The rest of the world already knows Barack Obama's running mate is Joe Biden.

It's rather sad, really. Back on August 10, David Plouffe, Barak Obama's Campaign Manager, promised in an email to supporters that they could, "Be the first to know who Barack selects as his running mate."

Obama for America

Dear xxxxxxx --

Be the First to Know Barack Obama is about to make one of the most important decisions of this campaign -- choosing a running mate.

You have helped build this movement from the bottom up, and Barack wants you to be the first to know his choice.

Sign up today to be the first to know:

http://my.barackobama.com/vp

You will receive an email the moment Barack makes his decision, or you can text VP to 62262 to receive a text message on your mobile phone.

Once you've signed up, please forward this email to your friends, family, and coworkers to let them know about this special opportunity.

No other campaign has done this before. You can be part of this important moment.

Be the first to know who Barack selects as his running mate.

Thanks,

David

David Plouffe
Campaign Manager
Obama for America

But the email and text message quite obviously didn't come to them first as the campaign promised.

If Barackophiles went to FoxNews.com, or CNN, or the NY Times instead of signing up for a silly little text message to be delivered sometime tomorrow morning, they would already know Biden is Obama's pick.

It's got to be disappointing when you discover that the candidate you helped elect into office lied to you. It must be worse to find out he's lying to you, when he hasn't even nailed down the nomination yet.

Disappointment? Buyer's Remorse? Disillusionment?

Check.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:13 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 317 words, total size 2 kb.

And you thought it was over...

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:51 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 10 words, total size 1 kb.

So, you thought that the validation of Barack Obama's printed, notarized birth certificate by FactCheck.org would be enough to shut down the Obama Truth Movement^TM (OTM)?

Guess again, suckers. A PUMA is suing to stop Obama's nomination:

In the lawsuit, Berg states that Sen. Obama was born in Kenya, and not in Hawaii as the senator maintains. Before giving birth, according to the lawsuit, Obama's mother traveled to Kenya with his father but was prevented from flying back to Hawaii because of the late stage of her pregnancy, "apparently a normal restriction to avoid births during a flight." As Sen. Obama's own paternal grandmother, half-brother and half-sister have also claimed, Berg maintains that Stanley Ann Dunham--Obama's mother--gave birth to little Barack in Kenya and subsequently flew to Hawaii to register the birth.

Berg cites inconsistent accounts of Sen. Obama's birth, including reports that he was born at two separate hospitals--Kapiolani Hospital and Queens Hospital--in Honolulu, as well a profound lack of birthing records for Stanley Ann Dunham, though simple "registry of birth" records for Barack Obama are available in a Hawaiian public records office.

And just so we're clear here: this latest attempt to disqualify Barack Obama is fratricide—sniping done by Hillary Clinton supporters loyal to the Democratic Party, and not by Republicans.

Just like the rumors of a Michelle Obama "whitey" tape.

Just like attempts to claim Obama never registered for the Selective Service.

Just like an attempt to claim Obama is a Muslim, and an Indonesian ineligible for executive office, because of what his step-father wrote on a school registration form when he was a child.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:24 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 282 words, total size 2 kb.

Simple, direct, and to the point.

Ben Smith at the Politico really disgraces himself by trying to start the meme that the ad tries to smear Obama as a Muslim and Muslims as de facto terrorists.

Uh, Ben? Bill Ayers—Barack's buddy of more than two decades—is not a Muslim.

Nice try there, Bucket, but you can't carry the water on this one.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 04:34 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 96 words, total size 1 kb.

University of Iowa political science professor Arthur Miller, accused of trying to trade amateur mammography for grades, has gone armed and missing:

Officers are walking Hickory Hill Park, a 185-acre wooded park in northeast Iowa City, through the rain to see if they can find Arthur Miller, a 66-year-old political science professor who was last heard from Tuesday morning.

Police believe Miller has a high-powered rifle and intends to harm himself. There is no evidence he wants to harm others, police said, but the park is still closed and nearby residents have been warned not to linger in their yards.

Miller's cell phone, wallet and ammunition were found in his car, located outside the park Wednesday morning.

It sounds like the authorities expect a suicide, which, considering the public embarrassment and potential of a lengthy prison sentence, isn't all that surprising.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:47 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 149 words, total size 1 kb.

Anyone the least bit familiar with Barack Obama's rise to power knows "hope" and "change" are just words; he's built his career the old-fashioned way, by making powerful allies and casting those no longer useful to him aside.

It is those same business-as-usual allies in Chicago that are now protecting Obama from deeper scrutiny of his 21-year relationship with the Ayers family, specifically his involvement in the Chicago Annenberg Challenge with infamous domestic terrorist Bill Ayers.

At the moment the internal documents for the Chicago Annenberg Challenge are in a special collection at the Richard J. Daley Library. Think they'll ever see the light of day?

As the Chicago Tribune's John Kass put it:

The relationship between the ambitious Obama and the unrepentant Ayers is a subject that excites Republicans, who haven't really thwacked that pinata as hard as they might. It really irritates Obama and his political champion, Chicago's sovereign lord, Mayor Richard M. Daley.

"This is a public entity," Kurtz told us Wednesday. "I don't understand how confidentiality of the donor would be an issue."

You don't understand, Mr. Kurtz? Allow me to explain. The secret is hidden in the name of the library:

The Richard J. Daley Library.

Eureka!

The Richard J. Daley Library doesn't want nobody nobody sent. And Richard J.'s son, Shortshanks, is now the mayor.

Kurtz can forget about getting his hands on those documents in any useful form, and the only way they'll come to light before November is if the mainstream media starts to get irate that Obama is abusing their love for him one again. Even if that were to happen, odds are that any documents released would be "sanitized" to remove embarrassing or incriminating information. The Chicago political machine, if anything, is a wood chipper.

