically-elected Iraqi government, the first freely-elected Arab government in modern history. You would think that Democrats would be thrilled at this step towards freedom, as the turnover also means we are one small step closer to a withdrawal from Iraq, which they claim to be their goal.

Barack Obama isn't trumpeting the good news, however. Left-leaning blogs also appear to be silent on the issue, or nearly so, if Memeorandum is a guide. Instead, liberal bloggers there seem more interested in reacting to Glenn Greenwald's latest long-winded rant about FISA (while ignoring Greenwald's own history of wiretapping, of course).

Al Anbar? It doesn't seem to exist.

With ever passing day that Iraq inches towards success or takes a dramatic leap, it becomes ever more apparent that many Democrats in this country, be they members of the news media, the new media, elected officials, or the activist left, don't just want the United States out of Iraq. They want us cast out or withdrawn in defeat.

The al Anbar handover is symbolic in nature as well as practical, and good news for two Democratic nations. Sadly Democratic leaders cannot join in sharing the good news, because what is good for the United States and what is good for the citizens of Iraq is not good for Harry Reid, or Nancy Pelosi, or Barack Obama.

How sad this day must be for Democrats that are more loyal to their nation than the spite-based political ideology of their fellow travelers.

Update: Peter Wehner, writing at NRO's The Corner, concludes:

Iraq has gone from broken to fragile and slowly mending. Even now, though, leading Democrats seem wholly uninterested in the outcome in Iraq; all they care about is withdrawing American troops. It is a commitment they hold with ideological and theological intensity – and if they are ever allowed to act on their convictions, misery and death and defeat would follow.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:47 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 533 words, total size 4 kb.

Someone please tell CBS News chief foreign correspondent Lara Logan that her reaction is precisely the reaction her peers are shooting for:

"If I were to watch the news that you hear here in the United States, I would just blow my brains out because it would drive me nuts," Ms. Logan said.

Logan admits here a common complaint about the kind of news reported out of Iraq for the duration of the war, which is a macabre focus on blood-soaked sensationalism to the near exclusion of any other sort of story.

The newsworks (to perhaps coin a phrase) have never been interesting in reporting all the news, a fact that far predates television. News outlets—both state-controlled and private—have had a propaganda role throughout history. What may be unique among western news organizations is an often obvious desire to present only one side of the story, even when they have the option of objectivity. They are guilty of providing propaganda just as state-run media often are, but are often blind to this, confusing the biased views they advocate with "truth."

This bias is often wrongly blamed upon the political leanings of a news outlets ownership. In days past (and perhaps in the New York Times present), family control over an outlet may have strongly influenced the focus and bias of news organizations, but the modern reality of corporate news ownership, with organizations and divisions of news organizations being bought, sold, fragmented, consolidated, and always for sale, has rendered that argument laughably simplistic and out of date.

No, in the modern era where news is viewed by "suits" as another potential revenue stream and not a public service, "news" is pushed to be shallow infotainment providing immediate gratification. It is under this pressure-cooker environment that producers, editors and journalists are forced to drop even the pretense of objectivity and produce news quickly, cheaply and sensationally. This pressure brings personal biases out in sharp relief. Journalists, which have self-defined themselves time and again as being left-of-center in their world views and based in bias-reinforcing left-of-center urban enclaves, pushed by business-oriented ownership focused on ratings, have succumbed to their baser instincts, leading us into situation where news is reduced to little more than a veneer of political advocacy attempting to guide the public on how they should think about current events. From global cooling global warming global cooling climate change, to views of conflicts, the proper application of diplomacy, and even the kind of lightbulbs we use, the media attempts to shape how we think by presenting the news they deem newsworthy from a perspective they deem correct.

Reality, however, does not have a leftward bias (neither does it have a rightward bias). Reality, like nature, seeks equilibrium... balance.

The reaction of the newsworks is simple when reality intrudes on the narrative: they dispute it, then they ignore it, and if they can no longer ignore it, they pretend that they never held a contrary position.

Presently, the falloff in news coverage in Iraq is the result of media attempting to ignore that the "quagmire in a failed state" narrative they've been promoting has been failing for over a year.

According to data compiled by Andrew Tyndall, a television consultant who monitors the three network evening newscasts, coverage of Iraq has been "massively scaled back this year." Almost halfway into 2008, the three newscasts have shown 181 weekday minutes of Iraq coverage, compared with 1,157 minutes for all of 2007. The "CBS Evening News" has devoted the fewest minutes to Iraq, 51, versus 55 minutes on ABC's "World News" and 74 minutes on "NBC Nightly News." (The average evening newscast is 22 minutes long.)

CBS News no longer stations a single full-time correspondent in Iraq, where some 150,000 United States troops are deployed.

I'm sure that psychologists have more precise terms to describe this collective behavior, but it comes down to this: the situation in Iraq is far better than the media have predicted it would be, and they aren't sure what to do. They don't want to report success, as success means having to explain why they've been wrong. They also morbidly hope—no doubt subconsciously—that things will once again turn worse, and vindicate their years of predicting doom and failure.

So coverage withers away. The war becomes a non-event, and thankfully, a Presidential campaign between a far left shape-shifter and an occasional Republican provides a welcome distraction.

The War in Iraq is plenty interesting to Americans. That has never faded in five years, and most would be heartened to hear what independent reporters have been indicating for months; that real progress has been made economically, diplomatically, and militarily.

But the newsworks doesn't want to admit they may have been wrong, and so their interests have now focused eslewhere. They don't want to undermine a political party that long ago made abandoning Iraq a key part of their party platform. They don't want to expose a shameful candidate who has made defeating his own military and abandoning a fledgling democracy his signature issue.

From their perspective, it is better to provide only the bad news, and when the bad news fails to live up to expectations, to ignore the uncomfortable.

Damn the news. Send in the clowns.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:18 AM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 902 words, total size 6 kb.

It has been fascinating—and often more than a little infuriating—to watch the anti-Administration wing of the anti-war movement over the past year.

I'd like to first make that distinction clear: there are those who are against the concept of warfare to resolve conflicts, and those that are against this war in specific because they have an acute loathing for their domestic political opposition, led by the current President. Make no mistake: so many of those who presently claim to be anti-war now would change their position on military intervention in an heartbeat if it meant intervening in Darfur or (_fill_in_the_blank_), if it satisfied their political desires and could be painted as a "humanitarian" mission.

Those politically-motivated progressives that see anti-war sentiment as little more than a way to grab power via the ballot box have been most aggravating and occasionally amusing. They saw that an unpopular and protracted war was a way to market themselves to pick up seats in Congress in 2004 and 2006, and hoped perhaps they could ride anti-war sentiment to the White House in 2008.

They rallied behind an eloquent dove of a candidate who has repeatedly promised America to withdrawal U.S. forces on a rigid 16-month timetable, regardless of condition on the ground or the effect it would have on the Iraqi people or on the stability of the region.

That timetable was predicated upon conditions on the ground in Iraq in 2006, when violence was spiraling out of control, and it seemed all but assured that Iraq would become a failed state. Obviously, a lot has changed in the time since Barack Obama predicated his campaign on achieving defeat, and in the past year in particular.

Violence dropped as U.S. and Iraqi forces moved off-base and into the communities, and as the communities themselves began rejecting insurgents, terrorists, gangs, and rogue militias. The Iraqi Parliament, once almost as ineffective as our current Congress, has passed important reconciliation legislation, including an amnesty law that has already led to hundreds of captured insurgents, including Associated Press personnel, to be set free.

Though leading Democrats like Harry Reid still insist that the war is lost, and the Speaker of the House insists that any progress must be due to Iran's moderating influence (and not the success of American and Iraqi forces in killing those carrying out those "moderating Iranian influences" it has become obvious to most of the world that the Iraqi experiment just might work and is well worth pursuing.

