(Other) War Games (in Africa)

Now one of liberal america's pet causes at the moment is a very large country in Africa, where over the weekend African Union forces there have confirmed the government has used helicopters in a bomb attack against the village of Anka, and other bombings in the region of Wadi Korma. Annoying-as this violated the ceasefire brokered there earlier this month by the Democratic Governor of New Mexico, Bill Richardson. Not to mention the Darfur Peace Agreement (DPA) signed in Abuja, Nigeria, last May, which specifically prohibited aerial attacks by Sudanese helicopters. What country is this, you might ask? Why Sudan, and it's war-ravaged region called Darfur, where genocide is estimated to have claimed some 200,000 to 400,000 black Africans.

News to a random Crotchety Old Bastard out to unveil the moonbat strategy of SaveDafur: strengthen the AU mission already present, deploy UN peacekeepers, ensure aid to refugee camps, establish a no-fly zone. Good thing his blog has cut and past, or he'd not even get that right. The Bastard missed the DPA, has no idea that peacekeepers are specifically trained for low-level insurgency warfare just like this, thinks the refugees are killing aid-workers instead of the janaweed being guilty, and has no frakking clue that the Sudanese have real actual by-golly helicopters. Yes, because only the US military has... helicopters!! (I have posted a much calmer explanation of his specific inaccuracies on his blog, but the Bastard has comment moderation, so I likely should have saved my fingers their do-gooder efforts.) Bastard gets real amusing when he starts trying to elocute how Darfur is just like Iraq, and SaveDarfur is calling for the US to invade a soverign nation for its oil without any resulting loss of American troops. I need not waste my fingers debunking that, so I will just chuckle over a con claiming the UN is a masked costume for the US.

Bastard horrifies the likes of con-blogger "The Constitution is not a Suicide Pact" Conservative Beach Girl (and her readers, so get all the way down to the comment section). She knows the truth, of course before having to actually learn it, that "the UN is increasing an Islamic-controlled organization with collusion from willing European nations, themselves not yet Islamic-controlled but the nations nonetheless joining their international policies with those of the Islamic-controlled nations." As part of its worldwide conspiracy to wipeout Christians, the UN supposedly revoked the consultative status of the slave-advocate Christian Solidarity International NGO because "the interests of the appeasers of the perpetrators of the murders and enslavement of black Christians in Sudan far out-weigh the appeasers' interests in having the truth of Darfur told...in effect a tacit approval of the genocide, the slavery, and the wiping out of Christianity in Sudan." Of course it had nothing to do with the substative part of Sudan's complaint to the United Nations that CSI had chosen John Garang, a leader in the Sudanese People's Liberation Army, to represent them in Geneva that year. (Yes, technically John was an insurgent or a terrorist or a freedom fighter, pick your favorite term, but as long as CSI isn't actually formenting rebellion, then it's okay, right?) Lofty and noble ideals? Yes. Dumb beyond belief-that's CSI. Although somehow even a year later they were still using UN letterhead to distribute reports to the ECOSOC. As Sudan could point out, the rules were the rules, and if the CSI could let a terrorist in, then everyone would think they could bring terrorists.

American Thinker fails at a gallant attempt to explain how the genocide in Darfur is caused maybe first by liberals, or perhaps the media, but surely the United Nations, or in the end all three. James P. Whetzel's wandering braincells are cross-posted at Thoughts of a Conservative Christian, and try the straight-faced and less passionate approach to avoiding international intervention in the face of genocide. You see, even though liberals and SaveDarfur are calling for military intervention, they aren't actually calling for military intervention because they haven't really decided to be concerned about Darfur in the first place. And anyway, the media will suddenly love genocide once the first American soldier dies in a bombing from those pesky Sudanese military helicopters. Even though of course we could do as the liberals are calling for, and bomb the crap out of the Sudanese helicopters while they are still on the ground, but as the liberals aren't actually calling for military intervention, this sage advice doesn't actually exist.