Not all the Chicago Annenberg Challenge documents were buried, however. At least until a few managed to slip out before the door was slammed. Those documents that have been uncovered seem to indicate Barack Obama was a spectacularly incompetent chairman, blowing through tens of millions of dollars of grant money with little or nothing to show for it.

Well, that's not entirely true.

At least $175,000 was funneled to Ayers friend, SDS radical, Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist) (CPML) chairman and Barack Obama supporter Mike Klonsky's Small School Workshop. For a man who gripes about corporate handouts, it seems quite possible that Obama and Ayers may have used Annenberg Foundation grants as a form of welfare for radicals.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:53 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 425 words, total size 3 kb.

I heard an audio clip purporting to be Barack Obama's argument again the Born Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIPA) last night, but wasn't 100% sure that the audio is Obama.

Ed Morrissey notes that Guy Benson was able to dig up the Illinois legislature transcripts featuring Obama's arguments against BAIPA, and then Ed proceeds to take Obama's convoluted arguments for infanticide apart.

This passage is really remarkable for the willfully obtuse nature of Obama's arguments. By the time this debate took place, Jill Stanek had already revealed that doctors weren't providing medical care to infants born alive during abortions, at Christ Hospital, and a subsequent investigation proved that other abortion providers also abandoned such infants to die. That was the entire reason for the debate. Obama acts as if this is some curious academic hypothesis.

Instead of addressing the actual issue of infanticide, Obama twists it into a protection for abortion. He frames his own hypothetical as an abortion "for the health of the mother", but the circumstances of the mother's health has no bearing at all on whether a live infant should receive medical care. How would treating a live infant threaten the health of the mother?

Obviously, there is no physical connection between the care of the live baby and that of the mother once the baby has been born. This seems to leave us with just two options.

(1). Either Barack Obama is such a rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth left wing ideologue that he blinded himself to the fact that the Born Alive Infant Protection Act was not about the abortion rights of the mother, but the right to life-saving medical care for the living human baby, or;

(2). He was well aware of what the bill was about, and coldly chose for infanticide, not once, not twice, but on three separate votes for reasons he either cannot explain or will not explain to avoid being viewed as a monster.

As a man who coldly stated that he would see his own grandchild aborted because he wouldn't want his daughters "punished with a baby" as the result of an unplanned pregnancy, anything is possible.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:13 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 365 words, total size 3 kb.

Ed Freeman, a helicopter pilot that flew fourteen missions into a hot landing zone to re-supply the 7th Cavalry and evacuate wounded soldiers in the Ia Drang Valley, has died at 80.

Check out Argghhh! for more.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:26 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 51 words, total size 1 kb.

We know from prior experience that probing or corrective comments aren't appreciated by ABC's investigative blog The Blotter. Those comments that are "problematic,"—asking the journalists to correct shoddy research is one recurring example—disappear rather quickly.

That same fine tradition of "disappearing" comments is also now a proven tactic of the fine ABC News folks who monitor Jake Tapper's comments (I'll give Tapper himself the benefit of the doubt for now).

In the post where Tapper notes that Obama and McCain are playing hardball I left the following at 10:43:48,and immediately did a screen capture (Full text below image).

Barack Obama has been deeply involved with the entire Ayers clan--proud terrorist Bill, brother John, lefist lawyer dad Thomas--since 1987.

That's 21 years.

That's as long or longer than he's been with the Black Panther-inspired teachings of Black Liberation Theology screamed weekly from the pulpit of AIDS conspiracy-monger Jeremiah Wright.

That's as long or longer than he's called lynching advocate Michael Fleger his mentor and friend.

So please tell us, Barack Obama, why you have such deep ties with an unashamed terrorist that belonged to a group that that bombed federal buildings, committed armed robberies and murders, and even planned to slaughter innocents at a non-commissioned officers dance at Fort Dix, had Ayer's girlfriend not screwed up making the pipe bombs to be used in the attack, blowing herself to bits instead.

Please tell us, Barack Obama, how you could sit on the board of the Woods Fund, the Chicago Public Education Fund, the ABCs Coalition, etc with Ayers, and be comfortable in the company of a terrorist.

Tell us why you chose to start your political career at the home of one of your oldest allies, a man who once proudly declared war on the United States, and took up arms against it.

We're all ears.

Here are the two posts that came before and after my 10:43:48 comment that was deleted by an ABC News employee, as if it never appeared at all.

It's one thing to delete comments that are profane, trolling, personal attacks, or off-topic. Deleting a comment that lays out a compelling case for a more extensive investigation of the multi-decade relationship between a Presidential candidate and a terrorist?

That's partisan censorship of the most biased kind.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:21 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 394 words, total size 3 kb.

Sad, sad news... one of Barack Obama's "lost" half-brothers has be discovered living in a hut in a shantytown on the fringes of Nairobi.

We can't expect presidential candidate Barack Obama to support all the children his father sired around the world, but luckily, with the Obama Family Fund, there is something you can do:

For less than a dollar a day, you, too, can help sponsor an Obama.

You can help save Obama School. Senator Obama Kogelo Secondary School is a Kenyan School named after the Illinois Senator, and one the Senator promised to support...though apparently only in spirit.

Save Senator Obama Kogelo Secondary School is a non-profit created by USAF veteran, Kenyan-American milblogger Juliette "Baldilocks" Ochieng.

Help her keep his promise. Its the only thing associated with the name "Obama" really worth giving money too.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:07 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 164 words, total size 2 kb.

