The Beginning Of Another Military Cover-Up?
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
Saturday, March 10, 2007
Why Was The Fox News Debate Killed?
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.
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
FBI MISUSED PATRIOT ACT POWERS
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.
FULL STORY
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.
FULL STORY
Irony, Hypocrisy And Rod Majors At CPAC
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!
Malkin continues,
"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.
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!
Malkin continues,
"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
Clinton Calls for GI 'Bill of Rights'
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."
FULL STORY
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."
FULL STORY
Conservatives Pick The Worst Role Models
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.
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.
Congressional Quarterly reports that senior Republicans knew of the deplorable conditions at Walter Reed years before the recent Washington Post Op-Ed exposed them to the public.
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
The Wisdom Of Ann Part 2
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.
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
The Wisdom Of Ann Coulter
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.
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.
Friday, March 02, 2007
Eagles Gather For Flock Fest
(It's kind of long so grab your coffee)
In case you don't pay attention to the latest right wing conspiracy theories, let me clue you in, this one is good, and even kind of funny.
A group of right wingers who call themselves the "Gathering Of Eagles" (as pointed out by HP's Chris Kelly a group of eagles is not actually a "gathering" but a "congress") are gearing themselves up for the largest assault on American Freedom yet - an anti-war demonstration in Washington D.C. on March 17.
The Gathering claims that on this fateful date in history all hell will break lose when antiwar demonstrators deface the Vietnam Memorial and spit at war veterans. It's like the tribulations only worse for the chest thumping "Gathering of Hawks".
The only problem with this theory? Well, it's just that, a theory.
There has not been any plans made by the "radical left" for vet spitting contests or wall defacing debacles led by the "Hanoi Jane's" and "Cindy Sheehan's" who will be attending the peaceful demonstration.
So obviously the strange paranoia that "The Gathering" is suffering from is quite unfounded and quite delusional. But then again, with the "dedication" (some call it radicalism) of this group it wouldn't surprise me if some of their own "Eagles" defaced the memorial or spit at vets, just to reinforce the rest of the "flocks" point of view.
So however unfounded the conspiracy theory is, that didn't stop fellow flocker Russ Vaughn at Eagle Fest from writing an eloquent and creative poem (?) about the.. ah..umm.. huh.. umm.. imminent disaster that isn't going to happen on March 17.
I don't want to torture everyone with the simple mindedness of the entire poem, but a few lines are just screaming to be pointed out.
Linguistic genius Russ Vaughn at the Flock of Eagles or Gathering of Flocks, or Flock of Seagulls or whatever it is called wrote the following :
"You can shout and scream all you want,
On all that we'll give you a pass;
But you try some Wall-defacing stunt,
And, son, I'm gonna kick your ass."
First, I can't imagine in what world the words "want" and "stunt" would have any rhyming capability in. "Donchu be pullin' no stant" ?? Okay...
Second, it surely doesn't surprise me that a pro-war person would reduce themselves to the level of violence to prove their point, it doesn't surprise me a bit. I mean, it makes logical sense doesn't it?
Anyway, my friend Russy goes on to write in his "poem" (ahem)
"And understand you ain't layin' a hand
On our Wall you leftie mothers."
BOY! This guy has an incredible amount of insight, his writing skills are superb, I mean, all that stuff about Shakespeare being a good writer? Blasphemy! "Leftie motherfuckers" is art, it's poetry! "Ain't layin' "? That's a superior use of the English language right there.
But there is more, I can't stop now, it's just too interesting. Like, WOW, I thought people like this only existed in parodies of right wing lunatics, I didn't know they were actually real.
"And, son, you hear this loud and clear,
Don't even think about spittin'
Less you want that smart mouth busted here,
And believe me, we're not shittin'."
Oooh, more solving problems with violence! That's typical of a right winger for you. I'm glad to know that they are "not shittin'" because otherwise this whole thing could get messy...
OK, I am just going to pop this question ... Is this guy sitting in a splintered rocking chair on a dilapidated porch with a piece of wheat hanging from his toothless grin, wearing rolled up overalls splashed with mud, beat up old banjo in one hand, bottle of whiskey in the other and his shotgun leaned up against the house behind him while belting "Yah- whoo!!" somewhere? Because that is the pik-a-cher (picture in English) Russ Vaughn is painting of himself in my head.
Also, as already written there is not a vast left conspiracy to deface the Vietnam memorial, or spit on Veterans for that matter on March 17. Vaughn is just propagating anger and paranoia towards "the left" (I guess he means the majority of Americans who are now opposed to the war).
In a shift-the-blame-scapegoating tactic Vaughn also writes:
"Because of you losers we lose our wars,"
Really, who is this guy kidding? Or more accurately, who does he think he is trying to kid?
