7 Facts About the Dangerous Moonbat

So today Omelas got tagged with a little chain-blog-comment. Well, it's the internet. You know it had to happen. Fitness for the Occasion. I'll drop the rules of the game next, but first I'll explain how I'm hijacking it. Part of what's happened to the word "liberal" is that we liberals don't define the story of why liberals choose to be so. Instead, the conservatives define it on a range of misguided, to thievery, to debauchery, always lacking of any fundamental values. If someone asked you what political goals you pursed, you could rattle off: reproductive rights, public education, free press, fair wages, human rights, environmental conservation. Almost a year ago, I was involved in a conversation with several liberal and conservative friends of mine, when we tried to work out definitions of the motivations of both political philosophies. What did the words "big government" mean? What is government for? What did we believe citizens were responsible for and capable of doing? When you strip out actual legislative differences, are we so distant from each other? Some conservatives love to just say, "we are fulfilling the plan of God." Here's how your moonbat defines "liberal:"

"I believe as a liberal that we can build a society and establish a government that encourages the best in people while hedging against the worst. I believe that just as we inherited from the common past, we become obligated to invest in the common future. I believe that just as we strive to be good people, we strive as a people to be a good nation. I believe that we as humans have the basic right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and the guarantee of this is the proper pursuit of the governments formed by the people. I believe in a commitment towards society will produce the foundation and security upon which individual citizens may then build a good life."

So I'm sharing seven facts about the measure of me as a liberal:

1. I used to hate Starbucks. When conservatives started hating Starbucks and equating it with being yucky liberals to drink there, my eyes were suddenly opened to the virtues of Starbucks. I now love Starbucks.

2. I honestly think if you don't recycle you aren't good enough to be a liberal.

3. Conservatives are onto something when they try to ban books that introduce atheism, people having sex outside of marriage, and liberal values, or talk about other cultures. They are right, exposure will diminish their arguments that their opinions are best. However, I feel no pity for them and they will never win the battle of ideas. I am all for using book donations anywhere to increase the number of liberals. I remember reading all those Morgan the Unicorn stories. I no longer believe in unicorns, but I still believe there is no better good than kindness.

4. A man in a uniform turns me on. Oh, soldier boy!!

5. I remember the day I could no longer squash bugs and spiders. I was the only child my mother had who was unafraid. Even my brother was afraid. My sister brought me into the basement to squash a spider on the door going out into the backyard. He face was red with disgust. The huge wolf spider crouched down when I approached it. But it sat there, awaiting it's impending doom, trapped in the hope that the door would open instead and it could go back outside. Not human hope. I don't think they have human emotions. But spider hope, it's own version of faith in how the universe works and would deliver it from this strange exile. We looked at each other for a long time, and I opened the door instead.

6. I measure my life largely against my sister. When we all went to my mother's relatives in Massachusetts for Thanksgiving, I was sulking because I was sure she'd be in a skirt, and therefor she would be the better daughter. When my mother pointed out that she had not arrived with a skirt, I was still not satisfied. All of it is a deep cover for the fact that she has children and I do not. There are books and books of photographs of her babies all over the place, and I will never give anything to my family that produces as much delight as those babies. I want to have a baby. Psychologists aren't kidding when they talk about sibling rivalry.

7. I was raped seven years ago at a college party. Not the kind, at least, with a danger of pregnancy. I'd had a lot of coconut rum and went to crash on the bed of a friend. I woke up to find her boyfriend rutting top of me. She woke up to find me kicking him. She rolled over and started punching me in the head. I pretended to fall unconscious and she stopped. Her boyfriend remarked that he guessed that I didn't like what he was doing. She replied it was still not acceptable for me to kick him. They fell asleep. I crept out. The next day he told everyone I was a good time. She pretended like I didn't exist. I never told anyone the truth. And I'm a feminist. I couldn't trust people enough to go to class, to even go to the mess hall and eat. I flunked out. I drive new friends away before they can plot against me. Even to this day I experience vivid memory flashes from that night every time I go into a stranger's home.