Austin Bay noted this morning that freshman Senator Hopeandchange may be trying to distance himself from his adopted policy of purposeful defeat (h/t: Instapundit):

Obama still touts his pull-out — sort of, occasionally, okay, less occasionally. Obama, like his cohort of supporters, is politically committed to defeat. Obama will now rely on rhetoric to assauge the DailyKos-crowd and obscure his shift on Iraq. He will change his position– and Samantha Power prepared the way several months ago in her ill-fated BBC interview this past spring. Obama thinks he can get away with it: he just backed out of public financing.

The NY Times on the deal before the vote. And Fox.

The real rubes in this election wonÂ’t be the rural Midwesterners Obama slandered, the ones who cling to their guns and religon. It will be the gray-haired profs with ponytails, clinging to their cannabis and liturgy of defeat.

When Obama quietly slinks aways from his signature issue and the anti-Bush wing of the anti-war movement loses their defeat-at-any-cost pledgemaster, what will become of the anti-war progressive fringe?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:21 AM | Comments (39) | Add Comment
Post contains 598 words, total size 4 kb.

I don't think for a second that the freshman Senator is himself anti-Muslim—his father's family and many of his half-siblings are Muslim—but this incident once again shows he is part of anything other than a post-racial campaign:

Two Muslim women at Barack Obama's rally in Detroit Monday were barred from sitting behind the podium by campaign volunteers seeking to prevent the women's headscarves from appearing in photographs or on television with the candidate.

The campaign has apologized to the women, all Obama supporters who said they felt betrayed by their treatment at the rally.

"This is of course not the policy of the campaign. It is offensive and counter to Obama's commitment to bring Americans together and simply not the kind of campaign we run," said Obama spokesman Bill Burton. "We sincerely apologize for the behavior of these volunteers."

He can blame the volunteers that forced these Muslim women off stage today in two separate incidents by different Obama volunteers, but these incidents aren't the first and second audience-shaping controversies for Obama's campaign. In April, campaign volunteers issued a directive to "Get me more white people, we need more white people" for Michelle Obama's appearance at Carnegie Mellon.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:25 AM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 210 words, total size 1 kb.

Michelle Malkin's take is typical of bloggers who find the Associated Press' tiered excerpt pricing scheme targeted at bloggers to be farcical, but I think her response of charging the Associated Press for content they cite from bloggers doesn't go far enough.

I propose that in addition to charging AP for using blogger content, that AP be charged editorial fees when bloggers are forced to do the fact checking that in-house editors fail to do. For every blog entry proving than an Associated Press story is using false information or misleading, the Associated Press should pay that blogger the AP-supplied standard of $2.50/word. Just doing a quick check of my content from the present back until the beginning of May, the Associated Press owes me editorial services fees of $2,580 for 1,032 words correcting AP stories dating back to May 2. Some of that would be returned to AP (at $2.50/word) for the text examples I cited, but overall, it is a worthwhile enterprise. If I went back through all of my archives, I suspect that I could easily compile a fact-checking bill for the AP in the tens of thousands of dollars.

You'll not find me complaining about the Associated Press' new ideas of content fees. Their accountants, however, may feel otherwise.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:41 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 223 words, total size 1 kb.

1 CY - send the bill. Who knows, they might even pay it

Posted by: Mark at June 18, 2008 02:20 PM (4od5C)

2 Umm, Bob? Are you sure you really want to get into the fact-checking business, I mean, really, you're Gun Counter Gomer, you're a laughingstock who wouldn't know a fact if it knocked your grill over. Please, keep up with the comedy, because you are funny, in a point and stare giggle kind of way. If you want to do some fact-checking, you may want to begin with your Al Gore piece below, I mean, it's not that hard, it's just basic math.

Posted by: HumboldtBlue at June 19, 2008 04:06 PM (DQtgC)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Over at The Donovan, proof that this generation of military leaders is learning from mistakes made in the past.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:03 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 25 words, total size 1 kb.

The worlds greatest environmental hypocrite wastes so much energy that his consumption would power 232 normal homes.

Sadly not content with even that level of wastefulness, the Goracle has now taken to directly belching balls of energy into the atmosphere.

Update: Steve Strum notes (correctly) that Gore's annual usage would power 232 normal homes for a month. Not quite as bad as originally thought, but still horrific.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:44 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 71 words, total size 1 kb.

Somebody get a history book for the clueless freshman Senator from Illinois (my bold):

And, you know, let's take the example of Guantanamo. What we know is that, in previous terrorist attacks -- for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center, we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial. They are currently in U.S. prisons, incapacitated.

And the fact that the administration has not tried to do that has created a situation where not only have we never actually put many of these folks on trial, but we have destroyed our credibility when it comes to rule of law all around the world, and given a huge boost to terrorist recruitment in countries that say, "Look, this is how the United States treats Muslims."

For the moment let's ignore that terrorist recruitment in general (and for al Qaeda in particular) is on the decline and Barack is making up his inconvenient untruths as he goes along, to focus instead on his insistence that Bill Clinton's flawed policy of treating terrorism as a law enforcement issue is somehow a winning strategy. We'll use Obama's own 1993 WTC bombing example to debunk his claim.

It's quite simple: where is the 1993 World Trade Center bomb-builder? Is he in a U.S prison, as Obama claims? Not even close.

Though grossly neglected in the media, Abdul Rahman Yasin conducted the first attempted chemical weapons attack on U.S. soil by terrorists with the 1993 World Trade Center bomb. The bomb that detonated in the WTC garage in 1993 was built by Yasin to create smoke filled with sodium cyanide *(update, see below) which he hoped would rise through elevator shafts, ventilation ducts, and stairwells to suffocate 50,000 people.

Fortunately for those in the World Trade Center that day, the bomb burned hotter than Yasin expected, and incinerated the cyanide as it detonated instead of spreading it in toxic smoke.

Yasin fled the United States after the bombing to Iraq, and lived as Saddam Hussein's guest in Baghdad until the invasion. He is still free, and wanted by the FBI.

Once again, Barack Obama is dead wrong on the facts.

Update: It now appears that the claim that Yasin used sodium cyanide in the bomb is on very weak ground, and is more than likely false From an online term paper that does a good job of synthesizing the story.

Forensics in World Trade Center Bombing in 1993

... So, what were the evidences, which supported the statement of the Judge Duffy, that there had been cyanide in the WTC bomb? The main question to be solved here lied in the following: what could be the consequences of mixing cyanide with nitric or sulfuric acids, both of which had been found in the bomb fragments? The FBI chemist Steven Burgmeister was the main person to be inquired about the results of the forensic chemical analysis. The thing is, that Burgmeister never made it clear, that he had come to any positive conclusions as for cyanide' presence in the explosive. (Dwyer, 1994, p. 237) This is an abstract from the Burgmeister's interview by one of the prosecutors during the trial:

Prosecutor: What happens, when sodium cyanide is mixed with nitric or sulfuric acid?

Burmeister: There is formed hydrogen cyanide, which is a gas, and which is extremely toxic.

Prosecutor: When you say, that hydrogen cyanide is very toxic, could you give an idea of how toxic it is?

Burmeister: Very toxic, if you breathe, you are deadÂ… (Burgmeister, 1994, p. 6911)

One of the proofs for FBI agents was the discovery of the bottle with sodium cyanide at the place, where the terrorists were preparing their explosive. But it is clear, that this does not directly prove there was any cyanide in the bomb. The fact is that sodium cyanide may be used for different purposes, for example, for photography. Its cost is very low, and it is sold in tons for industrial use. There have been also carried out technical analysis as for how much cyanide would be needed to create such an explosive, and how it is possible to create hydrogen cyanide and the assertions of the Judge Duffy were not confirmed by the FBI. (Dwyer, 1994, p. 240)

It seems that the cyanide claims I cited in this and the previous blog entry were based upon the words of Judge Duffy, based upon his interpretation of what he heard from FBI chemist Steven Burgmeister, yet Burgmeister neither confirmed nor denied cyanide was in the bomb. I'm not sure how Duffy got from Burgmeister's statements to his conclusion. Forensics did not recover any cyanide at the bomb site, only a small quantity at the sit where the bomb was constructed.

None of that matters to the central thesis, which is that Obama was wrong about terrorist recruitment and about his daft view that combating terrorism is best done as a law enforcement matter.