It must be himself, because last time I checked the reasons we lose wars is because we plan them poorly, have morons in charge, or have a flawed foundation for invasion - or all three.
When we win wars it is largely because we had intelligent and strategic planning and men of vision in charge and a justified foundation for war.
We don't lose wars because of protesters, but it is convenient to try to blame the protesters, isn't it? "We could have won the war if you supported it." Is a lot easier than admitting mistakes and failures, a lot easier. What the right wing ideologues fail to mention is that they had everyone support right up until the moment everything collapsed into scandal, corruption and failure. It's kind of hard to support those things, when, you know, you have a conscious.
Anyway, back to Vaughn's articulate and thought provoking "poem"
"So follow these traitors, those loser bitches,
Let them lead you to your fall;
But I promise you, son, you're gonna need stitches,
You even get close to this Wall."
More threats of violence, what a shock!
I was wrong to assume Vaughn was a harmless if ignorant hick, no, he's much more than that, more like the guy who will throw a brick through your windshield for accidentally cutting him off in traffic.
So all this talk of Vaughn, his poem, and the upcoming demonstrations (and counter demonstrations) in D.C. made me curious enough to look up the "Gathering of Eagles" on "the Internets". I had to use "the Google", but I found it, and let me tell you, it blew my mind.
Curiosity compelled me so I clicked on the link. Who are these people? Do they really believe what they are writing? If so, what planet are they from? Why do they claim to be the "Silent Guard of America's Memorials" but appear to be hosting an array of right wing conspiracy theories and talking points? Some of those soldiers must surely be liberals...
In "Answering the Call of Our Fallen" Kit Jarrell uses the cloak of patriotism to assail the left with conspiracies and fallacies such as :
"the American Left called for the defeat and humiliation of our military, even going so far as to support the barbaric hordes of Islam in their quest to destroy America." Do you hear that? Shhh... (coo-coo, coo-coo)
Yeah, I hear the Demoncrats are holding mass conversions, daily now, you know, for those of us who have decided to "support the barbaric hordes of Islam". The statement shows how little Kit Jarrell knows about "the left" or Islam.
Radical Islam is not compatible with the the Liberal left! (After all, according to the Conservative right, the radical Muslims attacked us because of our Liberal values, not despite of them). Radical Islam is, however, compatible with the values of right wing conservatism. There is no such thing as a Liberal Jihadist, they are all extremist conservatives! So to suggest the Liberals and Terrorist are in "cahoots", so to speak, is quite simple minded, their values are as opposite as the poles.
The same writer comments that :
"The college-age hippies of 1969 were now parents and grandparents, with families who didn’t have the faintest idea where Iwo Jima is and wouldn’t dream of enlisting in the “imperialist army” of their nation."
Oh, puh-leaze! Don't forget to mention the fact that the children and grandchildren of the "imperialist" war hawks wouldn't dream of enlisting in the military either, but their reasons are of cowardice and greed, not guided out of principals like the children of the "hippies".
"The antiwar crowd kept marching and declared themselves the majority."
The "antiwar crowd" did not declare itself to be the majority, the majority joined the antiwar crowd and left the ailing pro war "gathering".
The "antiwar crowd" did not grow because there is an alarming amount of anti-American citizens in this country (as the right wing likes to claim).
The "antiwar crowd" grew because successes in Iraq are few and far between, the crowd grows every time new evidence against the Bush Administrations flawed basis for war are unveiled, the crowd grows bigger when US soldiers are killed, when Iraqi children die, when we see the staggering amount of money invested and the new threats on the horizon.
But these vast right wing conspiracies, that become a way of life for some, about "the enemy at home" which blame Liberals for everything but the extinction of the dinosaurs, can get a little out of touch with reality.
Instead of undermining their Liberal antiwar "enemies" these right wing extremist validate them with their offering of assorted conspiracy theories(always a good friend of the right), violent poetry and insane ramblings tainted with endorsements of violence.
(It's kind of long so grab your coffee)
In case you don't pay attention to the latest right wing conspiracy theories, let me clue you in, this one is good, and even kind of funny.
A group of right wingers who call themselves the "Gathering Of Eagles" (as pointed out by HP's Chris Kelly a group of eagles is not actually a "gathering" but a "congress") are gearing themselves up for the largest assault on American Freedom yet - an anti-war demonstration in Washington D.C. on March 17.
The Gathering claims that on this fateful date in history all hell will break lose when antiwar demonstrators deface the Vietnam Memorial and spit at war veterans. It's like the tribulations only worse for the chest thumping "Gathering of Hawks".
The only problem with this theory? Well, it's just that, a theory.
There has not been any plans made by the "radical left" for vet spitting contests or wall defacing debacles led by the "Hanoi Jane's" and "Cindy Sheehan's" who will be attending the peaceful demonstration.