You gotta love propaganda in action. American Thinker: "In times of crisis when the UN fails the world then looks to the United States to assist cleaning up the mess no other country can or will deal with, and herein is where the problem lies." No, the problem is a 2005 Rand Corporation Study that found:

"*Among those studied, two-thirds of UN nation-building operations can be counted as successful at this time, compared with half of such U.S. operations. In large part the lower U.S. success rate can be attributed to the more demanding nature of the American-led operations. But the difference also reflects the UN's greater success in institutionalizing past experience, establishing a doctrine for the conduct of such missions, and developing a cadre of trained personnel who carry over from mission to mission.
* Within its limits, UN peacekeeping is a highly efficient means of placing post-conflict societies on the path to enduring peace and democratic government, and the most efficient form of international intervention so far documented. Alternatives to the UN in this field are either vastly more expensive or considerably less capable. At present, for instance, the UN is manning 17 peacekeeping operations with more than 70,000 troops for less than the costs of one month of U.S.-led operations in Iraq."

Of the nation-building missions led by the UN studied by Rand, only the Congo remains at war, and only the Congo and Cambodia are ranked as "not free" according to the 2006 world rankings by Freedom House. The UN's successes included Namibia, El Salvador, Mozambique, eastern Slavonia, Sierra Leone. So American Thinker incorrectly insists that the only way to end genocide and start a country on the path to peace and reconciliation is to invade and conquer.

Several cons trying to stave off any possible US intervention in Darfur under the guise of the UN, have adopted the tactics of the Sudanese government by promoting the claims that UN peacekeepers will only rape the girls of Darfur, so best to just leave that to the janaweed. Pajamas Media columnist Victor Davis Hanson graces us at least with outrage over Darfur, but continues American Thinker's moans that liberals may be calling for military intervention, but those words are not actually coming out of our mouths. Victor has also not read Rand on this issue, although why be surprised, it's Pajamas Media. Victor has also not been awake for most of the US occupation of Iraq if he thinks still that "a brigade of American troops could shatter the poorly-led and poorly-trained bullies who are killing the innocent." How many brigades have we had in Baghdad over the past almost 4 years? The worn and tired con answer of shock and awe is not needed to end genocide in Darfur. Just a couple of million dollars and a few smoking helicopters.

If you desire to work to end genocide in the world today, please go to the US Holocaust Memorial Museum's website or its exhibits about such modern killings and consider joining the Committee on Conscience.

Technorati Tags:
Sudan, Darfur, liberal, conservative, moonbat, United Nations, Africa, Iraq

MIT Links Global Warming to Rise in Bullies

Now Al Gore has a secret he doesn't want you to know. He stole lunch money from other kids. He wrote dirty words down about other kids on the bathroom walls. He tripped girls down the stairs if they didn't wear skirts and poured soda in the bookbags of kids he though might be fags. And then... he grew up to be a Senator, all so he could bully descent and respectable scientists from MIT. Or at least one of their "scientists" Richard Lindzen and a whole smaggle of conblogs are puffing out a lot of hot air in a smear campaign of Gore. So that anytime the former Senator is quoted about the science, the cons have a prepackaged story to "balance" the coverage on questions of character, since they've long lost on the actual science.

Like something out of a playbook, Lizden started with an op-ed for an online site of The Wall Street Journal, which the con-blogs have gone at lenths to conceal, quoting it by the site feed name of "OpinionJournal" to avoid the whole issue of the WSJ's interest in a lack of policy on global warming. Lizden claims that aside from not having the money to prove global warming is junk science (FOX term!!), scientists have been bullied into silence by just one little congressional hearing way back in 1992, where Gore led a "witch hunt" of "anti-alarmist scientists" who testified that global warming wasn't real.

Lizden's whole article got dumped in the comment section of a progressive blog. Lizden also went on FOX to promote his "Al Gore is a bully" featurette, which guarantees that it would be snapped up and pinged around the blogosphere creating a rumor campaign, till it trickled into almost every commentary about the movie, An Inconvienent Truth, due out that year. You know the effect of Nixon standing up and saying "I am not a crook..." The effect of seeing repeated characterizations is oft the same. Lizden's smear campaign seeks to link Gore's name with bully. The WashingtonTimes took it a step further when remarking on Lizden's commentary, and made the unprovable accusation that Al Gore had asked them to publish lies about Lizden and those who agreed with him.

Lizden also wrote a second article attacking Gore for The WallStreet Journal, which is really a defacto blog more than anything else. Lizden has himself here a campaign using swiftboat tactics to crusade against policy addressing global warming, and likely soon a book deal.

Interestingly enough, that MIT professor wrote an original statement on the hearings for the CATO Institute in 1992, and at the time stated that their was a misunderstanding and disagreement of what he meant in a remark in the hearing itself, Lizden himself does not characterize Gore's behavior as bullying him.