I believe what we experience in our lives makes us moral actors. Who knows how many of the things that happen to us slowly build up to make us the liberal that we are today. None of what I have shared can be neatly dissected into little explanations of how they cause me to be a liberal. But in them is something important. Hospitality, kindness to people in pain, understanding the universe, and even a love of babies. Some injustice, yes. And some things odd or out of place. But human. And liberal.

Blogs I've tagged: Ketchup is a Vegetable and Stealth Badger.
They get the love because they are my only semi-regular comment-girlies.

Moonbat Takes On Idiot Private Security Force

So today found moonbat off to do her volunteer work at her favorite Museum, all up in her girlie clothes and girlie heels. Of course, just beyond the front door lies the private security force and their little amateur screening area, which impresses a real Transportation Security Officer not in the least bit. One key difference between TSA and this gaggle of guards, is that unlike an airport there is no same-gender screening, which means that they have a group of 30-40 year old men waiting around to screen women who set off the alarm because they were high heels. As moonbat prefers and has done for the past two years, she yanked hers off and tossed them on the x-ray belt. One of the male officers immediately jumped forward and insisted that she had to wear them through the walk-through metal detector.

Oh yeah? There might be glass. Really? Now, if all passengers who fly on airplanes are required to remove their shoes to pass through airport security at the decision of the Department of Homeland Security, one can reasonably conclude that there are no realistic legal or saftey concerns, especially since liability rests with the Museum and not the security force. So why the eager insistance? Well... moonbat could trip. What, into your waiting arms? So, moonbat insists on a supervisor, and after it becomes apparent that no one else will be allowed to enter until one is summoned, behold, when it was insisted that none were in the building, one can be found. After listening to the presented case, and looking at the growing line of scowling visitors, the supervisor relents.

Moonbat prances shoe-free through the walk-through metal detector. She slings her now x-rayed purse up onto her shoulder and begins to put on her heels. Supervisor insists that she come with him because he is going to have to file an incident report about her behavior, so that her supervisor can councel her on cooperating with security in the future. Sure. Glad to put things on paper. Not a problem. Moonbat reaches for her other heel.

Oh no, that won't do. Even though so many concerns were sighted to prevent moonbat from removing her heels for screening, it suddenly is okay for her to walk through the museum in bare feet.... because the supervisor seizes moonbat via her purse and attempt to haul her physically across the museum whilst she puts her other heel back on her foot. Oh now it was on. A good measure of steel in "take your hands off me" and he let go, all full of apologies, and made a quick retreat to his office. Another guard waddled up and with almost 300 lbs of authority told me there was no need to have an "attitude" and took down moonbat's information on a napkin. Moonbat found great amusement in forcing a choice between allowed to use her cell phone in the security area to listen to her voicemail (which even TSA allows) and being able to give the extention of her boss. Hah! So the guard had to waddle back off to look up the correct number. Now of course, for moonbat's chance to file a grievance. Only after twice insisting that complaint forms be provided for her, were such forms produced, and she was assured she could fill them out at her station and drop them off on her way out of the Museum later. Likely there was some hope moonbat would cool off and forget. Fat chance!!

Flew through the paperwork, scanned off a copy for her dear readers and also for the head cheese, and pranced right back down to drop them off. Of course, the real sticker is that this will likely result in absolutely no discipline measures against the guard, or any productive change in screening policies, like same gender or the right to remove your heels. Though people might love to whine and complain about the security screening procedures for airports done by TSA, few consider the alternatives of using private security firms to whom politicians have to curry favor in order to get campaign contributions. If Lockheed Martin did airport screening, you can be assured that your local Congressmen could never afford to investigate any real offense that occurred... but since it's all in house, it's safe to wack away at any infraction on the part of TSA. So for all those of you who like to complain that you got screened because the wire in your bra set off the walk-through metal detector, imagine instead of a female screener, an eager 30-year-old and 6 ft tall slobering hulk. And oh, yes, moonbat always wears her Victoria Secret... even today. Cheers!!

Technorati Tags:
liberal, democrat, washington DC, security, privatization, big government, congress, homeland security, TSA, moonbat

TalkLeft Learns to Say "Yes, Mistress!!"

So today marks the day when moonbat addresses an unfortunate incident when she was addressed as "SIR." Given gender and a stunning photo of my lavish red hair, this was very wrong, wasn't it??