So obviously the strange paranoia that "The Gathering" is suffering from is quite unfounded and quite delusional. But then again, with the "dedication" (some call it radicalism) of this group it wouldn't surprise me if some of their own "Eagles" defaced the memorial or spit at vets, just to reinforce the rest of the "flocks" point of view.
So however unfounded the conspiracy theory is, that didn't stop fellow flocker Russ Vaughn at Eagle Fest from writing an eloquent and creative poem (?) about the.. ah..umm.. huh.. umm.. imminent disaster that isn't going to happen on March 17.
I don't want to torture everyone with the simple mindedness of the entire poem, but a few lines are just screaming to be pointed out.
Linguistic genius Russ Vaughn at the Flock of Eagles or Gathering of Flocks, or Flock of Seagulls or whatever it is called wrote the following :
"You can shout and scream all you want,
On all that we'll give you a pass;
But you try some Wall-defacing stunt,
And, son, I'm gonna kick your ass."
First, I can't imagine in what world the words "want" and "stunt" would have any rhyming capability in. "Donchu be pullin' no stant" ?? Okay...
Second, it surely doesn't surprise me that a pro-war person would reduce themselves to the level of violence to prove their point, it doesn't surprise me a bit. I mean, it makes logical sense doesn't it?
Anyway, my friend Russy goes on to write in his "poem" (ahem)
"And understand you ain't layin' a hand
On our Wall you leftie mothers."
BOY! This guy has an incredible amount of insight, his writing skills are superb, I mean, all that stuff about Shakespeare being a good writer? Blasphemy! "Leftie motherfuckers" is art, it's poetry! "Ain't layin' "? That's a superior use of the English language right there.
But there is more, I can't stop now, it's just too interesting. Like, WOW, I thought people like this only existed in parodies of right wing lunatics, I didn't know they were actually real.
"And, son, you hear this loud and clear,
Don't even think about spittin'
Less you want that smart mouth busted here,
And believe me, we're not shittin'."
Oooh, more solving problems with violence! That's typical of a right winger for you. I'm glad to know that they are "not shittin'" because otherwise this whole thing could get messy...
OK, I am just going to pop this question ... Is this guy sitting in a splintered rocking chair on a dilapidated porch with a piece of wheat hanging from his toothless grin, wearing rolled up overalls splashed with mud, beat up old banjo in one hand, bottle of whiskey in the other and his shotgun leaned up against the house behind him while belting "Yah- whoo!!" somewhere? Because that is the pik-a-cher (picture in English) Russ Vaughn is painting of himself in my head.
Also, as already written there is not a vast left conspiracy to deface the Vietnam memorial, or spit on Veterans for that matter on March 17. Vaughn is just propagating anger and paranoia towards "the left" (I guess he means the majority of Americans who are now opposed to the war).
In a shift-the-blame-scapegoating tactic Vaughn also writes:
"Because of you losers we lose our wars,"
Really, who is this guy kidding? Or more accurately, who does he think he is trying to kid?
It must be himself, because last time I checked the reasons we lose wars is because we plan them poorly, have morons in charge, or have a flawed foundation for invasion - or all three.
When we win wars it is largely because we had intelligent and strategic planning and men of vision in charge and a justified foundation for war.
We don't lose wars because of protesters, but it is convenient to try to blame the protesters, isn't it? "We could have won the war if you supported it." Is a lot easier than admitting mistakes and failures, a lot easier. What the right wing ideologues fail to mention is that they had everyone support right up until the moment everything collapsed into scandal, corruption and failure. It's kind of hard to support those things, when, you know, you have a conscious.
Anyway, back to Vaughn's articulate and thought provoking "poem"
"So follow these traitors, those loser bitches,
Let them lead you to your fall;
But I promise you, son, you're gonna need stitches,
You even get close to this Wall."
More threats of violence, what a shock!
I was wrong to assume Vaughn was a harmless if ignorant hick, no, he's much more than that, more like the guy who will throw a brick through your windshield for accidentally cutting him off in traffic.
So all this talk of Vaughn, his poem, and the upcoming demonstrations (and counter demonstrations) in D.C. made me curious enough to look up the "Gathering of Eagles" on "the Internets". I had to use "the Google", but I found it, and let me tell you, it blew my mind.
Curiosity compelled me so I clicked on the link. Who are these people? Do they really believe what they are writing? If so, what planet are they from? Why do they claim to be the "Silent Guard of America's Memorials" but appear to be hosting an array of right wing conspiracy theories and talking points? Some of those soldiers must surely be liberals...