"Most recently, I testified at a Senate hearing conducted by Sen. Gore. There was a rather arcane discussion of the water vapor in the upper troposphere. Two years ago, I had pointed out that if the source of water vapor in that region in the tropics was from deep clouds, then surface warming would be accompanied by reduced upper level water vapor. Subsequent research has established that there must be an additional source--widely believed to be ice crystals thrown off by those deep clouds. I noted that that source too probably acts to produce less moisture in a warmer atmosphere. Both processes cause the major feedback process to become negative rather than positive. Sen. Gore asked whether I now rejected my suggestion of two years ago as a major factor. I answered that I did. Gore then called for the recording secretary to note that I had retracted my objections to "global warming.'' In the ensuing argument, involving mostly other participants in the hearing, Gore was told that he was confusing matters."

So, myth that Al Gore is a big fat bully? Busted. Still important? Yes. This myth on the part of Lizden and the cons plays its part in the grand scale myth that liberals have no values, first by portraying a key liberal figure as a violent person, and secondly by trying to paint one of modern liberals main talking points as a way to be cruel to people instead of being about saving the world.

Technorati Tags:
Al Gore, global warming, An Inconvenient Truth, liberal, climate change, moonbat

The Many Enemies of Dinesh D'Souza

So today we endured Dinesh D'Souza whining in the WaPost that liberals are calling him all kinds of bad, meanie names. Apparently, Dinesh has missed that Pajamas Media called him a radical Muslim terrorist, who should be behind bars or in a straight-jacket, and further more is furious that Dinesh failed to notice it's not all a lovefest from the right. Joint Strike Weasel takes the time to expound on the obvious true idolatry-capitalism- of the World Trade Center, and that it was not a gay marriage factory. Dinesh could take his public tantrum to a whole new level to find out that so many of his fellow conservatives agree with The Huffington Post, that he needs a nice serving of shut the frak up.

And a tomato award for gratuitous self-promotion for squeezing in mentions of two other books and some old writings for a college right-wing newsrag, pushing any promotional defense of his new book until half-way through the advertisement. Article as it certainly was not, although the WaPost was obligated to run it after reviewing his "book." Why are so many people of all stripes calling poor sweet Dinesh names over "The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and It's Responsibility for 9-11?" Might have something to do with this little lie he tells, right there in black and white. Dinesh claims that he argues the Left bears some responsibility for 9-11 when his book does nothing but expound the second line of his introduction: "The cultural left in this country is responsible for causing 9-11."

Not some, but all. Some might not have sold copies and gotten him on television, but all is the first step towards page two, where all anti-American hate is part of a diabolical liberal plot, and finally to page eight, where "the suspicion of treason, although distasteful, is inevitable." Dinesh clearly also polished his book to ride to the heights of guest-speaker fees on the coat-tails of the "liberals want the terrorists to win in Iraq" con spin. Although how Dinesh thinks the con-web will love him when he is claiming credit for all of their usual attack talking points, who can say? It might also have something to do with the fact that Dinesh told Colbert that conservative america doesn't even exist, there's only a "traditional america" and a "liberal america." Oh yes, how can the cons love Dinesh when he claims the only political opinion in america is liberal? Ouch.

Hear Dinesh around the little slips also... as he goes on to claim that salafist terrorists hate America because FDR failed to start a nuclear war with the USSR over eastern Europe, thus allowing the invasion of Afghanistan in the first place. Yes, that's right. Dinesh claims liberals are destroying the world because liberals refused to destroy the world. Following the logic there? Dinesh flatters himself if he thinks people pick up his book at Barnes&Noble at the sight of his name, and not the half-burned American flag wrapped around the cover. Dinesh deludes himself if he thinks all of these horrible liberals are playing wack-a-mole with his tender sensibilities in order to keep his book hidden and unspoken of in public. Lies are like weeds and should be pulled out at the root.


Technorati Tags:
9-11, Dinesh D'Souza, liberal, conservative, Iraq, war on terror, moonbat

Moonbat Gets Her Car Towed

So today the battery light clicked on during the early dark hours drive to work and within a minute the lights went out, the gauges collapsed, and I was still hurtling down the interstate. And I may have been exceeding the 65 mph speed limit, but as that gauge was also gone, I shall never have to confess. After being certain for a moment everything was going to end with me splattered on the pillar of an overpass, I braked onto the shoulder, and set about the business of calling work to use a day of holiday leave to have my car fixed. And then I called AAA and waited for the tow truck to show.