TalkLeft: Yes, Mistress.

Let's choose a "safe word" for today. I know, that self-described "service" for busy progressives who want their own voice heard inside the legislative and electoral progress in an age of big money... Move On.

So, why is the anti-war movement so sick at heart? Why do the turn outs to the marches and rallies still suck even after a few thousand pairs of feet are argued one way or another? 2% turnout of a city so liberal the Democratic winner of the primary for Mayor orders his stationary the next day with city funds is piss poor. Especially since the march got infusions from around the country. Where was this majority of the country that disapproves of the Iraq War and elected a Democratic Congress, and why does nobody talk about Iraq?

"Now that this atrocity has moved into its fifth year, I don't overhear any street-corner, café, or waiting-room debate about what is being done in my name and yours. Of course, the war and endless war are the main topics when I'm with my friends and fellow members of the different peace organizations....Perhaps, soon, more and more of our young will awaken, throw off that blanket of apathy, examine the crimes committed by this administration against the people of Iraq and the people of the United States, and emerge as defenders of justice who will not allow the peace baton to ever be dropped again."

But it's not the anti-war movement's fault!! Oh no. Never let that cross your mind. Despite the fact that at the Pentagon, the only way they came up with that crowd was to give microphone time to causes that had nothing to do with Iraq. Like immigrants. Save the cheap lettuce, and all, but you are standing outside the Pentagon. Despite the fact that they spent more time denouncing the crimes of the Democratic Party than they actually spent denouncing the Iraq War of the polices of Bush. Despite the fact that so many of the protesters showed up to put pressure on the elected members of their government while waving the face of Hugo Chavez. But don't say it's the anti-war movement's fault they couldn't come up with the numbers to actually surround the Pentagon.

The anti-war movement explains that the Iraq War is the liberal anti-Iraq War voting public's fault: they have an imperial mindset, the fact that a majority of Americans don't support a phased redeployment is kept from them, and they've been duped into believing that the only way they can fight injustice is to shop. You see:

Let's remember, by the way, that, unlike mainstream Democratic "withdrawal" plans, the American public is talking about actually leaving Iraq, as in that old, straightforward slogan of the Vietnam era: Out now! In other words, there is a hardly noted but growing gap -- call it, in Vietnam-era-speak, a "credibility gap" -- between the Washington consensus and what the American people believe should be done when it comes to Iraq.

What I love about the anti-war movement is the whole "planting the seeds of your own destruction part." Yes, after cutting your teeth on movements to tell a whole lot of people what they can and can't do (save the rain forest, save the whales, dolphin-free tuna, stop violence against women, yadda yadda), you are told that all your skills are imperialistic. Right. Yes, because if you follow the links the anti-war movement provides to prove that the American public no longer backs the Iraq War, you find out that the answer to the question "Which of the following comes closest to your view? The U.S. should immediately begin to withdraw all its troops from Iraq. The U.S. should withdraw all its troops from Iraq within a year. The U.S. should keep its troops in Iraq as long as is needed to turn control over to the Iraqi government." is not something the anti-war movement wants to have anyone talk about. The numbers? Oh yeah. Only 21% support an immediate withdrawal, 37% in one year, 39% to stay as long as necessary for peace, 4% unsure. RightAnd I sure have noticed all the "spend your money here" payment links at the bottom of the only anti-war emails moonbat is privileged to receive. Right.

Heh. Right. If ill people need it explained to them that it's stupid to quote sources that disprove your own agenda, then yeah, that makes you an "idiot." The cameras of FOX News and the blogs of the gung-ho are just waiting to use such idiocy to feed the process of internal sectarian strife in the land of liberal, so that all out civil war will justify their having to remain in occupation until the job is done and liberals have stopped shedding each other's blood and learned to live in peace and share their toys. And back to Iraq.

