Interesting, of course, but abductees say they feel like being probed again a half hour later.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:21 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 24 words, total size 1 kb.

Frankly, I agree with the general sentiment. He's raised valid points few will argue.

That said, I did notice that Obama gave his speech at the Apostolic Church of God, and not Trinity United Church of Christ. Obama recently quit Trinity at roughly the same time it was discovered that Rev. Jeremiah Wright was refusing to relinquish control of the church, and lynching advocate Rev. Michael Pfleger issued forth his most recent offensive comments against Hillary Clinton in specific and white people in general in front of a congregation roaring their approval.

Someone should ask Obama if absentee fatherism is any worst than purposefully exposing their children to the hate speech of that radical church for nearly the entirety of their short lives. One doesn't have to be an absentee father to be a bad one, a point that a man closely aligned with a cadre of racists, conspiracy theorists, political radicals, anti-Semites, and domestic terrorists would no doubt rather ignore.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:33 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 183 words, total size 1 kb.

You could have seen this coming a mile away:

McClatchy Co., which owns The News & Observer newspaper in Raleigh, said Monday it will cut 10 percent of its work force in a move to save $70 million a year as the publisher continues to struggle to attract advertising dollars.

McClatchy, which also owns The Charlotte Observer, the Kansas City Star and Miami Herald, will trim about 1,400 employees. The staff reductions are part of a plan to reduce overall expenses by $95 million to $100 million over the next four quarters.

That is hardly surprising, considering we're in an environment where many print-based news outlets are fading, but perhaps McClatchy in particular wouldn't be fading as fast if they would try to address at least two points.

1. Make an attempt to remove obvious and pervasive left-leaning political biases in reporting;
2. find a less obnoxious and politically-charged slogan that the nutroots favorite, "Truth to Power."

The powers that be are not amused with the company's business sense, and many readers are immediately turned of by McClatchy's editorial stance. A flailing company should try to shore up a reader base, not alienate potential readers and advertisers, who will simply find a less-obviously biased competitor.

Enjoy "speaking truth to power" McClatchy, all the way to bankruptcy.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:22 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 225 words, total size 2 kb.

I've written hundreds of posts critiquing journalism, but have never had anything but respect for Tim Russerts' professionalism. He was what a journalist should be, and he will be missed.

Go with God, Mr. Russert.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:56 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 45 words, total size 1 kb.

Via email from a trusted source, a VOI account. It looks like al Sadr is going to continue his Iranian-backed insurrection against the Iraqi government:

The anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada
al-Sadr on Friday expressed intention to authorize setting up "cells
to resist the occupation", head of the political bureau of Sadr's
Movement said.

"The declaration by Sayyed Muqtada al-Sadr to form cells to resist the
occupation comes in full conformity with the approach of the
Sadrists," Sheikh Liwa Semaysam told Aswat al-Iraq- Voices of Iraq-
(VOI) on the phone.

The key Sadrist leader added that these cells will "have a written
authorization by Sayyed Muqtada al-Sadr to carry out their task, on
the condition that arms will only be in their hands for use against
the occupier and none else."

Sheikh Semaysam, a close aide of Sadr, provided no further details.

If true—and apparently, it is—al Sadr is attempting to split and sanction a military wing off of the Madhi Army and Iranian "Special groups" to continue insurgent operations, while making at least a face-value attempt to demilitarize the organization.

Intresting, isn't it?

Iran tried to infiltrate Iraqi government at all levels, along with militia groups and criminal gangs. Obviously, as PM Maliki's clearing out of Sadrists from Baghdad to Basra proved, the government route has failed, and the militia route is on the ropes.

As a result, al Sadr is apparently attempting to craft an Iraqi Hezbollah, entrenching his group socially as an Iranian-supported shadow government with it's own insurgent military wing. Iraq's security forces and government are far less fractured than those in Lebanon, so it seems unlikely that al Sadr's hopes will come to fruition, but the development does raise an interesting question, namely: is this the best Iran has left?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:45 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 306 words, total size 2 kb.

Nope, not concerned about liberal judges, at all.

(h/t Gabriel Malor)

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:10 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 21 words, total size 1 kb.

And here's his sarcastic list of the "nothings" they've accomplished that "cut-and-run Barry" Obama tries to pretend haven't happened:

1. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki sent the Iraqi army into Basra. It achieved in a few weeks what the British had failed to do in four years: take the city, drive out the Mahdi army, and seize the ports from Iranian-backed militias.
2. When Mahdi fighters rose up in support of their Basra brethren, the Iraqi army at Maliki's direction confronted them and prevailed in every town — Najaf, Karbala, Hilla, Kut, Nasiriyah, and Diwaniyah — from Basra to Baghdad.
3. Without any American ground forces, the Iraqi army entered and occupied Sadr City, the Mahdi army stronghold.
4. Maliki flew to Mosul, directing a joint Iraqi-U.S. offensive against the last redoubt of al-Qaeda, which had already been driven out of Anbar, Baghdad, and Diyala provinces.
5. The Iraqi parliament enacted a de-Baathification law, a major Democratic benchmark for political reconciliation.
6. Parliament also passed the other reconciliation benchmarks — a pension law, an amnesty law, and a provincial elections and powers law. Oil revenues are being distributed to the provinces through the annual budget.
7. With Maliki having demonstrated that he would fight not just Sunni insurgents (e.g., in Mosul) but Shiite militias (e.g., the Mahdi army), the Sunni parliamentary bloc began negotiations to join the Shiite-led government. (The final sticking point is a squabble over a sixth Cabinet position.)

You would think that the media would do more to force Obama to recognize that his view of Iraqi is frozen in time in 2006. AFP, Reuters, McClatchy, the Associated Press, etc., all have journalists in the region. Many have multiple reporters, videographers, and photographers throughout the country of Iraq itself.

At least one of those news agencies, the Associated Press, has benefited directly and publicly from the new laws passed by the Iraqi Parliament that have largely been ignored in the press. Pulitzer-winning AP photojournalist Bilal Hussein, captured with a known al Qaeda leader, was released from prison several months ago directly as a result of Iraq's new amnesty law, and not, as the news organization would have you believe, because he was found innocent.

But the media refuse to push Obama and other Democrats to admit to their failure to recognize the massive changes sweeping Iraq since the 2006 elections.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid still doggedly insists that the U.S. "surge" is a continuation of Bush's original policies, and that strategically, tactically, and politically, nothing has changed. He still shrilly insists the war is "lost" acting as if the Sunni and Shia Awakening movements, Iraqi political advancement on both domestic and foreign policy fronts, and the impressive performance of Iraqi security forces successfully executing a cascade of large-scale operations, never occurred.

Nancy Pelosi presides over the other half one of the most unaccomplished Congresses in U.S. history, with the lowest approval rates in history, currently a dismal 10.3% lower than even George W. Bush's 29% approval rating. She take a similar route as Reid, insisting that there is no progress... but said if there was, it is because of the efforts of Iran. She will not credit the American and Iraqi forces with their hard-won successes. Instead, she would give credit to those training and arming forces those fighting against the Iraqi government.

Neither Reid, nor Pelosi, nor their anti-war allies will concede progress in Iraq because they've thoroughly wedded their political futures to failure there, and have left themselves no viable escape routes. This means that Democrats have created for themselves a vicious trap, where for the good of their party, they have to pull against two democracies (the United States and Iraq), against freedom, and against peace.

They have created for themselves a hell where for their aspirations to come true, they must hope for a failed state, crippled by resurgent brutality. The must hope that recent successes change back for the worst. History may well well look back on the post-surge Democratic House and Senate of 2007-2008 as being the most anti-democratic Congress since similar Democrats (called copperheads) attempted to concede the U.S. Civil War.

Barack Obama took the lead early in attacking the Iraq War, even when he was just a state Senator in Illinois and had no access to intelligence information to base that opinion upon. He doggedly stuck to that position through the worst of Iraq's violence in 2006, riding a cry of withdrawal and defeat to prominence, first in the U.S. Senate, and then within scant months of graduating from his mediocre stint in state politics, into the Democratic Presidential race.

His strident, unwavering opposition to the war is the entirety of his appeal; without the conflict, his resume of unaccomplishments and rote university-indoctrinated progressive politics make him an entirely conventional and uninteresting urban Democratic candidate, if one admittedly better at reading a teleprompter than most.

For this reason, Barack Obama is forced to continue running on a platform of failure in Iraq. He cannot acknowledge that his position on the war has been proven wrong. To make that concession—admitting that John McCain was right to take the unpopular position of supporting the "surge" now that the situation has so radically changed in favor of success—is to admit defeat in the general election.

Instead, Barack Obama has hitched his entire political future to becoming a political Frankenstein. He combines the worst aspects of two Presidents reviled by many; Jimmy Carter's naive pacifism and horrific grasp of taxation and economics, with George W. Bush's dead-certain stubbornness, tightly-scripted and excessively-controlled (one might even say Rovian) public relations, arrogant detachment, and inflexibility.

Obama is a man wedded to a singular message, which he markets as "hope and change."

But his "hope" is reliant on a return of brutal sectarian and terrorist violence, the collapse of the first Arab democracy, and the extinguishing of freedom. His "change" entails a headlong and arbitrary retreat, regardless of what threats the ensuing security vacuum will cause in the lives of Iraqi men, women, and children just beginning to cautiously embrace a less violent, dictator-free society.

Barack Obama has staked his future on dragging two nations back into the past, into defeat. That is not a change we can accept from a man who has never shown at any point in his life that he is capable of being a leader.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:54 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 1065 words, total size 7 kb.

Judging by all the links noted on Memeorandum to this Salon article, the left has decided to raise a huge stink about a Fox News caption labeling Michelle Obama as "Obama's baby mama."

There are two reasons they should drop this tempest in a teacup quickly. The first is that Michelle Obama has referred to herself in similar terms ("My baby's daddy Barack Obama" is the same thing as calling herself "Obama's baby mama" , making them look rather childish and petty.

The second is that they don't want to start a legitimacy argument related to this particular candidate. Barack Obama Sr. never divorced his first wife Kezia Obama. His wedding to Ann Dunham when she was three months pregnant with the junior Senator was illegitimate, and so was the junior Senator. This isn't "new" news—the information has been out there for anyone to see—and it shouldn't be that big of a deal, but his supporters shouldn't start conversations that they may not want to finish.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:39 PM | Comments (43) | Add Comment
Post contains 177 words, total size 2 kb.

1 "... his supporters shouldn't start conversations that they may not want to finish." Do you seriously think anyone cares abut your Obama counter-charge? The only reason you do is that you think it shows how black he is.

Posted by: Kyle at June 12, 2008 01:14 PM (m2KiQ)

2 4-Star Admiral John S McCain. 4-Star Admiral John S McCain II. Captain Senator John S McCain III. Cadet John S McCain IV currently attending the Naval Academy. vs. A polygamist communist who abandoned his infant child. A communist woman who recieved food stamps while enrolled as a phD student. A "racist" grandmother who is afraid of agressive pandhandlers. It's really amazing when you compare the two familes.

Posted by: Roy Mustang at June 12, 2008 01:34 PM (sqP0c)

3 Ms. Malkin: Calling someone "Obama's Baby Mama" is insulting and racist. It speaks to a racial stereotype and I am hopeful that you do not condone such behavior. Ms. Obama deserves an apology, as does anyone who heard your comment. Now your on-line comment "There are two reasons they should drop this tempest in a teacup quickly. The first is that Michelle Obama has referred to herself in similar terms ("My baby's daddy Barack Obama" is the same thing as calling herself "Obama's baby mama"), making them look rather childish and petty. The second is that they don't want to start a legitimacy argument related to this particular candidate. Barack Obama Sr. never divorced his first wife Kezia Obama. His wedding to Ann Dunham when she was three months pregnant with the junior Senator was illegitimate, and so was the junior Senator. This isn't "new" news—the information has been out there for anyone to see—and it shouldn't be that big of a deal, but his supporters shouldn't start conversations that they may not want to finish." #1 If one refers to themselves by a certain term, it is not the same as others referring to you. It is not the same as my calling my wife "my baby's mama, mother, etc". It is calling another something and referring not in a cordial manner, but a manner meant to insult. One would think that with your ethnic heritage, you would be more understanding. #2 Whether Barack is legitimate, you are legitimate, or anyone else, that does not speak to the legitimacy of the children. I cannot understand how you make that comparison. Your arguement is specious. So, yes. I do not mind "going there". Your comment led to one of your readers to refer to Obama as a "polygamist communist who abandoned his infant child". Barack (Jr.) is no more of a polygamist or communist than yourself. Again, are you trying to visit the 'sins of the father" onto the son'? He deserves an apology not an "I am sorry if you were offended" apology, but a heartfelt apology for using a racist term. A professional on-air personality should be held up to a higher standard then using phrases like that. Your "tempest in a teacup" is a comment made by the creator of the tempest, and it is not a tempest to those insulted. It is a common view of those that make such comments to state that someone (else) is just being too sensitive. That view does not accept that others might see things differently. Your "tempest in a teacup" is a comment made by the creator of the tempest, and it does not reflect the feelings of anyone that was insulted. It was an on the air comment made for public viewing (loosely speaking, slanderous) It is a common view of those that make such comments to state that someone (else) is just being too sensitive. That view does not accept that others might see things differently. Can you accept that others might see things differently than yourself? If not, doesn't that make you an "ugly American"? Sincerely, Iverson Bell Jr., MD

Posted by: Iverson Bell at June 12, 2008 02:10 PM (+94C3)

4 In other words, Barak likes the "bad boys." It's not a trait you want in your teenage daughter. And it's certainly not a trait you want in your Commander in Chief.

Posted by: Roy Mustang at June 12, 2008 02:34 PM (sqP0c)

5 The Obama's were a relatively trashy family, but hey, look what sonny has accomplished. Baby-momma is no insult, Dr. I. Its what the people say on the street. You don't talk to many ordinary, non-PhD Negroes, eh?

Posted by: ptg at June 12, 2008 02:42 PM (rVWj9)

6 Hmmm, let's check this out real quick: "He deserves an apology not an "I am sorry if you were offended" apology, but a heartfelt apology for using a racist term." Then you say this: "Your "tempest in a teacup" is a comment made by the creator of the tempest, and it does not reflect the feelings of anyone that was insulted. It was an on the air comment made for public viewing (loosely speaking, slanderous) It is a common view of those that make such comments to state that someone (else) is just being too sensitive. That view does not accept that others might see things differently. Can you accept that others might see things differently than yourself? If not, doesn't that make you an "ugly American"?" So, essentially, "racism" is in the eye of the beholder, yes? The neat thing about your idiotic post is that you've basically been hung by your own assertion: if the issue at play is merely one of perception based on the person perceiving it, you've emasculated your own argument very nicely. This kind of thinking is part and parcel of PC and the notion that there is no concrete meaning for anything, since pretty much anything you say could be 'viewed by others differently.' In this case, I side with the original OP: this isn't and never will be anything more than yet more whining from the Obama campaign about non-issues. I humbly suggest that the more Obama (and the likes of you) play the race card, the more likely it is he will alienate broad swaths of the electorate (we Conservatives may be almost-numb to be called racists every other day, but the majority most certainly is not and is going to grow weary of hearing Obama cry wolf on this issue long before November rolls around).