In "Answering the Call of Our Fallen" Kit Jarrell uses the cloak of patriotism to assail the left with conspiracies and fallacies such as :
"the American Left called for the defeat and humiliation of our military, even going so far as to support the barbaric hordes of Islam in their quest to destroy America." Do you hear that? Shhh... (coo-coo, coo-coo)
Yeah, I hear the Demoncrats are holding mass conversions, daily now, you know, for those of us who have decided to "support the barbaric hordes of Islam". The statement shows how little Kit Jarrell knows about "the left" or Islam.
Radical Islam is not compatible with the the Liberal left! (After all, according to the Conservative right, the radical Muslims attacked us because of our Liberal values, not despite of them). Radical Islam is, however, compatible with the values of right wing conservatism. There is no such thing as a Liberal Jihadist, they are all extremist conservatives! So to suggest the Liberals and Terrorist are in "cahoots", so to speak, is quite simple minded, their values are as opposite as the poles.
The same writer comments that :
"The college-age hippies of 1969 were now parents and grandparents, with families who didn’t have the faintest idea where Iwo Jima is and wouldn’t dream of enlisting in the “imperialist army” of their nation."
Oh, puh-leaze! Don't forget to mention the fact that the children and grandchildren of the "imperialist" war hawks wouldn't dream of enlisting in the military either, but their reasons are of cowardice and greed, not guided out of principals like the children of the "hippies".
"The antiwar crowd kept marching and declared themselves the majority."
The "antiwar crowd" did not declare itself to be the majority, the majority joined the antiwar crowd and left the ailing pro war "gathering".
The "antiwar crowd" did not grow because there is an alarming amount of anti-American citizens in this country (as the right wing likes to claim).
The "antiwar crowd" grew because successes in Iraq are few and far between, the crowd grows every time new evidence against the Bush Administrations flawed basis for war are unveiled, the crowd grows bigger when US soldiers are killed, when Iraqi children die, when we see the staggering amount of money invested and the new threats on the horizon.
But these vast right wing conspiracies, that become a way of life for some, about "the enemy at home" which blame Liberals for everything but the extinction of the dinosaurs, can get a little out of touch with reality.
Instead of undermining their Liberal antiwar "enemies" these right wing extremist validate them with their offering of assorted conspiracy theories(always a good friend of the right), violent poetry and insane ramblings tainted with endorsements of violence.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Support Or Oppose It, There Needs To Be An Honest Debate On Iraq
Since the beginning the Iraq War has been framed and defined by two points of view in American politics, and neither is wholly realistic.
Side A supports the war and view American and Iraqi sacrifices as worth the long term benefits and also sees Iraq War as the front on global terrorism, though Iraq was not involved in the planning, execution or funding of 9/11.
Side A also believes that a liberated democracy is feasible in Iraq, though many warned Iraq was not fertile grounds for a democracy after decades of oppressive dictatorship.
Side A even supports torture of the same people Side A claims it wants to liberate.
Side A is firmly against "setting a time table" and also believes that "staying the course" (though they don't use that expression anymore ) and accelerating the course will result security at home and in "victory", which we are all assuming is a free Iraq that can protect itself from terrorist.
Side B opposes the war believes the sacrifices being made in Iraq far outweigh the benefits for both Iraqi's and Americans and that the real "War on Terror" is in Afghanistan where Osama bin Laden allegedly is, the 9/11 hijackers were trained and the Taliban is making a resurgence.
Side B argues that the basis for the war in Iraq and execution thereof was fundamentally flawed and therefore the continued execution of it is unjustified.
Side B views the torture of prisoners as unacceptable and contrary to the image of a liberator and contrary to the conduct of a democratized nation.
Side B believes that the United States cannot continue to extend itself indefinitely and that a "time table" and perhaps even restrictions should be introduced.
OK, so it's obvious -- Side A are the Republicans and Side B are the Democrats. But it isn't really so clearly defined anymore, an increasing amount of Republicans are coming out against the war, but it is still impossible to get an honest debate where facts, not political poetry or quotes frame the debate.
If this country is to ever move forward in the right direction the issue of Iraq has to be addressed immediately and directly, we cannot keep sweeping this debate under the metaphorical rug.
The answers will not be easy to find, the options will not be favorable, but our commitment cannot be indefinite, no matter how much we would wish to see a free and prosperous Iraq.
In order for the issue to be resolved there must be debate, and it needs to be open and honest and present only the facts before a reasonable course of action can be drawn.
Since the beginning the Iraq War has been framed and defined by two points of view in American politics, and neither is wholly realistic.
Side A supports the war and view American and Iraqi sacrifices as worth the long term benefits and also sees Iraq War as the front on global terrorism, though Iraq was not involved in the planning, execution or funding of 9/11.
Side A also believes that a liberated democracy is feasible in Iraq, though many warned Iraq was not fertile grounds for a democracy after decades of oppressive dictatorship.
Side A even supports torture of the same people Side A claims it wants to liberate.