Law enforcement is the enforcement of laws after they have been broken and a crime has been committed. Preemption is not an option using this model; you can't arrest a terrorist until they have broken a law, and you can't do that unless you have jurisdiction, cooperation with local law enforcement, a judge who will give you a warrant, etc. Good luck with that.

The terrorists use asymmetrical warfare as their tool of choice, and common sense dictates that the proper response is also military in nature.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:04 PM | Comments (74) | Add Comment
Post contains 916 words, total size 6 kb.

1 Where did the information about cyanide come from?

Posted by: Wm T Sherman at June 17, 2008 01:57 PM (w41GQ)

2 NO bama

Posted by: yochanan at June 17, 2008 02:00 PM (9Ds1O)

3 Sorry, I should have linked that. Here is a post I dedicated to the subject in 2006, and includes several links you can follow, or you can simply Google "yasin sodium cyanide" and follow your own list of links.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at June 17, 2008 02:04 PM (xNV2a)

4 Either Obama is incredibly cynical or incredibly stupid. Trouble is McCain won't call him on it, and the MSM woudn't report it if he did.

Posted by: moptop at June 17, 2008 02:27 PM (oPLPa)

5 The ever-omniscient Wikipedia has a quote indicating that cyanide was not in the bomb, and he regretted not putting it in. Your point that the bomber, formerly a guest of Hussein, is still free is correct. A better question is why did Obama say 'incapacitated'? Obviously this isn't true. We incarcerate our prisoners. While incarcerated they have access to lawyers, TV, letters, and phones. 'Incapacitated' means they would have an inability to act (sorta like what we had going down in Gitmo). Incarcerated in our legal system means that you can still have your lawyer pass messages on for you, communicate in code via letters & phone, or catch up on current events by watching TV. I wish our legal system would 'incapacitate' these terrorists.

Posted by: JAFAC at June 17, 2008 02:28 PM (vf262)

6 The Left either invents or distorts History to suit their agenda and support their propaganda message.

Posted by: DirtCrashr at June 17, 2008 02:40 PM (VNM5w)

7 A better question is why did Obama say 'incapacitated'? Let's just call that a Jessie Jackson moment.

Posted by: Sainteve. at June 17, 2008 02:44 PM (kX5hh)

8 JAFAC, you can chose to believe that an anonymous wikipedi author is correct, or that the judge in the criminal trial wass correct when he noted the use of sodium cyanide in the bomb. I tend to find the judge more credible.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at June 17, 2008 02:50 PM (xNV2a)

9 I wonder which of the 57 states they are incarcerated in? I am still wondering why anyone gives any credence to what these liars are saying?

Posted by: Zelsdorf Ragshaft III at June 17, 2008 02:54 PM (J5AYY)

10 The WSJ reported the plot to use poison gas after the trial was over. It was shocking at the time given the media's failure to cover this story. I wonder when the trolls will show up to say it was just a government plot or that poison gas cannot be burned, just as they said fire couldn't melt steel.

Posted by: Thomas Jackson at June 17, 2008 03:05 PM (LHaZf)

11 Every American should get down on his knees each morning and pray in gratitude to God Almighty that we have been afforded the opportunity to dispatch in great numbers jihadis in Iraq & Afghanistan. It is truly a blessing.

Posted by: thegreatbeast at June 17, 2008 03:15 PM (pKf96)

12 Obama campaign slogans: CHANGE ... what you'll have left after I raise taxes. CHANGE ... your gas prices upwards, but gradually CHANGE ... my hat size because every day my head gets bigger CHANGE ... what I do to my story depending upon whom I'm talking to. CHANGE ... what I do every day to my foreign policy CHANGE ... your lifestyle because the rest of the world doesn't like you CHANGE ... my friends when they turn out NOT to be "The person I knew" CHANGE ... what my radical left-wing ideologue handlers have in store for you CHANGE ... what I do to facts to suit my needs. CHANGE ... more of you into victims of something and build government programs to take care of you CHANGE ... you into a ward of the state so that I OWN you and your vote CHANGE ... your mind and believe in me for I am the Obamessiah come to save you CHANGE ... into sycophants; what the liberal mainstream media do under the spell of the Obamessiah CHANGE ... the chant I use to control the weak-minded Obamanized masses CHANGE ... into an Obamatron; join the cult, repeat the chant: CHANGE, CHANGE, CHANGE ... CHANGE ... what I plan to do to America because it's the greatest country on the planet. CHANGE ... the national anthems of all the nations of the world to Kumbaya using my messianic skills CHANGE ... into mumble-mouthed idiot when I don't have speech to read. CHANGE ... your underwear because you'll defecate in your pants when you wake up to find out what the left-wing liberal ideologues have done after gaining complete control of government. CHANGE ... you better freaking BELIEVE in because it will WORK you over. Obama: the AUDACITY to count on you and I being DOPEs

Posted by: occam at June 17, 2008 03:23 PM (L/w+g)

13 57 States? Is that the new meme from the wingnuts? Seriously? If it was a matter of raw intelligence, Romney would be the candidate. Zelsdorf...keep lowering the bar for discourse.

Posted by: RNC at June 17, 2008 03:25 PM (1FJUg)

14 I do believe Obama is following the principle that if you lie enough--or big enough--you have a better chance of being believed, because no one will believe you had the audacity (yes!) to lie so much. In the 1940s, the Big Lie technique was adhered to by such as Joseph Goebbels. I'm not comparing Obama to Goebbels, I'm merely noting that on virtually every topic of international interest, historical or current, Obama lies--or, politely put, makes mistakes that, oddly, go uncorrected. Past time for him to be hammered by the press. The way they hammered Bush every day for 8 years, the way they hammered Hillary.

Posted by: M Kronberg at June 17, 2008 03:27 PM (2vb/G)

15 Kronberg, that post was satire right? The entire Iraq run-up was propaganda. McClellan even stated it, albeit too late. Now, I'm not saying the administration didn't have noble motives, but it was a big lie for a war and they knew it. I believe Obama has genuine motives too. Your histrionics are too one-sided. Take off the blinders.

Posted by: Blinders at June 17, 2008 03:40 PM (1FJUg)

16 Now, I'm not saying the administration didn't have noble motives, but it was a big lie for a war and they knew it. It saddens me that so many ignore the fact that the U.S. government - Democrat and Republican, Executive and Legislative, the current Administration and the previous - acted on incorrect intelligence collected over many years, and instead attempt to claim that "Bush lied." Blinders is an accurate name, I suppose, for someone who conveniently ignores data that infringe upon her preferred narrative.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at June 17, 2008 03:49 PM (xNV2a)

17 CY, like your blog, it is always interesting to read and generally the infestation of the BHO cleanup posters is not too high.

Posted by: Moultrie at June 17, 2008 04:22 PM (SO5pX)

18 The main reason his comments worry me has to do with his focus on taking action after an attack. In contrast, Bush has focused on preventing attacks and removing threats. Personally, I would rather take action to prevent an attack than sick a team of prosecutors on some terrorists after an attack has been successfully carried out. Granted, lawyers can make a person's life hell, but I don't think they are much of a deterrent to terrorists that plan to die in the attack, as was the case on 9/11.

Posted by: Pundit Joe at June 17, 2008 04:32 PM (hXHgF)

19 This is my first time posting here so bear with me. Confederate, in regards to your 3:49 PM post, let me say this - Bush did control some of this intelligence. The administration manipulated not only the intelligence, but more importantly, the situation. In the aftermath of 9/11, no politician could be reasonably expected to not err on the side of caution. Those who spoke out against it did so because of their aversion to war in general and because they were, for the most part, not in any position to have to take a stand that could come back and haunt them. But I will give you that it was an intelligence failure of epic proportions and consequneces by our intelligence commmunity. But please do not have your blinders on when it comes to the fact that Bush was determined to go to war with Iraq regardless of 9/11. He just found a better way to push his own agenda. And numerous people in Bush's administration have been quoted saying as much. And you cannot ignore the Bush administrations culpability in letting 9/11 happen when there was that guy who was jumping up and down and screaming from the FBI about what was going to happen. All that being said, it turns out there was 100% accurate intelligence regarding Iraq available to us that was never consulted - the weapons inspections by the UN. Turns out, they were right about Iraq the whole time. I love the way that has never been discussed accept for the one article I saw about it roughly 5 years ago. And lastly, there was no vital, American interest in going into Iraq. That was always my reason for opposition to the war. Yes, Hussein was a bad man who did horrible things. But why wasn't that addressed in the 80's when he did them? Iraq had no way to do anything to the US on our own soil. Nor did it have anything to do with 9/11 - a lie still repeated by Cheney to this day. And if Iraq was such an eminent threat, then what are Iran and North Korea? Who really has the blinders on?

