Saturday, March 10, 2007
The AP Reports :
"The U.S. military asserted that an American soldier was justified in erasing journalists' footage of the aftermath of a suicide bombing and shooting in Afghanistan last week, saying publication could have compromised a military investigation and led to false public conclusions.
"That is not a reasonable justification for erasing images from our cameras," said AP Executive Editor Kathleen Carroll in New York. "AP's journalists in Afghanistan are trained, accredited professionals working at an appropriate distance from the bombing scene. In democratic societies, legitimate journalists are allowed to work without having their equipment seized and their images deleted."
Afghan witnesses and gunshot victims said U.S. forces fired on civilians in cars and on foot along at least a six-mile stretch of road from Barikaw following the suicide attack against the Marine convoy. The U.S. military said insurgents also fired on American forces during the attack. One Marine was wounded.
A U.S. soldier deleted the AP journalists' footage that showed a civilian four-wheel drive vehicle in which three Afghans were shot to death about 100 yards from the suicide bombing. The journalists had met requests from the military to not move any closer to the bomb site."
READ FULL STORY
Democrats reacted with disbelief when the Nevada Democratic Party agreed to let FOX News host a Presidential debate, with no other co-sponsors.
This should come as no surprise. FOX News, after all has been the champion of running Conservative talking points and baseless smearing of Democrats for years now.
The blogosphere (this blog not included) erupted into protest, how could the Nevada Democrats be so blind? Were they that eager to be accepted by Conservatives who will loathe them no matter what, that they were willing to sacrifice their integrity by recognizing FOX News as a legitimate news source?
There may have been a time when FOX News was a legitimate news source, but for all of my adult life, it has not been, and only carries the type of parasites that are capable of offending Independents, Moderates and Democrats in this country.
FOX has been host to countless "Obama-Osama" smears, run dozens of false and misleading banners on it's programs and has allowed and encouraged extremist to appear on their programming, and despite their claim -- is about as far from fair and balanced as Al-Manar TV is.
Democrats should have never agreed to do let FOX host a debate in the first place. FOX is not news for Moderates, Independents and Democrats, it is entertainment aimed at Conservatives.
FOX had no intentions of hosting a fair and balanced debate, it was their intention to try to spin the debate in favor of Conservatives, and you could have expected banners like "Why does Hillary Hate America?" or "Can America Accept Osama's Muslim Past?"
Anyone with even the slightest amount of observation skills knows that the FOX debate was a setup and a sham from the beginning. Nothing more than an opportunity for ultra unreasonable hate junkies like Bill O' Reilly and Sean Hannity to attack Democrats in a completely controlled environment. (FOX refused to let anyone else co-sponsor the event.)
Predictably, Conservative mouthpieces refuse to see the truth - that Democrats pulled out of the debate because FOX has repeatedly broadcast false or misleading information, not only regarding Democrats, but the War On Terror, the War in Iraq and the Bush Administration.
Conservative mouthpieces instead choose self denial, claiming that Democrats are afraid of the one sided spun debate.
But what really did FOX in was some of it's most recent comments, an alleged joke aimed at Presidential hopeful Barack Obama, who FOX anchors have repeatedly tried to smear as having some kind of association with terrorism.
"And it is true that Barack Obama is on the move. I don't know if it's true that President Bush called Musharraf and said, 'Why can't we catch this guy?" Roger Ailes, Fox President.
Like with most low blows Conservatives like to throw, they also like to claim whatever offensive remark they made was only a "joke".
Steve Young, blogging for Huffington Post is claiming that the joke that was made at Barack Obama's expense that insinuated Obama was a terrorist was actually a joke made at the expense of President Bush that had insinuated the President couldn't find terrorist.
WHAT?? Wait a minute... WHAT??
We are talking about the same FOX News right? The same FOX News that makes a living broadcasting servile flattery towards President Bush, is now insulting President Bush? Calling him dumb? I don't think so, give me a break.
Anyone who believes that must be ... some kind of Conservative living in denial or completely blind, and deaf.
THANKS TO STEVE YOUNG AND HIS VERY INFORMATIVE BLOG we now know for certain what sort of tactic and spin the Radical Red's are going to try to put on this one - from the mouth of the horse, or at least one of them. "Well, I wasn't calling Obama a terrorist, I was calling Bush an idiot. Jeez, I guess you can't please the Liberals either way, boo-hoo." and they will believe in that hogwash.