Posted by: ECM at June 12, 2008 02:46 PM (q3V+C)

7 So, essentially, "racism" is in the eye of the beholder, yes? Certainly! If the racist insults the 'victim' using a sterotype based on race. Yes! The racists ignorance may prevent him or her from seeing how his statements affect others, or he or she might not care. Why should the insulter be the one to decide what the insulted should accept? The neat thing about your idiotic post is that you've basically been hung by your own assertion: if the issue at play is merely one of perception based on the person perceiving it, you've emasculated your own argument very nicely. This kind of thinking is part and parcel of PC and the notion that there is no concrete meaning for anything, since pretty much anything you say could be 'viewed by others differently.' You seem to be talking to yourself. "hung by own assertion", "emasculating myself", "no concrete meaning". You explain nothing, you are just making statements. Please explain these statements. Ms. Obama is not a single unmarried African American female from the ghetto. That is the meaning of Baby Mama to people in the African American community. It is insulting whether you accept that or not. In this case, I side with the original OP: this isn't and never will be anything more than yet more whining from the Obama campaign about non-issues. I humbly suggest that the more Obama (and the likes of you) play the race card, the more likely it is he will alienate broad swaths of the electorate (we Conservatives may be almost-numb to be called racists every other day, but the majority most certainly is not and is going to grow weary of hearing Obama cry wolf on this issue long before November rolls around). I am not Obama, I am not a spokesman for him, I am an independent. Not a "ditto head". What is this race card you speak of and how am I throwing it? I made the statement that certain things have racial connotations. I hoe you can agree to that. I did not call dear Michelle a racist, I only said that certain things are insulting and have a racial connotation. I asked for an apology based on her making that statement. In other cultures, thumbs up is an insult, the OK sign is another insult. Ignorance with refusal to accept other's cultural differences is impolite at best. The likes of me? You sir, might be a lost cause. No race card, only asking for understanding of differences. Nothing more, nothing less. As a psychiatrist, I wonder if conservatism is truly an illness like racism, or is it just ignorance. You don't know my background so do not assume my being in touch with some people in the African American (or many other) communities means what you believe. Assumptions are dangerous things. Iverson Bell MD

Posted by: Iverson Bell at June 12, 2008 04:05 PM (+94C3)

8 Dr. Bell, If you are indeed asking Ms. Malkin for an apology, why are you commenting on Confederate Yankee? Either you are confused about where this 'story' initiated, or you are simply a sock-puppet. Furthermore, racism is not a disease. It is a mindset, a belief only wherein the believer thinks their group is better than some other group because of certain factors they consider important distinctions. As a psychiatrist, I would presume you would understand that distinction. Racism cuts 'both ways'. The most recent example of that is Sen. Obama's pastor Rev. Wright and Rev. Hagee (McCain endorsement, now rejected) words about Jews. Finally, if racism COULD be classified as a disease, it could only be a societal one, not individual as in the "Jim Crowe South" of yesteryear.

Posted by: Mark at June 12, 2008 04:26 PM (4od5C)

9 Yeah, and John McCain once called his wife a trollope and a c***. I suppose they shouldn't be dismayed if Fox decides to caption Cindy McCain accordingly.

Posted by: d at June 12, 2008 04:30 PM (2+4A6)

10 Did you hear? Obama is a Muslim! Sorry, I just like to spread gossip.

Posted by: d at June 12, 2008 04:47 PM (sqP0c)

11 d, Your comments are extremely deep. /sarc However, I did find your second one interesting for the following reason. I happen to work with several Muslims. On occasion, I discuss politics with them. In my last conversation (before HRC got out) I asked one lady, "Who do you like in the Presidential race?" Her response was "Obama". I asked her a basic follow-up of, "Why?" Here's where it gets interesting. She said, "Because he's half-Muslim and half-Christian." This from a woman who moved to the US about 25 years ago and has only visited the ME occasionally since. She is quite "Americanized", yet still identifies Obama as half-Muslim/half-Christian. NOT half-Black/half-White. I followed that question up a bit more generally with respect to her Muslim friends and asked, "So, who do the people at the mosque like and why?" Her response was exactly the same. Moral of the story: in regards to Obama, Muslims do not look at ‘race’; they look at 'religion'. To them, he IS at least half-Muslim.

Posted by: Mark at June 12, 2008 05:07 PM (4od5C)

12 Barrack Hussein Obama was born a Muslim. His father was Muslim which, under Muslim law makes B. Hussein a Muslim. He states the Muslim call to prayer is the most beautiful sound he has ever heard. I have heard that call. Sounds to me like catterwalling, but then, I am not a Muslim.

Posted by: Zelsdorf Ragshaft III at June 12, 2008 05:14 PM (J5AYY)

13 Doctor Bell: Thank you so much for your "diagnosis" of racism as an "illness." I would greatly appreciate it if you'd share the DSM-IV code for this "illness," so that I might properly research it. I am having trouble locating it in any of the DSM-IV resources online (and I know where lots of them are, I work for a not-for-profit health insurance provider--I won't name which one, but you'd recognize the name, I guarantee).

Posted by: C-C-G at June 12, 2008 05:59 PM (X5vKa)

14 I never noticed the color of the BHO supporters skin, but damn, its thin.

Posted by: grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr at June 12, 2008 06:30 PM (DqXz5)

15 treason in defense of slavery! (and censoriousness) I'm a buck-toothed hillbilly too!

Posted by: rapid at June 12, 2008 08:43 PM (oEV28)

16 wait a minute, the south lost! can't talk - wound licking

Posted by: rapid at June 12, 2008 08:44 PM (oEV28)

17 I'm so poor I have to bleg for gas grill reparations!

Posted by: rapid at June 12, 2008 08:45 PM (oEV28)

18 Listening to an Obama supporter babble about "racism" is always good for a Friday laugh. Just so I understand this, if I'm white and think Obama would be a disaster of major proportions as far as being president is concerned, I must be a racist? It is to laugh all the harder.

Posted by: emdfl at June 13, 2008 04:44 AM (B+qrE)

19 I'm so sick of African Americans getting all mad if anyone else uses the same word to describe them as they use to describe themselves. Why don't they make some sort of Ebonic Rosetta stone and send it to all of the major news networks so that everyone in the world knows exactly how to use ghetto vernacular properly. Of course by the time it reached the network, the meanings/context/syntax would have already changed, but that won't keep whoever from finding whatever insult that they can, where ever they can. How dare "Dr." Bell try to say that he's not using the race card? How the hell are we supposed to know the exact nuance of "baby momma"? Is my name Tyrell? Is my right pant leg rolled up? When Michelle and Barry did the fist bump, some idiot on CBSNEWS.com wrote a story about how the fist bomp goes all the way back to Africa, or some shit. Like anybody cares. But the Obama's were fine with that over reading of some phantom cultural history, that seems to be being made up on the spot, constantly. Who knows what African American tradition I'll be stepping on next week? I had no idea that every gesture, every movement, every crotch grab, is some sort of cultural touch stone. Honestly Doc, why don't you write them all down, so in the future we know what the hell you're talking about. In the meantime, when you call someone a white male, it's not an insult. Even if a black person says it.

Posted by: Dr.Why? at June 13, 2008 05:42 AM (kX5hh)

20 I think Fox's caption is fair as long as all politician's wives are called that. Laura Bush is no longer the first lady but should be introduced as Bush's baby mama. Introducing the President of the United States George W. Bush and his baby mama.....That doesn't seem like any kind of denigration at all, does it? All the crap that CY wants to put out about Obama's dad and mom is the new conservative's code for racism. Its not a secret that more children are born out of wedlock when a minority parent is involved, but its not PC to say you won't vote for him because he is black but you can say, well I won't vote for him because he is illegitimate. Like again, Obama had a choice of who his parents were or what religion they were when he was born. Fox is simply trying to smear the candidate by implying the racism/illegitimate card when they don't introduce her as Obama's wife but twist her words by stating she is (only) the mother of Obama's children. Its lame...period.

Posted by: matta at June 13, 2008 06:59 AM (jRTMP)

21 "I'm so sick of African Americans getting all mad if anyone else uses the same word to describe them as they use to describe themselves."..."How dare "Dr." Bell try to say that he's not using the race card? How the hell are we supposed to know the exact nuance of "baby momma"? Is my name Tyrell? Is my right pant leg rolled up?" African Americans, Irish Americans, Native Americans, all have different social strata within their own group. Just because a segment of the group uses a negative term to describe someone (witin their own group) does not make that behavior correct. Fox News and Michelle Malkin knew that the term is ***Not*** a term of endearment or an honorific. If I personally do not like the name "Tyrell", and call someone within my own group that, the other would understand the 'insult' (because of their own cultural background). Baby Mama may be a cute joke to some, but it is at best a tasteless title to give to someone that they are not familiar with and not within their own culture. In other words cultures accept certain behaviors from those within the group that are not acceptable from the 'outside'. All cultures do that. You don't have to like it, it may not be acceptable to you, but all groups do it. Fox News staff understand that. Jackie Chan may get laughs for walking into an establishment and saying "My Ni##er" because he heard someone else say it. Most people understand that it is who uses the terms and how they are used. The best example I can give is that McCain called his wife a "c&nt". Not a pretty term, but how do you think he would react if his best friend agreed with him and said "yeah she is a...". Then how do you think he would react if you called his wife that? If you went to your local bar or pub with your buddies and called one of them a name (jokingly) and then a stranger walked in and said the same thing, would the reaction be the same? Fox News essentially walked into our neighborhood and called Obama's wife a name. No "race card", only human nature. You cannot know all of the nuances. I don't, no one does. "Baby Mama" is not a nuance. The people at fox know that. They are not using some cultural term of endearment for their wives. So, "How dare I...?" not easily. Maybe not wisely. I am on a conservative blog, discussing the behavior of the 'owner' of the blog, in an environment that I have no experience with. I have been trying to explain general psychological terms and sociologic behavior to some people that probably don't want to hear it. Perhaps I should keep my opinions and explanations to myself. I am no permanent writer hear. I am only an unwelcome visitor (kind of like the dreaded substitute teacher). Oh well, I do teach college students, medical students, and psychiatric trainees, and maybe I just enjoy talking to myself. "It is better to light one candle, than to curse the darkness". That is my explanation. Iverson Bell

Posted by: Iverson Bell at June 13, 2008 07:14 AM (a4550)

22 Is is really about lighting candles or creating more darkness? Let's face it, this is a non issue. Oh, and "cunt gate" doesn't compare. Why? a) it may not have happened and b)Because Cunt is offensive, no matter who says it. Unless in African American culture it's a friendly greeting, but only to eachother? As in "Hey my cunt? How are you?". Or "My cunt makes the best pancakes! Lets hear it for the cunt!" Stranger things have happened. What do I know? One day "dope" in an insult, the next it's a compliment. I can't, and won't keep up. Thanks.

Posted by: Dr.Why? at June 13, 2008 07:43 AM (kX5hh)

23 Seems like the good doctor/professor is forgetting his oath: "First, do no harm." The candle indeed burns very dimly in his cloistered realm... One would think that such a learned man would understand the futility of trying ad hominem attacks on a woman in a Conservative Blog to create Obama supporters--assuming (1) he is a doctor, (2) he hasn't been sampling the pharmacy in his spare time, and (3) he is still rational...

Posted by: jtb-in-texas at June 13, 2008 07:45 AM (IZLeA)

24 Good points, JTB. I should also point out, as my friend Mark has, that the "learned" man addressed his first comment to a person who, to my knowledge, has never posted on this blog. That in itself calls into question his intelligence and/or attention to details. The fact that just recently he again refers to this other person in a comment, and later in the same comment says he is discussing the "owner" of the blog, lends weight to the conclusion that he is absolutely clueless about just who's blog he is commenting on.

Posted by: C-C-G at June 13, 2008 08:02 AM (X5vKa)

25 Speaking of ad hominem attacks! Not one response to the gist of what I said. Hey, if you don't want a discussion about the material then so be it. My error, confusion, mistake, was assuming that because the blog linked to Ms. Malkin's webpage, that she ran this blog. She referenced it earlier. Again, such is the dager of making assumptions. I do not and cannot expect you all to defend or explain her opinions as this does not belong to her. Being 'old school', I ran a BBS years ago with a free flow of opinions (religion, politics, etc.). I agains 'assumed' that the rules of engagement were similiar. Wrong there too. So, go ahead, attack if you feel that need. The teacher has made some mistakes. Iverson Bell

Posted by: Iverson Bell at June 13, 2008 10:24 AM (+94C3)

26 Speaking of ad hominem attacks! Not one response to the gist of what I said. Hey, if you don't want a discussion about the material then so be it. My error, confusion, mistake, was assuming that because the blog linked to Ms. Malkin's webpage, that she ran this blog. She referenced it earlier. Again, such is the dager of making assumptions. I do not and cannot expect you all to defend or explain her opinions as this does not belong to her. Being 'old school', I ran a BBS years ago with a free flow of opinions (religion, politics, etc.). I again 'assumed' that the rules of engagement were similar. Wrong there too. So, go ahead, attack if you feel that need. The teacher has made some mistakes. Iverson Bell

Posted by: Iverson Bell at June 13, 2008 10:27 AM (+94C3)

27 Thank you, "Doctor," for demonstrating not only your ignorance but also your lack of proper reasoning. Permit me, "Doctor," to illustrate. If this blog links to Fox News, as it has, does that mean Fox News runs it? If it links to NBC, as again it has, does that show evidence that NBC runs it? My, my, there are a lot of people "running" this blog. A few moments worth of calm consideration would have shown this, I believe. However, "Doctor," you seem to have flown headlong into a hole of your own making, and a very avoidable one as well. Also, there is the "About C.Y." link on the sidebar which would have provided information to keep you from stumbling, but you were too hot on the path of your righteous indignation at the idea that anyone would dare speak against Saint Obama, weren't you? Oh, and the most damning piece of evidence is that anyone who knows the least little bit about blogs would realize that they're mostly independent of one another. You've made quite the fool of yourself, "Doctor" Bell; my prescription is that you take some time and read without commenting, that you may learn about the blogosphere.

Posted by: C-C-G at June 13, 2008 10:48 AM (wKdud)

28 Thank you for your kind and reasoned consideration. It is typical how you easily remark on my error and make absolutely no response to my argument. I rushed "headlong' into - discussing - an insult. My mistake was in thinking that this site did more than just parrot an opinion and not discuss it. My latter responses were directed more at Fox (run by Roger Ailes former Nixon crony) than Ms. Malkin anyway. I guess my points are valid since no one has rebutted anything more than my admitted error about the blog. I ran a BBS (Bulletin Board Service for you newbies) from 1983-1987). At the (preinternet) time, I had 13,000 calls by modem over 2 years and 300 regular contributors. I have since been a little too busy to do that. HeadBoard was(unlike this weblog) not for ad-hominem attacks, but people discussed those topics freely and without censorship. Conservatives and liberals alike contributed. I made the grievous error of assuming that this would be similar. As I said, courtesy is not your forte. So, I readily admit to my ignorance of some things. Do you? Iverson Bell

Posted by: Iverson Bell at June 13, 2008 11:17 AM (+94C3)

29 You are not the only one who remembers the days of 300 baud modems and BBSes, sir. That such familiarity also speaks ill of you, you apparently realize not; would you assume that a BBS referring to an article on, say, CompuServe was run by CompuServe? No, sir, I've proven my point, and I'm done with you. All your frantic flailing is merely proving it all the more firmly for me, and for that I thank you. Good day, sir. I said, GOOD DAY.