Britain's Channel 4 did a longish (9:21) but well-researched expose on who Barack Obama really is; a typical Chicago Machine politician.

(h/t Obama's Con)

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:46 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 30 words, total size 1 kb.

1 A new definition of "post-partisan" politics

Posted by: Neo at August 20, 2008 07:56 PM (Yozw9)

2 Great. The Brits do an expose on an American nominee for the Presidency before the Americans do.

Posted by: Donna at August 20, 2008 08:37 PM (ibNfa)

3 "Great. The Brits do an expose on an American nominee for the Presidency before the Americans do. Posted by: Donna " How do you think Americans learned about Whitewater, Dan Lassiter's Arkansas Airforce, etc., etc., etc.? Rush and Drudge spread the word, but Brits and Isrealis did the investigative reporting. It certainly didn't come from the MSM! They got dragged into reporting it kicking and screaming, after public outcry about the coverups! i used to bring printouts of foreign news stories from the internet and leave them on the lunch table at work. People asked my where I got this information and why wasn't it in the local newspaper? "i don't know, why don't you ask the editor?"

Posted by: Ojiisan at August 20, 2008 08:55 PM (VAgJS)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

The Barack Obama Campaign is fighting back hard against charges that the candidate supporters what amounts to infanticide with a series of votes in the Illinois State Senate.

CBN News Senior National Correspondent David Brody has been in the thick of the controversy and provides a very balanced account of the "he said, she said" going on between the Obama camp and National Right to Life committee.

Having read both arguments, I tend to side with NRLC as being the more truthful.

Perhaps I'm being overly simplistic, but if Stanek is correct, and they have to issue both a birth and a death certificate for the child, Mr. Obama, it isn't an abortion. It's infanticide.

The campaign, in attempting to defend its candidate, has used his daughters as elementary-aged human shields:

The suggestion that Obama – the proud father of two little girls – and others who opposed these bills supported infanticide is deeply offensive and insulting.

Brody even seems to buy into that argument.

Obama is a father of two young girls. You can bet that attacks like that will get him or any father riled up. That language seems to be way over the top. His critics can paint him as a pro-choice liberal. That's fair but to go any further is really beyond the pale. Is Obama really sinister, a monster? That narrative may fly in some conservative circles and in chat rooms but most Americans won't buy it.

Perhaps Mr. Brody needs to be reminded of the words he quoted coming out of Mr. Obama's mouth in March.

"When it comes specifically to HIV/AIDS, the most important prevention is education, which should include -- which should include abstinence education and teaching the children -- teaching children, you know, that sex is not something casual. But it should also include -- it should also include other, you know, information about contraception because, look, I've got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at the age of 16. You know, so it doesn't make sense to not give them information."

"I don't want them punished with a baby."

Barack Obama is a very wealthy man by any measure, quite capable of raising any grandchild that would result from a daughter's accidental pregnancy. That he would so casually call his own grandchild a "punishment" worth eradicating is certainly the sign of a monster in my eyes.

Your opinion may differ, but it seems to me that a man who could so casually announce that he would support—no, advocate—the killing of his own grandchild to get rid of an inconvenience, a "punishment," is certainly the kind of monster who can hear a heart-wrenching first-hand account of a nurse holding an uncared-for abortion survivor until the baby died, and still be opposed to stopping such inhumanity not just once, but on multiple occasions.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:24 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 529 words, total size 4 kb.

You've got to be kidding me:

The attack on Camp Salerno in Khost Province was one of the most complex attacks seen so far in Afghanistan with multiple suicide bombers and a backup fighting force that tried to breach defenses on to the airport at the base. It followed a suicide car bombing at the outer entrance to the same base on Monday morning, which killed 12 Afghan workers lining up to enter the base, and another attempted bombing that was thwarted shortly after.

The Taliban claimed responsibility for all three attacks in Khost. Their spokesman, Zabiullah Mujahed, reached by telephone at an unknown location, said that 15 suicide bombers, equipped with machine guns and vests packed with explosives, with 30 militants backing them up, attacked the base, one of the largest foreign military bases in Afghanistan. He claimed that some of the bombers had gotten inside the base and had killed a number of American soldiers and destroyed equipment and helicopters. This last claim was denied by General Azimi of the Afghan military.

Suicide bombers mull about while preparing for an attack against a fortified U.S./Afghan position, receive minimal support in the form of small arms cover fire from a small band of untrained militant irregulars before helicopters chop them to bits, and this is what the Times considers a "complex attack?"

No artillery or mortar support.

No mention of any flanking attack or feints.

No mention of even minimal attempts to camouflage the suicide bombers by disguising them as civilians or base workers or members of the opposite sex.

As a matter of fact, they didn't even manage a straight ahead, mindless assault into interlocking fields of fire. They got spotted well outside the perimeter and got cut to shreds while still 1,000 yards outside the base, and the majority of the Taliban seem to have been killed as they tried to flee. Is it even fair to say they were killed in an attack, when it appears they were blown to bits before the attack began?

Not that I'm singling out the Times for crappy coverage of the attack, The Scotsman account sounds like a Monty Python skit:

NATO troops and Taliban fighters clashed today after a group of the insurgents, backed by suicide bombers, tried to breach the defences of the main US base in south-eastern Afghanistan.

Backed by suicide bombers? I guess that is one way of making sure there will be no retreat.

The attack on the French base, by contrast, had far more deadly ramifications, with 10 French soldiers killed and another 21 wounded, but for the Times to try to inflate the importance or the complexity of the Taliban attack on Camp Salerno beyond the buffonish, ill-advised and utter failure that it was isn't simply bad reporting, but verges on making excuses for the other side.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:06 PM | Comments (30) | Add Comment
Post contains 496 words, total size 3 kb.