Technorati Tags:
MoveOn, TalkLeft, anti-war, Iraq, politics, liberal, conservative, Bush, moonbat

Not in My Name Either

So today we are going to discuss yesterday and what it takes to get a moonbat to walk away from an anti-Iraq war rally, the very March on the Pentagon. Loved the March. Being confronted by screaming hordes of mostly men swathed in black leather biker jackets and calling for us to be hanged, sorta lights a fire under you. So does the hilariousness of the counter-demonstrators trying to claim more of them came than those protesting the war. Enough is enough. How is it scandalous to hint at holding critical thoughts of those serving in the armed forces, and anyone who has served becomes a protected elite and free to conduct themselves in any manner in public? One key lesson that should come of this is that American should be made to face the unforgivable tactics of those who call for the mass slaughter of their fellow Americans. To call someone a traitor is to advocate for their death, and this thirst for bloodshed is the growing battle cry of those who advocate unending military involvement in Iraq. America needs to take a hard look, and the left should be ready at the next rally to provide unflinching documentation of this poison.

Let me take a little moment to give a shout out to the D.C. police, who handled themselves with remarkable decorum and efficiency, and whose mounted presence was crucial to the lack of violence at both the march and the rally. Thanks to the men and women in blue. And the horses. Love the horses.

But the rally broke my bleeding heart, which of course is hard to do as it is wet and soggy with the tears I cry over the state of the world. But the rally broke my heart indeed, and Cynthia McKinney torched the ruins. Standing there in my khaki slacks and a Mossimo jacket, I looked nothing like my fellow demonstrators (which did mean I wasn't harassed walking to the gathering point for the march). And the numbers for the march were again, as they were a year ago, not high enough. The devote anti-war contingent of the Left needs to take a hard look at the result of calling Democrats collaborators in torture and war crimes, especially since the movement has its hand out so often. Iraq is not the only goal, and whatever aid the anti-war movement gave towards the recovery of House and Senate last fall for the Democratic Party, we do not have a veto proof majority. Congress literally has not the ability to force complete withdrawal (which I don't advocate anyway), so denouncing the Democratic majority for not providing it only shows an extreme level of policial immaturity. Not a very pretty sight. Ire raised, I left and headed off to a family birthday party. And I love the cold. Et tu, Brute?

I will confess that the anti-war movement has made visible progress since last year's rally, which some of you might remember from the scant coverage that it received. I shall hear admit that I ran into the group World Can't Wait when they showed up at a pro-Wall of TexoChina rally. I rambled into the frakking thing, going from one Smithsonian Museum to another. Started chanting "Save the Cheap Lettuce." Got a shout out from the organizer for being disrespectful. Got joined in booing the rally by... a group of parents on a school field trip... from Texas. Texans ... booing the Wall. Go figure. Anyways, a passing officer worker text messaged a member of World Can't Wait, and they showed up with a few signs and [i]they[/i] made the photo for the Washington Post. Instead of me, the instigator of the whole counter-protest. As a random aside note, Nazis showed up to support the Wall of TexoChina, in full regalia. Oops.

So I got curious and showed up at two World Can't Wait meetings, which were Wednesday night in a basement of a row house near Union Station. I'm still on their email list. World Can't Wait leaned more towards "Bush Step Down" in those days over impeachment, which they saw as impossible and a validation of a system of corruption in Congress. Or something. I chastised them for that. And also their terrible fliers, full of quotes from Hollywood celebs and not facts and statistics. And for the silly bandannas over the faces bit. And for allowing the other side to frame themselves as the only ones holding the Stars and Stripes. And for not being able to explain their organization goals. The floor went on to another woman, who remarked at length about how all our lives were in danger because the CIA might "get us." Sigh. By the second meeting they were trying to arrange movie nights and facing up to the problem of their rent being $1100 a month for a basement. So I bailed and went back to Drinking Liberally.

The March reflected honest growth, some reclaiming of the right to call oneself a patriot and fly the colors, although bandannas still cropped up here and there. Really, it wasn't that cold. The signs were better, clearer, but the message coming from the speakers was not. Several were off topic, several attacked allies more than they criticized either the Bush administration of the conduct of Pentagon officials. Organizers recruited veterans and soldiers who had served in Iraq to speak, and that deserves especial kudos. But at some point, the anti-war left has to embrace the idea that speeches are a kind of art, and need polish and cohesion. And although I admire the dedication of Mama Moonbat Cindy Sheehan, no one should stand up in front of the crowd and call for people to not pay their taxes. When there's a shortfall, it won't be military funding that suffers, but domestic programs and the salaries of government employees, like myself. Although it commendable, the lenght that speakers went to in order to be respectful of all soldiers and veterans on both sides of the line, since the march was on the Pentagon, the speakers missed the mark time and again. Pentagon officials bear some responsibility for the fiasco in Iraq, yet their guilt was avoided by and large. More marches there should be, but the anti-war left will have to choose the goal of sanity in America's policy towards Iraq, and form coalitions with the liberal majority that is not inherently anti-all-war.