Side A is firmly against "setting a time table" and also believes that "staying the course" (though they don't use that expression anymore ) and accelerating the course will result security at home and in "victory", which we are all assuming is a free Iraq that can protect itself from terrorist.
Side B opposes the war believes the sacrifices being made in Iraq far outweigh the benefits for both Iraqi's and Americans and that the real "War on Terror" is in Afghanistan where Osama bin Laden allegedly is, the 9/11 hijackers were trained and the Taliban is making a resurgence.
Side B argues that the basis for the war in Iraq and execution thereof was fundamentally flawed and therefore the continued execution of it is unjustified.
Side B views the torture of prisoners as unacceptable and contrary to the image of a liberator and contrary to the conduct of a democratized nation.
Side B believes that the United States cannot continue to extend itself indefinitely and that a "time table" and perhaps even restrictions should be introduced.
OK, so it's obvious -- Side A are the Republicans and Side B are the Democrats. But it isn't really so clearly defined anymore, an increasing amount of Republicans are coming out against the war, but it is still impossible to get an honest debate where facts, not political poetry or quotes frame the debate.
If this country is to ever move forward in the right direction the issue of Iraq has to be addressed immediately and directly, we cannot keep sweeping this debate under the metaphorical rug.
The answers will not be easy to find, the options will not be favorable, but our commitment cannot be indefinite, no matter how much we would wish to see a free and prosperous Iraq.
In order for the issue to be resolved there must be debate, and it needs to be open and honest and present only the facts before a reasonable course of action can be drawn.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Who Supports The Troops?
Democrats and antiwar activist have often been accused not only of being unpatriotic but also of failing to support the troops serving in Iraq and Afganistan.
But the real failure to support the troops comes in the form of neglect of troops who have served their country and come home maimed or psychologically damaged.
Over the weekend Washington Post revealed that "Soldiers Face Neglect, Frustration At Army's Top Medical Facility"
Key points from the article include :
- Recovering soldiers living in poor conditions, including rodent and cockroach infestation, rotting floors and bathrooms and rooms with deadly black mold growing in them.
- Seventy-five percent of the troops polled by Walter Reed last March said their experience was "stressful."
- Poor care of patients who are often left on their own, in some cases forgotten about. Wounded managing the wounded, those with psychological trauma counseling others with psychological trauma.
- Inexcusable mismanagement such as case workers who don't know where their patients are, and patients not knowing where their case workers are.
- Soldiers with brain injuries sit waiting for weeks with no appointments or help from the staff, some for longer and some, frustrated, just left for home, without the notice of their caretakers.
- The disappearance of necessary forms and records, sometimes the Army has no record that a soldier ever even served in Iraq.
All of this happened about six miles away from the "beautiful White House", where President Bush had said it was hard for him to access if Iraq was in a civil war or not.
But what is more revealing are the statements the President has made about the specific facility in question.
On March 19, 2004 "Every time I come to Walter Reed, it confirms that which I know, which is we're providing the very best -- the best care, the best compassion."
The President had proclaimed this, during a time when the non profit group Disabled American Veterans was blocked from meeting with patients at the facility.
As recently as the 2007 State of the Union address the President asked Americans "to support our troops in the field, and those on their way." Curiously absent was a call for support soldiers who have already sacrificed themselves and need medical and psychological treatment.
However, the point is, anyone who has been paying attention knows that Bush and the Republicans have brandished their "support of the troops" mantra like a weapon against Democrats and antiwar activist while only six miles away from the residence of George W. Bush soldiers who sacrificed themselves for their effort in the War on Terror languish.
So the rush is on to make repairs to the buildings in question. The White House seems "appropriately outraged" but no one is fist to the podium outraged about something so...outrageous.
While the repairs appear to be in the process of being made no one is really questioning how the conditions were allowed to deteriorate so badly in the first place, and no one, including the television media is asking how the bureaucratic tangle and poor outpatient care is going to be resolved.
Supporting the troops doesn't just mean putting a yellow ribbon sticker on your car and denouncing the terrorist and supporting the Iraq War.
Supporting the troops includes providing adequate care for them after they have sacrificed for their country - not treating them like children and forcing formation on injured men, not shoving them in a rotting building where they disappear under care that would not even be acceptable in a hospice, let alone a facility for injured soldiers in this "glorious" War on Terror.
It's an outrage, and whether or not the problem is now being fixed is not the point. The point is that the conditions should have never been allowed to exist in the first place.
Democrats and antiwar activist have often been accused not only of being unpatriotic but also of failing to support the troops serving in Iraq and Afganistan.
But the real failure to support the troops comes in the form of neglect of troops who have served their country and come home maimed or psychologically damaged.
Over the weekend Washington Post revealed that "Soldiers Face Neglect, Frustration At Army's Top Medical Facility"
Key points from the article include :
- Recovering soldiers living in poor conditions, including rodent and cockroach infestation, rotting floors and bathrooms and rooms with deadly black mold growing in them.