Less than an hour later I got to know Charlie, a divorced 40 something and former department manager in retail. And after seeing my liberal bumperstickers, Charlie hauled out his cellphone, a technological marvel which allowed him to keep up with all the latest news via the internet, and did I want to talk politics? And how much he hates Bush? And the chances that North Korea really planned to launch a nuclear attack on the world? And could we stop somewhere so he could buy a descent cup of coffee, and on the subject, did I know how to use the espresso machine regifted to him by his sister for christmas?

Unfortunately, we flew by the Dunkin Donuts and ended up at a 7-11, where he showed me how he makes a "Cadillac," which is 2/3 coffee, 1/3 hot chocolate, 4 packs of sugar and 2 creamers. A guy who looks like a lumberjack who has concocted his own pseudo-Starbucks drink. Limbaugh would be aghast.

Charlie knows little about the business of terrorism, very little about the use of explosives to bring down airplanes, and I find myself talking about work. My work is to keep bad things of airplanes, and what I can tell him about the French getting a plane bombed by the Libyans, the bombing of a Cuban plane by anti-Castro Cuban exiles, and the 1994 al-Qaeda test bombing where the explosive was contained in an contact solution bottle- he finds endlessly fascinating. Sadly, I learn all my juicy details from Wikipedia.

We cross over the deepest waterway in the continental United States via the Solomons Bridge, which is what the locals call it, since it connects Solomons Island to the world, where the precious Tiki Bar may be found. Locals will stare at you puzzled if you call it the Gov. Thomas Johnson Bridge. I told him about the loss of several landmark restaurants to a fire caused by a cigarette butt ($5 million dollars). Which of course puts the small tragedy of an alternator ($437.42) going dead in perspective. Even if when you're a poor federal worker, that's easy a third the weight of your bank card. Ouch.

Technorati Tags:
moonbat, liberal, Starbucks, Maryland, Bush, homeland security, terrorism

Maryland is a Crystal Ball for Democrats

So today I will explain to the Democratic candidates for the 2008 what they must not do in the next year, or loose my measly little campaign contribution of all of some $100. Don't scoff! You can buy a whole 1/100th of a second of airtime at 1 AM on a network no one watches, sandwitching yourself in between a commercial for becoming a millionare and a new carpet store. Kerry is excused of course, since he won't be running for President. We'll get to keeping an eye on the Cons, after a little modern electoral history. So listen to the poor moonbat....

Maryland is the United States in miniature, with most of it's population concentrated in Bay Coastal cities, while the rural agricultural areas tend to be conservative, which means there are more red counties but more actual liberals. Industry sector, cities where crime is an issue in counties far away, white sections and black sections, it has a segment of southern counties like the US has southern states. Maryland also sends more people to work in DC everyday than the rest of the country sends politicians. And it's the gubernatorial races that are like crystal ball visions of the presidential election next to be held.

Key to understanding the ousting of the Republican Govenor Earlick and the return of power to the Democrats was that the primaries gave nothing to smear the Democratic frontrunner. That formula echoed through Maryland as Democrats in the primary went out of the way not to campaign against eachother, but only as themselves. Which is why Democrats need to not do as Hillary,in laying groundwork against Kerry when her chief strategist attacked Kerry. This only and ever is handing tomatoes to the Cons so they can hurl them at you. Seriously, children. No it's serious! One of the reasons why the black Republican Steele couldn't make traction against his white Democratic opponent, who had defeated a black Democrat in the primary was because they didn't spend that primary mixing mud for the Cons to sling. Cardin won the Senate seat with the majority of the black vote despite dire predictions by Republican pundits that Steel would win because white Democratic voters had chosen Cardin over his black opponent. But when the votes were tallied, Cardin won by carrying the black vote, while Steele took the white male vote but lost the election. Pay attention: in the next election voters will go for party affiliations over similarly of race with a candidate. Don't spend time calling for a multicultural ticket and open yourself up to the charge of humoring minorities.