The fact of the matter is FOX News has a very well known tendency to demean anything that is Democratic, smear anyone who is Liberal or Independent from them and present a very slanted view of most news that could even be considered disinformation at times.
Democrats, in their eagerness to reach out to Conservatives tried to give FOX the benefit of the doubt and allow them to host a Presidential Debate, practicably FOX screwed that up.
It is no one's fault but FOX that FOX choose to continue to smear Barack Obama and the Democratic Party without basis, therefore it is no one's fault but FOX that the Democrats cancelled the debate.
It has nothing to do with fear, and everything to do with integrity.
Friday, March 09, 2007
The FBI improperly and, in some cases, illegally used the USA Patriot Act to secretly obtain personal information about people in the United States, a Justice Department audit concluded Friday.
This year at CPAC the headline was all about Ann Coulter and her "faggot" slur. In fact, everyone was so preoccupied with Coulters slur, that no one noticed who the recipient of the Jeanne Kirpatrick Academic Freedom Award was.
The next day a large number of gay bloggers recognized the recipient of the award as one "Rod Majors" a well endowed gay porn star.
His real name is Matt Sanchez and he is a Marine, and there is no word yet on why he had not chosen the screen name "Corporal C*ck or Private Parts... Anyhow...
Liberals have jumped all over the opportunity to point out not only how ironic it is that Matt Sanchez is the gay porn star known as "Rod Majors", but how hypocritical it was of Conservatives who are typically and notoriously anti-gay to be awarding a man who once starred in gay porno. It becomes a case of awarding the very same people who you have made a living out of demonizing.
I guess Mr. Sanchez is not homosexual, he just liked to play one in the movies, and that is fine. I am a Liberal so I do not deem it in my power or interest to dictate and condemn the lifestyle choice of homosexuals, or those who like to play them in the movies.
Sanchez has been heralded by Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity as a hero by being called a "baby killer" (something investigated and never proven to be true), he has also gotten cheeky with Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin, all very well known Conservatives, all very well known for being anti-gay.
No matter how hard one can try to ignore it, there is something most unusual and noteworthy about Ann Coulter making a "faggot" slur and "Rod Majors" the gay porn star receiving an award all at the same Conservative studded event.
Sanchez tries to defend himself in his blog, claims he is being attacked by the Left, then lashes out by saying if he was Liberal that being on a gay porn set would have been "heaven".
In his blog, Sanchez gives the impression that he is blaming everyone but himself for his fling with the gay porn industry, but pictures can say 1,000 words, and Sanchez looked like he was enjoying himself.
Think Progress is reporting that Conservative columnist Michelle Malkin is already downplaying Coulters remarks and claiming that the Sanchez incident will prove "who the real bigots" are.
"I have a feeling Ann Coulter isn’t the only one who’ll be tossing around the f-word as the story develops." Malkin commented.
Malkin illustrates her ineptitude quite plainly, she is implying that Liberals will now start tagging the "f-word" to Matt Sanchez, because he is a "Conservative" gay porn star, rather than a Liberal one.
One thing Malkin is failing to understand is that Liberals don't call people the "f-word", because of our annoying Political Correctness that Conservatives like Malkin complain about so incessantly.
Malkin, is funny, though unfortunately it is not in the way she tries to be.
Today Malkin comments that she thought the "CPAC organizers would be justified in being embarrassed if the rumors about Sanchez’s porn star past 15 years ago turned out to be true. Well, the rumors are true. But it is neither CPAC nor Cpl. Sanchez who should feel embarrassed."
I agree that Sanchez should not be embarrassed that he had sexual contact with other males. Sexuality is inherent, it is built in, you are either strait or you are not, and I have no problem with homosexuals, I really don't care.
But I do believe the porn industry to be dirty and demeaning, and Sanchez should be have some shame that he was in any pornography. Whether it was porno for homosexuals or heterosexuals is irrelevant, it was porno nonetheless, gutter trash. Even as Liberal as I am, I do not believe people should be proud of their work in such a perverted field, it is not "art" and people should be embarrassed to be in pornography, the same way people should be embarrassed to be prostitutes.