More flags. Clear documentation of what those who support unending war in Iraq are advocating be done with those Americans who disagree. More outreach towards the populations of the states surrounding the march site, so that the general liberal public doesn't find out about the march a week before hand from a tiny poster on a random city street light. Coordinated blogger coverage, utilization of YouTube, and more training of groups and organization members in dealing with resistance met along the march route. There are needed reforms to the anti-war movement, and until the lead dogs like answer find a way to address them, they will not come up with the numbers of marchers needed to really surround the Pentagon again.

Technorati Tags:
anti-war, Cindy Sheehan, liberal, conservative, Iraq, Bush, moonbat, pentagon

Where in the World Is Osama bin Laden?

So today the wardrums for attacking Iran have stepped themselves up a notch in the wake of Al-Zawahiri releasing an audio message with pictures to color in and a Guardian story detailing the advancement of plans in the Bush administration to attack Iran in the spring. Con-blogs are latching onto an American Enterprise Insitute initiative to use bunker-busting nuclear weapons. Other reasons for war with Iran embrace the geopolitical ignorance of kindergartners who are another group of American citizens who are blind to certain realities. If Russian missiles are being purchased and used to down U.S. helicopters, why is there no drumbeat to nuke Russia? More self-embraced confusion by the cons comes with the idea that nuking Iran will lower recruitment for Islamic fundamentalism and that Iran can be equated as a wellspring of Al-Qaeda. The rise of Iran as a Middle East power also excites the "End-Times" segments of the cons... but then they also think Boston's mooninites herald the judgement day. Only con-blogs could accuse Iran of arming anti-Iraqi Irai to attack Iraq and American soldiers.

How is the surge going anyways and how could it have ever gone? Crystal balls of course, only really work on the past: How it took six weeks for American troops to pacify one Sunni street... and then loose it again to the same insurgents in 2006, the instant they left. Neighborhoods will be controlled by the dominant armed group who lives in them, although this is a difficult reality about Iraq to face. Talk of "pacifying" isn't talk about creating peace, it's about putting your boot on someone's throat in the hopes that their spirits will break before you need to go take a piss. Get real- these people survived under Saddam, they will survive a couple of 20ish kids from Iowa. Plodding through the partisan muck masquerading as patriotism, your moonbat finds Iran billed as a new front in the war on terror, and Iran's getting a coat of 9-11-backer lipstick, no one's claiming the U.S. will find Osama bin Laden there in a spiderhole.

The wardrums pound out an accusatory beat that must make our nominal Middle Eastern allies rather nervous, given that Iran stands as the least of the offenders in who has been pumping aid into the civil war in Iraq. Of course, if we do attack Iran to stop the supplying of weapons to the Shiites, Russia will still be able to sell to the Sunni through Saudi Arabia, so it won't be a complete loss to them. What makes the pounding of the drums such savagry, is the unflinching support on the Right for the idea of using nukes to intimidate terrorists. States have a vested interest in not getting nuked; terrorists will just relocate. And anyways, the Iranian population strongly dislikes Osama bin Laden right now... but drop a few nuclear missles and the copies of his lectures will become bestsellers. You can even ask them:

"Both Iranians and Americans have strongly negative views of Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. Three in four Iranians (74%) and more than nine in ten Americans (94%) view bin Laden unfavorably, including large majorities (68% and 89%, respectively) who view him very unfavorably. Only 10 percent of Iranians look at the al Qaeda leader favorably (2% Americans). Nine in ten Americans have a very unfavorable opinion of bin Laden and ninety-two percent of Americans say al Qaeda poses an important threat to the United States, including 59 percent who say it poses a critical one.