Conservatives already expound at length at how the Democrats can be defeated in 2008, and yes you should all be reading these lemon rinds I am about to link here. Cons expect to make it a debate about terrorism v. global warming. Switch from publicly hoping that peace activists will starve themselves to death to attacking military Democrats as cowards. Conservatives will frame Democratic reactions to Republican wisdom and rationality as "sitting on their hands and being too weak to seek victory". I've already come face to face with this "prediction" that the election of the Democrats in 2008 will cause Iran to nuke Israel as surely as if you drop an egg in water it will poach. Given the popularity of the season opener of 24, do not doubt how much this has seized the imagination of conservative doomsayers webwide. You will hear a lot about nukes.

Do the Cons have some nice vulnerabilities to exploit? How about attacking the Constitution so only they will decide who is an American? Paint them with Bush's blatant lie about a disrupted terror plot in 2002 he made just last night in his SOTU. Read up on the nuts and bolts side of the Democratic 2008 district strategy. Pick a pet peeve, but get to your squeaking. Otherwise the Cons will define the world we moonbats fly through with their noise and we'll be left blind.

Technorati Tags:
Kerry, Hillary Clinton, 2008, democrats, liberals, Maryland, Iran, global warming

Vodka and the State of the Union

So tonight I blog to you drunk while Bush claims to be using every tool and lawful power available to protect Americans and democracy lovers everywhere from the threat of terrorism and I happen to work where it proves he would sacrafice this goal to Mammon. Bush cuts the pay of those who he claims should deserve the support of the American people, he cuts the training and won't pay for the equipment needed, he replaces armed police uniforms for fat and lazy unarmed privateers looking to make a quick buck, still has no adequate identification checking system for flying passengers, and then will stand there in front of the American public and our Congress, and Bush will say he honestly seeks our saftey over making more profit for his rich friends. For the last year at the airport where I am a federal screener I promise you there has been a steady drop in the effective level of screening, due to the harrassment our of work of full-time employees and the hiring of part-time Walmart greeter level workers, who are not competent. Nice and sweet, but dumb as boards.

Bush congratulated a Democratic majority here in the Senate tonight and the Republican minority did not clap in approval of his words. When Bush called for No Child Left Behind to be renewed the Democratic majority didn't stir at all. Now Bush speaks of Iraq and his previously detailed plans for a troop surge, and now no one stirs until he reaches the end of his plan. Bush talks what will likely be the resounding rally-cry of the Right, tested earlier today in the Washington Post by Liz Cheney, that no matter what individual politicians in DC voted previously, they didn't vote for failure in Iraq. Bush is calling for a 95,000 increase in the military in the next 5 years, which is an end of the Rumsfeild doctrine and a return to the wisdom of Powell. Bush is calling for a civilian corp that will give the US military to deploy civilians quickly when they invade countries to set up interim governments and thus avoid the failures of Bremer's tenure. Now we get to a mention of Isreal and Palestine but no ideas. A nod to NATO's presence in Afghanistan but no promises that America will try to clean up the mess we made. A promise to the Right to hold strong in the isolationism of Cuba, and a whisper to the Left that Bush will scold the slaughter going on in Sudan. Bush also promises to consider fighting AIDS in Africa (to counter the strenght Barak Obama might have with black Americans) and also a call for more money to combat malaria. Unlike calls for aid for poor Americans, Bush now does not ask that Congress only find already existing money to support his initiative. Bush is trying to use the emerging Democratic call to prove the spirit and generosity of Americans through our kindness to the poor of the world, the cheater. Pay for your own damn lines, Shrub!!

Now Bush is trotting out a new black Africa citizen of the US who was poor but is now a doctor, but maybe I am cynical in thinking that Bush never hear of this guy until this speech roled around. Now Bush is touting Baby Einstein as a business success as a reason why if none of the rest of us working poor are this clever, we deserve to have our power cut under rising costs and get evicted, or to go hungry, or be ground down under the fear. Now Bush is trotting out Wesley Autrey, so popular in the media for the rescue of one life, and a soldier who was awarded a silver star. No passion, until the soldiers and the heros in the last ten minutes of his hour long monologue, no excitement for this lameduck President who definetly was trying for as much applause as possible. As the commentators are now noting, the Republicans sat on their hands during the sections on immigration worker programs and then also earlier on calls to work against global warming.