Posted by: KnSD at June 17, 2008 04:39 PM (tkDnR)

20 An Obama Presidency will mean either a civil war to take back the country and salvage what remains after enough people realize that America is sliding away (and nothing less than this will do the job), or we accept it and the American experiment is allowed to sunset. I believe it will come down to one of those two choices.

Posted by: Sam at June 17, 2008 04:46 PM (qetyY)

21 Evidently Blinders lives in one of the seven states we don't know about and they don't get up to date news. Even the media has basically admitted that Bush was correct and they hyped the Bush lied, people died for their own and the democrats purposes. Most stupid democrats know that the WMD 'is there' along with the congressional mandate to remove Saddam came out of the 90's while Bush was still in Tx. Slick Willie signed the 'remove Saddam' bill and then got diverted from his duty by a stained blue dress. Blinders should make an appointment immediately with any nut doctor that specializes in BDS. Not many right now, but hundreds of thousands (including my niece) are training and planning on getting billions from the BDS sufferers. The need will come when Bush goes back to Tx and the democrats are still totally possessed by BDS, but there is no one there to project their nightmares on.

Posted by: Scrapiron at June 17, 2008 04:47 PM (GAf+S)

22 Why is it just fine when a silver-tongued orator constantly displays an ignorance of history?

Posted by: drjohn at June 17, 2008 04:48 PM (324mD)

23 "And if Iraq was such an eminent threat, then what are Iran and North Korea?" The term is "imminent," and Bush didn't say they were. He said that he didn't want to wait until after the fact to find out that they indeed were. And the difference was we hadn't defeated the other two contries and established well-defined terms of compliance. Violating those terms was tantamount to resumeing war. It cracks me up when people act like Saddam was some innocent-til-proven-guilty character. Nothing could have been further from the truth. But John Edwards and Jay Rockefeller, among other Dems, certainly did say it.

Posted by: tsmonk at June 17, 2008 04:51 PM (j0chB)

24 And you cannot ignore the Bush administrations culpability in letting 9/11 happen when there was that guy who was jumping up and down and screaming from the FBI about what was going to happen. Who was "that guy"? And just when did the 9/11 hijackers enter the country? And if Iraq was such an eminent threat, then what are Iran and North Korea? The only person who said Iraq was an eminent threat was Sen. Rockefeller. Bush said the threat was not eminent.

Posted by: Rob Crawford at June 17, 2008 05:09 PM (Bpq+O)

25 "Yasin fled the United States after the bombing to Iraq, and lived as Saddam Hussein's guest in Baghdad until the invasion." Wow. But, but, Saddam had no ties to terror, BUSH LIED I TELL YOU.

Posted by: grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr at June 17, 2008 05:18 PM (gkobM)

26 Thanks for catching the typo tsmonk. Bush actually did say they were an imminent threat with their WMD. That statement is what made me stand up and take notice. That's when I knew that my President was being less than truthful with the country. And that was my opposition. And I certainly didn't say Saddam was innocent until proving guilty. Hussein had been violating the terms of the UN Resolutions for years. Why the rush at that point? And the UN Inspections basically said he had nothing. He was saber-rattling and trying to make himself relevant. But that is not enough of a reason to go to war. And if a leader of a nation should be removed because they were guilty, where is your rigtheous idignation at Milosevic, Idi Amin, Darfur or Rwanda? Did those leaders not warrant the same consequences for their actions as Hussein? And what about Al Qaeda? Why not go after the people who attacked us? Why not shock and awe the Taliban in Afghanistan into complete and total submission and help that country rebuild and stop being the problem it has been for the last 30 years? At that point in time, isn't that the more pressing concern? And it still doesn't answer the larger question that if we were so worried about WMD and not wanting to wait until after the fact to find out, wny are Iran and North Korea not considered the bigger threat? Their nuclear programs were certainly, documentably, further along than Iraq's. And you don't even offer an argument about Bush's stated desire, and that of the hawks around him, to go to war with Iraq when he took office. Not commenting on it seems to me to be telling. You can try and justify the war in Iraq any way you want, but you will never convince me it was right or worth the lives it has cost. Just as I am sure I will never convince you of the opposite. Even if this turns out to be the best thing for the Middle East 100 years down the road, it was still the wrong choice, at the wrong time, for the wrong reasons - all 10 or so we have been given so far.

Posted by: KnSD at June 17, 2008 05:19 PM (tkDnR)

27 I periodically challenge the Bush haters to imagine they were in a room with GW Bush and CIA Director George Tenet in the days leading up to the 2003 invasion, when Tenet told GWB that the case for WMDs was a "slam dunk", and ask them what they would have said to refute him. The only responses I get back are on the order of drinking red-dyed milk and vomiting it back up on the steps of the City Hall in protest at going to war. Bush haters don't even pretend to want to be taken seriously; they just want to vent.

Posted by: Orion at June 17, 2008 05:30 PM (xGZ+b)

28 And my apologies to you Confederate. I did not mean to side track your blog to the war. The battle has already been fought. Regarding your blog about Obama. Yeah, he does need a little help in the history department. I grant you that one. And the press' refusal to call him on it has been a travesty, too. Obviously, from my posts, I think it is apparent that I am a Democrat. I hope you don't mind if I pop in from time to time to add my 2 cents to the coversation as my time allows. I actually stumbled across your blog from the Real Clear Politics website. Its actually a pretty good website. The articles tend to be balanced between conservative and liberal and it is nice to hear an opposing view for me to challenge myself and my opinions. I notice that again today, I found myself agreeing with Pat Buchanan. That alwasy irritates me. LOL And just for the record, I am actually a Hillary supporter. I don't particularly like Obama and I actually really do like McCain. I haven't even made up my mind to vote this cycle. Ican't in good conscience vote for Obama for many reasons but I also can't vote for McCain in good conscience just for one reason. So I might just sit this one out. Luckily, in CA I have that option since Obama should carry the state regardless of my vote. Thanks again for the blog. Later on I am going to go back and read some of your past stuff.

Posted by: KnSD at June 17, 2008 05:38 PM (tkDnR)

29 Obama gets his gift from Flip Wilson's Rev. Leroy, of the CHURCH OF WHAT's HAPPENIN' NOW: A lie is a good as the truth, if you can get someone to believe it.

Posted by: Original Pechanga at June 17, 2008 05:39 PM (QHbJx)

30 KnSD: "Bush actually did say they were an iminent threat with their WMDs." Care to give the date and speech he said this? If you can find it you probably will be awarded the Hero of the People medal (2nd Class, with Oak Clusters!) by the DNC, because they've tried in vain for 5 years to find somewhere he said this or anything like this. Try. Google "Bush imminent threat" and see what you come up with. There are a lot of "I-hate-Bush!" vanity websites where the posters claim he said it, sure. One of the symptoms of BDS is hearing voices in your head and being unable to tell fantasy from reality. But no one has ever found an actual, verifiable quote where President Bush said Iraq was an "iminent threat" or, "the threat is iminent", or any words to those effects. If you can't argue from the basis of reality, what good is your opinion worth?