CPAC should be embarrassed as well, it should be embarrassed for putting on such a spectacle in the first place. They should be embarrassed that Ann Coulter makes Conservatives look like intolerant bigots by using a homosexual slur, and they should be embarrassed that they look so hypocritical by claiming to be "the moral party", then inviting a gay porn star to receive it's highest award.
Again, I believe there is nothing wrong with being homosexual, but I do believe being in pornography is a less than admirable career choice at any age and I am a fierce opponent of hypocrisy, and this years CPAC was neck deep in it.
But, according to Malkin (you have to give the girl some credit for trying so hard to spin this) it's the Liberals who should be embarrassed! Read,
"It’s the nasty, gloating liberals who claim to stand for tolerance, privacy, human rights, and compassion." [who should be embarassed]
Yeah, that's right, it was the Liberals who held bigot fest 2007, where gay slurs and porno stars were aplenty!
"I predicted the other day that left-wing bigotry would rear its ugly head. I was right. The e-mail I’ve received is more disgusting than anything Ann Coulter stupidly said at CPAC."
Oh, did little Michelle Malkin get some hateful-wateful emails from anonymous strangers-wangers? Welcome to the club! Yes, Malkin, and I too get nasty emails from Conservatives who say things that are far more disgusting than any anecdote Micheal Moore, or even Che Guevara ever told - so stuff a sock in it.
As Think Progress pointed out "What’s notable is that Malkin compares Coulter to these alleged “liberal” emailers. Malkin doesn’t get it: the random people allegedly writing her don’t have regular appearances on NBC News or receive warm praise from leading presidential candidates." But Ann Coulter does.
So there is quite a huge difference between some hateful emails that anonymous and fringe elements of Liberalism send to a columnist and a different famous columnist who preaches hate to the millions and is lauded by Conservatives for doing so.
In conclusion, this year at CPAC was more interesting than most. I wish "Rod Majors" luck in that whole "red blooded Reagan Republican" B.S. , it looks like they may let Sanchez continue to play in their reindeer games, but only because they can use him as a tool (or use his tool-haha) to attack the nefarious Left with.
Thursday, March 08, 2007
The AP reports that :
"Hillary Rodham Clinton offered a new GI Bill of Rights for men and women in uniform, arguing that Democrats can do a better job of protecting and providing for U.S. troops than the Republican administration."
While it was widely rumored that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich had several extramarital affairs which led to not only one but two messy divorces he always refused to talk about it.
Gingrich admitted to Focus on the Family founder James Dobson in an interview to be aired on Friday that "the answer is yes" he had committed infidelity, while pursuing charges against former President Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
Gingrich claimed that he was not a hypocrite to lead a crusade against Bill Clinton, even though he too was committing adultery.
"There are times that I have fallen short of my own standards. There's certainly times when I've fallen short of God's standards." Gingrich stated.
Newt Gingrich is very popular among the Conservative base even though he fails to uphold even his own image of a "good Conservative".
Gingrich is considering an '08 White House run. Wish him luck, he'll need it, lots of it.
Top Republicans Knew Of Walter Reed Neglect - Did Not Want To "Embarrass The Military"
Related : Who Supports The Troops?
The Mainstream Media continues fail to live up to even the most menial expectations while failing to report that Republican Congressional leaders knew of Walter Reed neglect for years and failed to act.
Even in 2004 red flags should have been raised when the non profit group Disabled American Veterans was blocked from meeting with patients at Walter Reed.
Yesterday CQ reported that :
"C.W. Bill Young, R-Fla., former chairman of the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, said he stopped short of going public with the hospital’s problems to avoid embarrassing the Army while it was fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan."
It appears as if Young knew of conditions at Walter Reed as early as 2003 and claims he repeatedly approached the hospitals former commander, Gen. Kevin C. Kiley about the poor care soldiers were receiving.
During Congressional hearings Young claimed that “We got in Gen. Kiley’s face on a regular basis,” Though apparently the alleged pressure on Kiley did little to nothing to improve the conditions of the outpatient care or Kiley's on the job performance nor does it appear that genuine "follow ups" were made.
After the Congressional hearing Young retorted “What else do you want me to do? I am not going to go into a hospital and push my way into a medical situation,”
Those sound like excuses, feeble excuses for not calling attention to a dire problem within our own system, the system which was partially under his control.