24 hours left in office. Thank the Gods!! On the Okay thread of Skiffy that I frequent which discusses Battlestar Galactica and the prospect of useful political discourse, Bush hadn't finished his first moment speaking on Iraq when the leading conservative commentator decried Democrats as being unwilling to seek victory, and that they are false in claiming to support our troops. Not even one minute, despite that no one had yet applauded at all, but the Democrats were "sitting on their hands." Can we say prepared and prearranged canned response?? That poster is a regular contributor to AnkleBitingPundits who once flamed me for pointing out that he was claiming that certain congressional tesimonies said things they did not over Iraq, despite the fact that I could link to the actual documents on the CIA's website. Hah! He was sobbing in less than six months over the fact that this moonbat refused to e-hug him. Hahah!! After a couple of more snipes with no response, he's willing to respectfully disagree!! Maybe there's something to this demand by the public for nicey-nicey between the con and libs if it actually works in practice. On the otherhand, it took more than 6 months for this experiment to bear fruit in an enclosed environment, so it may not translate to drive-by snipers.

Give it an hour and I should not have held my breath: currently the conservatives are in their expounding that we must invade Iran before they get nukes and destroy Isreal, and that there is a wellspring of rising young people waiting to greet us with flowers and prostitutes. We have only to provide the tipping point for their urge to topple their own government. Sound familiar, cause it's the same things that were said about the people of Iraq, and how they would just love us and lay down their arms. De ja...

Technorati Tags:
State of the Union, Bush, Mammon, Cuba, Iraq, Afghanistan, liberal, vodka

Canada's Get out of Iraq Campaign

So today Pajamas Media has chanted and burned enough insense to the Whore of Babylon that they have been able to channel the rough draft of Bush's State of our Disunion speech for tonight. Fascinating reading really. The disaster isn't that Bush sent in too few troops to invade Iraq or hired Rummy in the first place, and not that he's failed to secure peace in Iraq in almost 4 years, that he has spent the lives of 3,000 American soldiers just to cause a civil war, but that Democrat's have to gall to point out that he is a big fat failure. The same Pajamas Media that claimed an inside source in Iran who told them that the Iranian supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei only to get a comment from an Iranian poster saying nope.

Some state of the union speech. Despite plenty of public polls showing the majority of Americans don't support a troop surge (which does sound more like the title of a gay porno flick than a military measure) in Iraq, or that at least when it succeeds, they will be won back into the fold. They also seem to have forgotten that we just invaded an Iranian embassy and took prisoners, that we have gotten real chummy with China even though it still occupies Tibet, and put our hands over our eyes routinely when some bloody conflict claims millions of lives. Say in Africa. Despite the fact that a year ago Bush promised in his State of the Union that we would be withdrawing troops by this time, not to say we'd also be a little less dependent on foreign oil and we are now more so.

Meanwhile, Zawahiri's response to Bush beats his claim of having been elected to the US Congress:

"Don't you know that the dogs of Iraq are impatient to devour the carcasses of your soldiers?" taunted Zawahiri, regarded as the ideological powerhouse of Al-Qaeda who carries a 25-million dollar US bounty on his head.

"On the contrary, you must send your entire army to be annihilated at the hands of the mujahedeen so that the whole world will be rid of your wickedness."

Just to prove how confident Zawahiri feels, he has also declared war on Palestine.

MEN!! I need to get a camera and join the Get Out of Iraq Campaign. Started by one of those Canadians who must be an al-Q agent, is a man who talks about his feelings, and worse, has a pussy.

Liz Cheney is not *cough* a sock puppet of her father in her statement in the Washington Post. Her immortal words outline the facts as she sees the world: 1. We are at war with terrorists and they are going to get you, you personally, yes you on #3428 Eagle Lane. 2. Not supporting the troop surge only helps them get around to googling your address earlier. 3. The American public lies about really disaproves of Bush's War on Iraq 4. Things really aren't worse for women in Iraq these days then under Saddam 5. Iran is looking for a reason to not get nukes, and so would like us to stay in Iraq so that we won't embolden them into nuclear development 6. Liberals can reach through the spacetime continuum and kill American soldiers in combat, so off with their fingers. And tongues for good measure. Liz Cheney obviously hasn't flown commercial recently.