1 C'mon, CY! Once you understand the coding of the stories, it's much easier. If the Taliban attack, it's a complex attack (b/c that means that they're able to attack, which means George W. Bush failed us). If it succeeds, it's an offensive, and we're about to lose. If it fails, then the evil Americans shot them in the back as they fled, and that's just not sporting. Haditha and Abu Ghraib all over again! Of course, the code would be different if a Dem were in power.

Posted by: Lurking Observer at August 19, 2008 01:17 PM (QlYAH)

2 The Scotsman account sounds like a Monty Python skit Yes... this one.

Posted by: Russ at August 19, 2008 01:20 PM (5fmXL)

3 Very clever, Lurking Observer

Posted by: ECM at August 19, 2008 01:43 PM (q3V+C)

4 Since the media is actively rooting for the enemy they have to do something

Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at August 19, 2008 03:36 PM (kNqJV)

5 What happened to all the doomsday Iraq coverage in the MSM?

Posted by: Saltine at August 19, 2008 04:15 PM (9v34C)

6 It all depends on the meaning of "complex". 15 suicide bombers? Complex stupidity.

Posted by: Biscuiteater at August 19, 2008 07:31 PM (2JF/+)

7 What really grinds my gears is to hear His Lord High Hopechangeyness, the Obamamessiah (PBUH) spouting how the surge failed and yadda yadda yadda.... It's wearing on me that he keeps saying how there's been no 'reconcilliation' and all the other shytte he's been pushing... I'd really love to see General Patreaus come out and say something publicly like "Oh so sorry Senator 143... It's only been what? Not even 9 months? Aaaaannnnd just what have YOU accomplished in the senate in the same timeframe? Besides becoming the most egocentric, presumptuous and fatuous candidate this side of Caligula? Siddown and Shuddup and let us work."

Posted by: Big Country at August 19, 2008 07:48 PM (niydV)

8 Well, a bungled attack by muddled suicide bombers and "insurgents" probably looks like Omaha Beach to most members of the MSM. Their experience with military strategy amounts to playing "Battleship" when they were kids.

Posted by: Donna at August 19, 2008 08:58 PM (oEqhN)

9 You seem unwilling to refer to the entire statement made in the article: "one of the most complex attacks seen so far in Afghanistan." Why? Are you familiar enough with all the Taliban attacks made over the past few years that you can say with certainty that this is not accurate? If so, please provide the context. PS, you might try finding "military contacts" (I believe that's your term) who can pass along military terminology that doesn't make you look silly repeating it.

Posted by: skylark at August 19, 2008 10:15 PM (B5Q3+)

10 The term "complex attack" is used by both the UNDSS and ANSO in their daily incident reports here in Afghanistan. It means an attack using more than one weapon system (small arms, RPG's, mortars etc..) Under that definition virtually every attack here is a complex attack because of the use of RPG's. I am familiar enough with Taliban attacks over the past four years (I'm also a retired Marine infantry officer) to say without reservation that this was not one of the most complex attacks by the Taliban - about 3 dozen better examples come immediately to mind. If the NY Times had a reporter here worthy of the name they would know that. But it is hard to report on Khost when your hanging at the Gandymack in Kabul enjoying sundowners and hash every evening. Can't expect the poor babies to actually get around and see something for themselves now can we? Nor is it fair to expect that they know anything about the fundamentals or dynamics of military operations...I mean it has been only four years since the first journalist embeds - the "profession" needs time to catch up (I guess?)

Posted by: Baba Tim at August 19, 2008 11:04 PM (hmXME)

11 skylark - You are just another lib who doesn't know enough about military matters to comment intelligently about the post. Wouldn't the smart thing to do be to remain silent until you learn enough to frame and intelligent question instead of making yourself look stupid?

Posted by: daleyrocks at August 19, 2008 11:24 PM (i/fLn)

12 Baba Tim: Thanks very much for the helpful info. However, do you see anything in the article that suggests the NYT meant the term in the more technical way that the UNDDS and ANSO use it? Especially in the sense that if an action is either a "complex attack" or isn't, there could be no such thing as "one of the most complex attacks." For example, here is the way I see the incident discussed in the article: "Taliban insurgents mounted their most serious attacks in six years of fighting in Afghanistan over the last two days, including a coordinated assault by at least 10 suicide bombers against one of the largest American military bases in the country, and another by about 100 insurgents who killed 10 elite French paratroopers." .... "As a result, this year is on pace to be the deadliest in the Afghan war so far , as the insurgent attacks show rising zeal and sophistication. The insurgents are employing not only a growing number of suicide and roadside bombs, but are also waging increasingly well-organized and complex operations using multiple attackers with different types of weapons , NATO officials say." From the rest of your comment, it doesn't seem like you're relying on the technical definition either, but in your opinion it is not one of the more complex - in the sense of sophisticated - attacks over the past several years. I suppose that's arguable. However, the blogger didn't even bother to put it in that much context, did he? By the way, it seems the NYT is not alone in reporting that Taliban fighters are using more "complex" tactics: DoD: Armed Forces Press Release (The Pentagon seems to think the attack on the French qualifies as a "complex attack" in the technical sense.) Stars and Stripes As to whether the NYT reporter is "worthy of the name" or not, I won't judge, but a quick search shows that Ms. Gall's byline appears on over 1300 NYT articles, with nearly 1,000 of them on the war in Afghanistan, dating from November 2001. Before that she was based in the Balkins and wrote for the NYT on the conflicts in that region. (For some reason the system would not let me post a link to the article archives, but if you click on her hypertext byline, you will be taken there.)