“We did not go public with these concerns, because we did not want to undermine the confidence of the patients and their families and give the Army a black eye while fighting a war,” Young said.
WHAT?!? You know what I bet would "undermine the confidence of the patients and their families" even more?
Receiving poor care would most definitely undermine their confidence.
Having Congressmen and even the President come to pay visit but fail to blow the appropriate whistles because of political reasons would most definitely undermine their confidence.
That's what I bet would undermine the patients and their families confidence.
So what becomes of Kiley, the man who failed to provide our troops with a clean and respectable place to recover?
Did he get punished? NO! Kiley is now the Army's top ranking doctor, the Army Surgeon General! UP is DOWN people!
Thomas M. Davis, another Republican from Virgina also acknowledged he knew about problems at Walter Reed as earlier as 2004.
Davis also admited that he failed to appraoch other Republicans for more money or legislation to address the problems encountered at Walter Reed.
Davis's excuse? “We are not appropriators. . . . I don’t know what else we could have done,” and “If generals don’t go around and look at the barracks, how do you legislate that?”
What else could have they done?
Well, applying pressure to Kiley and other responsible individuals would have been appropriate. If improvements were not made then obviously going to the media would have been a feasible option.
These men knew about these conditions for years and failed to even let anyone know.
Washington Post reports on it on Saturday and by Monday repairs are being made.
It was that easy to help these young men and woman who served their country, while the people who asked them to do so hide behind a wall of excuses.
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
UPDATE : Verizon and Sallie Mae have removed advertising from Ann Coulter's website and two newspapers have announced their intentions to drop Coulter's column.
Yesterday I wrote on the wisdom of Ann Coulter, and what we could learn from her. In the end my point was that we can learn that people like Ann Coulter represent the mainstream, not fringe of Conservative thinking.
Ann Coulter went on Fox News to confirm what I had already written by stating "I say something, the same people become hysterical, and that's the end of it. I mean I think the lesson young right wingers ought to draw from this is : It's really not that scary to attack Liberals."
Coulter shrugged off the fact that several Conservatives had a negative reaction to her comment and called for her expulsion from the Conservative Movement.
Conservative mouthpiece Michelle Malkin condemned Coulters "faggot" slur but went on to comment on Coulter's popularity among the Conservative Movement and said that "I have been a longtime admirer of her work. She has done the yeoman's work for conservatism."
The Conservative blog The American Mind wrote "An Open Letter To CPAC Sponsors And Organizers Regarding Ann Coulter" in which it is written "Coulter's fearlessness has become an addiction to shock value" and that Coulters "reckless language reinforces the stereotype that Conservatives are racists." So far the letter has been "signed" by a little over than 30 Conservative bloggers.
But thirty Conservative bloggers and a handful of Republicans is not the mainstream of Conservatism, the mainstream of Conservatism stands with Coulter and her comments with their refusal to denounce her comments and their embrace of her intolerance.
Regardless of the liability Ann Coulter carries with her she is the Conservative Movement's most prominent spokeswoman, and they love her because of her intolerance, not despite it.
The American Conservative Union is a co-sponsor of the event, and David Keene, the President of the Union issued the statement that "ACU and CPAC leave it to our audience to determine whether comments are appropriate or not."
Keene did not, however, condemn Coulter's comment, and we can assume that since last time Coulter spoke at CPAC the "raghead" comment was appropriate to the audience, that this years "faggot" comment will also be appropriate.
The "raghead" and "faggot" comments are only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the sometimes incoherent rantings of Ann Coulter.
WikiQuote has assembled a nice collection of her better known "works" for anyone who is interested...
In seeing inside the mind of a person who embodies every negative aspect of a bigot, hypocrite or possible sociopath in desperate need of medication.
Ann Coulter, as much as everyone on the Left and the independents who lean Right would like to believe, is not a fringe element of the Right wing, she is the mainstream, and if you want a peek into what Republicans really think, and really believe, one needs to look no further than Ann Coulter.
The Right would not produce Ann Coulter as an offensive shield if their ideology was different from hers.
Ann Coulter verbalizes what the hard Right wish they could say but are too afraid to say. They know it, she knows it and we know it.
In the end it becomes damaging to the Republicans because they continue to court her long after mainstream America has deemed her to be vile.