Iranians, like Americans, perceive al Qaeda and Islamist militant groups as threats, though less strongly. More than half of Iranians (53%) call al Qaeda an important threat, including a third (33%) who say it is critical. Twenty percent say al Qaeda is not a threat (27 percent no answer). Similarly, 57 percent of Iranians view the threat from “Islamist sectarian militant groups” as important, including 36 percent who say is critical. Fifteen percent say it is not important at all....

Iranians were also asked specifically about attacks on American and Iraqi civilians, with “sometimes” or “never” justified the only options given. Nine in ten Iranians (88%) say that “attacks against Iraqi civilians in Iraq” are never justified. Nearly as many (76 percent) say “attacks against American civilians living in the United States” are never justified (15% sometimes justified).

Respondents were then asked to think “in the context of war and other forms of military conflict” and to consider whether certain types of civilians could be a legitimate target. Overwhelming majorities of Iranians reject as “never justified:” attacks on women and children (91%), the elderly (92%), and “wives and children of the military” (86%).

Americans largely agree, though larger percentages in each case said such attacks are rarely justified. This is true for attacks on women and children (72% never, 15% rarely), the elderly (71% never, 16% rarely), and wives and children of the military (74% never, 12% rarely)."

So, we are declaring war on yet another country and it's not actually about finding terrorists are rooting out bomb cells, we're just calling it the "war on terror" for consistency's sake. What we are really going to bill nuking Iran as is revenge for 1983. Which just goes to show that only the moonbats are reading Dinesh D'Souza. Don't believe me, just check out the Congressional speech when Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) was called upon to speak of Iraq, but stumped for attacking Iran. Boehner reimagines the "war on terror" as having been started by Iran all along, and not Osama:

"It began with the Iran hostage taking in 1979.
Then, on October 23, 1983, the suicide attack on the Marine Barracks in Beirut killed 241 American servicemen and injured 60 others."

Con-blogs love to insinutate or outright claim that 9-11 occurred because President Clinton didn't bomb Afghanistan in retaliation for the USS Cole bombing... so they are trying to sweep under the rug that President Reagan didn't bomb Iran for the Iranian funded bombing in Beirut that claimed the lives of 241 American service personnel and 1 Lebanese janitor. Which is more than the total fatality count for deaths reportedly linked to Iranian manufactured weapons components over the last three years. So what did happen to Iran in 1983. Oh... the French bombed the Iranian Revolutionary Guard for their part in the next day bombing of a French barracks that killed 58 paratroopers and 5 Lebanese civilians. Got to love those French. What did Reagan do? A few months later, the U.S. military pulled out of Lebanon.

Wait.. what was the question?? Osama who?? I have no clue.

Technorati Tags:
Iraq, Iran, Osama bin Laden, war on terror, Beirut, liberal, conservative, moonbat

O'Reilly: Many Americans 'Paid Agents of Oppression' in Iraq

So today I wandered from a search for stories about New Orleans on Fox to where Bill O’Reilly calls the second largest armed contingent of Americans in Iraq “paid agents of oppression.” Trying to defend the largest such contingent, Billy forgets that ah… America does have mercenaries- oops, private security contractors, in Iraq and that the United States… pays them money to kill people and doesn’t ask them to swear an oath of fealty before doing so. So America does in fact have it’s very own 15,000 some force of “paid agents of oppression,” and if some 300 of them have died in the War on Terror, Billy discounts them because at least they got paid. Who can blame him really, when confusion seems rampant? Still, you heard it from Bill O'Reilly, so America must indeed be the Great Oppressor. Nice, Billy.

Why has the internet devolved into a froth of STFU over the word “mercenary?” Osama bin Laden released a new tape? Ann Coulter released a new book and still sporting a ridiculous skimpy black dress? Nope… it’s all NBC, released a STFU clip of several soldiers of Apache Company speaking on Americans who dissent from any aspect of the War in Iraq. One soldier whines that only soldiers who have served in Iraq really have anything intelligent to say. Another maintains that you can't support the troops and not agree wholeheartedly with the war... so liberals are lying. Another sniffles that if Americans don't put on a brave face and say that our soldiers are winning in Iraq, he can't feel good about himself. Other Apache Company soldiers (who didn't make the clip) possess the ability to understand why some 70% of Americans think sending more troops to Iraq is “beating a dead horse” and would rather “go back and play my PlayStation.” All reported to you by that mythical creature that con-blogs swear does not exist: a Washington Post reporter outside of the Green Zone.