Posted by: skylark at August 20, 2008 12:18 AM (B5Q3+)

13 PS to Baba Tim - You didn't go to Servite, did you?

Posted by: skylark at August 20, 2008 12:23 AM (B5Q3+)

14 I doubt that if we lost a battle that handedly,without killing a single enemy combatant, the newspapers would describe it as "bold", "complex", "sophisticated", or "coordinated". ABC called it a "daring attack on a major American installation" It's odd that they use such a positive adjective for such buffoonery. Daring? I suppose it was. But not in the way they mean it. I wonder if the writers even believe the narrative. -Militants launched a bold, highly complex, sophisticated, coordinated, daring attack on a major American installation, in which they totally failed and got gunned down like fools, without killing a single American. But it was bold, darn it.

Posted by: brando at August 20, 2008 12:51 AM (Gs5OS)

15 PS on Carlotta Gall: Looks like she gets around a fair amount. PBS interview

Posted by: skylark at August 20, 2008 02:35 AM (B5Q3+)

16 skylark - Nice try. An appeal to authority? She's written a lot of articles so she must know something? The attack on the french base was complex at least? Try reading for comprehension instead of scorecard keeping and you might do better. CY explicitly differentiates between the two attacks. You still haven't said why you believe the attack with the 10 suicide bombers and 15 people standing around with their thumbs up their butts was complex.

Posted by: daleyrocks at August 20, 2008 07:30 AM (i/fLn)

17 Have you ever tried herding suicide bombers? Its like trying to herd cats. That's complicated stuff.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at August 20, 2008 09:22 AM (6L459)

18 The complexity of an attack is not really the issue, the fact that the attack utterly failed in it's apparent objective is what should really matter. This is just one more example of the MSM's disgust with the US military. The terms they use tell it all as they give all credit to the Taliban and never mention the US Military in a positive light. It does not show any insight or intelligence on the reporters part, just her bias.

Posted by: AlpacaRob at August 20, 2008 10:08 AM (aMBco)

19 In ref to AlpacaRob's post, I'd say we could go a step further: it was their best effort yet, and still failed miserably. I absolutely love it when the Taliban gather in a nice, neat mob so we can gun more of them down before they can do any damage. Thanks for making such an attractive target, boys - keep up the good work.

Posted by: Tim at August 20, 2008 10:33 AM (3Wewy)

20 If only they could understand the complex nature of the 4000 American soldiers who have given their lives for freedom, thankyou.

Posted by: biscuiteater at August 20, 2008 12:06 PM (2JF/+)

21 I see that multiculturalism has made its way into war reportage.

Posted by: tsmonk at August 20, 2008 12:34 PM (PTFqS)

22 The spread was four suicide bombers, no closer than 2,000 yards, and three self inflicted bloody crotches from trigger happy Taleban. The Taleban took the money. For the next clash replace the three bloody crotches with six unplanned defecations and two martyrs from RPGs loaded backwards.

Posted by: Bel Aire at August 20, 2008 09:21 PM (xU01p)

23 daleyrocks- My comment about the reporter was in response to a commenter who made certain observations about NY Times reporters. He is welcome to make up his mind about her qualifications and so are you. I am certain you will take the time to read a few of her articles before you do, dilligent researcher that you are. By the way, you have your facts wrong about the incident and about the fighters. It appears that Bob does too. Long War Journal But that's not so much the point. Bob took a single qualified sentence in the article - that it was one of the most complex attacks seen so far in Afghanistan - and parsed and twisted it so he could lecture us on a false issue. At the same time he had some conventional warfare terms he wanted to throw around, no matter how inapplicable they might be to the question. Plus, hey, they got killed! Another irrelevancy. The question is whether this particular attack qualifies as "one of the most complex seen so far." According to Baba Tim it's debateable. Fair enough, then debate it in the context of what you actually know or are willing to research about the history of the conflict. It seems to me to at least fit within the NATO official's description of attacks that use multiple attackers with different types of weapons (the latter of which, according to Baba Tim, would seem to make it qualify as a "complex attack" in the technical use of the term). Of course Bob and a some of his commenters don't seem to have a problem inflating the single sentence into a condemnation of liberal media, etc. etc., all the while ignoring the actual point of the article - that Taliban attacks are escalating, and getting more sophisticated and more deadly overall. An assessment which the Pentagon and NATO, among others, share. They must be making excuses for the other side.

Posted by: skylark at August 20, 2008 11:24 PM (79kdb)

24 "Of course Bob and a some of his commenters don't seem to have a problem inflating the single sentence into a condemnation of liberal media, etc. etc., all the while ignoring the actual point of the article" skidmark - Based on your comments here and their laughable connection to reality (a present vote can not in any way be considered to have the effect of a no vote?), it seems indeed it is your function to cherry pick Bob's sentences or words and attack them rather than focusing on the substance of his posts. If your focus wasn't to merely produce snarky comments on subjects which you are woefully uninformed, people would take you more seriously.