Bitter Conservative mouthpieces like Malkin, Coulter, Limbaugh, O'Reilly- they do nothing to attract new recruits to the Republican Party, and turn off Moderates, but they do help to galvanize the Republican base of privileged but disgruntled, racist and predominantly white males, and in the end, I guess that's all they care about.
Monday, March 05, 2007
We Could All Learn Something From Ann
Did I ever tell you that Ann Coulter is my hero? I can fly higher than an eagle, because she is the wind beneath my wings.
Did I ever tell you that before I was enlightened by the brilliance of Ann Coulter, that ideologically I wasn't sure if I was a Liberal or a Conservative, but that mostly stemmed from the fact that I didn't care about politics.
One day, years ago I was snapped out of my indifference to the political world by one shrill voice calling for the forceful conversions of Muslims to Christianity. A voice that called for intolerance on all levels, a voice that contradicted the very values I was raised with. Lo and behold, I present you Ann Coulter.
The woman who probably even made Osama bin Laden chuckle when she called the 9/11 widows "broads" who were enjoying their husbands deaths.
Ann Coulter is a beacon of bigotry and a role model for racist, and she claims to be an American, though her ideology is thoroughly un-American.
So what is she doing speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) a year after she caught criticism for using the word "raghead" to describe people of Middle Eastern decent?
This year at the Conservative Pundits Acting Crazy (CPAC) event Ann Coulter focused on sexuality rather than race.
During a long winded spell in which Ann tied Democrats to the whipping poll and praised Republican Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney for his ability to "hoodwink" Liberals so easily (Romney is a former pro-gay, pro-abortion Democrat who once claimed to be to the left of Ted Kennedy, so maybe it's the Conservatives Romney is hoodwinking. Any-who...)
Then in an offhanded sort of manner, Ann Coulter stated that she would say something about Democratic Presidential hopeful John Edwards, but you have to go to rehab if you use the word "faggot".
(Pretty low blow, considering it was Christian Conservative Bush-lover Ted Haggard who turned out to be a "faggot" and Republican Congressman Mark Foley who turned out to be a "faggot" who liked teenage boys.)
I'm not a big John Edwards fan, in fact, I'm never a big fan of American politicians who go to Israel and pledge their allegiance to it.
But, not only is Coulters comment about Edwards totally false, it's also a derogatory slur that should not be used in a public forum by civilized people, even to use the word to describe someone who is homosexual is unacceptable.
Why didn't Coulter just say " I would say something about Barack Obama, but apparently you can't use the word n*gger anymore." It honestly wouldn't have surprised me, and I am sure the audience of hooting bigots would have found a racial slur as acceptable as a sexual slur.
I don't care for bullies, they are insecure with themselves and their own position so they lash out at minorities and people who are different from them, they view themselves as superior to others while exhibiting conduct that is shameful in any civilized discourse.
What is disturbing to me is not so much the fact that there are people like Ann Coulter. I live in Michigan, so mini Ann's and Newts are everywhere. Gun loving, affirmative action hating Conservatives who hate Liberals as much as they hate "ragheads". But there is nothing you can do about them except hope their ideas die with time, which they always have and always will continue to do.
It's not so disturbing to me that Ann Coulter or people like her exist because people like Osame bin Laden exist too.
What is disturbing to me is that someone like Ann Coulter is asked to speak at one of the biggest mainstream Conservative events in America, even after she exhibited unruly behavior the last time she was present.
Vice President Dick Cheney was present, as well as Presidential hopefuls Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney, in fact Romney referred to Ann Coulter as a "moderate" (perhaps suggesting he is far to the right of Ann?)
"Strait Shooter" (LOL) John McCain, who likes to fancy himself a moderate, skipped the event to do campaigning elsewhere, perhaps sensing the peril of having the presence an inconsiderate windbag like Ann Coulter rub off on him and negatively effect his campaign.
I always considered Ann Coulter and people like her to be on the fringe of Conservatism. I always tried to separate traditional Conservatives from people like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter.
But as time wears on I am forced to conclude by the popularity of these pundits with the Conservatives politicians and the Conservative base only indicates that the Coulters, the Limbaugh's and the O'Reilly's are not on the fringe, but in the mainstream of Conservative thinking, and that is what is disturbing to me.
That it was we can learn from Ann.