Because yes, let's talk about the key point of attack for al-Q just once somewhere today. You won't hear Bush and his minions mention it of course... public transportation. And what do I mean about flying commercially? Well, you see one day in September these salafistic terrorists walked through the joke of airline screening and, you'll never believe this, hijacked themselves some planes, and then flew them into some buildings. But in order to give you another tax cut, Bush had been undermining airport security to save a buck. The latest indignity is that armed police officers guarding vulnerable public access points to the Baltimore Washington International Airport have been replaced with private "security guards" who are 200+ lbs and smell like rabbit pee, are either asleep or decide to bring their DVD players to their post. Oh yes, fly my pretty Americans, fly! Liz Cheney isn't going to face the consequences of Bush's real retreat from the war on terror.

Can we get away from talking about Iraq for just a few seconds and talk about what Democrats should be looking for as they watch Bush's speech tonight? The Republican blueprint for the 2008 Presidential campaign. No I'm not kidding. Besides the effect of Iraq (and that things may largely be decided based on whether or not we are still there, and if we are not, who puts the best spin on the carcass of that poor country), CNN commentators did make a good point this morning that Presidents are made if they loose the one even one side of the home v. foreign balance of their worldview. What have I already noticed? The Republicans are back to trying to justify their deregulation and pro-business policies as "unleashing the power of the market" to make lives better for working people and the poor. The White House is emailing conservative blogs to create buzz for Bush's agenda, coaching them in their talking points for tomorrow. And 2008. Bush's points are energy, health care, NCLB, immigration, AIDS, Malaria, the Military, and spending reforms. The Republicans are starting chess moves for the next presidental race. So watch, smartasses!!

Technorati Tags:
State of the Union, Bush, Iraq, War on Terror, Liz Cheney, Iran, liberal, democrat

Understand the Reach of NewsMax

So today I got pinged a NewsMax story from a conservative "independent but I voted twice for Bush so who am I kidding??" friend claiming that the NCIS is giving false testimony in the Haditha trial. The gist of it is that NewsMax claims to be talking to a secret Marine who was there on that day, who claims that all the Iraqi soldiers are cowards and liars. The same NewsMax that turned out to be a major player in the deliberate attempt by Cons to claim that sex freak Rep. Mark Foley was a Democrat instead of what he was, a Republican.

What are we to make of this "veteran Marine intelligence officer" who describes the actions of one Marine, who shoots clearly unarmed college kids and a taxi driver, pumps bullets into their bodies after they have fallen, and then pees on one, as an event which only makes him scratch his head? The language and manner of speech certainly is not reflective of the care and polish we see from veteran Marines who speak to the press elsewhere. Is this guy drunk or just fictional?? Now wait, let's look at the real possibility that NewsMax is making this interview up from thin air.

NewsMax also falsely accused Senator McCain of breaking under torture, despite the fact that it's well documented that he provided no actionable intelligence and instead feed them false information- telling them the Green Bay Packers were his fellow pilots. Limbaugh would go on to twice use NewsMax as a source to smear McCain when the Senator spoke out against torture as a tool for gathering intelligence. NewsMax is also on record for having inflated the Associated Press' initial interest in Limbaugh's pain drug addiction from 1 story to 49 stories. Now there's a miscount.

NewsMax published a false story in 2005 claiming Bono and U2 were holding a fundraise for Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA). NewsMax went on to blatantly lie about its own article. Look at the original and decide for yourself. NewsMax is also the originator of the 2000 false-gossip story that the Clintons were selling their NY house. Currently, the most infamous fabrication by NewsMax had them accusing Clinton of wiretapping Sen. Thurmond. The article has since dissapeared.

Although NewsMax can on a rare occasion correct itself (instead of vanishing exposed fabrications), it will leave the original mistake out there as food for the search engines. Which isn't really correcting a fabrication at all, is it??

My con friend in question has asked that I merely allow for the possibility that this allegation against the NCIS by one lone unnamed Marine is true. He mentions that he first heard the story from a reprint in another blog that has a reputation for vetting their sources. Of course, their source is NewsMax and just yesterday it ran a colomn containing an accusation against Senator Obama that the author has since retracted. How much patience are we to have with NewsMax? If we never hear of this story again, it will become yet another con-myth used to hold up the Marines as martyrs to the evil left, even if they are found guily in a trial by their peers. Whatever retraction Newsmax publishes or not, the popular imagination of the con bloggers will only remember it's headline from today. And speak myth as truth and lie as fiction until people would rather just agree than argue the point one more damn time.