Posted by: daleyrocks at August 20, 2008 11:53 PM (i/fLn)

25 "skidmark - Based on your comments here and their laughable connection to reality (a present vote can not in any way be considered to have the effect of a no vote?), it seems indeed it is your function to cherry pick Bob's sentences or words and attack them rather than focusing on the substance of his posts. If your focus wasn't to merely produce snarky comments on subjects which you are woefully uninformed, people would take you more seriously." Well, aren't you the clever one. Am I supposed to come up with an equally juvenile nickname for you? I suggest you go back and read what I posted in the Obama thread again. Cherry picking BO's sentences and words? Hello, it was an entire post, premised on his own private interpretation of a single sentence from an article, so he could trash the NYT. The substance of his post was that, notwithstanding the article's clear statement that the attack was ONE of the most complex seen yet in Afghanistan, the NYT was inflating a "laughably incompetent Taliban rout as a 'complex attack.'" Aside from the fact that it actually probably did qualify as a "compelx attack" in the technical sense of the term, the rest of the post is almost entirely factually incorrect. Evidently he thinks all guerrilla maneuvers should fall into the conventional warfare mode to be considered the least bit "competent." Thus, using a few inapplicable terms he's cut and pasted from Wars R Us, he can pronounce the entire incident "laughably incompetent." This was an incident where SEVEN suicide bombers got to within just over half a mile of a fortified American base. They were discovered "shortly" before they were to make their assault. They were coordinated enough to use a diversionary tactic like mortar and rocket fire while the bombers made their way to the target. Their plan was not dependent on heavy armed support or large numbers, and it was not a full on frontal assault. Any stealth mission like that can be taken out by an overwhelming show of force. So what? But these facts do show us how clueless your favorite blogger is. For instance, he insists they should have tried "flanking attacks" because...well, yeah, they could have surrounded the base. He's incredulous bombers on a stealth mission didn't "manage a straight ahead, mindless assault." Oh and maybe best of all, he sniffs: "No mention of even minimal attempts to camouflage the suicide bombers by disguising them as civilians or base workers or members of the opposite sex." Uhm, does the concept of stealth under cover of darkness escape him completely? There, I'm pretty sure I've focused on the substance of his post.

Posted by: skylark at August 21, 2008 08:55 PM (B4ZzX)

26 skidmark - You seem to have a learning disability of some sort. The Taliban and Al Qaeda have been employing more complex attacks in Afghanistan this year. That is a fact. The attack on Camp Salerno described by Carlotta Gall was not one of them, which was the point of Bob's post, which has yet to trgister in your brain. He is mocking the NY Times for that description. The Scotsman described the attack as brazen. There is no mention of complexity in describing the attack at Long War Journal or in the ISAF press release describing how all the attackers got chewed up before they dot within 1000 meters of the base. Complex is a fiction created by the NY Times to describe the attack. If you find another story describing it that way please feel free to cite it here. Temember, reading is fundamental, especially for comprehension. You continue to be just a skidmark on this site.

Posted by: daleyrocks at August 21, 2008 11:45 PM (i/fLn)

27 And so you are reduced not just to calling other commenters puerile names, but to repeating "Is not!" Is NOT !!!" I'm not sure "reduced" is the right word, though. I don't see where your posts have ever really surpassed that level. You take care now.

Posted by: skylark at August 22, 2008 12:27 AM (B4ZzX)

28 Left out of prior: "The attack on Camp Salerno described by Carlotta Gall was not one of them, which was the point of Bob's post, which has yet to trgister in your brain. He is mocking the NY Times for that description." He just doesn't seem to be able to do it in any accurate way. But once again...you take care, little buddy.

Posted by: skylark at August 22, 2008 12:33 AM (B4ZzX)

29 skidmark - I believe you are the only commenter I renamed on this thread. You are also the only commenter on the thread who had difficulty understanding the concept of the post. Explain to me who has issues again please.

Posted by: daleyrocks at August 22, 2008 10:44 AM (i/fLn)

30 Just a coincidence that I am the only one who disagrees with the post.

Posted by: skylark at August 22, 2008 08:18 PM (TWoHp)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

That's all some need to know about the Chicago Annenburg Challenge.

Others may want more details explaining why Barack Obama directly lied about the extent of his involvement with Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers, founder of the Challenge. Obama has claimed that Ayers was just "a guy who lives in my neighborhood," which isn't even close to being true. Obama has had a relationship with Ayers since at least 1987...roughly as long of a relationship as he's had with racist conspiracy theorist Jeremiah Wright, lynching advocate Michael Fleger, and the other far left liberals, Marxist-Leninists, and SDS veterans that make up Obama's base of power in the infamously corrupt world of Chicago Democratic politics.

Obama kicked off his political career with a fundraiser at the home of Ayers and fellow Weather Underground terrorist (and Charles Manson fan) Bernadine Dohrn. Bill Ayers and Obama sat on the board of directors for the Woods Fund. Obama also had a relationship with Thomas Ayers (Bill's father) as Chicago Public Education Fund on the Fund's Leadership Council. He also served alongside Thomas Ayers and Bill's brother John Ayers on the "Leadership Council" of the Chicago Public Schools Education Fund. Obama was part of the ABCs Coalition, created by Thomas Ayers and coordinated by Bill. The truth of the matter is that to Barack Obama, terrorist Bill Ayers is "just some guy in the neighborhood" to which he has deep and abiding personal, professional, and political ties dating back two decades.

How deep do those ties go? Thats a very good question that it seems some people don't want answered. NRO's Stanley Kurtz had been granted access to review 132 boxes of internal documentation from the Chicago Annenburg Challenge at the Richard J. Daley Library, only to have that access barred.

Kurtz seems to think Bill Ayers might be behind blocking access to these documents. It rather makes you wonder what information those documents may hold.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:22 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 337 words, total size 2 kb.

Considering that the bundler in question is Jodie Evans, co-founder of Code Pink, it certainly seems possible:

The RNC quoted a January 15, 2006 column by Robert Novak that said, "Code Pink, At A Mock War Crimes Tribunal In Istanbul June 27, Signed A
Declaration That The Iraqi Insurgency 'Deserved The Support Of People Everywhere Who Care For Justice And Freedom.'"