William Arkin choked on his Starbucks latte and fired off a STFU: The Troops Also Need to Support the American People, on his WaPost blog, Early Warning. The gist of it being (and of course so often wildly distorted and misquoted by various con-blogs) that soldiers in uniform ought not to think they can get up and tell the American people to STFU and be quiet and obedient little homefront whores. Okay, his language wasn't that strong. But he did go out of the way to state he didn't think they'd been brainwashed or prompted by their superiors, and that they more than of course enjoyed the freedom of speech of those people these soldiers were telling to STFU. Under the indignint sputtering, Arkin had a point: the freedom of speech does not include the freedom to decide that others should be silent for your own peace, and that their superiors should point that the frak out. Certainly nothing dire will happen to those three soldiers, but I would have been immediately terminated from federal employment for making a political statement in my uniform. Arkin has another stinger for the troops in the NBC vid: the liberal anti-Iraq War movement has been bending over backwards to focus their displeasure at the political side of the Iraq spectrum. Appreciation and gratitude for this decorum are in order, and not these sneers and snipes.

900 responses served the cut off for WaPost on that article, yet an astounding number of people wrote back with wild ideas about what the
article they were responding to actually said and who Arkin actually happened to be. Most denounced Arkin as claiming soldiers didn't have First Ammendment rights and as having spent his life safe inside the confines of Washington DC. Arkin took the time to clairfy that his annoyance had not been directed towards the military as a whole, but those soldiers who suggest that dissent against the war should be suppressed for the greater good. Although his post contained no further insults, many con-blogs went on to twist his words to read so, claiming he had gone on to call soldiers inhuman and murders. Which.. sorry, but none of that's in the note. 1500 responses later, WaPost pulls the plug on the comment section: Arkin's been denounced as a traitor, comments on O'Reilly exposing Arkin as an environmentalist, suggestions he actually visit Iraq, and his being a father called a "shame." Arkin opens up his mailbag and organizes all the ways he has beendemonized, and points out that there's a difference between a debate and a mob. Arkin bows out, for the moment, and who can blame him in the face of threats of violence?

Bill O'Reily reared his head to the fore of the blood thirsty mob, charging that Arkin's blog was an attack on the military in "a very personal way" and constituted a "debacle," despite the fact that no interns were soliticited for sex by a member of Congress while Arkin sat by and typed. Herein O'Reilly defends the military's record in Iraq and Afghanistan:

"The United States military has performed heroically in Iraq and Afghanistan in brutal environments. For any American, any American to accuse them of being paid agents of oppression is disgraceful and far over the line of rational thought."

O'Reilly isn't done with just ambushing Arkin when he's on a snow day in Vermont. He teams with FOX news analyst Kirsten Powers (just for an official flair) and his real guest, con-blog Michelle Malkin. Notice on the transcript page of their segment, the two cons get professional ID photos, and Arkin gets a "wild man" blurred mug shot. Surely FOX could have coughed up a professional headshot of Arkin... unless there's a deliberate message there? Wonder what it could be?

On with the show: Michelle's scared silly of course, that Arkin's going to track her down and mug her. "He's an intellectual coward. He's a thug. And he's a radical left wing loon." Michelle goes on to harp about Arkin working for Greenpeace and Human Right's Watch, implying that he worked as a primary activist. (Michelle conceals that Arkin worked for them as a military analyst, especially for Greenpeace's impact study of the Gulf War on the environment of the Middle East.) Michelle conceals (and this is important) any indication Arkin might have a background in the military, making him reputable as a "military affairs analyst and an intelligence specialist." Arkin was in the military you say? Oh yes, dear readers.

"William M. Arkin is an independent writer, investigator, and consultant specializing in national security affairs. He is the "Dot.Mil" columnist for the Washington Post's online service and has written the "Last Word" column in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists since 1985. He is also a regular contributor to Defense Daily. He is an adjunct professor at the U.S. Air Force's School of Advanced Airpower Studies...