- Seventy-five percent of the troops polled by Walter Reed last March said their experience was "stressful."
- Poor care of patients who are often left on their own, in some cases forgotten about. Wounded managing the wounded, those with psychological trauma counseling others with psychological trauma.
- Inexcusable mismanagement such as case workers who don't know where their patients are, and patients not knowing where their case workers are.
- Soldiers with brain injuries sit waiting for weeks with no appointments or help from the staff, some for longer and some, frustrated, just left for home, without the notice of their caretakers.
- The disappearance of necessary forms and records, sometimes the Army has no record that a soldier ever even served in Iraq.
All of this happened about six miles away from the "beautiful White House", where President Bush had said it was hard for him to access if Iraq was in a civil war or not.
But what is more revealing are the statements the President has made about the specific facility in question.
On March 19, 2004 "Every time I come to Walter Reed, it confirms that which I know, which is we're providing the very best -- the best care, the best compassion."
The President had proclaimed this, during a time when the non profit group Disabled American Veterans was blocked from meeting with patients at the facility.
As recently as the 2007 State of the Union address the President asked Americans "to support our troops in the field, and those on their way." Curiously absent was a call for support soldiers who have already sacrificed themselves and need medical and psychological treatment.
However, the point is, anyone who has been paying attention knows that Bush and the Republicans have brandished their "support of the troops" mantra like a weapon against Democrats and antiwar activist while only six miles away from the residence of George W. Bush soldiers who sacrificed themselves for their effort in the War on Terror languish.
So the rush is on to make repairs to the buildings in question. The White House seems "appropriately outraged" but no one is fist to the podium outraged about something so...outrageous.
While the repairs appear to be in the process of being made no one is really questioning how the conditions were allowed to deteriorate so badly in the first place, and no one, including the television media is asking how the bureaucratic tangle and poor outpatient care is going to be resolved.
Supporting the troops doesn't just mean putting a yellow ribbon sticker on your car and denouncing the terrorist and supporting the Iraq War.
Supporting the troops includes providing adequate care for them after they have sacrificed for their country - not treating them like children and forcing formation on injured men, not shoving them in a rotting building where they disappear under care that would not even be acceptable in a hospice, let alone a facility for injured soldiers in this "glorious" War on Terror.
It's an outrage, and whether or not the problem is now being fixed is not the point. The point is that the conditions should have never been allowed to exist in the first place.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
United States Won't Call Ahmadinejad's Bluff
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Tuesday offered to shut down it's nuclear facilities, if the United States agreed to do the same.
"If they say that we should close down our fuel production facilities to resume talks, we say fine, but those who enter talks with us should also close down their nuclear fuel production facilities." Ahmadinejad stated on state run television.
When asked about Iran's offer White House Press Secretary Tony Snow responded "Do you believe that's a serious offer?" according to Reuters India.
In the war of rhetoric between Bush and Ahmadinejad tensions have been rising, and to answer Tony Snow - no, I don't think Ahmadinejad is serious because he knows the United States will never shut down it's nuclear facilities and this fact does not escape the Iranian President.
What Ahmadinejad suggestion seems to indicate is that he believes his nuclear program is as legitimate as the United States and that he is as likely to abandon his nuclear aspirations as the US is.
This news comes as CNN reports that for several months Iranian boats have increasingly crossed into Iraqi waters but "the United States does not see the Iranian moves as aggressive or provocative. The assessment is that the probes are part of an Iranian effort to raise its military presence in the gulf."
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Tuesday offered to shut down it's nuclear facilities, if the United States agreed to do the same.
"If they say that we should close down our fuel production facilities to resume talks, we say fine, but those who enter talks with us should also close down their nuclear fuel production facilities." Ahmadinejad stated on state run television.
When asked about Iran's offer White House Press Secretary Tony Snow responded "Do you believe that's a serious offer?" according to Reuters India.
In the war of rhetoric between Bush and Ahmadinejad tensions have been rising, and to answer Tony Snow - no, I don't think Ahmadinejad is serious because he knows the United States will never shut down it's nuclear facilities and this fact does not escape the Iranian President.
What Ahmadinejad suggestion seems to indicate is that he believes his nuclear program is as legitimate as the United States and that he is as likely to abandon his nuclear aspirations as the US is.
This news comes as CNN reports that for several months Iranian boats have increasingly crossed into Iraqi waters but "the United States does not see the Iranian moves as aggressive or provocative. The assessment is that the probes are part of an Iranian effort to raise its military presence in the gulf."
Saturday, February 17, 2007
FOX'S "Half Hour News Hour" - Funny Or Lame?