Evans represented Code Pink at the mock war crimes tribunal. In addition to expressing Code Pink's support for the insurgency, Evans published a statement from Istanbul personally endorsing the insurgency that has killed thousands of American troops and free Iraqis:

"We must begin by really standing with the Iraqi people and defending their right to resist. I can remain myself against all forms of violence, and yet I cannot judge what someone has to do when pushed to the wall to protect all they love. The Iraqi people are fighting for their country, to protect their families and to preserve all they love. They are fighting for their lives, and we are fighting for lies." (AlterNet, June 26, 2005)

Evans has a close relationship with the Obama campaign. She hosted Obama's first Hollywood fundraiser in February 2007, along with Steven Spielberg, David Geffen, Jeffrey Katzenberg and her ex-husband Max Palevsky.

According to Evans' Code Pink co-founder Medea Benjamin, Evans is on a first name basis with Obama and discussed Iraq policy with Obama at another Hollywood fundraiser on June 24, 2008.

Evans is listed on the Obama website as having bundled between $50,000 and $100,000. She has also contributed the maximum $2300 to his primary campaign, according to FEC records.

But lest you think Evans is just another patriotic Democrat who was perhaps a bit overzealous with her opposition to the Iraq War, remember what she said just months ago about 9/11.

In addition to supporting the insurgency in Iraq, Evans recently expressed her agreement with Osama bin Laden's reasons for attacking America on September 11, 2001 in an interview broadcast June 3, 2008:

Jodie Evans:..."We were attacked because we were in Saudi Arabia, that was the message of Osama, was that because we had our bases in the Middle East, he attacked the United States."

Paul A. Ibbetson: "Do you think that's a valid argument?"

Evans: "Sure. Why do we have bases in the Middle East? We totally violated the rights of that country. Why do we get to have bases in the Middle East?"

Also in that interview, Evans said Code Pink's goal is to "undermine the war effort (of the United States" and that she wished Saddam Hussein was still in power.

Of course, this is an RNC press release quoting Evans apparent admission of treason or sedition (I'm not a lawyer, and don't claim to know which, if either, applies) , so I'd like to hear from our lefty readers precisely how Evans' work for the insurgency has been taken out of context.

If these allegations can be substantiated in any way, should the Obama campaign return the money Evans helped bundle? Should Obama keep up ties with a person who seems to have not admitted proudly opposing her own nation during war time, but also active worked against it?

I don't think Obama needs to give back all of the money Evans bundled, but it would send a clear signal that he will not tolerate the undermining of American foreign policy and the sacrifices of American servicemen operating in harm's way if he were to return Evans' individual contributions, along with those contributions that may have come from other individuals of similar dubious character. It would also be wise for Obama to sever further ties with Evans and other members of Code Pink, a radical organization now best know for protests attempting to shut down a Marine recruiting office and calling Marines "assassins," or worse.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:31 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 657 words, total size 4 kb.

Perhaps with "patriotism" being a word most often spit than said by those on the far left, perhaps it shouldn't be a surprise that the Democratic National Committee screwed this up:

Some viewers contacted 9NEWS Saturday, questioning the design of the credentials to see Sen. Barack Obama accept the Democratic Party's presidential nomination at INVESCO Field at Mile High.

The viewers say with the stars and blue field in the lower left corner, it looks like an upside down American flag. Published flag etiquette states the stars should always be displayed in the upper left corner. An upside down flag represents an international symbol of extreme distress.

Matt Chandler with the Obama campaign says the flag is not upside down. He says it is a stylized flag designed to blend the stars on Senator Obama's shirt with the flag blowing in the wind.

Natalie Wyeth with the Democratic National Convention Committee sent 9NEWS the following statement Saturday night: "The DNCC community credentials incorporate patriotic design elements. They do not depict an actual American flag. The DNCC has full and complete respect for the flag and all rules of display."

A composite of two images in a hologram, the credentials show the following.

What an interesting parsing by these two Democrats. Obama loyalist Chandler actually asks us to ignore our lying eyes, which clearly shows an inversion with the stars in the lower right orientation, while Wyeth parses that this isn't an actual flag, so the perceived slight is the fault of those who see it, not the fault of the DNCC.

The concerns of those Americans who understand flag etiquette and the meaning of an inverted flag has been compounded by some on the far left, who have noted that this is not the flag they are familiar with either, lacking the orange, crackling glow to which they have become accustomed.

(h/t Weasel Zippers and Hot Air, which notes another possible source for the inverted flag in an update.)

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:30 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 335 words, total size 3 kb.

As Andrew Sullivan, Jane Hamsher, Steve Benen, and other liberal bloggers try to discredit John McCain's story of compassion shown by a North Vietnamese prison guard as being stolen from a similar experience related between Russian author Solzhenitsyn and another prisoner, I'm forced to ask: when are the going to go after Jeremiah Denton?

Denton was another U.S Navy pilot shot down in Vietnam, a contemporary of McCain's in the same brutal North Vietnamese prisons ... and also the beneficiary of surprising Christian compassion from the North Vietnamese:

Denton also found strength in his fellow captives. The Americans were forbidden to communicate with each other. But that didn't stop them. They communicated in Morse code and other number-based codes they devised and transmitted through blinks, coughs, sneezes, taps on the wall and even sweeps of a broom.

"I experienced what I couldn't imagine human nature was capable of," Denton said. "I witnessed what my comrades could rise to. Self-discipline, compassion, a realization there is a God."

He also experienced periodic compassion from the North Vietnamese. Sometimes the guards would weep as they tortured him.

One experience, he will never forget. Denton kept a cross, fashioned out of broom straws, hidden in a propaganda booklet in his cell. The cross was a gift from another prisoner. When a guard found the cross, he shredded it. Spat on it. Struck Denton in the face. Threw what was left of the cross on the floor and ground his heel into it.

"It was the only thing I owned," Denton said.