Mr. Arkin served in the U.S. Army from 1974-1978, and was an assistant to the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence of the US Commander Berlin. He was engaged in a number of covert intelligence collection projects and was the primary intelligence analyst for the West Berlin command."

Fox passes on a threat of physical assult to Arkin. How... Stalinist. In the only other time FOX acknowledged Arkin's existence and thought to keep a record, was to quote him on possible Iraqi casualties in the 2003 Invasion of Iraq. Arkin is only then a "a private analyst and expert on the Iraqi military," quoted as noting that Iraqi deaths during the invasion would be a factor in a possible future Iraqi insurgency. No need to mention Greenpeace? Why not? Gee, I wonder. I just can't figure it out...

When Evil Prospers picks up the Michelle's spin nice and clean with: "You see Arkin, like most other anti-war folks, never served in the military, so they don't really understand the idea behind a "cause"." Apparently, google is a really complicated search engine to learn to use, eh? That little white lie picks up steam. We are treated to a great deal of profanity and alliteration over at BlackFive, and also "[soldiers] also happen to be the American people to a degree you and the rest of the hater clowns with your Grinch-sized hearts will never understand" and references soldiers as Arkins "betters." Blackfive then goes on to say that anyone who serves as an army soldier in the feild of intelligence is an "intel weasel." So, who would rather be a paid agent of oppression over roadkill? I would. Blackfive then descends into public confessions of a possible inability to control his bladder, and that Arkin must be a Soviet Commie spy. Don't you just love original insults? Oh wait.. didn't the USSR go away? Don't we just call it Russia now? Anyway, so amusing to find a con-blog who insults soldiers because soldiers were insulted. Clowns.

Novelty emerges in the charge that Arkin isn't a traitor because there can be no traitors to America... anyone who expresses dissent about American soldiers must be an illegal alien, so call ICE. Some intelligent people are speaking up, and should be heard. However, the avoidance of Arkin's military service bears noting for lib-logs and liberal activists, who might think that liberal soldiers opinions will be an effective counter for the con-blogs. Who are becoming less bashful in calling us all traitors, out to get the soldiers by speaking against the Iraqi Occupation: "...for the government and the population to deny them our support is a civil betrayal of the first order and a gross moral failing." Con-blogs who address his military service feel of course free to use it to attack him, claiming there must be an inner demon that makes Arkin unfit to be a soldier. Rare civility may be found, but still the underlying sentiments of evil liberals out to get the troops shines through. Yes, because that's what I think about when I see a hot young enlistee out of bootcamp. Well yes, I do think about getting them, but just.. in another way. Hehehehe.... Go to the comment section here for another American who first called a volunteer army "mercenaries."

Surely some of all this vitrile arises from how much the cons used to love Arkin.. for say... passing on praise of a human rights worker in Iraq of the US military. Or blogging that Ted Kennedy is full of s**t. Or being a leading voice against the real fruitcakes of the left and the 9-11 Truth Movement, by stating that the most diabolical conspiracy theory about 9-11 is that "the U.S. government somehow was complicit and even responsible for the events." Or smiling warmingly when Arkin hates on Hugo Chavez. But wait, what has your favorite moonbat found here??

"Nothing in the description includes the United States, not just as occupier and the most prized target but also as a wholly ineffective force. The U.S. military battles here and there, headhunting for al-Qaeda, engaged in a never-ending game of “whack-a-mole” with insurgents, cat and mouse moving around to avoid faceless IED attacks on the roads and highways, barricaded in its “green” zone.


What the United States is not doing, and what its Iraqi government partner is not doing, and what neither has ever been done since day one, is provide security and safety for the citizens of the country."

The depth of this manufactured outrage over being called mercenaries is highlighted when it takes a moonbat to point out that being called a "wholly ineffective force" is worse. At least mercenaries get to kick @$$ and keep their pride in their boots and not their hurt little feelings.

Sticks and stones will break your bones, but names will never hurt you. And oh yeah... STFU!!

Technorati Tags:
Iraq, America, William Arkin, Early Warning, liberal, conservative, moonbat, peace

(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