Posted by: C-C-G at June 13, 2008 12:01 PM (wKdud)

30 CCG, Good day to you as well. If you ever would like to email me, my email address is right here. FYI, if you had gone to Malkin's site, saw something labeled "blog" and a list or responses with her name. One might assume that the first response on this page were hers. Nevertheless, that territory is covered and you seem to revel in that. Alas, my "frantic flailing' proves my point that there were no responses to my discussion about racist statements vs racism. Be done with me, but the topic may continue to haunt you as it apparently bothers you now. Just, be aware that it (racism) has always existed along with xenophobia. The only positive way to deal with it is to notice it upfront, point it out, discuss it, and be aware that other cultures might not laugh at the same jokes that you find funny. Iverson Bell Jr., MD DFAPA Board Certified psychiatrist

Posted by: Iverson Bell at June 13, 2008 12:17 PM (+94C3)

31 For your elucidation, Dr. Bigot Via Merriam-Webster.com : a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance Since being a bigot, as defined above, includes the concept of ‘being intolerant to members of a group’, I declare - here and now - that I am indeed a bigot because I HATE bigots. Rather neat circle, don’t you think? Furthermore, I HATE green peppers. Gee, more bigotry on my part. Of course, that second ‘prejudice’ of mine isn’t against any other individual or group of humans. I think, Dr. Bell, you are somewhat correct in your ‘free flow’ statement. The reason, I believe, in this case is because your errors are in presentation and definition. For example: Bigotry (the state of mind of being a bigot) is your contention, not racism. Your presentation elevates ‘racism’ to a higher order than bigotry. Now, if you want to have a free discussion of bigotry, I’m all ears. Just you and me to start. Others may join in after we define the conversation. If, however, you simply imply those of us who have ‘attacked you’ in the comments, CY, and Ms. Malkin are fundamentally bigoted on ‘race’, then please do take yourself from this site. Back to the discussion of bigotry now and a bit of background on me. I am of middle-class background. You would classify me as ‘white-male’. I classify myself as human. My parenting included being raised ‘color-blind’ and I remain so to this day. My personal belief on the word ‘racism’ is that the word - its connotations, and its definition - are that both are incorrect and/or incorrectly used. ‘Racism’ is a bigotry based upon ‘color of skin’ or, possibly, ethnic origination is more correct. The reason I consider the use of ‘racism’ to be incorrect is my upbringing of color-blindness. I don’t give a damn what color any human’s skin or their ethnicity is. I care about the content of their character,actions, and words. For a member of the psychological community to even propose a diagnosis of ‘racism’ to be on the order of a ‘psychological disorder’ cheapens both the profession and other diagnoses of real mental disorders such as schizophrenia. The reason I believe this is ‘bigotry’ is a perpetuated from generation to generation within societies – some as small as individual families (Hatfields/McCoys for example). It is also quite natural for one group (or individual) to entertain collective (or individual thoughts) of ‘envy’ when viewing another group’s (or individual’s) possessions, accomplishments, etc (the sayings “the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence” or “keeping up with the Joneses). I find for you, a psychiatrist, to claim bigotry is or should be classified as a ‘mental disorder’ to be repugnant and against human nature. Care to discuss this? If not, farewell. As an addendum (since I wrote this before your last reply to CCG): your statement: Just, be aware that it (racism) has always existed along with xenophobia. The only positive way to deal with it is to notice it upfront, point it out, discuss it, and be aware that other cultures might not laugh at the same jokes that you find funny. verifies my point that a diagnosis of 'racism' being extraneous to the profession.

Posted by: Mark at June 13, 2008 01:10 PM (4od5C)

32 Paranoid personality disorder: DSM IV # 301.0 Paranoid Personality Disorder is a condition characterized by excessive distrust and suspiciousness of others. They may exhibit thinly hidden, unrealistic grandiose fantasies, are often attuned to issues of power and rank, and tend to develop negative stereotypes of others, particularly those from population groups distinct from their own. Narcissistic Personality Disorder: DSM IV # 301.81 A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy. Racism in it's virulent form has characteristics of both. Both grandiosity, lack of empathy, and negative stereotypes of others, particularly those from population groups distinct from their own. No I am not talking about people that don't like someone, but are able to work through those differences through familiarity. A "racist" by this definition might be Adolph Hitler or Tom Metzger. Let me be clear. I am not calling anyone here nor Ms. Malkin a racist or a bigot. No "race card"! I am saying that unlike the stereotyped "PC", I only ask for some reasonable sensitivities to the differences of others. I ask that those around me not tell ethnic jokes or religious (anti-certain religions) jokes. I make no demands, ask for no laws, just a sensitivity to others. The real meaning of PC to me is this sensitivity. The term has been distorted and stereotyped to be silly and insulting. We all may be hard wired to be xenophobic, but most can get past that through communication and familiarity. Tom Metzger with the WAR has no desire for any of that. Iverson Bell

Posted by: Iverson Bell at June 13, 2008 01:55 PM (+94C3)

33 Iverson (if I may), (these points will be out of order from your latest comment) Racism in it's virulent form has characteristics of both. Characteristics, yes. However, "paranoia" and "narcisim" are also 'human nature'. The extremes of those two are properly 'disorders'. However, I still cannot see ‘racism’ as being classified as one. We all may be hard wired to be xenophobic, but most can get past that through communication and familiarity. Agreed, hence the phrase "finding common ground". You also, however, seem to be stating that 'racism' (I prefer the term bigotry) 'may be hard wired'. This agrees with my previous post, "human nature" = "hard wired". So, how is a new diagnosis of 'racism' going to help (from prior comment) The only positive way to deal with it is to notice it upfront, point it out, discuss it, (snip) ...? Do you agree or not agree with my earlier statement My personal belief on the word ‘racism’ is that the word - its connotations, and its definition - are that both are incorrect and/or incorrectly used. ‘Racism’ is a bigotry based upon ‘color of skin’ or, possibly, ethnic origination is more correct.? Is racism being misused in your argument? Political Correctness (not taking the link) (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Political%20Correctness ) : conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated This definition is as close a one as I’ve found for my understanding of “being” PC. My understanding includes “being offensive to any person or group”. As Foxfire posted: BLITZER: We can take a look. Maybe he will and maybe he won't but she looks like she's about to introduce him. Let's listen in. MICHELLE OBAMA, WIFE OF BARACK OBAMA: My baby's daddy Barack Obama. Yeah! BARACK OBAMA, SENATOR-ELECT, ILLINOIS: Thank you, Illinois. Thank you. Thank you, Illinois. I don't know about you but I'm still fired up. I am fired up. Look at this crowd. Thank you, Illinois. Since the origination of this ‘story’ actually began with Michelle Obama’s introduction of her husband, is the use (or an extrapolation as in this case) of the same by other individuals or groups considered non-PC even though used by Michelle Obama first? How about ‘typical’ black usages of the word (don’t think CY will let me so I’ll mask it) ‘ni***r’ also non-PC? It has been shown on too many occasions to count that when a ‘white’ person uses that word they are demonized as ‘racist’, yet when a black person uses it they are within their ‘culture’. A distinct double-standard if there ever was one. This is yet another reason a ‘racism’ diagnosis is farfetched at the least. If being PC is your goal, Iverson, then you might complain about ANYTHING that could be taken as ‘offensive’. The 1st Amendment gives each American the RIGHT to speak as they wish, with very few limitations. That is why the KKK and Nation of Islam can exist in the country along with the rest. To extrapolate a bit further, a diagnosis of ‘racism’ mental disorder could then be applied even further down the chain. Even unto and including any ‘offensive speech’ (written or otherwise). While the 1st Amendment grants such a right to speak, it does not grant the right to not be offended. I shall post this much and await your response most eagerly.

Posted by: Mark at June 13, 2008 03:05 PM (4od5C)

34 I will respond in full a little later, I am working now. I will reiterate what I said earlier. McCain (in 1992) payfully (?) called his wife a "trollop" and a "C*nt". He did this in front of a number of reporters. So be it. I am not disparaging him, only making a point. He did it. Maybe his best friend or her best friend can call her that. Can I? I am not part of their relationships. In the greater sense, if someone is in a pub like "Cheers", -literally "where everybody knows your name", they may insult each other playfully. They may say something particularly cutting. Should I be offended because I can't walk right in and call someone a name? I would imagine that I might get punched out by McCain or his wife if I called her a "c*nt" no matter how playful I thought it was. Iverson Bell

Posted by: Iverson Bell at June 13, 2008 04:05 PM (+94C3)

35 Iverson, Working, yes I'm doing that too, so understood. Reply in full when you are able. My quick response to your quick response: I am not part of their relationships. In the greater sense, if someone is in a pub like "Cheers", -literally "where everybody knows your name", they may insult each other playfully. They may say something particularly cutting. Should I be offended because I can't walk right in and call someone a name? Of course you shouldn't be offended. The example is one of 'personal relationships' and racism is societal. Just like I've addressed you as "Dr." initially and now as "Iverson" (I did ask permission). This is how personal relationships progress. I showed you respect by using "Dr." as is befitting and then moved, with permission not denied, to first name. Societal relationships do not follow the same mechanism. Therefore, I submit your analogy to a 'Cheers setting' in this discussion is false. Please try to answer why it is 'wrong' (read politically incorrect) for a group or individual to use Michelle Obama's words (or a logical extraction thereof) themselves as a descriptor.

Posted by: Mark at June 13, 2008 04:33 PM (4od5C)

36 Not differently at all, Iverson. We see it exactly the same, only from different perspectives. Allow me to use a couple specific personal relationship analogies: If my friend CCG introduces himself as a geek, as he does occasionally, by your logic he can claim to be offended if others, who (whom? I always forget that rule) he doesn't know, call him a geek. My answer is ‘no’ to that. If one introduces oneself as “fill in the blank” then one does not have the right to claim offense if someone from ‘outside’ does the same. For the other analogy, I often refer to myself as a ‘cripple’. I have done so in the presence of other ‘cripples’ who have ‘taken offense’ for themselves at the term. It didn’t matter to those people that I was only talking about myself and not them. They were offended ‘anyone’ would have the temerity to use such a ‘deprecating’ term, whether ‘self-’ or not. (I happen to actually BE a cripple thanks to MS.) Truly the term, when I use it, is self-deprecating and quite humorous – TO ME. I don’t give a damn what ‘other cripples’ or ‘normals’ might think when I say it. I also do not take offense when being called a ‘cripple’. In fact, it usually leads into an interesting conversation with someone when they are new to my life. If a group OR an individual refers to themselves by a certain term, then they HAVE NO RIGHT to take offense when a member of a different group uses that term as a descriptor. The precedent has already been set by the self-described group, whether they ‘like it or not’. Now for this specific case: Michelle or Barak have NO RIGHT to be offended when ‘their group’ has already used the terminology as ‘self-descriptors’ and then another individual/group uses the same or logical extrapolations. FSN, was not ‘out of bounds’ as you seem to be claiming…they were accurate within the scope of the referenced group/individual’s use of the term. That, in a rather large nutshell, is our difference of perspective on the issue of the use of ‘Baby Mama” to describe Michelle Obama. You are attempting to use a double-standard that I refuse to accept since this double-standard, you see, is also a double-edged sword – it cuts both ways. Whether the ‘majority’ or the ‘minority’ use the “offensive” X after the ‘minority’ has already set the president – it matters not one iota ‘who uses it next’. As part of the “black” community, you have abdicated honesty on this point whether or not you, personally use the term ‘ni**er’. Claiming to be ‘advancing the discussion’ is a waste of your breath because you HAVE NOT ATTEMPTED to find an equal partner for that ‘common ground’. You have defined the offensive X in your terms alone. By your own (or your group’s) perspective without any recognition of the ‘other’ group’s perspective you have unintentionally poisoned the ‘conversational well’. And that paragraph is why ‘race-relations’ in the US are where they are today. “Honest and free-flowing”? – No. Skewed, twisted, and spun – Yes. This is why ‘white folks’ as a group or individual are afraid of discussing ‘race issues’. They are afraid of being branded a ‘racist’. With the entire connotation that term currently holds, it is quite literally professional death for a white person in this country to be so branded. (You may even find some poetic justice in that turn of phrase since some runaway slaves were, quite literally, branded after being caught.) The best example of this is Sen. Trent Lott. If you need the specifics of that story, please ask as I presume you know the gist. I appreciate your agreement that “racism is societal”. Thank you for being intellectually honest on that point. I do have a slight problem with the Tom Metzger statement. Basically it ignores “who taught Tom M to be a bigot?” One must LEARN bigotry as it is NOT inborn. Other emotions are yet you have already conflated two ‘disorders’ to attempt to arrive at a third of ‘racism’. The syllogism does not follow. Have you ever watched small children of different ‘colors’ play together? Their disputes are never about “Hakim’s skin color” or “Joshua’s religion”. The mindset of racial bigotry is learned by children from several sources including but not limited to: parents, relatives, events, media of all forms, and their own life experiences. Thus, whether Tom Metzger is a racist or not becomes a moot point since you, obviously, refuse to look at the root cause of his ‘disorder’. In order to prove to you the complete and utter failure of your premise I offer this personal experience: The only time in my life I have ever felt discriminated against on racial grounds is when I was walking around Washington DC in 1986 and ended up about 3.5 blocks north of the Capitol building. I was wandering around looking at architecture and enjoying the balmy summer weather. Suddenly I had the distinct feeling of ‘eyes on the back of my neck’. So I stopped walking and looked at the people instead of the buildings. The best phrase I can think of to this day is “all I saw were eyes and teeth” and the people those belonged to were not happy with my presence. I felt like I did not belong there. In my nation’s Capitol! I, an American citizen within site of the Capitol building, felt I did not belong. Being a rather pragmatic young man at the time, I did an about-face and quick marched back toward the Capitol. If I did not do exactly as I had done, I felt I was in imminent danger of ‘something bad’ happening to me. No one said a word to me. No one smiled a friendly smile. They stared, malevolently. Obviously all the people I saw were black skinned. I also don’t remember a single female. By your standard, all of those ‘blacks’ that day are racists. Racism is indeed societal, Iverson. An individual ‘afflicted’ with this ‘disorder’ has been taught in one fashion or another. Examine the root cause of ‘racism’ and you’ll find the cure. Continue on your current path and even this humble conversation partner will become unavailable.

Posted by: Mark at June 14, 2008 03:38 AM (KDHro)

37 I believe that series of posts now 'defines the conversation' sufficiently. If you agree, Iverson, I hope others will post their own views. Providing, of course, our verbosity hasn't bored them to tears or put them to sleep

Posted by: Mark at June 14, 2008 03:54 AM (KDHro)

38 I admire your logic, though I don't agree with all of it. I will respond, and I will try to be more succinct. Self dishonesty or hypocrisy does raise it's ugly head in all of this. No group (because of self hate or whatever) should denigrate itself. It is not intellectually honest for me to call myself a "geek" (as I too am referred as) and then be insulted by others. Groups in general do not think through things. By my own statement I should never call myself, my buddy, or my wife a "geek". If I do though, two wrongs do not make it right (or even Reverend Wright :-) . Most people (66%-70% according to one study by Piaget) are not fully capable of 'abstract thought'. Neither Fox, NBC, or my buddies (that understand the negativity of the term) should use the term. Call it courtesy. Bottom line, whoever uses the term ("whomever?") and is aware that it is insulting, is as guilty as Michelle Obama. "Nappy headed ho" is another example (though much more extreme). If I sit on a sofa and cross my legs, no big deal. If I have the sole of my shoe in the direction of another (in the US) no big deal. If I do this in many other countries, not a big deal unless in less forgiving company. It is an insult! If I did not know this and it was pointed out to me, I would apologize for my ignorance and try to avoid what I personally consider 'no big deal'. If I am aware of the insult (repeating a denigrating term or whatever) and I do it anyway, that is rude at its' best. Iverson Bell

Posted by: Iverson Bell at June 14, 2008 08:59 AM (y7alN)

39 Thank you for the compliment, sir. Agreement is not necessarily needed with logic. It is either true or it is false. Prove the parts you don’t agree with are false and I will accept that. Otherwise, acceptance is required if the logic is true. Remember this from my comment on June 13, 2008 01:10 PM? Since being a bigot, as defined above, includes the concept of ‘being intolerant to members of a group’, I declare - here and now - that I am indeed a bigot because I HATE bigots. Rather neat circle, don’t you think? You are using quite a bit of circular logic in your argument. Each cause/effect is built upon the previous and the argument returns in cyclical manner to each cause/effect. That is, quite frankly, THE problem with racism/bigotry on any side. They are self-perpetuating. They are also fed by the ‘offended’ group’s use of the exact same terms and stereotypes found offensive when the ‘offending’ group comments – using exactly what the ‘offended’ group says/does in their commentary. Your ire was initially raised under that pretext. You were offended by the use of “Baby Mama” as a descriptor of Michelle Obama. Michelle, herself, has used similar terms to describe herself and her husband. You agreed above: It is not intellectually honest for me to call myself a "geek" (as I too am referred as) and then be insulted by others. Yet you took offense on behalf of the original user of that term. Break the circle, Iverson.