Posted by: Orion at June 17, 2008 05:40 PM (NmR1a)

31 Confed Yankee gaffes once again. Obama is dead on - we tried and convicted all four of the 1993 WTC conspirators that we caught. This completely supports obama's and other true small government supporter's contention about Gitmo - it's not necessary. The fact that we didn't have Gitmo-type detentions of the 1993 culprits did not hurt American security. We were able to bring the guys we caught to justice using our normal constitutional judicial proceedings and the rule of law instead of the rule of barbarism. Yeah we didn't catch a couple guys but that had nothing to do with the absence of unlimited enemy combatant detentions at Gitmo or any failings of the US justice system. ps: Bush's use of unconstitutional detentions at Gitmo and non-use of our justice system to prosecute terrorists has also failed to catch Yasin and bring him to justice too. As you state he is still on the loose. Using your own argument Bush's terrorist policies have been a failure.

Posted by: persistent vegitative liberal at June 17, 2008 05:45 PM (NyEu6)

32 > periodically challenge the Bush haters to imagine they were in a room with GW Bush and CIA Director George Tenet in the days leading up to the 2003 invasion, when Tenet told GWB that the case for WMDs was a "slam dunk", and ask them what they would have said to refute him. Picking up a phone and called Mohammed ElBaradei and Hans Blix, would have done the job.

Posted by: Anselm at June 17, 2008 05:45 PM (0Y/X+)

33 "And, you know, let's take the example of Guantanamo. What we know is that, in previous terrorist attacks -- for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center, we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial. They are currently in U.S. prisons, incapacitated." Q: Well Mr Obama so you think that the right policy is to prosecute terrorist? Mr. Obama: Well yes it worked after the bombing of the World Trade Center. Q: Mr. Obama, and where is the World Trade Center now? Mr. Obama: Uh,

Posted by: Doug at June 17, 2008 05:49 PM (5ZjzM)

34 >>nSD: "Bush actually did say they were an iminent threat with their WMDs." >Care to give the date and speech he said this? Take your pick "The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency." • President Bush, 10/2/02 "There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is." • President Bush, 10/2/02 "This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined." • President Bush, 9/26/02 "No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq." • Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02 "Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons." • Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02 The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. ... Iraq is a threat, a real threat." • President Bush, 1/3/03 "The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands." • President Bush, 11/23/02 "Absolutely." • White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03 "This is about imminent threat." • White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03 Iraq poses "terrible threats to the civilized world." • Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/30/03 Iraq "threatens the United States of America." • Vice President Cheney, 1/30/03 "Well, of course he is.” • White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question “is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?”, 1/26/03 "I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before? When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month...So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?" • Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 11/14/02 "Saddam Hussein is a threat to America." • President Bush, 11/3/02 "I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq." • President Bush, 11/1/02

Posted by: Anselm at June 17, 2008 05:53 PM (0Y/X+)

35 >>Yasin fled the United States after the bombing to Iraq, and lived as Saddam Hussein's guest in Baghdad until the invasion." >Wow. But, but, Saddam had no ties to terror, BUSH LIED I TELL YOU. Yasin, an Iraqi citizen, was questioned by the FBI after the 1st trade center bombing & released. He returned to Iraq. If you call being in prison being a guest of Saddam Hussein, he was a guest. Saddam Hussein offered to turn him over to the US after 9/11 but the US refused to accept him.

Posted by: Anselm at June 17, 2008 05:57 PM (0Y/X+)

36 (sigh) You're new, KnSD, so I'll cut you a little slack, but not a great deal, because these quotes were posted by me in another thread right here seven days ago... looking back at previous threads is sometimes a good idea, ya know. Anyway, if, as you claim, Bush claimed that the Iraqi threat was imminent (and I, too, want to see your source for that), he was joined by a number of prominent Democrats: "There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." Senator Edward Kennedy, speech at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. "In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now -- a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed. "If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program." President William Jefferson Clinton, address to Joint Chiefs and Pentagon staff. So tell me, KnSD, did these prominent Democrats, one of them President at the time, also lie? Or is it only a "lie" when a Republican says it, but the "TRUTH!" when a Democrat does?

Posted by: C-C-G at June 17, 2008 06:02 PM (X5vKa)

37 >o tell me, KnSD, did these prominent Democrats, one of them President at the time, also lie? Or is it only a "lie" when a Republican says it, but the "TRUTH!" when a Democrat does? They were given selective information by White House controlled sources, which they should have been more skeptical about. But you're avoiding the point. The Security Council and the whole world agreed that Saddam had to be disarmed. So it voted to put inspection teams in. Which were working and getting cooperation. Blix said he would have the job done 'not in weeks nor in years but in months.' ElBaradei got the job done: he said no active nuclear weapons program. Cheney said ElBaradei was wrong. Gave no evidence as to why, just said, he's wrong. And we invaded.

Posted by: Anselm at June 17, 2008 06:09 PM (0Y/X+)

38 Orion - as I am trying to get out of the office right now, I don't have time. But I will do my best. If I can find it, I will certainly let you know. If I can't, then I will certainly admit my mistake. If I can ask though, what is BDS? And yes, I dislike Bush immensely and I think he has been horrible for the country. But I dislike his politics, not the man. I don't doubt his intentions, just his actions. You are not going to find me your typical Democrat. I tend to be somewhat conservative - for a liberal anyway. But most importantly, I try to look at each item individually, then see how it fits into the larger picture and then look to see if my logic and beliefs are consistent through my opinions. And if I discover that I have been wrong or inconsistent, or in some instances hypocritical, I adjust my thinking accordingly. And always, I try to keep in mind the kind of person I want to be and how I would feel in someone else's shoes. So challenge away. It might be good for both of us. And lastly, having a different opinion doesn't mean we can't debate and needle each other. I will do my best to be respectful. :-)

Posted by: KnSD at June 17, 2008 06:09 PM (tkDnR)

39 No wonder you use the term "vegetative" in your name, PVL... you clearly have the approximate brain of one. The original post quotes Obama as saying: ...we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial. And here you come with your statement: ...we tried and convicted all four of the 1993 WTC conspirators that we caught. (emphasis mine). Note, please, that Obama himself didn't restrict his comments to those "that we caught.," he said we had arrested and tried all of them. In short, you're trying to put words in his mouth in a blatant attempt to cover his goof, and it ain't gonna fly around here. Go back to DailyKos, where I am sure you're considered "wise" by their standards.

Posted by: C-C-G at June 17, 2008 06:13 PM (X5vKa)

40 And this - >If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program." was after the expulsion of inspectors in 1997. He bombed them but didn't invade. Seems very smart in retrospect, doesn't it?

Posted by: Anselm at June 17, 2008 06:13 PM (0Y/X+)

41 They were given selective information by White House controlled sources, which they should have been more skeptical about. But you're avoiding the point. Anselm, one of them WAS PRESIDENT HIMSELF when he said what I quoted above. Now, are you gonna tell me that the all-powerful George W. Bush reached back in time and controlled the sources inside Bill Clinton's White House? Well, he can apparently control hurricanes--remember Katrina?--so I guess a little thing like time travel shouldn't bother him. Pathetic. Truly pathetic. Go back to DU.

Posted by: C-C-G at June 17, 2008 06:16 PM (X5vKa)

42 "I have come to the inescapable conclusion that the threat posed to America by Saddam's weapons of mass destruction is so serious that despite the risks, and we should not minimize the risks, we must authorize the President to take the necessary steps to deal with the threat. There has been some debate over how "imminent" a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe that after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated....To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can." Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, Congressional Record, September 25, 2002, excerpted from the Phase 2 report by the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator Rockefeller, Chairman, PG 105.

Posted by: Doug at June 17, 2008 06:19 PM (5ZjzM)

43 >Anselm, one of them WAS PRESIDENT HIMSELF when he said what I quoted above. After the expulsion of UN inspectors, yes. He bombed Iraq. Quite successfully. No U.S. casualties. No endless occupation. Problem? Regarding what Rockefeller said -- since that time, he's said he was fed a line, and we have lots of testimony from the feeders. But you know the real deal - how?

Posted by: Anselm at June 17, 2008 06:27 PM (0Y/X+)

44 Hey asselm, thanks for proving that President Bush did not, in fact, say that Iraq was an "imminent threat." Did he say it was a threat? OF COURSE, being as they were. Did he use some strong language, sure, he was building a case for a WAR. Jesus...As some earlier commentor said: Go back to DKos were all you double diget IQers baffle one another with your brilliance. Round these parts we deal in reality...