Later, when Denton returned to his cell, he began to tear up the propaganda booklet. He felt a lump in the book. He opened it. "Inside there was another cross, made infinitely better than the other one my buddy had made," Denton said.

When the guard tore up the cross, two Vietnamese workers saw what happened and fashioned him a new cross. "They could have been tortured for what they did," Denton said.

Denton survived the war and returned home, and like McCain, became a Republican Senator.

It is also worth noting that Denton switched parties to become a Republican precisely because of the far Left's attacks on the military—including those from people like John Kerry—in the first place.

Update: And via Instapundit, a confirmation of McCain's story from another Hanoi Hilton alumni, reporting he first heard the story in 1971, two years prior to Solzhenitsyn's book coming out.

Will Sullivan, Hamsher, Benen, the Kossacks, etc apologize for attempting to discredit McCain?

Update: What's even worse than accusing McCain of stealing Solzhenitsyn's work? Finding out that Solzhenitsyn didn't write such a story. The walkbacks will be very interesting indeed.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:15 PM | Comments (29) | Add Comment
Post contains 458 words, total size 4 kb.

Even God seems to be against Barack Obama, because in His wisdom, He highlights a living example of the candidate's most inhumane views.

The woman underwent an abortion and the baby, weighing 610 grams, was extracted from her womb without a pulse, hospital officials said.

A senior doctor pronounced the baby dead and she was transferred to the cooler.

Five hours later, the woman's husband came to the hospital to take what he thought was his dead baby girl for burial.

When the baby was taken out of the cooler, she began to breathe. The premature baby was then taken to the intensive care ward, where doctors were attempting to save her life.

Luckily for the baby, Barack Obama was not there to vote against care for the abortion survivor after she was discovered alive, as he has done here in the United States.

Real Messiah: 1, ObamaMessiah: 0

Related: The moral courage of ferrets.

Update: The baby passed early Tuesday.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:52 AM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 169 words, total size 1 kb.

The progessive blogosphere and Andy Sullivan—but I repeat myself—have decided to accuse former POW John McCain of stealing a story from Alexander Solzhenitsyn, a Russian sent to the gulags (forced labor camps) for writing ill of Stalin in a letter to a friend... a typical application of the Soviet version of the Fairness Doctrine.

Here is McCain's story:

Solzhenitsyn's tale read:

Leaving his shovel on the ground, he slowly walked to a crude bench and sat down. He knew that at any moment a guard would order him to stand up, and when he failed to respond, the guard would beat him to death, probably with his own shovel. He had seen it happen to other prisoners.

As he waited, head down, he felt a presence. Slowly he looked up and saw a skinny old prisoner squat down beside him. The man said nothing. Instead, he used a stick to trace in the dirt the sign of the Cross. The man then got back up and returned to his work.

There are, of course, no recorded instances of crosses or other Christian images ever being recorded in prisons. I jest, of course.

In Kilmainham Gaol, in the spot where a mortally wounded James Connolly was strapped to a chair before a firing squad on May 12, 1916, a cross stands. Of course, it came later.

Mamertine Prison was originally constructed around 386 B.C. but is best known for it's upside-down crosses because it's most famous alleged resident, Saint Peter, was crucified upside-down. While we don't have any witnesses that crosses or the Christian fish symbol was written in the dirt of the prison floor during the incarcerations of Peter and Paul, it seems likely such imagery was commonplace, and I'm reasonably certain neither Saint was familiar with the Russian writer who came nearly two millennia later.

Christian imagery is common in prisons around the world long before Solzhenitsyn was born, spreading as Christianity spread.

With the brutality of man's inhumanity to man common throughout the history of prisons, is it surprising in the least that in prisons around the world, guards and prisoners, enslavers and slaves, found a shared common ground in Christianity?

To disbelieve such things are possible is to not renounce John McCain, but to insist jailers are not human, just unfeeling robots incapable of grace or compassion. But I prefer to think that God is in all prisons.

It's one of the places where he's needed most.

Update: Uh-oh. Another U.S. Navy pilot who became a POW in North Vietnamese prisons is telling similar stories of surprising North Vietnamese Christan compassion. Are progressives going to try to assail his honor as well?

Why not?

They already drove him out of the Democratic Party.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:54 AM | Comments (22) | Add Comment
Post contains 462 words, total size 4 kb.

Capturing yet again the feelings of every American from Honolulu to San Francisco, Barack Obama gave his contempt for American voters another go while raising millions first from from South Asians, then rich ($28,000 per couple) liberal Democrat donors, uttering a similar refrain:

"Now, you want to win. And saying it doesn't make it so," Obama said. "It would be nice to think that after eight years of economic disaster, after eight years of bungled foreign policy, of being engaged in a war that should never have been authorized and should never have been waged, that cost us a trillion dollars and thousands of lives, that people would say, 'Let's toss the bums out. Toss the bums out, we're starting from scratch, we're starting over. This is not working.'

"So I understand why a lot of folks are saying, 'This should just happen. Why are we having to run all these television commercials? Why do we have to raise all this money? Just read the papers. These are the knuckleheads who have been in charge. Throw ‘em out.'"

Poor Barack. He just can't seem to understand why people even want to have an election. Surely his coronation " should just happen." He shouldn't should have to go around this country raising money; it's hard. Everyone should vote for him because he's great. And we've got knuckleheads who have been in charge, you see.

And why do we have knuckleheads in charge, Saint Barack?

Must be all those blue collar, white collar, and no collar Americans who keep bitterly clinging to their guns, their religion, and Presidents that don't think America is as mean, broken, and horrible as Barack and Michelle Obama think it is.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:19 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 292 words, total size 2 kb.