Posted by: Mark at June 14, 2008 12:12 PM (KDHro)

40 Briefly. I am offeended by the term "Baby Mama". A number of my peers are offended by the term. Regardles of the number or percentage, quite a few people are offended by the term. I do not use the term. "Geek" yes, but "ni**er", "Baby daddy", "Baby Mama", or other racially disparaging terms. Ms. Obama used the term. We find it racially offensive. Even Richard Pryor, and Malcolm X, saw that using negative racial descriptors were offensive and stopped using them. It would be hypocritical for the Obama's to complain. It would also be hypocritical for McCain to complain about someone using the term "c*nt" or "trollop" (very old school). 'Iff' (If and only if) a group that does not use a (racially offensive) term finds it 'offensive' (a very subjective term indeed), and that group is denigrated by the racially offensive term by being of that particular racial or ethnic grouping, then it may be deemed offensive. I for instance cannot designate what an Inuit Eskimo should be offended by - it is up to that group. One can either choose to accept that the group is offended or not. If one accepts that it is offensive, one can choose to ignore it and offend or be cognizant of that and sensitive and not offend. The editors of Fox or any new network should be aware that some terms are offensive. No matter who uses it. By the way, some racists are not taught to be that way. The paranoia is part of their personality and they choose to pick a particular group to be scapegoated. These are the people that I refer to as possibly having a diagnosis. Paranoid Personality Disorder is the term that best fits now (with traits of Antisocial, Narcissistic, and Borderline). Instruction and exposure to others will do little or nothing to change their minds. Iverson Bell

Posted by: Iverson Bell at June 14, 2008 01:13 PM (sBcla)

41 My apologies for the spelling errors.

Posted by: Iverson Bell at June 14, 2008 01:16 PM (sBcla)

42 The "circularity" of the argument is an unfortunate product of racism. Minority groups (the Ainu Japanese, Native Americans, etc.) and groups that are subjugated for long periods (African Americans and the Indian Untouchables) often identify with the oppressor (not all people but some). They often try to look like the oppressor, behave like, and take on the values of, **at the expense of their own**. This creates a kind of self hate that is often passed along through the generations. That does not make it acceptable to use self deprecating terms, but should make it more understandable. I grew up sitting in the back of movie theaters, being able to roller skate at the rink one day a week, not being able to use hotel swimming pools. In the 60s, apartments were not available to me once I showed up to rent, but were again available - by phone after I left. If one is told they are inferior, their parents are told that, and their grandparents are told that, some accept it. That may be part to the reason we "play the dozens", "talk about our mamas", insult each other, and if we riot - burn our own neighborhoods. It isn't right, but it happens. Others of other groups do not need to participate in that. Iverson Bell

Posted by: Iverson Bell at June 14, 2008 01:44 PM (sBcla)

43 And with those comments, my dear Iverson, you have completed and confirmed my entire thesis. We agree re: FOX in this case. The use of the term was in very poor taste though not dissallowed. We agree it is up to any group to define what is offensive to them. We agree that if a group or members therein use deprecation that has been labled by that group as offensive it is up the the group itself to correct the error. We agree protesting about outside groups using those same terms is 'wrong' yet NOT dissallowed merely because the offended group "says so" and continues to use those phrases themselves. We agree 'racism' is not a psychological disorder but a manifestation/symptom of several others combined with 'experience' in various forms. Thank you for a very stimulating, honest, and educational discussion. You have gained great respect in my eyes, Sir.

Posted by: Mark at June 14, 2008 02:33 PM (KDHro)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

John McCain is presumably learning a hard lesson as Democrats and their willing accomplices in the media unfairly rip him (yet again) over comments about Iraq taken utterly out of context.

The exchange that has Democrats licking their chops began when co-host Matt Lauer asked about the surge strategy in Iraq: "If it's working Senator, do you now have a better estimate of when American forces can come home from Iraq?"

McCain replied: "No, but that's not too important. What's important is the casualties in Iraq, Americans are in South Korea, Americans are in Japan, American troops are in Germany. ThatÂ’s all fine. American casualties and the ability to withdraw; we will be able to withdraw. General [David] Petraeus is going to tell us in July when he thinks we are.

"But the key to it is that we don't want any more Americans in harm's way. That way, they will be safe, and serve our country and come home with honor and victory, not in defeat, which is what Senator Obama's proposal would have done. I'm proud of them. And they're doing a great job. And we are succeeding and it's fascinating that Senator Obama still doesn't realize that."

From that exchange, all Democrats heard was "No, but that's not too important."

The deceptively shortened quote was possibly taken out of context by ignorance, but far more likely by design. What McCain seemed to be saying is that arbitrarily-decided pullout dates (such as the 16 month "run for the exits" date favored by Obama) are asinine; conditions on the ground should indicate when a withdrawal is feasible, and he thinks he'd have a better idea of when that might possible be the next time General David Petraeus briefs Congress in June.

Common sense, isn't it?

John "find me a river" Kerry twisted McCain's words, perhaps filtered through a too tight magic hat, and claimed:

McCain's comment was "unbelievably out of touch with the needs and concerns of most Americans," saying that to families of troops in harm's way, "To them, it's the most important thing in the world."

Kerry claimed "an enormous, fundamental flaw in his candidacy for the presidency, which supposedly has hung on his strength as commander in chief and his understanding of foreign policy."

Kerry's foreign policy, like freshman Senator Obama's, is based upon the goal of losing the war, hoping that even at this late date a defeat could be portrayed as Bush's loss, not a concerted effort by the leaders the modern Democratic Party to cost their nation a war in the hope of establishing short-term political gains.

These Copperhead Democrats naturally view a desire for victory a "fundamental flaw," one that is "unbelievably out of touch" with their goals.

Ignored by the media in McCain's comments was his noting that Obama and many of his supporters still refuse to concede progress in Iraq, despite across-the-board gains.

Democrats have spent the past seven years excoriating George W. Bush for doggedly holding an absolutist view on certain issues, immune to acknowledging changing conditions. I find it highly amusing that they now rally around a political neophyte with many of the exact same personality traits.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:47 PM | Comments (28) | Add Comment
Post contains 534 words, total size 4 kb.

1 What would you expect from a coward and traitor like Hanoi John Kerry? He looks at McCain, a hero, and see's himself as important as a pimple on a knat's butt.

Posted by: Scrapiron at June 11, 2008 12:53 PM (GAf+S)

2 Whether we leave tomorrow or stay a hundred years in the end Maliki and Co. will be more allied with Iran than the USA, just as they've always been. If you want a government independent of Iran Sadr is your best bet. Even though he hates Americans he has sad he'd be happy to hire our oil field service firms to pump Iraqi oil.

Posted by: markg8 at June 11, 2008 01:30 PM (7xxF4)

3 And what's with the desperation to have bases in Iraq? We already have bases in Afghanistan, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, Turkey, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, and elsewhere. Why keep pushing for bases in Iraq when it gives Bin Laden talking points in his recruiting videos?

Posted by: markg8 at June 11, 2008 01:37 PM (7xxF4)

4 John McCain is presumably learning a hard lesson Maverick? Learn a lesson? Doubtful.

Posted by: doubleplusundead at June 11, 2008 02:25 PM (M+GMZ)

5 [[If you want a government independent of Iran Sadr is your best bet]] Bwahahahahahahah. We need bases in Iraq to carry out the operations that have been part of the amazing sucess of the surge. Murthas bombing runs flown from Okinawa just wouldnt have worked. I doubt that Maliki and Co are good buds with Iran given that Iran is blowing up Iraqis. You may have missed the mass anti-Iran demonstrations that followed ahmadinajads last visit to Iraq.

Posted by: grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr at June 11, 2008 02:28 PM (gkobM)

6 markg8, before you leave a comment and let the whole world know how ignorant of fact you are, you should (1) get your facts straight, and (2) inform yourself about the subject you opine about. Sadr has been living in Iran. He is an Iranian puppet. His own followers are abandoning him. Take a look at a map. To leave Iraq without securing permanent bases there would be a giant strategical failure. Iran may wish to, even expect to dominate Iraq after we leave, but to think that the Iraqis want them to is ludicrous. There is little love lost between Iraq and Iran or have you forgotten the bloody, costly 8 year war they fought not so many years ago? Iraq was always a more sophisticated, more secular society and as their nationalism grows and they are becoming more used to being out from under the iron-fisted dictatorship of Saddam, they are liking their freedom. They aren't going to trade Saddam for the Iranian mullahs, despite how much you moonbats might like them to. Perhaps you missed the remarks by the Anbar Sheik this week during his visit to Washington.

Posted by: Sara at June 11, 2008 02:31 PM (Wi/N0)

7 "No, but that's not too important. What's important is the casualties in Iraq." Translation: "We have unlimited bodies to throw in Iraqi meatgrinder, but we need to keep the casualties low so we can stay there for one hundred years." John McBush

Posted by: David at June 11, 2008 03:02 PM (UEoYe)

8 I think you meant McCain, as that's his name. I fixed it for you. ---- CY, I noticed you used the word Copperhead. Hammer. Nail. Copperhead.

Posted by: brando at June 11, 2008 03:10 PM (LXoqQ)

9 Almost anytime I hear Democrats speak of the military, it's as wards of the state, another interest group to be bought off by and cared for with other people's money. Almost anytime I hear Democrats speak of war, it's as if the goal of war is merely to end it as quickly as possible. I've heard plenty of Democrats propose plans for Iraq -- Okinawa, anyone? -- but I haven't heard one yet speak of a plan for victory. War to Democrats is something to be ended, not something to be won.

Posted by: Diffus at June 11, 2008 03:33 PM (MR/ge)

10 "No, but that's not too important. What's important is the casualties in Iraq." Accurate translation: Since we are winning the war and US casualties are way down theres no reason not to stay in Iraq and finish crushing al-Qaida and the Iranians trying to expand their influence. It would be a lot like the US troops still in Korea, Germany and Clintoons quagmire in Kosovo.

Posted by: grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr at June 11, 2008 03:39 PM (gkobM)

11 Ahh yes, the old Iraq "will be more allied with Iran than the USA, just as they've always been." stupidity shows it's ignorance again. Saddam's last words of warning to his "People" was not fight the Americans, or drive out the infidel. . . it was Beware of the Persians. Because the Iraqis (mostly Arabs) and the Iranians (mostly Persians) have been so friendly with each other throughout history, they have basically been at war with each other from time immemorial.

Posted by: JP at June 11, 2008 04:36 PM (Tae/a)

12 Sara, Sadr has been living in Iran. Sez who? The same people who told us Iraq had WMD? He is an Iranian puppet. Your gullibility is really starting to show. You need to read more than DOD and Bush Administration press releases. His own followers are abandoning him. He has a movement and as such they don't always take orders from him. Especially when it's not in their financial or regional benefit to do so. But again if you're taking fools like Condi Rice or criminals like Dick Cheney at face value that's a problem. Take a look at a map. To leave Iraq without securing permanent bases there would be a giant strategical failure. I suppose every war supporter has to strive for a pony of some kind. Now permanent bases are the justification for the war and continued occupation? You look at a map. We've got bases all over the middle east. We don't need bases in Iraq. They're not going to let our oil companies pay them 15% for their oil anymore than the Saudis do. The only failure will be the political one for the Republican party which in case you haven't noticed lost that debate long ago. The American people are going to exact the price for that failure and all the lies and corruption that go along with it in November. The harder you try to figure out some face saving way to sell this mess as salvageable the more Republicans we'll turn out of office. Iran may wish to, even expect to dominate Iraq after we leave, but to think that the Iraqis want them to is ludicrous. I agree. If Maliki cozies up too much to the Iranians Iraqis will throw him out of office and elect Sadr. If Bush was smart he'd offer to let the Iranians and Syrians take over the briar patch and let them get their soldiers blown up for a change. See how they like it. I doubt they'd take him up on the offer because they're not that stupid. There is little love lost between Iraq and Iran or have you forgotten the bloody, costly 8 year war they fought not so many years ago? Why yes, I remember that war, it ended 20 years ago. I also remember we fought a war against Germany that ended in 1945, but I guess in your alternative universe Volkswagon utterly failed trying to sell Beetles here in the 1950s and 1960s because US citizens still hated Germans. Seriously though visits to the holy shrines of Najaf and Karbala for the Shiite high holy days by busloads of Iranians are the second biggest business in Iraq since the invasion. Granted that's not saying much since there's still about a 60% unemployment rate in Iraq but Iranians are thrilled to see the holy sites and welcomed by their Shiite brethren who sell them souvenirs and house and feed them. From what I read it's like Mardi Gras without the booze and debauchery. Iraq was always a more sophisticated, more secular society You can thank Saddam Hussein for that. For all his many faults he believed in lots of education funding for both men and women and didn't have much use for religion. Like his role model Stalin. and as their nationalism grows and they are becoming more used to being out from under the iron-fisted dictatorship of Saddam, they are liking their freedom. So let's give it to them. They're itching to run their own country and pump their oil. They aren't going to trade Saddam for the Iranian mullahs, despite how much you moonbats might like them to. You think anyone is going to try and invade and occupy Iraq after we leave? You'd have to be dumber than Bush to try it.

Posted by: markg8 at June 11, 2008 05:18 PM (7xxF4)

13 Just what we need, more idiocy from Waffles Kerry.

Posted by: William Teach at June 11, 2008 05:24 PM (F0Zxa)

14 Speaking of waffles here's McCain on Charlie Rose Nov. 27, 2007: ROSE: Do you think that this — Korea, South Korea is an analogy of where Iraq might be, not in terms of their economic success but in terms of an American presence over the next, say, 20, 25 years, that we will have a significant amount of troops there? MCCAIN: I don’t think so. ROSE: Even if there are no casualties? MCCAIN: No. But I can see an American presence for a while. But eventually I think because of the nature of the society in Iraq and the religious aspects of it that America eventually withdraws. You can listen to the whole clip here: http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/28/mccain-korea-withdrawal/ Interestingly enough he goes on to say the key to it is getting US troops off the streets of Baghdad and Kirkut (sic) and other Iraqi cities which was Casey's "hide on our bases" strategy to keep US casualties low for the 2006 US elections before the surge.

Posted by: markg8 at June 11, 2008 07:04 PM (7xxF4)

15 [[Sadr has been living in Iran. Sez who? The same people who told us Iraq had WMD? ]] Go git your tinfoil hats. [[He is an Iranian puppet. Your gullibility is really starting to show. You need to read more than DOD and Bush Administration press releases. ]] Yes, be like the liberals, only read the NYT and only watch Olberdouch. Dont forget, "This war is lost" (hat tip Harry Reed). [[We don't need bases in Iraq.]] Yes we do. Missions from bases in Iraq made the surge such a success. Murtha style bombing runs from Okinawa would not have worked! [[From what I read it's like Mardi Gras without the booze and debauchery.]] The pilgramages to Najaf will certainly allow the oppressed Iranians to see life in democratic Iraq, but I think a huggy kissy relationship between the theocracy of Iran and the people of Iraq is unlikly given the fact the Iranians keep blowing up Iraqis with IEDs. [[You can thank Saddam Hussein for that. For all his many faults he believed in lots of education funding for both men and women and didn't have much use for religion. Like his role model Stalin.]] Untill his started sucking up to Islamists to bolster his regim. I wonder if the women dying in his rape rooms conforted themselves with the thought that female literacy in Iraq was a little higher than Iran and Sudan? [[They're itching to run their own country and pump their oil.]] News flash. Their democratic government is running their own country and they are pumping their own oil at rates greater than pre-liberation. [[You think anyone is going to try and invade and occupy Iraq after we leave?]] No, becausee we have trained their military to be the best in the region and, unless some far left demtards get their way, will have bases in and a long term security agreement with Iraq.