Posted by: pdxpunk at June 17, 2008 06:29 PM (Gp0vt)

45 Quit trying to change the topic, Anselm. Clinton wasn't misled by the White House, he WAS the White House. And he said Iraq was a threat. Was President Clinton a liar, or was he telling the truth? Answer me that.

Posted by: C-C-G at June 17, 2008 06:31 PM (X5vKa)

46 C-C-G - might I point out that Obama didn't use the word "all" in what you quoted either. He didn't qualify it one way or another. Implying that he meant that we caught all of them, when that is not explicitly what he said is exactly the same as what you accuse PVL of doing when he qualifies Obama's position with "that we caught." And is it really necessary to include the vegetative comment? Is that somehow supportive of your argument? Thank you for letting me join in the discussion guys. I hope I can do it again soon. And Orion, I haven't forgot that I will look for those commments. I know Anselm posted those quotes, but I will try to find quotes myself, too. And Doug. I'm sorry, but how many people do you think heard Rockefeller say that? Not quite the same joining the chorus as it is in leading the choir. Anyone who came out in suppport of the imminence of the threat would have been responding to the comments by the administration. (And yes, I ahve qualified my earlier Bush comments to administration until I confirm for myself I heard what I think I heard).

Posted by: KnSD at June 17, 2008 06:33 PM (tkDnR)

47 "They were given selective information by White House controlled sources, which they should have been more skeptical about. But you're avoiding the point." Really? So the rest of the world that thought he had it also pulled this same trick with their OWN intelligence agencies? Give me a freaking break. If Bush were half the liar you people make him out to be then he would have had Chem weapons planted and then found. There will always be people in an organization that think one thing while a majority of the others think another. You go with the majority. Some times it bites you in the ass. Most of the time it does not. Next please!

Posted by: Matt at June 17, 2008 06:35 PM (9V6Vj)

48 >Hey asselm, thanks for proving that President Bush did not, in fact, say that Iraq was an "imminent threat." Did he say it was a threat? Oh, give us all a break. All of his spokesman used the word "imminent," verbatim, or even stronger words. Bush himself used words like "unique urgency." Why not explain why a threat of "unique urgency" is not "imminent." >Did he use some strong language, sure, he was building a case for a WAR D'uh. The question remains, was the war justified? Was it a good idea? We now know it wasn't. And he could and should have known, from Blix and ElBaradei, that the WMD threat wasn't there. >Quit trying to change the topic, Anselm. Clinton wasn't misled by the White House, he WAS the White House. And he said Iraq was a threat. You're the one trying to cloud the issue. Nobody, and certainly has said Clinton in 1998 was misled by the White House. He was reacting to Saddam Hussein expeling UN weapons inspector. And his military response was measured and highly effective.

Posted by: Anselm at June 17, 2008 06:40 PM (0Y/X+)

49 oops - "nobody, and certainly not me, has said that Clinton in 1998 was misled by the White House."

Posted by: Anselm at June 17, 2008 06:42 PM (0Y/X+)

50 KnSD, quit trying to throw red herrings. If you hear a police department spokesman say, "we have caught the bank robbers," the natural assumption is that they have caught all of them. If you later spot one of the bank robbers on your street, you therefore assume that the spokesman was incorrect. It's not Friday, and I am not Catholic, so I have no use for the fish you're tossing.

Posted by: C-C-G at June 17, 2008 06:45 PM (X5vKa)

51 >>"They were given selective information by White House controlled sources, which they should have been more skeptical about. But you're avoiding the point." >Really? So the rest of the world that thought he had it also pulled this same trick with their OWN intelligence agencies? The rest of the world was also worried, which is why the Security Council voted to put the inspectors Saddam had expelled back in. Unanimously. They went in and went to work, and were reporting, effectively and we now know accurately. Cheney and Bush dismissed them. Why? What did they know the inspectors didn't? >Give me a freaking break. You seem to need one badly.

Posted by: Anselm at June 17, 2008 06:45 PM (0Y/X+)

52 Lying again, Anselm? >o tell me, KnSD, did these prominent Democrats, one of them President at the time, also lie? Or is it only a "lie" when a Republican says it, but the "TRUTH!" when a Democrat does? They were given selective information by White House controlled sources, which they should have been more skeptical about. But you're avoiding the point. That's you at 6:09 pm today, according to the timestamp. And now, you at 6:42 pm: oops - "nobody, and certainly not me, has said that Clinton in 1998 was misled by the White House." Was someone else pretending to be you, or are you a bald-faced liar? I vote for option 2.

Posted by: C-C-G at June 17, 2008 06:48 PM (X5vKa)

53 >KnSD, quit trying to throw red herrings. If you hear a police department spokesman say, "we have caught the bank robbers," the natural assumption is that they have caught all of them. If you later spot one of the bank robbers on your street, you therefore assume that the spokesman was incorrect. They put the ringleaders on trial. One Iraqi citizen was questioned by the FBI, released, went back to Iraq, where he was imprisoned. The Iraqis later tried to release him to Bush/Cheney, who refused to accept him. Now he's still at large. That's Obama's fault?? And in fact, the criminal justice system worked quite well in the first bombing. How has Guantanamo worked better?

Posted by: Anselm at June 17, 2008 06:49 PM (0Y/X+)

54 I overlooked the reference to Clinton being president at the time. Mistake, yes. The facts remain as I stated them. Clinton was in 1998 reacting to Saddam kicking out inspectors, and took effective action. Democrats in 2002 were getting information from the White House that proved, after UN inspectors went in, to be wrong. The White House refused to listen tot he inspectors. Unlike the rest of the world. Why? Calling me a liar (again, admit I overlooked the clause pres at the time) doesn't change this

Posted by: Anselm at June 17, 2008 06:55 PM (0Y/X+)

55 Anselm, the criminal justice system worked so well after the first bombing that we had, oh, let's see... * Al-Qaeda related bombing of our embassy in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania (199 . * Al-Qaeda related bombing of our embassy in Nairobi, Kenya (199 . * USS Cole bombed while in port in Yemen (2000). * And, of course, that second attack on the WTC in 2001. You may have heard of it. After imprisoning people in Gitmo, tell me, how many successful Al-Qaeda attacks on our embassies, ships, or on American soil have there been, Anselm? The results speak for themselves. You just gotta know what you're talking about.

Posted by: C-C-G at June 17, 2008 06:56 PM (X5vKa)

56 You might wanna read the whole text of the Rockefeller report (it's available online as a .pdf file, but CY's spam filter chokes on the link... it's at the senate "dot" gov site), Anselm. It clearly states, even though the MoveOnMedia somehow forgot to mention this in their breathless reports, that Bush's statements pre-invasion were "generally supported by intelligence information." Doing your research is a good idea when coming here to comment... because the regular conservative commenters here (like me) do so.

Posted by: C-C-G at June 17, 2008 07:00 PM (X5vKa)

57 >After imprisoning people in Gitmo, tell me, how many successful Al-Qaeda attacks on our embassies, ships, or on American soil have there been, Anselm? In Iraq and Afghanistan, hundreds. This is a joke, right? But here's the poser: how many threats have we found out about in Guantanamo that we prevented? I mean, this is really any excuse will do country. Do you really think Americans being killed in Iraq prevented Americans from being killed in the US?? If so, I have a bridge to sell you. Ah yes - regarding the Cole As Clinton was leaving office, the attack on the Cole was traced to Al Qaeda. Clinton officials, and particularly Clarke, turned the info over to Bush people. Who did nothing. Even after the intelligence organization brief him in August: "Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S."