Technorati Tags:
Haditha Iraq NewsMax liberal conservative moonbat Obama McCain Clinton

Obama on Tape

So today I am going to complain about that $30 dollars that Barak Obama owes me, the cheap sleestak. Having gotten all the way through his 6 disc compliation of his book "Audacity to Hope," I have a) No idea what there is to have an audacity to hope about besides a future where we hand the Republicans the whole pot roast dinner so we can like the crumbs off their dinner napkins and b)I can't remember any good lines to sell him by, other than some vague idea he might have tried to be funny. Whatever. And now... he's running for President. And the Republicans are going to pay everyone to believe that he's Muslim because his middle name is the same as a recent Middle East dictator who we (sorry, the Iraqis) hung. You can watch the short and sweet CNN version here and see how many people think "Barak Osama" is a threat to the United States.

You can hear his remarkable soothing voice here although a mere hours later it doesn't seem to be on YouTube, unlike Edwards stuff. Obama goes on about the partisan divide in Washington, and about how it's leaders don' seem to be working together. Of course, there seems a far larger nonpartisan resistance to Bush's troop surge. Aside for a laugh: I watched Bush's interveiw tonight on PBS where he says "Iraq isn't a broken egg, it's a cracked egg." Yes, because when all of you find a cracked egg in the carton you think, I'll just eat it anyways given as it's not broken.

Likely there will be dire predictions on the part of the Cons that if we don't pick Obama as our candidate for the Democratic Party, we'll be shunned by the black vote. Of course, they'd like to dream that we don't get the black vote anyway, but the numbers are plain. It's not conceit, it's a nod to the intelligence of the black voter. That was plain in Maryland in November, when Cardin beat out Steele for the Senate, even though Republicans promised that Cardin would loose to the black Republican because Cardin defeated a black challenger in the primary. Yeah right. Steele lost by over 10 points and the people voting for him were white conservative men. Go figure. I also interestingly enough had a running post war on the BSG Skiffy board with two conservatives who promised me that Steele was going to head the RNC. Steele's still in an unemployment line somewhere.....

Obama does the Senate far better than he picks titles for his books, fortunately, and as it's noted his experience isn't a selling point, cause he has little. He's a good fellow to like, but after listening to him speak I didn't feel like running off to the polls and giving him money. Obama doesn't inspire, and he has nothing more to ask of the country besides that we allow him to teach us to "play nice." Um... Obama... about that $30..... cough it up.

Technorati Tags:
barak obama democrat liberal 2008 Iraq Edwards Bush

New Year Plus a Day

So today I have found that the Washington Post is right that fear will not help you keep your new years resolutions. Rage will actually suffice. Good old fashion rage at other people: everyone whose been giving me trouble and making it harder for me to get better from my workplace injury, everyone who gave me a crappy and thoughtless gift on their blasted holiday, people on the road who do the speed limit in the high speed lane.

And the lastest con tactic centered around how to deal with the U.S. passing the milestone of 3,000 dead in Iraq. Accuse the liberals of celebrating it. I am a denzien of an online science fiction board where in a conversational thread new years morning I posted a simple link to the WaPost story headlining that the milestone had been passed on Sunday, ending the old year. No commentary, no remark on Bush, only that I was sad to see that it had happened. Our exchange is here. The Okay thread on Skiffy has certain member-rules on decorum, and certainly that breaks them. Beyond being horrific. Debate ensued across the board with the cons insisting he hadn't given offense, the libs being outraged that the cons were telling us that we were upset over nothing again, and the mods giving the usual morally smug lecture about how we both only talk like that particular con, so nothing we had to say was of value.

Here I am, keeping my new years resolution to restart this blogging effort, because a day later I am still mad. As hell. Something occured to me this morning as I started grinding my organic shade-grown fair trade coffee, that his reaction was a little... quick, and his duck out the door, quick. He knew he was going to get flamed for the horrible accusation he made, that liberals were happy and celebrating the deaths of all those soldiers in Iraq. So I went looking. I typed in "conservative blog" into Google, which gave me the 2006 Weblog awards, which saw the blog Little Green Footballs listed as the top favorite con blog for the year. And what do I find but the same "reaction." Peace Gouls Celebrate Soldiers Deaths What's more comforting, encounters with cons who have no original thoughts or the fact that they thought up how to find some political use after the 3,000 death milestone for their playbook??