Posted by: grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr at June 11, 2008 11:23 PM (DqXz5)

16 Seriously there's no more proof that Sadr has been living in Iran than the big IEDs are made there. The US military was going to make a big splashy display of those mines awhile back for the press and then cancelled it because there was no evidence they were made in Iran. Yes, be like the liberals, only read the NYT and only watch Olberdouch. Dont forget, "This war is lost" (hat tip Harry Reed). I don't read much of the NY Times since Judith Miller got caught in cahoots with Chalabi. Like Olbermann though. BTW it's spelled Harry Reid. [[We don't need bases in Iraq.]] Yes we do. Missions from bases in Iraq made the surge such a success. Murtha style bombing runs from Okinawa would not have worked! The surge worked? Tell it to the Iraqis. Where's the reconciliation? George Bush January 2007: A successful strategy for Iraq goes beyond military operations. Ordinary Iraqi citizens must see that military operations are accompanied by visible improvements in their neighborhoods and communities. So America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced. To establish its authority, the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq's provinces by November. To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country's economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis. To show that it is committed to delivering a better life, the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects that will create new jobs. To empower local leaders, Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year. And to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation's political life, the government will reform de-Baathification laws, and establish a fair process for considering amendments to Iraq's constitution. America will change our approach to help the Iraqi government as it works to meet these benchmarks. In keeping with the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, we will increase the embedding of American advisers in Iraqi Army units, and partner a coalition brigade with every Iraqi Army division. We will help the Iraqis build a larger and better-equipped army, and we will accelerate the training of Iraqi forces, which remains the essential U.S. security mission in Iraq. We will give our commanders and civilians greater flexibility to spend funds for economic assistance. We will double the number of provincial reconstruction teams. These teams bring together military and civilian experts to help local Iraqi communities pursue reconciliation, strengthen the moderates, and speed the transition to Iraqi self-reliance. And Secretary Rice will soon appoint a reconstruction coordinator in Baghdad to ensure better results for economic assistance being spent in Iraq. Sorry wrong again. [[From what I read it's like Mardi Gras without the booze and debauchery.]] The pilgramages to Najaf will certainly allow the oppressed Iranians to see life in democratic Iraq, but I think a huggy kissy relationship between the theocracy of Iran and the people of Iraq is unlikly given the fact the Iranians keep blowing up Iraqis with IEDs. According to the US military in Iraq it's Sunni whackjobs mostly from Saudi Arabia who blow up Iraqis. [[You can thank Saddam Hussein for that. For all his many faults he believed in lots of education funding for both men and women and didn't have much use for religion. Like his role model Stalin.]] Untill his started sucking up to Islamists to bolster his regim. I wonder if the women dying in his rape rooms conforted themselves with the thought that female literacy in Iraq was a little higher than Iran and Sudan? If you spellcheck that it might be worth responding to. [[They're itching to run their own country and pump their oil.]] News flash. Their democratic government is running their own country and they are pumping their own oil at rates greater than pre-liberation. Once again tell it to the Iraqis. A third of Iraqi oil revenues are skimmed off by gangs or within the government. With the corrupt Saddam and Bush administrations as roll models and mentors that's to be expected. [[You think anyone is going to try and invade and occupy Iraq after we leave?]] No, becausee we have trained their military to be the best in the region and, unless some far left demtards get their way, will have bases in and a long term security agreement with Iraq. Hahahahaha! The best in the region. You're funny. Bush is trying to hold $20 billion in Iraqi government cash hostage in NY banks unless they sign Cheney's oil agreement and SOFA. And you wonder why they hate us. Here's news flash for you. A base treaty that the US Senate hasn't agreed to isn't worth the paper it's printed on. Now if you'll excuse me I think I'll leave you deluded folks who can't spell to your own devices.

Posted by: markg8 at June 12, 2008 12:22 AM (7xxF4)

17 markg8: (Point 1) Sara, Sadr has been living in Iran. Sez who? The same people who told us Iraq had WMD? USAToday Says So He is currently in Iran, having spent the past year there studying under a hard-line cleric who was an early proponent of the Iranian revolution in which Ayatollah Khomeini assumed dictatorial control, but al-Sadr said last month that religious leaders should not play politics. That also takes care of your next claim (Point 2): He is an Iranian puppet. Your gullibility is really starting to show. You need to read more than DOD and Bush Administration press releases. (Point 3) His own followers are abandoning him. He has a movement and as such they don't always take orders from him. Especially when it's not in their financial or regional benefit to do so. But again if you're taking fools like Condi Rice or criminals like Dick Cheney at face value that's a problem. LATimes "I had faith. I believed in something," Lami said of his days hoisting a gun for Sadr's Mahdi Army militia. "Now, I will never fight with them." So much for that claim too. Read the entire article and you will see several ex-Sadr loyalists saying basically the same thing about “his movement”. (Point 4) Take a look at a map. To leave Iraq without securing permanent bases there would be a giant strategical failure. I suppose every war supporter has to strive for a pony of some kind. Now permanent bases are the justification for the war and continued occupation? You look at a map. We've got bases all over the middle east. We don't need bases in Iraq. They're not going to let our oil companies pay them 15% for their oil anymore than the Saudis do. This claim is simply a ridiculous statement on your part. Of course not securing ‘permanent bases” would be a STRATEGIC FAILURE. That’s basic military sense. Your strawman argument of paying them 15% for their oil is also ridiculous. Iraq is a member of OPEC as is Saudi Arabia. They are getting record pay for that oil. In other words, the US or “our oil companies” have never gotten that kind of a deal. Why don’t you bring out the old “No war for oil” tripe? Oh, I forgot…gas prices in the US (and all over the world) are at record levels except in the countries that subsidize them. (Point 5) The only failure will be the political one for the Republican party which in case you haven't noticed lost that debate long ago. The American people are going to exact the price for that failure and all the lies and corruption that go along with it in November. The harder you try to figure out some face saving way to sell this mess as salvageable the more Republicans we'll turn out of office. I happen to agree with you that the Republicans will lose seats in Congress. However, I completely disagree with your reasoning. Corruption has been rampant on both sides of the aisle. Remember the name William Jefferson ? I think I’ll stop there for now since destroying your first 4 arguments and agreeing on next 1 with my stated caveat is enough for one night.

Posted by: Mark at June 12, 2008 01:07 AM (KDHro)

18 markg8, Don't throw spelling stones when you fail, albeit to a much lesser degree, in the same respect: From the above post: With the corrupt Saddam and Bush administrations as roll models and mentors that's to be expected. The word "roll" in this case is spelled "role". I'm certain that was simply a proof-reading error by your exalted self.

Posted by: Mark at June 12, 2008 01:20 AM (KDHro)

19 "To leave Iraq without securing permanent bases there would be a giant strategical failure." So these statements were lies then? U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, August 14, 2005: "We do not seek permanent military bases in Iraq. Our goal is to help Iraq stand on its own feet, to be able to look after its own security, and to do what we can to help achieve that goal." Condoleezza Rice, April 4, 2006 "I would think that people would tell you, `We're not seeking permanent bases really pretty much anywhere in the world these days.' We are, in fact, in the process of removing base structure from a lot of places," Rice replied. I mean, obviously they were, I'd just like to hear you say it.

Posted by: Rafar at June 12, 2008 09:08 AM (ej9g/)

20 [[Seriously there's no more proof that Sadr has been living in Iran than the big IEDs are made there.]] Seriously, HIS OFFICE admitted it. [[Seriously there's no more proof that Sadr has been living in Iran than the big IEDs are made there.]] Actually Harry Weed. [[Like Olbermann though]] Of course you do, hes a nut and lives in Libtard fantasy land. [[The surge worked? Tell it to the Iraqis. Where's the reconciliation?]] Err, only in the massive grass roots down turn in violence, cross sectarian reconcilliation, rejection of al-Qaida by he Sunnis, meeting of most diplomatic goals set by the US and the layoing down of arms by former insurgents. Seriously, you need to expand your news sources beyond Olberdouch. [[According to the US military in Iraq it's Sunni whackjobs mostly from Saudi Arabia who blow up Iraqis.]] According to the US military in Iraq its mostly Iranians who who fund the now hated JAM. Al-Qaida? Come on. They are getting destroyed by the Iraqis. They are so 2006 in terms of their role in Iraq. [[If you spellcheck that it might be worth responding to.]] Ahahahah. "Your spellings poopy", The last resort of someone getting spanked in an argument. [[A third of Iraqi oil revenues are skimmed off by gangs or within the government.]] Sweet. In the absence of any hope in winning this discussion you make stuff up. How MSNBC of you. [[Hahahahaha! The best in the region. You're funny]] Really. Well see who invades Iraq in the coming years,. I suspect no regional powers will for fear of the major arse kicking they will suffer. [[Now if you'll excuse me I think I'll leave you deluded folks who can't spell to your own devices.]] Dont leave mad, just leave

Posted by: grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr at June 12, 2008 10:22 AM (gkobM)

21 Rafar, The statement in question is: To leave Iraq without securing permanent bases there would be a giant strategical failure. I added this: Of course not securing 'permanent bases' would be a STRATEGIC FAILURE. ThatÂ’s basic military sense. As my interpretation of Sara's comment pertained specifically to the military and not diplomatic ends. If this interpretation is incorrect, Sara, please clarify for me. In simple terms, "permanent bases" is actually quite relative. The US has had many "permanent bases" in most, if not all, of the countries we liberated/conquered/protected since WWII. For example (via Wiki): Tokyo Japan, Tachikawa Air Base (where two of my brothers were born) is now a Japanese Air Base: Tachikawa and Aviano Italy, Aviano Air Base (where I spent four years of my life) is now a NATO base: Aviano Air Base. Both bases are rather "permanent". However, neither remained US bases for the duration of that "permenancy". There is still a US presence in Aviano as noted in the .mil link above, however, I am not certain about Tachikawa. Tachikawa was initially a Japanese Army base. Therefore, the diplomats may make the claim of "we do not seek" while the military is still going to build "permanent bases". I'm absolutely certain both you and markg8 now understand the meaning of the phrases in question. I'm also certain you will continue to argue the moot point. Nuanced enough for you Rafar?

Posted by: Mark at June 12, 2008 10:24 AM (4od5C)

22 Slight correction to the above - the links did not come from wiki since CY's engine doesn't allow wiki links ...which I forgot. So, I put in better sources.

Posted by: Mark at June 12, 2008 10:28 AM (4od5C)

23 Harry Reid yesterday said that we need to pull our troops out of Iraq because we are in the middle of an intractable civil war. It's nice to see that he has not departed from his war is lost, civil war, narrative the way some other wishy washy dems have who have actually acknowledged the military and political progress of the past year. You go Harry, keep those eyes closed. Next up, keeping gas prices high!

Posted by: daleyrocks at June 12, 2008 10:54 AM (i/fLn)

24 Lesson? Never allow your opponent's reaction to dictate who you will say. Second guessing yourself is much worse than your opponent dishonestly twisting your words out of context.

Posted by: Roy Mustang at June 12, 2008 01:40 PM (sqP0c)

25 I wonder whether markg8 ever reads any current information on Iraq.

Posted by: daleyrocks at June 12, 2008 04:48 PM (i/fLn)

26 I wonder whether markg8 ever reads any current information on Iraq. Nope. To do such would cause him intense mental anguish, therefore, he closes his mind to the facts.

Posted by: C-C-G at June 12, 2008 05:47 PM (X5vKa)

27 I did attempt to make certain I only used recent information from 2008 sources for my links in the refutation comment. I also tried to use links from such bastions of Conservatism and Republicans like USA Today and the LA Times. /sarc

Posted by: Mark at June 12, 2008 05:52 PM (4od5C)

28 FYI people - Markg8 is almost certainly the same troll who talked about beating a contributor to Protein Wisdom "until [his]... skull shatter[ed]". Said contributor had caught him in a lie about US troops' enlistment rates, & called him on it. Aside from what it revealed about about his honesty, it was nice to know that Mark would rather kill people who disagree with him than the people who'd saw his head off in a heartbeat. http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=8723

Posted by: 9-of-Diamonds at June 14, 2008 01:14 PM (5dwll)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Here you go, haters.

I'll have you know this does not help Michelle Obama's children.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:23 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 25 words, total size 1 kb.

Despite the hopes of Democrats, the economy isn't going to tank, at least not unless Barack Obama gets into the White House.

While the media would like to help along the meme that McCain's financial plan of low taxes and lowered government spending is a continuation of Bush's economy, that is fiction. McCain's policies are in line with Ronald Reagan's successful conservative economic plans; of the two Presidential candidates, it is Obama's plan that is more like those practiced by Bush.

The bloated government and increased spending seen under the Bush Administration is horrific from a fiscally conservative standpoint, and a prequel to what would occur if the ultra-liberal Obama campaign lives up to its promises, creating more than $87 billion in new government and entitlements. Obama will need to substantially raise taxes to fulfill even some of his campaign promises.

Think Bush is bad? Obama will be worse, pulling for "higher income taxes, Social Security taxes, capital gains taxes, dividend taxes," and taxes on job-creating small businesses straight out of the "dazed and malaised" days of James Earl Carter's failed one-term Presidency. I'm sure I am not alone in hearing from parents concerned that an Obama presidency will ruin the economy for their children.

This is just on the home front, where Obama thinks he's strongest. Overseas, Obama is even more of a dismal failure.

We are not losing in Iraq, despite the best efforts of Democrats in Congress and on the Presidential campaign trial. Oh, they've certainly tried, but the war is actually progressing well enough that a Iraqi Sunni sheik is pressing to go to Afghanistan to help fight al Qaeda there. He trusts America. Democrats? Not so much.

As for Iran, the mullah's no doubt salivate at the possibility of an Obama presidency, and the reasons why are obvious.

They seek to exploit Obama's status as a foreign policy naif pledged to a campaign of pacifism to recreate the glory days of their Islamic Revolution. I'd remind you that these were their glory days due in no small part due to Carter's ineffectual Presidency, which Obama is already emulating with his stated policy of unconditional talks with tyrants. Other strongmen in the region also smell Obama's fear, which is why they are actively campaigning for him.

He's a well-rounded candidate, the first-term senator from Illinois. Obama's foreign policy is equally incompetent as are his domestic policies, all of which are as bad or worse than that of the thirty-ninth President.

Higher taxes. Bigger government. Intrusive regulations.

Welcome Back, Carter.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:52 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 429 words, total size 3 kb.

1 What? Where? When?

Posted by: Dan Irving at June 10, 2008 01:09 PM (zw8QA)

2 Isn't the comparison between Snobama and Carter insulting to Carter?

Posted by: Thomas Jackson at June 10, 2008 03:40 PM (LHaZf)

3 BHO is a leftist liberal product of corrupt Chicago politics who hypocritically preaches all kinds of platitudes for others but in his public life has failed to demonstrate with his own actions. What happened to his “Old Uncle Wright”- dumped! – His church of 20 years – dumped! A real steady guy. He will do and say whatever it takes to get the prize. The history of his political rise in Chicago is ugly. His record in the Illinois legislature and later in the US Senate contains absolutely nothing but a record of doing what is politically expedient. BHO is a product of “Old Line Politics”. :”Change”:- into what? . Judge a man by his actions not his words. He will spend spend - Changes for sure!

Posted by: ratfink at June 10, 2008 04:04 PM (9zenO)

4 Obama is for change! The change in your pocket and the change in your bank account. He's a big government, nanny state, tax and wastefully spend corrupt Chicago politician. The sad part is that most of the kids who worship him were born after the disastrous Carter administration. The concept of double digit inflation and unemployment is completely foreign to them. They are now bitching about unemployment rates that Billy Jeff Clinton road to re-election back in 1996.