Posted by: Anselm at June 17, 2008 07:02 PM (0Y/X+)

58 In fact, Anselm, here's part of a previous comment of mine listing some of the statements in the Rockefeller report that the MoveOnMedia didn't think you needed to know about. Some excerpts for ya (the page numbers I list are from the bottom of the printed sheets, Adobe Reader's internal page numbers are 1 page higher, so don't go whining that I say page 15 when Adobe says 16.): Page 15: "Statements by the President, Vice President, Secretary of State and the National Security Advisor regarding a possible Iraqi nuclear weapons program were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates, but did not convey the substantial disagreements that existed in the intelligence community." Page 28: "Statements in the major speeches analyzed, as well as additional statements, regarding Iraq's possession of biological agent, weapons, production capability, and use of mobile biological laboratories were substantiated by intelligence information." Page 37: "Statements in the major speeches analyzed, as well as additional statements, regarding Iraq's possession of chemical weapons were substantiated by intelligence information." I won't bore you with more excerpts... those three should be enough. If you wanna read through 170+ pages of bureaucratese, you're welcome to. There ya go. Keep spinning, it's fun knocking you down over and over again.

Posted by: C-C-G at June 17, 2008 07:04 PM (X5vKa)

59 U all know that Hussein Obama had committed a lot of flagrant errors in his speeches/comments and the "intelligent" pundits tried to conceal them so as not to show his ignorance. I've heard many of his mistakes and they made me laugh because his stupidity/ignorance on certain facts seem funny and at the same time idiotic. I hope the world and his cohorts will see him as he is. But then, to their eyes, the Americans would appear ridiculous for having a presidential nominee as unknowledgeable as he claims to be. How pathetic.

Posted by: avepa at June 17, 2008 07:04 PM (PYVg3)

60 Anselm, you're pathetic. I said, attacks ON OUR EMBASSIES, SHIPS, OR ON AMERICAN SOIL. Are you trying to say that Iraq and Afghanistan are American soil? Maybe those are part of Obama's "57 states"?

Posted by: C-C-G at June 17, 2008 07:06 PM (X5vKa)

61 >It clearly states, even though the MoveOnMedia somehow forgot to mention this in their breathless reports, that Bush's statements pre-invasion were "generally supported by intelligence information." If the Rockefeller report were the only source on this, you might begin to have a point, though "generally supported by intelligence information" is about as vague and minimal as conclusions get. The fact is, we have lots and lots of other sources. But, sure, it's just the nasty MSM making things up because they hate Bush. Dream on.

Posted by: Anselm at June 17, 2008 07:07 PM (0Y/X+)

62 Please, Anselm, list for me some of those "other sources." I imagine that they're places like the Huffington Post, MoveOn, DailyKOS, and DemocraticUnderground, since you're clearly more familiar with their twisted fantasies than you are with reality.

Posted by: C-C-G at June 17, 2008 07:09 PM (X5vKa)

63 And there you go, copying biased bloggers. Here's the text of the report: ) Conclusion 5: Statements by the President, Vice-President, Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense regarding IraqÂ’s possession of weapons of mass destruction were generally substantiated by intelligence information, though many statements made regarding ongoing production prior to late 2002 reflected a higher level of certainty than the intelligence judgments themselves." That means, they exaggerated. You don't want to call it lie? Go ahead. again: (U) Conclusion 8: Statements by the President, Secretary of Defense, and Secretary of State that Iraq was developing unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) that could be used to deviler chemical or biological weapons were generally substantiated by intelligence information, but did not convey the substantial disagreements that existed in the intelligence community. or this: (U) Conclusion 4: Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding IraqÂ’s chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence communityÂ’s uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing. Or this: (U) Conclusion 12: Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-QaÂ’ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-QaÂ’ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence. Or this: (U) Conclusion 13: Statements in the major speeches analyzed, as well additional [sic] statements, regarding IraqÂ’s contacts with al-QaÂ’ida were substantiated by intelligence information. However, policymakersÂ’ statements did not accurately convey the intelligence assessments of the nature of these contacts, and left the impression that the contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation or support of al-QaÂ’ida.

Posted by: Anselm at June 17, 2008 07:14 PM (0Y/X+)

64 What an incredibly stupid man.

Posted by: Denny, Alaska at June 17, 2008 11:30 PM (7x+SO)

65 My first post here so I will be brief. All of us paying attention to those dark days following the 9-11 attack clearly recall the difficulty being expressed with regard to combating Al Qaeda and it's organizaton. Tens of thousands of trained terrorists in 60 countries. How to fight that sort of enemy? President Bush decided to kill a few birds with (in retrospect) one very expensive stone. Phase One: Remove the Taliban controlled goverment in Afghanistan. Mission Accomplished! Phase Two: Establish Military bases in Afghanistan in cooperation with NATO along Iran's eastern boarder. Mission Accomplished! Phase Three: Attack Iraq and bring down that filthy, sadistic group of lunatics. MISSION ACOMPLISHED (recall Pres. Bush on the aircraft carrier?) Phase Four: Establish military bases along Iran's western boarder and stabilize Iraq. Work in progress....but we do have a huge inventory of man and materials now in the real theater of war... Phase Five: Create an attrative target for all who would like to do harm to United States of America through Jihad. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED (recall Pres. Bush saying in so many words "You Jihad a__holes want some USA? Come get some!) Honestly, there was no way to respect the 60 sovereign nations in fighting those virgin loving Jihadists if we were to attack them where they were so we had to entice them to come to us. "Bring it on!" seems to have done the trick. Heck, we even brought down Saddam as an extra added plus. Today: - We have nearly 100,000 battle hardened NATO and US military personnel along Iran's Eastern boarder along with tons of battle tested equipment. - We have almost 200,000 battle hardened military personnel and well tested equipment arrayed along Iran's western boarder. - We have circulated (over extended duty stays) more than a half million battle trained US Military personnel who can be called up at a moment's notice. Doesn't it strike anyone as odd that our friends on the left say we are in no position...stretched too thin... to engage Iran as they try to perfect thier nuclear program. If we are not in a position to confront Iran right now, what is it you think we need to do to get better positioned...? I suppose we could move a carrier battle group into the gulf....errr...wait a sec here...we have three battle groups there now. The most sophisticated military in the world, battle tested equipment, battle trained commanders, more than a half million battle hardened vets and military bases and supply chains established and protected...all around Iran. ...and all we hear from the left is that we are too weak to offend Iran.... You oddlings on the left should stick to fighting to let gay folks get married, ensure abortions are legal..and find new ways of taking my money and giving to your base voters (pardon the pun)and leave the job of protecting us from the real bad guys of the world to the grown-ups. Your judgement appears flawed, silly and dangerous. Oh...and by the way...your current meme of Sen. McCain being too old to be president...stomping all over the Hillary supporters wasn't damaging enough for you? Your now looking to throw away the Sr. Citizen vote too? My apologies for my failure to be brief.

Posted by: StyroPhome at June 18, 2008 12:08 AM (boLGT)

66 Mr. Yankee, You are either ill-informed or (more likely) disingenuous. There are six known perpetrators of the 1993 attack including: Ramzi Yousef, Mahmud Abouhalima, Mohammad Salameh, Nidal Ayyad, Ahmad Ajajand and Abdul Rahman Yasin . Five of the six were apprehended in foreign countries, extradited to the US, convicted in US courts and are serving longer-than-life sentences. As indicted in your piece, Yasin has not met with US justice. However, contrary to your assertion, Yasin was not Saddam Hussein's guest, but (after a yearlong period of freedom) a prisoner in an Iraqi prison. And, in fact there were several opportunities to have him conveyed from Iraq. Obviously, we did not take those opportunities and since the US invasion, his whereabouts are unknown. Do you think so little of your readers to assume they can't undertake a simple google search to fact check your half-truths?

Posted by: monkeytime at June 18, 2008 01:43 AM (98aYP)

67 I have to say, reading these comments, that I am struck by the lack of civility on the part of many of the posters. Disagreeing about facts and interpretations is one thing; questioning people's intelligence and slinging insults is completely unnecessary. It's the kind of behavior that wouldn't be allowed in any elementary school classroom. I'm sure your parents raised you better, and I would hope you'd teach your children better, too. Note that I do not have a political bone to pick in this fight; I am not referring to posters of either political stripe. Could we please consider our own behavior and the example it's setting???