Only FOX would combine the toxic ingredients of two pundits - one who thinks making fun of people with Parkinson's Disease is funny, and another who thinks forcibly converting Muslims to Christianity is acceptable, and expect comedy to come out.
It made me laugh, but it was probably not for the same reasons the producers of the show had originally intended. Put it this way, I wasn't laughing with them.
I almost felt sorry for Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh as they desperately tried to be funny and miserably failed. After all, I expected at least one stinging but good joke from the "Queen of Mean", but nada.
The punchlines were ancient cliches that have been recycled by Republicans so often they cease to have any meaning or bite, if they ever had any in the first place.
How FOX was ever able to drum this stale show out like it was going to be "A Daily Show for Conservatives" is beyond my reasoning, because if it were to be a Conservative "Daily Show" wouldn't it be necessary for it to be funny in the first place?
What a bomb, and a boring bomb at that - until Ann "dropped the bomb"...
When she didn't forget to add in her infamous "invade their [Muslim] countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity" cringe inducing statement, it wasn't funny (nor was it funny the first time), but this is what a neoconservative sounds like when they are trying to be funny. (Like an ignorant bigot)
It really clues you into the sociology of hard line Conservatives in America when such a statement could be deemed as "humorous" when it should be considered unacceptable.
If Conservatives knew what was good for the long term prosperity of their political party they would be best suited to distance themselves from such vocal (and apparently unfunny) despots like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter.
Only FOX would combine the toxic ingredients of two pundits - one who thinks making fun of people with Parkinson's Disease is funny, and another who thinks forcibly converting Muslims to Christianity is acceptable, and expect comedy to come out.
It made me laugh, but it was probably not for the same reasons the producers of the show had originally intended. Put it this way, I wasn't laughing with them.
I almost felt sorry for Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh as they desperately tried to be funny and miserably failed. After all, I expected at least one stinging but good joke from the "Queen of Mean", but nada.
The punchlines were ancient cliches that have been recycled by Republicans so often they cease to have any meaning or bite, if they ever had any in the first place.
How FOX was ever able to drum this stale show out like it was going to be "A Daily Show for Conservatives" is beyond my reasoning, because if it were to be a Conservative "Daily Show" wouldn't it be necessary for it to be funny in the first place?
What a bomb, and a boring bomb at that - until Ann "dropped the bomb"...
When she didn't forget to add in her infamous "invade their [Muslim] countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity" cringe inducing statement, it wasn't funny (nor was it funny the first time), but this is what a neoconservative sounds like when they are trying to be funny. (Like an ignorant bigot)
It really clues you into the sociology of hard line Conservatives in America when such a statement could be deemed as "humorous" when it should be considered unacceptable.
If Conservatives knew what was good for the long term prosperity of their political party they would be best suited to distance themselves from such vocal (and apparently unfunny) despots like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter.
Surprise, Surprise "Senate Blocks Iraq War Resolution Debate"
The vote (56-34) marked the second time this winter that Senate Republicans have blocked action on nonbinding measures critical of the president's war policies, as reported by the AP.
Senate Republicans blocked the debate after The House has passed the non-binding resolution opposing the troop escalation in Iraq by a vote of 246-182, including 17 Republicans.
The vote (56-34) marked the second time this winter that Senate Republicans have blocked action on nonbinding measures critical of the president's war policies, as reported by the AP.
Senate Republicans blocked the debate after The House has passed the non-binding resolution opposing the troop escalation in Iraq by a vote of 246-182, including 17 Republicans.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Little Thorns In The Sides Of Progress
"This nonbinding resolution serves no purpose other than pacifying the Democrats' political base and lowering morale in our military," claimed Republican Rep. Geoff Davis of Kentucky.
What he did not mention is that a few days ago a Dear Colleague plea titled "Iraq Resolution Debate - Their Terms Or Ours" was circulated among Republicans which stated :
“The debate should not be about the surge or its details. This debate should not even be about the Iraq war to date, mistakes that have been made, or whether we can, or cannot, win militarily.”
So, in other words [in the eyes of the apparent loyalist Republicans] the debate about the surge shouldn't be about the surge... Forget the details, details harm their case. To put it this way, this debate about the surge in the Iraq War cannot be allowed to turn into a debate about our surge in the Iraq War! Screw talking about whether we can win or not, because...
"Rather the debate must be about the global threat of the radical Islamist movement." The letter reads.
Hey - good idea , an even bigger task! Since we have some such a wonderful job in Iraq we figured we ought to spread a little of that democracy to the rest of the middle east, where all the other "Islamofacist" are. You know, because of those "enormous successes" in Iraq.
Newsflash : Our war in Iraq is fueling existing extremist and creating new ones! Instead of fixing problems that led to 9/11 we are creating new ones! Our war in Iraq only contributes to the "global threat" of radical Islam and leaves us vulnerable at home.