Posted by: Mark at June 10, 2008 06:01 PM (4iyAQ)

5 “You know one of his favorite phrases is that I would be a Bush third term. Well I think maybe his proposals could be a Carter second term,” McCain told Fox. I think McCain just found a campaign slogan.

Posted by: C-C-G at June 10, 2008 07:17 PM (X5vKa)

6 In light of your comments about Reagan and Carter and GW and debt and all that, I suggest you wander over to White House's Office of Management and Budget Historical Table 7.1. Take a gander at what the data actually looks like as opposed to what you think or want it to look like. Clearly your setup knows what the data looks like - it wouldn't let me embed the link telling me the content is questionable. (Go to whitehouse dot gov forward slash omb forward slash budget forward slash budget forward slash fy2009 forward slash hist.html.)

Posted by: cactus at June 11, 2008 04:12 AM (l3Fio)

7 Carter. Republicans would rather shoot themselves in the head or maybe some other part of their anatomy rather than admit that if we followed Carter on energy we would be laughing all the way to the gas pump now. slow down,turn down the thermostat,develop alternatives..We would have two years of energy freedom rihgt now and a robust industry to boot...

Posted by: I hope we can at June 11, 2008 07:24 AM (3ULgL)

8 Carter, Hope, do either of you remember the term "stagflation"? Go look it up. Then tell me, honestly, that you want to go back to economic conditions where that word would start to be used again.

Posted by: C-C-G at June 11, 2008 07:56 AM (X5vKa)

9 Hope were you aware that Carter torpedoed the American domestic nuclear power industry, at the behest of his big oil-company donors? Imagine how much more energy-independant we would be now except for that little bit of quid-pro-quo at the nation's expense.

Posted by: DaveP. at June 11, 2008 10:11 AM (8mvgK)

10 His Democratic friends are saying ..No oil to invest in. They know ExxonMobil is making a filthy killing in this energy crisis, but what galls them even more is the knowledge that ExxonMobil canÂ’t spend any of its $40 billion in profits to find American oil in the most obvious places. Maybe they should contact their Democratic friends on Capitol Hill and tell them.

Posted by: Neo at June 11, 2008 11:11 AM (Yozw9)

11 Hope were you aware that Carter torpedoed the American domestic nuclear power industry, at the behest of his big oil-company donors? Imagine how much more energy-independant we would be now except for that little bit of quid-pro-quo at the nation's expense. Interesting assertion, DaveP. Please provide your evidence backing up that assertion. Don't tell me to look it up myself, I don't play that game... no matter what I find you'd just claim that I didn't get the right article. Also, it is logically impossible to prove a negative, so I can't prove that there is no evidence of what you say; therefore the onus is upon you to provide the proof of your statement. Don't spin, that won't work. I asked a simple question, I expect a simple answer. Where did you find the evidence for your statement above?

Posted by: C-C-G at June 11, 2008 05:35 PM (X5vKa)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Former Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich has filed articles of impeachment against President George W. Bush.

I hope that the Democrat-controlled Congress will not treat this event with the seriousness that it deserves, and instead, high on their own fumes, launches full-blown impeachment proceedings.

Let's do this thing.

We've been listening the fringe left grow ever more hysterical over the past few years, perpetrating the "Bush lied, people died" hyperbole so long and hard that they now accept their fevered fantasies as fact, even as their own politically-motivated investigations proven otherwise.

So let us see the Democrats make their very best case for impeachment. Let us see every one of their "facts" placed under extreme scrutiny in a national spotlight, carried across network and cable news and wire services in an onslaught of continuous wall-to-wall coverage, with nary a second of coverage ignored.

Support your rhetoric. Make your best case directly to the American people. Lay out all the facts, under oath.

Give it your best shot, impeachment fans.

We can hardly wait.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:01 AM | Comments (33) | Add Comment
Post contains 180 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Democrats and their allies in the media have been lying about the war for six years. Why do you think they'd suddenly start telling the truth for impeachment proceedings? Democrats ignored the evidence and voted "not guilty" when the Slug was impeached and tried ten years ago. What makes you think they would vote with the evidence in an impeachment of President Bush?

Posted by: wolfwalker at June 10, 2008 10:14 AM (a8n5J)

2 Although impeachment is warranted per the revelations of the Senate Intelligence Committee's Phase II Report, neither the Senate nor the House will go along with it. This is because key members of BOTH parties are culpable for misleading the American people in the justification of the Iraq War. Refer to pages 164-165 of the Phase II report to find quotes of Senator Rockefeller that demonstrate his culpability. Recall that Senator Rockefeller is one of the select few in the Senate and the House who is briefed on the nation's highest levels of intelligence. Further support for the culpability of both Democrats and the Republicans is found when one examines the warrantless wiretapping issue and the immunization of the telecom companies. Back in February, Democrat Representative Reyes, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, was adamant in his opposition to granting immunity to the telecom companies. However, this was before his committee was given access to any of Bush Administration's legal justifications for warrantless wiretapping. Last week, there were reports that Representative Reyes was close to an agreement with House Republicans in that he was willing to let the secret FISA court decide if the telecoms should be granted immunity. This is almost a total reversal of his earlier position. Although there is little in the way of hard evidence before the American people, I think that it is safe to say that something bad has happened and both the Democrats and the Republicans are trying to cover it up. Thus an impeachment will never happen, no matter if it is warranted or not.

Posted by: justthetruth at June 10, 2008 11:11 AM (Xpp/g)

3 No! I don't want Cheney to be president! And after him it's Pelosi! Although, if we can get down to Rice, that'll solve this whole "first female president, first black president" crap.

Posted by: Ryan at June 10, 2008 11:16 AM (eplNU)

4 The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 06/10/2008 A short recon of whatÂ’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.

Posted by: David M at June 10, 2008 11:46 AM (gIAM9)

5 Yeah, lets impeach a president for the liberatuion of 27 million people and the birth of democracy in the middle east. Thats a grat idea.

Posted by: grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr at June 10, 2008 02:08 PM (gkobM)

6 Justthetruth, "Although impeachment is warranted per the revelations of the Senate Intelligence Committee's Phase II Report, neither the Senate nor the House will go along with it." And those breathless "revelations" are......? Better go back and read the report: if anything Jay "Imminent Threat" Rockefeller repeatedly admits that President Bush's public statements on WMD's, Iraqi terrorist contacts, etc. were "substantiated by intelligence information" at the time. Rockefeller saw the same material that Bush did--so where's the beef? Hell, Jumpin' Jay Rockefeller as dumb as he is dishonest--he can't even keep his own story straight. Methinks that if stuff like the Rockefeller report is the best the Donks can provide for an "impeachment case," then they're obviously gluttons for public and political humiliation. Impeachment? Bring it on. That'll be a sure-fire way to drive Congress's favorability ratings down to negative double digits.

Posted by: MarkJ at June 10, 2008 02:08 PM (ZFVlP)

7 You guys need to stop drinking the right-wing Kool-Aid. They Lied. They knew they lied. The evidence is there. The CIA sent them (Hadley) a memo debunking the sources for the yellowcake theory in October 2002, 5 months before the invasion. they still left the the "16 words" in the state of the Union that were designed to strike fear into the American people. Hadley even offered to resign over it, but instead, Bush promoted him. What a retard! There is no way any reasonable person who actually reads the information out there can disagree. All you guys will do is attack the messenger because you can't handle the message. Don't like the book, then McClellan is a liar. Don't like the Phase II report (that the repubs said would be out 3 years ago?!?), then there is something wrong with Jay Rockefeller. Please. When you learn the facts, we'll talk. If you wanna throw firebombs and act like Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, you will stay where they are, out on the (lunatic) fringe. Conservatism and more importantly, the Republican Party, have been exposed and they are about to become irrelevant.

Posted by: Phil at June 10, 2008 03:42 PM (e9onF)

8 Yeah, lets impeach a president for the liberatuion of 27 million people and the birth of democracy in the middle east. Thats a grat idea. Posted by: grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr at June 10, 2008 02:08 PM Yeah, killing about 600,000 of them along the way. . . Great "liberation" . . . for reasons he knew were false. Bush and the Republicans are a joke.

Posted by: Phil at June 10, 2008 03:45 PM (e9onF)

9 Democrats and their allies in the media have been lying about the war for six years. Why do you think they'd suddenly start telling the truth for impeachment proceedings? Democrats ignored the evidence and voted "not guilty" when the Slug was impeached and tried ten years ago. What makes you think they would vote with the evidence in an impeachment of President Bush? Posted by: wolfwalker at June 10, 2008 10:14 AM I think you got the wrong party when you say who has been lying about the war . . . Bush deserves to be impeached and convicted more than any president in the history of our country. If you guys were brave enough to come off your right wing fence, you would agree. . . But I don't think you are brave. You'll just keep attacking the messenger.

Posted by: Phil at June 10, 2008 03:55 PM (e9onF)

10 No! I don't want Cheney to be president! And after him it's Pelosi! Although, if we can get down to Rice, that'll solve this whole "first female president, first black president" crap. Posted by: Ryan at June 10, 2008 11:16 AM Cheney should be impeached as well. Pelosi would do just fine until Obama is sworn in on January 20, 2009. Let's talk again in 8 years when we have a budget surplus, surging economy, and no wars based on lies. I hope you might agree then that he did a great job, as long as he doesn't get a blow job and lie about it. . .

Posted by: Phil at June 10, 2008 03:57 PM (e9onF)

11 Fascinating. Phil, since every major Democrat has said exactly the same things that President Bush has said about Iraq, and most of them voted to use force to liberate Iraq in accord with the UN resolutions, will you be calling for the impeachment of most of your own party's Congressional delegation too? Does your "600,000" figure count: Foreigner Jihadis killed in Iraq by American, Coalition and Iraqi forces? Does it include the number of Iraqis killed by Mahdi Army/Al Quaeda/Iranian Quds Force terror tactics? If it does, you are in the position of using the death tolls of Auchwitz and the Waffen SS to claim that the Allied liberation of Europe was somehow wrong. I will further ask if the number counts the massacres of Iraqis perpetrated by Saddam Hussein's own government. Speaking of the War Against Socailism, Phil, do you know how many civilian casualties were created just by the D-Day invasion? Are you willing to use that number as an arguement against American intervention in Europe? Phil, do you know how many times Bill Clinton was offered the opportunity to capture or kill Osama Bin Laden and failed to do so? Do you understand that President Clinton was the last man who could've prevented the four thousand American deaths on September 11? Do you excuse that? Phil is a certain type that we've seen before: he has no understanding of freedom, war, or the world; his ability to defend his positions is at best juvenile and verges on the preteen; he'd far rather believe a hundred lies than a truth that undercuts his own self-centered world view. I pity him, and invite others to do the same.

Posted by: DaveP. at June 10, 2008 04:47 PM (8mvgK)

12 Okay, Democrats: Put Up or Shut Up!

Posted by: JEC at June 10, 2008 04:59 PM (GAf+S)

13 We cannot withdraw precipitously from Iraq the way we recklessly invaded it without compounding the error. Impeaching the Commander in Chief is the only reasonable way to deal with the fact that he lied us into an unnecessary war, period.

Posted by: Ilya at June 10, 2008 05:31 PM (EPDzn)

14 Phil, you do know that Lancet study was debunked, right? http://michellemalkin.com/2007/07/25/document-drop-a-new-critique-of-the-2004-lancet-iraq-death-toll-study/ You might want to get, y'know, *facts* on your side-- or are you just too busy using ad homen arguments to come up with actual arguments?

Posted by: Foxfier at June 10, 2008 05:50 PM (3aOlt)

15 I guess, Phil, that all the following people also lied about the war in Iraq: "Others argue that if even our allies support us, we should not support this resolution because confronting Iraq now would undermine the long-term fight against terrorist groups like Al Qaeda. Yet, I believe that this is not an either-or choice. Our national security requires us to do both, and we can." Senator John Edwards, US Senate floor statement. "Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture, don't have the judgment to be President, or the credibility to be elected President. "No one can doubt or should doubt that we are safer -- and Iraq is better -- because Saddam Hussein is now behind bars." Senator John Kerry, speech at Drake University, Iowa. "I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him." Again, Senator Kerry, during a Democratic primary debate in South Carolina. "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. "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members... "It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Senator Hillary Clinton, addressing the US Senate. "As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I firmly believe that the issue of Iraq is not about politics. It's about national security. We know that for at least 20 years, Saddam Hussein has obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through every means available. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today. He has used them in the past, and he is doing everything he can to build more. Each day he inches closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability -- a capability that could be less than a year away. "The path of confronting Saddam is full of hazards. But the path of inaction is far more dangerous. This week, a week where we remember the sacrifice of thousands of innocent Americans made on 9-11, the choice could not be starker. Had we known that such attacks were imminent, we surely would have used every means at our disposal to prevent them and take out the plotters. We cannot wait for such a terrible event -- or, if weapons of mass destruction are used, one far worse -- to address the clear and present danger posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq." Senator Edwards again, Senate floor statement. There are lots and lots more. So, Phil, should we also impeach Senators Kerry, Kennedy, and Clinton? (Can't impeach Edwards, he's not in the Senate anymore.)

Posted by: C-C-G at June 10, 2008 06:31 PM (X5vKa)

16 Phil and Ilya (sorry if I misspelled that, it's rather hard to distinguish "I" and "l" on my system) I wholeheartedly welcome an impeachment of President Bush. Bring on the facts and evidence. Do not imply 'because of what we know now', the invasion of Iraq was incorrect. Attempt to prove it was incorrect based upon the information available at the time. You on the left in this case have already convicted without actually hearing and seeing the 'evidence'. Therefore, your objectivity is obviously non-existent. If the evidence proves GWB is a liar, I would cast a guilty vote. If not, then I would acquit. If you could honestly say in to your inner-most selves you have the same attitude, then you really need to modify your statements. If not, then enjoy YOUR Kool-Aid.

Posted by: Mark at June 10, 2008 06:53 PM (KDHro)

17 they still left the the "16 words" in the state of the Union that were designed to strike fear into the American people. You mean these, Phil? "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." They were true then and remain true today. Niger is not what the British report was based on. G00gle "Straw defends UK uranium evidence" and read the first link.