Posted by: Laura Sympson at June 18, 2008 08:22 AM (hReHK)

68 Mix Xyanides and an acid and you get Hydrogen Xyanide gas

Posted by: Purple Avenger at June 18, 2008 08:54 AM (c55NW)

69 >Anselm, lemme as you this. How many bank robberies have not happened because we put some bank robbers in jail? Nobody is calling for not pursuing, capturing and punishing enemies, for doing away with jails. We have lots all over the place. The issue is whether we are going to honor the rules set by our history and constitution, or disregard them because of fearmongering politiicians. >>Doesn't it strike anyone as odd that our friends on the left say we are in no position...stretched too thin... to engage Iran as they try to perfect thier nuclear program. If we are not in a position to confront Iran right now, what is it you think we need to do to get better positioned...? You should really tell the Joint Chiefs about all our unused military muscle, and how ready we are to go after Iran. They'll be very surprised. Tell the voters too: that's a really winner.

Posted by: Anselm at June 18, 2008 09:04 AM (viUfj)

70 A good site for the folks wanting to claim that the Bush admin was hyping up Saddam as a threat is http://www.whosaiditiraq.blogspot.com/. It has a great many quotes from prominent Dems echoing the same concerns the Bush administration had. Some even go further in their claims than the administration. Just some food for thought.

Posted by: Pundit Joe at June 18, 2008 10:01 AM (hXHgF)

71 >A good site for the folks wanting to claim that the Bush admin was hyping up Saddam as a threat is http://www.whosaiditiraq.blogspot.com/. It has a great many quotes from prominent Dems echoing the same concerns the Bush administration had. Some even go further in their claims than the administration. We've been there and gone through that. The Rockefeller report and many other independent accounts from journalists have documented that the data was cooked and skewed before being presented to lawmakers, to not present dissenting or questioning views from the intellgence community. And, again, there was an independent check available. The U.N. inspectors in Iraq were there investigating. They asked us for leads, and followed all they got. Empty holes. ElBaradei reached an (accurate) conclusion: no nuclear weapons program active. Blix said he'd have a definitive answer "not in weeks or years but months." Bush couldn't wait. But it's the Democrats' fault. Sure.

Posted by: Anselm at June 18, 2008 11:32 AM (0Y/X+)

72 Well, but what about Yasin having been in prison since 1994? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2022991.stm He certainly seems to have been lost in the shuffle since the war began.

Posted by: Teh Sadly at June 18, 2008 11:43 AM (cR1Au)

73 Anselm: Care to tell us all how you've been earning a living since you lost your PR job with Saddam. What a crock. Saddam imprisoned any number of terrorists including Abu Nidal, all who live in a secured luxury housing area. I know I saw this area in the mid 80s and saw the terrorist HQs in Baghdad. Do you imply these people couldn't travel freely were in jail with common criminals, couldn't freely communicate or meet with anyone they choose to? Its sad to see the lies that are told here by people who have a very obvious agenda.

Posted by: Thomas Jackson at June 18, 2008 07:55 PM (LHaZf)

74 One more point for Anselm, then I am done with him. Even allowing, just for the sake of the argument that we did capture, convict, and imprison all those responsible for the 1993 WTC bombing, there is one simple, inescapable fact that proves beyond any doubt that those actions did nothing to make America safer. That fact is 11 September 2001. Face it, the arrest, trial, and incarceration of those responsible in 1993 didn't stop the 2001 attacks. Since 2003, however, there hasn't been a single, not ONE, successful terrorist attack within the United States of America. I'd say that pretty well shows the difference between a law enforcement approach to terrorism and a military approach to it. And now, Anselm, I am done with you. Good day, sir. I said, GOOD DAY!

Posted by: C-C-G at June 19, 2008 06:56 PM (Hc4y8)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Pfleger's baaaaack:

Two weeks after his controversial sermon on race sparked a national uproar, Rev. Michael Pfleger returned Monday to his office at St. Sabina Catholic Church, expressing gratitude to Cardinal Francis George and saying activism would always be a part of him.

Pfleger said he would wait to make further comments until mass Sunday, when he plans to address his entire congregation for the first time since George suspended him. St. Sabina, one of the most vibrant Catholic churches in the city, is predominantly African-American and draws nearly 2,000 worshipers.

"I'm good. I'll speak Sunday and give my talk then," Pfleger said as he sifted through a desk full of papers. "I'm grateful to be back and to do what I'm called to do. I'm grateful to the cardinal for letting me back."

When asked if he was the same "Michael Pfleger" as before, he said: "I'm me. I'm not changing. This is how I've been since I've been born. I'm not changing."

I find it refreshing that like the other radicals in Barack Obama's closet, Michael Pfleger is the same person today as he was yesterday, as he was more than 20 years ago when he first became a moral compass for Barack Obama. Jeremiah Wright, likewise, seems to have never veered from his course in the decades Obama followed him until now, even after those controversial views were exposed. These men have strong views and convictions that are unwavering. Their core values have apparently remain unchanged. Most of Obama's associates have also remained true to themselves.

Obama kicked off his political career at the home of domestic terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dorhn. The Obama campaign has tried to minimize their relationship, but the facts remain that Obama has extensive tied to Ayers.

Obama and Ayers served together for many years at the Woods Fund, and Obama was chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a $50 million education grant project for which Ayers wrote the grant proposal. Steve Diamond at the blog Global Labor and the Global Economy makes a compelling argument that it was a concerted effort of the Ayers family, including terrorist Bill, his father Thomas, brother John, and Bill's Manson Family-admiring wife (and fellow Weatherman terrorist) Bernadine Dorhn that "made" Obama's poltical career:

Thus, we have one possible answer to the question: Who "sent" Obama? It was the Ayers family, including Tom, John, Bill and Bernardine Dohrn.

It is highly unlikely that a 30-something second year lawyer would have been plucked from relative obscurity out of a left wing law firm to head up something as visible and important in Chicago as the Annenberg Challenge by Bill Ayers if Ayers had not already known Obama very well. One possibility is that Obama proved himself to the Ayers's in the battle for local school control when he was at the DCP in the 80s.

Diamond also ties Obama's present Presidential campaign to other radicals, including the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), a faction of which later became the Weathermen:

As it turns out, there are other ex-SDS types around the Obama campaign as well, including Marilyn Katz, a public relations professional, who was head of security for the SDS during the disaster in the streets of Chicago in 1968. She is close (politically) to Carl Davidson, a former vice president of SDS and longtime Fidelista, who is webmaster for a group called Progressives for Obama, that is headlined by other former 60s radicals like Tom Hayden and the maoist Bill Fletcher. Davidson and Katz were key organizers of the 2002 anti-war demonstration where Obama made public his opposition to the Iraq war that has been so critical to his successful presidential campaign. Davidson apparently moved into the maoist movements of the 70s after the disintegration of SDS.

None of these people have deviated from established characters and viewpoints that are unerringly radical in nature when compared to the traditional values of most Americans.

This web of radical associates strongly suggests that the actual substance of Barack Obama is quite different from the carefully-scripted character his campaign message machine has tried to forge in the media. It strongly suggests that his continual, inevitable surprise at the uncovered radicalism of his dearest friends and oldest contacts is entirely feigned.

The Obama campaigns attempts to minimize his troubling, decades-long relationships with radicals is nothing more than more or less than the work of a campaign feverishly trying to hide a past that most conservative Democrats and independent voters would find revolting.

From his absolutist views on the Second Amendment in favor of outlawing most common firearms, to support of a radical view of reproductive rights "too close to infanticide" that suggests babies who survive abortions should be left to die, to a "dazed and malaised" return to Jimmy Carter's failed economics, the greatest challenge to Barack Obama's campaign is consistently Barack Obama himself, and his requirement of us that we believe a lifetime shaped by and shared with the most radical fringes of society was a lifetime spent in the dark, not knowing who these people really are, unaware of the influence they had over him.

Barack Obama requires potential voters to accept that he doesn't know his friends, his family, nor himself. Should someone with such a stunning lack of awareness be President?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:55 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 893 words, total size 6 kb.