Posted by: Pablo at June 11, 2008 11:50 AM (yTndK)

18 Pablo: Nail. Head. 'Nuff said.

Posted by: C-C-G at June 11, 2008 05:37 PM (X5vKa)

19 You guys aren't paying attention. That's what you are best at. . . Read deeper, look harder, try to shed your red-state goggles and maybe you will actually learn something. First, to Dave P: 1) If you are trying to say the dems who voted for war, knew what bush knew, that is false. Hadly had the dissent of the cia, the NIE did not include the dissents. (which turned out to be correct, by the way.) 2) The 600,000 number comes from a Study at Johns Hopkins U. Refute it with the level of surces they have, and I wil listen to you. 3) Your reference to death tolls and nazis is quaint but irrelevant to the issue. We were not going to Iraq to depose a horrible dictator who was a bad guy like Saddam, we were marketed the idea that there was an imminent threat to our safety, which has been proven false and was known to be false by Bush & Co at the time. Don't Change the purpose of the invasion after the fact, like Bush had to when it was proven he was wrong. You are just obfuscating and changing the subject to hide your equivocal argument. Hitler's menace was real, you cant retro-fit the argument to make your side correct because Hitler was bad, and so was Saddam, therefore we had to get Saddam just like we got Hitler. There is no argument against American intervention in Europe, so don't put words in my mouth. You cannot conflate the two into one sound reasoning to invade Iraq. It is intellectually dishonest. PS it was National Socialism, not Socialism. National Socialism was fascism, which is what The executive branch under bush has become. SEE: Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - fas·cism /ˈfæʃɪzəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[fash-iz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1. (sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism. Sound familiar? 4) The story about CLinton having the opportunity to get Osama bin Laden has been disproved. DO you even know the story about it? The "Source" was a sudanese official, here, I will just paste one source, http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_bill_clinton_pass_up_a_chance_1.html try using sources sometime, it helps your credibility. Oh, and after you criticize my source, I'll just go find another one. . . but, I am pretty sure Fox News will not have it. What is not exusable is the fact that when Clinton wanted to make a strike against Osama, the information on his whereabouts was withheld from him. AND That Condoleeza Rice was told that Al-Quaeda would be the most important threat facing America by the out-going Clinton administration. They ignored the threat, did not even convene a meeting on the threat of Al-Quaeda until September 10, 2001. So no, Clinton was not at fault for 9-11. bush was. end of story. Bush was too worried about missile defense, in fact, Condi was going to deliver a speech about missile defense on 9-11 but obviously could not, why hasn't the text of that speech been released? Because we don't need the terrorists to know how far up their arses the bushies had their heads! 5) As far as the "certain type" you say I am? I beg to differ. How dare you question my knowledge of freedom, war and the world. Only a juvenile or preteen would accuse another adult of such. . . use sources, Saying "You're Wrong cuz I said so! " is juvenile and pre-teen. . . that's all you have done. . You have used ZERO sources. You use the same ad hominem attacks that will be flying around the internet in fake attack emails from now until November. You don't have facts on your side, so you lie. Back up your positions. Until then, I will continue to pity you. As far as a self-centered world view, you are way off. I speak several languages, have a doctorate, have traveled extensively and have friends from the deep south to the other hemispehere. I believe yours is the view that thinks Bush is right no matter what. Don't use sources, oh no. . . that would be dangerous, but "Bush is right" and damn the torpedos. . . deny the photos, the insider accounts, the mounting evidence of criminal activity . . . that's a self- centered world view. TO JEC: Putting up, not shutting up! Now you do the same! To Ilya: Yes, it was reckless to invade. Saddam posed no threat. He was shut down with two no-fly zones. He could do us no harm. That's why the Bushes had to Conflate 9-11 and Iraq. Which they did ad nauseum. Then, when that link failed, they had to find another reason for the invasion, after the fact. Withdrawal will be difficult, but no doubt, as soon as a demo is the president, everything that bush did will be that new president's fault. TO Foxfier: Here are my "Facts" Whether it is 650,000, 150,000 or 900,000, it was too many. Michelle Malkin is not a source. But, using her as a source probably qualifies as an ad hominem attack. Check out http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_casualties_of_the_Iraq_War I use the wikipedia link only because it has the links to several pro and con positions. . . whether it is 150,000 or 900,000 Iraqi civilian deaths, it was still an unnecessary tragedy. TO C-C-G: That's an OLD RNC email that does what the RNC does best: take the best from a quotation to support your position, and hide the rest! Regarding the quotations of democrats who voted for the war, those are dealt with here: http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp Remember, the senators had the information Bush GAVE them, not all the information Bush had. . . He selectively left out the intelligence community dissents. It's like telling somebody your favorite color is red then asking them to vote on what they think is your favorite color, given what you just told them. Those votes were also cast after bush said war was the last option, diplomacy would come first. A lie. Eerie, though, I heard him say that about Iran in the last 3 days! TO MARK I appreciate your candor. If he did not lie, did not misrepresent intel, and did not "market the war" like McClellan and the Senate committee says. I would vote Not Guilty. I am glad you would vote guilty if the evidence showed he did these things. I think the democrats will not seek impeachment because they want the voters to decide for themselves in the fall. they don't want to be accused of playing politics with impeachment like the republicans did against clinton. It's admirable, but sad. I would rather wait til they are all out of office and pursue the cases then, then there won't be any negotiated pardons from a friendly successor. TO Mark and Matt and C-C-G: You are right, it won't happen for reasons I said above. But sadly, instead of discussing it, CCG has to call me an ultra-wacko. . . Cant handle the message? Attack the messenger. Although listening to Bush and co is enough to drive one ultra-wacko, I am actually a pretty stable, sane, and intelligent person. so, CCG, if you are gonna call me an ultra wacko, let's stick to our rules and CITE SOURCES? As far as showing you the information on why it was wrong at the time, it is already out there. Discredited sources used on mobile labs (Curveball), IAEA scientists rebuffed aluminum tube nuke theory, I will put together a post just for you Mark regarding the weakness of the evidence PRIOR to the invasion and how Bush and Co. massaged the horrific (and false) "intel" to get the vote for war. Stay tuned. CCG, you think Zell Miller is reasonable? wow. PS Joe Lieberman still caucuses with senate democrats, he is only an independent cuz he lost in the demo primary. So, CCG, you said: "And with the Rockefeller report, as mentioned above, indicating that Bush's statements were supported by the information available at the time, that would give the Dems not just egg on their face, but a whole omelet." Why don't you show us the parts of the report that support your position? it's public record right? Convince us. . . show us that the whole administration was honest and forthright with ALL the intel they had? Why won't you? BECAUSE YOU CAN'T. You say it's there, prove it. and Finally, TO PABLO : You are citing a 2003 news article of an allied British official's statement to C N N as proof ? ? dude, read deeper: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/mar/08/nuclear.iraq http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3056626.stm stating: "Doubts about a claim that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from the African state of Niger were aired 10 months before Mr Bush included the allegation in his key State of the Union address this year, a CIA official has told the BBC." TO CCG: Nail, Head, 'Nuff said. It was real and it was fun, but I am gonna go talk to some independents who are not as hypnotized by the right as you guys are. At least they listen . . . and read. . .

Posted by: Phil at June 12, 2008 01:26 PM (e9onF)

20 PS - You guys already know who you are voting for anyway. . . please stay in here and keep your (lack of) sources to yourselves!

Posted by: Phil at June 12, 2008 01:28 PM (e9onF)

21 my comment was removed because it was too long. If you care or want to read it, email me. meyerlaw924@gmail.com

Posted by: Phil at June 12, 2008 02:01 PM (e9onF)

22 You guys aren't paying attention. That's what you are best at. . . Read deeper, look harder, try to shed your red-state goggles and maybe you will actually learn something. First, to Dave P: 1) If you are trying to say the democratic senators who voted for war, knew what bush knew, that is false. Hadley had the dissent of the CIA; the NIE did not include the dissents. (Which turned out to be correct, by the way?) 2) The 600,000 number comes from a Study at Johns Hopkins U. Refute it with the level of sources they have, and I will listen to you. 3) Your reference to death tolls and Nazis is quaint but irrelevant to the issue. We were not going to Iraq to depose a horrible dictator who was a bad guy like Saddam, we were marketed the idea that there was an imminent threat to our safety, which has been proven false and was known to be false by Bush & Co at the time. Don't Change the purpose of the invasion after the fact, like Bush had to when it was proven he was wrong. You are just obfuscating and changing the subject to hide your equivocal argument. Hitler's menace was real, you canÂ’t retro-fit the argument to make your side correct because Hitler was bad, and so was Saddam, therefore we had to get Saddam just like we got Hitler. There is no argument against American intervention in Europe, so don't put words in my mouth. You cannot conflate the two into one sound reasoning to invade Iraq. It is intellectually dishonest. PS it was National Socialism, not Socialism. National Socialism was fascism, which is what the executive branch under bush has become. SEE: Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - fas•cism /ˈfæʃɪzəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[fash-iz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1. (sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism. Sound familiar? 4) The story about Clinton having the opportunity to get Osama bin Laden has been disproved. DO you even know the story about it? The "Source" was a Sudanese official, here, I will just paste one source, http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_bill_clinton_pass_up_a_chance_1.html try using sources sometime, it helps your credibility. Oh, and after you criticize my source, I'll just go find another one. . . but, I am pretty sure Fox News will not have it. What is not excusable is the fact that when Clinton wanted to make a strike against Osama, the information on his whereabouts was withheld from him. AND That Condoleezza Rice was told that Al-Qaeda would be the most important threat facing America by the out-going Clinton administration. They ignored the threat, did not even convene a meeting on the threat of Al-Qaeda until September 10, 2001. So no, Clinton was not at fault for 9-11. Bush was. End of story. Bush was too worried about missile defense, in fact, Condi was going to deliver a speech about missile defense on 9-11 but obviously could not, why hasn't the text of that speech been released? Because we don't need the terrorists to know how far up their arses the Bushies had their heads! 5) As far as the "certain type" you say I am? I beg to differ. How dare you question my knowledge of freedom, war and the world? Only a juvenile or preteen would accuse another adult of such . . . use sources, saying "You're Wrong cuz I said so!” is juvenile and pre-teen . . . that's all you have done. . You have used ZERO sources. You use the same ad hominem attacks that will be flying around the internet in fake attack emails from now until November. You don't have facts on your side, so you lie. Back up your positions. Until then, I will continue to pity you. As far as a self-centered world view, you are way off. I speak several languages, have a doctorate, have traveled extensively and have friends from the Deep South to the other hemisphere. I believe yours is the view that thinks Bush is right no matter what. Don't use sources, oh no. . . . That would be dangerous, but "Bush is right" and damn the torpedoes . . . deny the photos, the insider accounts, the mounting evidence of criminal activity . . . that's a self- centered world view.

Posted by: Phil at June 12, 2008 02:02 PM (e9onF)

23 TO JEC: Putting up, not shutting up! Now you do the same! To Ilya: Yes, it was reckless to invade. Saddam posed no threat. He was shut down with two no-fly zones. He could do us no harm. That's why the Bushes had to conflate 9-11 and Iraq. Which they did ad nauseum. Then, when that link failed, they had to find another reason for the invasion, after the fact. Withdrawal will be difficult, but no doubt, as soon as a demo is the president, everything that bush did will be that new president's fault. TO Foxfier: Here are my "Facts" Whether it is 650,000, 150,000 or 900,000, it was too many. Michelle Malkin is not a source. But, your using her as a source probably qualifies as an ad hominem attack. Check out http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_casualties_of_the_Iraq_War I use the Wikipedia link only because it has the links to several pro and con positions . . . whether it is 150,000 or 900,000 Iraqi civilian deaths; it was still an unnecessary tragedy.

Posted by: Phil at June 12, 2008 02:02 PM (e9onF)

24 TO Mark and Matt and C-C-G: You are right, it won't happen for reasons I said above. But sadly, instead of discussing it, CCG has to call me an ultra-wacko. . . CanÂ’t handle the message? Attack the messenger. Although listening to Bush and co is enough to drive one ultra-wacko, I am actually a pretty stable, sane, and intelligent person. So, CCG, if you are going to call me an ultra wacko, let's stick to our rules and CITE SOURCES? As far as showing you the information on why it was wrong at the time, it is already out there. Discredited sources used on mobile labs (Curveball), IAEA scientists rebuffed aluminum tube nuke theory, I will put together a post just for you Mark regarding the weakness of the evidence PRIOR to the invasion and how Bush and Co. massaged the horrific (and false) "intel" to get the vote for war. Stay tuned. CCG, you think Zell Miller is reasonable? Wow. PS Joe Lieberman still caucuses with senate democrats; he is only an independent cuz he lost in the demo primary. So, CCG, you said: "And with the Rockefeller report, as mentioned above, indicating that Bush's statements were supported by the information available at the time, that would give the Dems not just egg on their face, but a whole omelet." Why don't you show us the parts of the report that support your position? ItÂ’s public record right? Convince us . . . show us that the whole administration was honest and forthright with ALL the intel they had? Why won't you? BECAUSE YOU CAN'T. You say it's there, prove it.

Posted by: Phil at June 12, 2008 02:03 PM (e9onF)

25 And Finally, TO PABLO: You are citing a 2003 news article of an allied British official's statement to C N N as proof?? Dude, read deeper: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/mar/08/nuclear.iraq http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3056626.stm stating: "Doubts about a claim that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from the African state of Niger were aired 10 months before Mr Bush included the allegation in his key State of the Union address this year, a CIA official has told the BBC." TO CCG: Nail, Head, 'Nuff said. It was real and it was fun, but I am going to go talk to some independents who are not as hypnotized by the right as you guys are. At least they listen . . . and read. . . Posted by Phil at June 12, 2008 01:18 PM

Posted by: Phil at June 12, 2008 02:03 PM (e9onF)

26 "Bush lied, people died" which part of that is false again?

Posted by: rapid at June 12, 2008 02:19 PM (c7CKN)

27 "Bush lied, people died" which part of that is false again? According to multiple investigations (including those run by partisan Democrats), the part before "people died."

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at June 12, 2008 02:29 PM (hn7Rm)

28 I don't know what investigations you are referring to. Why not enlighten us. Is there such a thing as a "non-partisan republican?" Do the facts discovered change because of who reports those facts? If it is a Republican, you believe it. If it is a Democrat, you don't. That's pretty accurate of the people in here, right?

Posted by: Phil at June 12, 2008 02:55 PM (e9onF)

29 Phil, I'm still waiting for your promised post directed to me: I will put together a post just for you Mark regarding the weakness of the evidence PRIOR to the invasion and how Bush and Co. massaged the horrific (and false) "intel" to get the vote for war. Stay tuned. Please do post and I'll be happy to respond in kind.

Posted by: Mark at June 12, 2008 04:49 PM (4od5C)

30 Phil, would you accept the word of the Washington Post (no fan of the war)? But dive into Rockefeller's report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find. ad_icon On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates." On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information." On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information." On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information." Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence." Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information." I am still looking for the actual text of the report online, but that should give you a start on spinning.

Posted by: C-C-G at June 12, 2008 06:16 PM (X5vKa)

31 Aha, found the report, Phil (it's right here, as a .pdf file). 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. I'd love to see that record read on all the major networks as part of live coverage of the President's impeachment, wouldn't you?

Posted by: C-C-G at June 12, 2008 06:38 PM (X5vKa)

32 C-C-G, C-C-G, C-C-G... When will you ever learn that for dweebs like Phil, the glass is never half-full, it's completely empty. Even when you spill water all over your shirt... There's more than enough mistakes made during and after the Iraq invasion to occupy West Point for the next quarter-century. Take Paul Bremer, for example. Or the lackwitted shouldering-aside of community authorities such as the local sheiks, or the earlier (idiotic) "Lone-Ranger clear and leave" strategy. I won't even mention endemic Mid-East corruption in government. But dinks like Phil will continue to tilt at their phantastic windmills, just because it validates their mindless pointy-headed beliefs. Now. If y'all want to get into a mature, serious "lessons learned" with respect to Iraq, I'm your boy...

Posted by: Casey at June 13, 2008 02:58 AM (RJSy/)

33 Casey, I do not argue that Iraq has been well-run by the Pentagon. In point of fact, there have been blunders in every war in history... the Battle of the Bulge, in fact, was the result of numerous errors by the Allies. My only argument regarding that is that making mistakes doesn't automatically make what you're attempting to do a Bad Thing.

Posted by: C-C-G at June 13, 2008 08:05 AM (X5vKa)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

The sad story out of Columbia, SC, is an example of why I find some methods of carrying concealed completely unacceptable:

A 4-year-old girl grabbed her grandmother's gun and shot herself at a Sam's Club store in Columbia, S.C., authorities said.

Police Department spokesman Brick Lewis said the child took the gun from her grandmother's purse Monday and shot herself in the chest.

He said the child's grandmother has a valid permit to carry a concealed weapon. She has not been charged with a crime.

While I'm sure to have folks disagree on this point, I simply don't find off-body carry to be responsible. If you have your carry weapon in a purse or a bag, you put yourself in a situation where you will, during the course of your day, willingly relinquish control of your weapon numerous times. No person on this planet keeps a purse, bag, or briefcase in hand at all times, often placing it in a seat, shopping cart, on a desk, etc.

For unarmed people this is not an issue; shoplifters, purse-snatchers, and other thieves aren't rampant at our homes or places of work, and the very worst that can occur as a result of someone else accessing a bag or case is identity theft. For those who chose to carry a firearm, you should be held to a higher standard of responsibility, and when you carry off-body in a bag, you create a situation where unauthorized access arms curious children or thieves with a lethal weapon.

Frankly, the grandmother in this case should be charged for criminal negligence (or something similar) and have her carry permit revoked. She knew she was going to be around small children, and apparently left a lethal weapon unsecured in a purse in a shopping cart with a small child.

I'm glad that the child looks like she will recover, but Grandma should not be allowed to make such an irresponsible mistake again, and I'd urge my fellow CCH holders to carry on your person, or not carry at all.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:28 AM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 353 words, total size 2 kb.

Though I doubt it helps her much.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 04:33 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 17 words, total size 1 kb.

At least manbearpig is falsely credited with creating something of value.

Obama? Not so much.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:35 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 29 words, total size 1 kb.

That is the subtext, oui?

Joyce Susick is the type of voter who might carry Barack Obama to the White House — or keep him out. A registered Democrat in a highly competitive state, she is eager to replace George W. Bush, whom she ranks among the worst presidents ever.

There's just one problem.

"I don't think our country is ready for a black president," Susick, who is white, said in an interview in the paint store where she works. "A black man is never going to win Pennsylvania."

Susick said her personal objection to Obama is his inexperience, not his color. "It has nothing to do with race," she said.

Obama has national political experience that is dwarfed by that of Dan Quayle, a resume devoid of leadership experience, economic policies that look like they were designed by Jack Kevorkian, and a collection of friends and associates better viewed by a grand jury than an electorate, but the media wants you to think that only your inherent racism is keeping you from voting from him.

Why, you don't even know how racist you are.

Many voters hide their feelings from pollsters and it is possible that some do not even realize race's influence on their behavior.

You might even be racist and senile.

Robert Miller, 72, who lives in a government subsidized room in Bedford, said the Constitution should be amended so it will "not let any colored people run for the White House." He seemed unsure about his voting record in recent elections, but vividly recalled voting for Dwight Eisenhower in 1956.

You may not recognize the symptoms, folks, but you know the cure: vote Obama.

Update: Carol Platt Liebau discusses the meme.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:14 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 305 words, total size 2 kb.

Over the course of the weekend my comment sections on several posts was hit by anti-McCain comments (summarily deleted) that appear to be astroturfed, claiming that McCain's actions during his imprisonment and torture at the hands of the North Vietnamese was dishonorable, echoing a theme that his drawing disability pay for lingering injuries resulting from his torture was dishonorable (and apparently sinfully unattractive to at least one key Obama-supporting blogger).

After a 2004 campaign in which Democrats were first to play up the service of one Vietnam veteran, they are now lurching back towards the more familiar ground of spitting upon them. We should expect more of this.

This morning I was sent a chain email (origins murky and unknown, but based upon stilted syntax and racial overtones, I'll suggest it originated from a Clinton supporter prior to Obama's clinching of the nomination), including pictures of Obama's African relatives as the new "First Family."

It included pictures of his Kenyan grandmother, Sarah Hussein Onyango Obama, Obama's stepmother Kezia, half-bother Abongo, half-brother Malik, his father, Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., and other unidentified African family members.

The email mentions (but doesn't show a picture) of Raila Odinga, Prime Minister of Kenya who claims to be Barack Obama's cousin. The email claims that Odinga signed a 'Shariah pact' with Kenyan Muslims (disputed) and that Odinga's son was named after Fidel Casto (fact).

It mentions Barack Sr. was born and buried a Muslim.

It also alludes to the Democratic frontrunner as literally being a bastard, as Barack Sr. never divorced his first wife, and also the candidate's parents took part in shotgun wedding, citing Barack Jr. in his autobiography as saying, "How and when the marriage occurred remains a bit murky, a bill of particulars that I have never quite had the courage to explore."

Having not read the book, I cannot verify if that quote is accurate, but all of the other claims are apparently undisputed in Obama's Wikipedia bio. Facts or not, these are irrelevant cheap shots, as if the candidate had a say in the matter of when he was born, or under what conditions.

It also claimed that Abongo "Roy" Obama, the candidate's half-brother, is a militant Muslim, and cites Barack's book (it didn't say which book) as saying the black man must "liberate himself from the poisoning influences of European culture," claims also published to little fanfare.

Neither of these lines of attack—on McCain's shattered teeth and other abuse in the Hanoi Hilton, or on Obama's origins and distant African relatives—are libel to convince any voters to change their minds, but it does seem to show that the 2008 general election is going to be one of the nastiest Presidential elections yet.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:32 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 463 words, total size 3 kb.

Fred Kagan, via Instapundit:

For any voter trying to choose between the two candidates for commander in chief, there is no better test than this: When American strategy in a critical theater was up for grabs, John McCain proposed a highly unpopular and risky path, which he accurately predicted could lead to success. Barack Obama proposed a popular and politically safe route that would have led to an unnecessary and debilitating American defeat at the hands of al Qaeda.

The two men brought different backgrounds to the test, of course. In January 2007, McCain had been a senator for 10 years and had served in the military for 23 years. Obama had been a senator for 2 years and before that was a state legislator, lawyer, and community organizer. But neither presidential candidates nor the commander in chief gets to choose the tests that history brings. Once in office, the one elected must perform.

You can have at the helm a President who have seen the worst of human nature, survived it and thrived, or a man who has never led anything as consequential as a Cub Scout troop.

There is a truism among small arms trainers that you will not rise to the occasion when the fecal matter hits the fan, but you will default to your level of training.

Precisely what is Barack Obama prepared for?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:26 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 248 words, total size 2 kb.

I can think of no better words to describe the unrepentant man-love Mark Morford gushes forth with regarding ObamaMessiah:

Many spiritually advanced people I know (not coweringly religious, mind you, but deeply spiritual) identify Obama as a Lightworker, that rare kind of attuned being who has the ability to lead us not merely to new foreign policies or health care plans or whatnot, but who can actually help usher in a new way of being on the planet, of relating and connecting and engaging with this bizarre earthly experiment. These kinds of people actually help us evolve. They are philosophers and peacemakers of a very high order, and they speak not just to reason or emotion, but to the soul.

The unusual thing is, true Lightworkers almost never appear on such a brutal, spiritually demeaning stage as national politics. This is why Obama is so rare. And this why he is so often compared to Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr., to those leaders in our culture whose stirring vibrations still resonate throughout our short history.

Wow. Most adults can at least fake objectivity (or make their fandom more opaque) when discussing politicians, but Morford is merely one of an embarrassing string of media figures giddily in love with the idea of being in love with their idol. He is incapable of addressing Obama as the quite flawed human man that the is. Barack Obama is far from being a "Lightworker" whatever that is, and as his associations with various pastors and priests have made clear, he'd prefer to be a "Darkworker," thank you very much and pass the Black Liberation Theology.

In reality, far from being the antidote to George W. Bush, Barack H. Obama is far closer to being the flip side of the more corroded parts of the very same coin.

Smug. Arrogant. Stupid. Unerringly Partisan. These are some of the more choice (and publicly repeatable) words of critics directed at George W. Bush.

Often used to describe the sitting two-term President's personality, up-bringing, detachment, and cocksure certainty, words such as "smug" and "stupid" and others like them apply equally well to the new Democratic President candidate, even though he has yet to complete a single term in office on the national stage.

Ivy-League educated with admitted substance abuse in their younger, more intemperate days, Barack Obama and George Bush have far more in common than either man would like to admit. Bush is viewed as out-of-touch for his family's wealth and dynastic political successes; Obama for his Hyde Park liberal elitism and association with a string of America-damning radicals and cadre of domestic terrorists.

Both men deliver prepared speeches (Bush adequately, Obama eloquently), but both gaffe frequently when forced off-script. Bush mangles syntax with reckless abandon; Obama mangles history (including his own) with feckless disregard for the facts.

Bush and Obama are both exceedingly stubborn men, and will not change policy viewpoints, even though emerging realities render their positions comically obsolete. The "surge" in Iraq bookends this commonality. For years Bush refused to acknowledge a new strategy and tactics were needed in the war, while in 15 months since the surge was implemented, Obama has resolutely refused to acknowledge that the new strategy and tactics have worked. Neither man will admit that his position was at fault. Their egos are too large.

Before winning office in 2000, George W. Bush created a record as Governor of Texas as someone who was capable of bridging the partisan divide between Democrats and Republicans. That bipartisanship did not survive the brutal politics of Washington D.C. Barack Obama's campaign has attempted the impossible stunt portraying him as "post-partisan," a candidate beyond political parties. Morford is one of many who are eager to brush aside reality to embrace that comforting fable, but nothing in Obama's record supports that construct.

Obama, in his short political career, has actually established a clear record of either abdicating responsibility (voting "present" time and again), or of taking radically liberal partisan positions, in every level of government in which he has ever served. It is no accident that the National Journal listed him as the Most Liberal U.S. Senator, even to the left of Socialist Bernie Sanders. Barack Obama is not bi-partisan. He is radically polarized when engaged, and out of touch the rest of the time, a near-perfect mirror image of everything liberals claim to hate about George W. Bush.

But Mark Morford can't see that. More importantly, he won't see it. Having poisoned himself with hatred against our sitting President, he creates an illusion where Obama is the antidote to Bush, when instead he is hair of the dog.

Jesus wouldn't support watching babies die, even in San Francisco. Only someone of far darker values would find holiness there, in the place where Morford worships a false idol as a god.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:38 PM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 813 words, total size 5 kb.

[Repost]

"Be Seated."

"Men, this stuff we hear about America wanting to stay out of the war, not wanting to fight, is a lot of bullshit. Americans love to fight - traditionally. All real Americans love the sting and clash of battle. When you were kids, you all admired the champion marble player; the fastest runner; the big league ball players; the toughest boxers. Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser. Americans despise cowards. Americans play to win - all the time. I wouldn't give a hoot in hell for a man who lost and laughed. That's why Americans have never lost, not ever will lose a war, for the very thought of losing is hateful to an American."

"You are not all going to die. Only two percent of you here today would die in a major battle. Death must not be feared. Every man is frightened at first in battle. If he says he isn't, he's a goddamn liar. Some men are cowards, yes! But they fight just the same, or get the hell shamed out of them watching men who do fight who are just as scared. The real hero is the man who fights even though he is scared. Some get over their fright in a minute under fire, some take an hour. For some it takes days. But the real man never lets fear of death overpower his honor, his sense of duty to this country and his innate manhood."

"All through your army career you men have bitched about "This chickenshit drilling." That is all for a purpose. Drilling and discipline must be maintained in any army if for only one reason -- INSTANT OBEDIENCE TO ORDERS AND TO CREATE CONSTANT ALERTNESS. I don't give a damn for a man who is not always on his toes. You men are veterans or you wouldn't be here. You are ready. A man to continue breathing must be alert at all times. If not, sometime a German son-of-a-bitch will sneak up behind him and beat him to death with a sock full of shit."

"There are 400 neatly marked graves somewhere in Sicily all because one man went to sleep on his job -- but they were German graves for we caught the bastard asleep before his officers did. An Army is a team. Lives, sleeps, eats, fights as a team. This individual heroic stuff is a lot of crap. The bilious bastards who wrote that kind of stuff for the Saturday Evening Post don't know any more about real fighting, under fire, than they do about fucking. We have the best food, the finest equipment, the best spirit and the best fighting men in the world. Why, by God, I actually pity these poor sons-of-bitches we are going up against. By God, I do!"

"My men don't surrender. I don't want to hear of any soldier under my command being captured unless he is hit. Even if you are hit, you can still fight. That's not just bullshit, either. The kind of man I want under me is like the lieutenant in Libya, who, with a Lugar against his chest, jerked off his helmet, swept the gun aside with one hand and busted hell out of the Boche with the helmet. Then he jumped on the gun and went out and killed another German: All this with a bullet through his lung. That's a man for you."

"All real heroes are not story book combat fighters either. Every man in the army plays a vital part. Every little job is essential. Don't ever let down, thinking your role is unimportant. Every man has a job to do. Every man is a link in the great chain. What if every truck driver decided that he didn't like the whine of the shells overhead, turned yellow and jumped headlong into the ditch? He could say to himself, "They won't miss me -- just one in thousands." What if every man said that? Where in hell would we be now? No, thank God, Americans don't say that! Every man does his job; every man serves the whole. Every department, every unit, is important to the vast scheme of things. The Ordnance men are needed to supply the guns, the Quartermaster to bring up the food and clothes to us -- for where we're going there isn't a hell of a lot to steal. Every last man in the mess hall, even the one who heats the water to keep us from getting the GI shits has a job to do. Even the chaplain is important, for if we get killed and if he is not there to bury us we'd all go to hell."

"Each man must not only think of himself, but of his buddy fighting beside him. We don't want yellow cowards in this army. They should all be killed off like flies. If not they will go back home after the war and breed more cowards. The brave men will breed brave men. Kill off the goddamn cowards and we'll have a nation of brave men."

"One of the bravest men I ever saw in the African campaign was the fellow I saw on top of a telegraph pole in the midst of furious fire while we were plowing toward Tunis. I stopped and asked what the hell he was doing up there at that time. He answered, "Fixing the wire, sir." "Isn't it a little unhealthy right now?," I asked. "Yes sir, but this goddamn wire's got to be fixed." There was a real soldier. There was a man who devoted all he had to his duty, no matter how great the odds, no matter how seemingly insignificant his duty might appear at the time."

"You should have seen those trucks on the road to Gabes. The drivers were magnificent. All day and all night they rolled over those son-of-a-bitching roads, never stopping, never faltering from their course, with shells bursting around them all the time. We got through on good old American guts. Many of these men drove over forty consecutive hours. These weren't combat men. But they were soldiers with a job to do. They did it -- and in a whale of a way they did it. They were part of a team. Without them the fight would have been lost. All the links in the chain pulled together and that chain became unbreakable."

"Don't forget, you don't know I'm here. No word of the fact is to be mentioned in any letters. The world is not supposed to know what the hell became of me. I'm not supposed to be commanding this Army. I'm not even supposed to be in England. Let the first bastards to find out be the goddamn Germans. Someday I want them to raise up on their hind legs and howl, 'Jesus Christ, it's the goddamn Third Army and that son-of-a-bitch Patton again.'"

"We want to get the hell over there. We want to get over there and clear the goddamn thing up. You can't win a war lying down. The quicker we clean up this goddamn mess, the quicker we can take a jaunt against the purple pissing Japs an clean their nest out too, before the Marines get all the goddamn credit."

"Sure, we all want to be home. We want this thing over with. The quickest way to get it over is to get the bastards. The quicker they are whipped, the quicker we go home. The shortest way home is through Berlin. When a man is lying in a shell hole, if he just stays there all day, a Boche will get him eventually, and the hell with that idea. The hell with taking it. My men don't dig foxholes. I don't want them to. Foxholes only slow up an offensive. Keep moving. And don't give the enemy time to dig one. We'll win this war but we'll win it only by fighting and by showing the Germans we've got more guts than they have."

"There is one great thing you men will all be able to say when you go home. You may thank God for it. Thank God, that at least, thirty years from now, when you are sitting around the fireside with your grandson on your knees, and he asks you what you did in the great war, you won't have to cough and say, 'I shoveled shit in Louisiana.' No, Sir, you can look him straight in the eye and say, 'Son, your Granddaddy rode with the Great Third Army and a Son-of-a-Goddamned-Bitch named George Patton!'"

"That is all."

God Bless the veterans of the Great Crusade launched on this day in Normandy, France in 1944, and the soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen that today carry on that same fighting spirit.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:02 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 1500 words, total size 8 kb.