The Republicans who wrote the letter even blame the "liberal mainstream media" because Americans understand the consequences of the Iraq War in "American lives and dollars" (Gee, sorry we are worried about all the lives and money disappearing into that abyss, assholes).
The letter focuses on radical Islam in the entire middle east, rather than the facts about the Iraq War and the surge, when the nonbinding resolution is specifically about the increase in US troops.
This is the classic Republican technique of evasion, nothing more and nothing less than running from the truth.
The letter "Their Terms or Ours" shows Republicans trying to shift the debate on the troop surge in Iraq to a blame game and fear mongering.
Forget the fact that the Iraq War has been done by Republican terms and forget the fact that it has been a miserable mistake, by Republican terms.
So, why are the Republicans so fearful of a nonbinding resolution? It will have as much power, as say an Op-Ed in the New York Times, hence the whole nonbinding part.
It's probably very simple, and I doubt it's as complicated as having some grandiose vision of liberty and democracy in the middle east.
They fear an honest and focused debate concluded with a vote because voting against the resolution will harm them (again) come elections, but voting in favor of the resolution puts them in clear opposition with the President, and as we have witnessed this President wields amazing control over the Republicans.
But there will have to come a time and a place when these hardliners have to realize that it is not just the "democratic base" that is opposed to the war in Iraq, it is a fair majority of Americans, and the longer these hardliners refuse to serve the will of the American people, the worse they will go down in the history books as.
"This nonbinding resolution serves no purpose other than pacifying the Democrats' political base and lowering morale in our military," claimed Republican Rep. Geoff Davis of Kentucky.
What he did not mention is that a few days ago a Dear Colleague plea titled "Iraq Resolution Debate - Their Terms Or Ours" was circulated among Republicans which stated :
“The debate should not be about the surge or its details. This debate should not even be about the Iraq war to date, mistakes that have been made, or whether we can, or cannot, win militarily.”
So, in other words [in the eyes of the apparent loyalist Republicans] the debate about the surge shouldn't be about the surge... Forget the details, details harm their case. To put it this way, this debate about the surge in the Iraq War cannot be allowed to turn into a debate about our surge in the Iraq War! Screw talking about whether we can win or not, because...
"Rather the debate must be about the global threat of the radical Islamist movement." The letter reads.
Hey - good idea , an even bigger task! Since we have some such a wonderful job in Iraq we figured we ought to spread a little of that democracy to the rest of the middle east, where all the other "Islamofacist" are. You know, because of those "enormous successes" in Iraq.
Newsflash : Our war in Iraq is fueling existing extremist and creating new ones! Instead of fixing problems that led to 9/11 we are creating new ones! Our war in Iraq only contributes to the "global threat" of radical Islam and leaves us vulnerable at home.
The Republicans who wrote the letter even blame the "liberal mainstream media" because Americans understand the consequences of the Iraq War in "American lives and dollars" (Gee, sorry we are worried about all the lives and money disappearing into that abyss, assholes).
The letter focuses on radical Islam in the entire middle east, rather than the facts about the Iraq War and the surge, when the nonbinding resolution is specifically about the increase in US troops.
This is the classic Republican technique of evasion, nothing more and nothing less than running from the truth.
The letter "Their Terms or Ours" shows Republicans trying to shift the debate on the troop surge in Iraq to a blame game and fear mongering.
Forget the fact that the Iraq War has been done by Republican terms and forget the fact that it has been a miserable mistake, by Republican terms.
So, why are the Republicans so fearful of a nonbinding resolution? It will have as much power, as say an Op-Ed in the New York Times, hence the whole nonbinding part.
It's probably very simple, and I doubt it's as complicated as having some grandiose vision of liberty and democracy in the middle east.
They fear an honest and focused debate concluded with a vote because voting against the resolution will harm them (again) come elections, but voting in favor of the resolution puts them in clear opposition with the President, and as we have witnessed this President wields amazing control over the Republicans.
But there will have to come a time and a place when these hardliners have to realize that it is not just the "democratic base" that is opposed to the war in Iraq, it is a fair majority of Americans, and the longer these hardliners refuse to serve the will of the American people, the worse they will go down in the history books as.
War With Iran Imminent, Or A Distracting Red Herring?
CNN: White House Now Blames Briefer For Going Too Far On Iran Intel
Rumors Of War
US Backpedals Accusations Against Iran
CNN: White House Now Blames Briefer For Going Too Far On Iran Intel
Rumors Of War
US Backpedals Accusations Against Iran
Monday, February 12, 2007
Right Wing Extremist Secretly Yearns For Another Terrorist Attack To Make Anti-War Liberals "Irreverent" Again
So, your guessing that the right wing extremist I am writing about is, say, Osama bin Laden or Aiman al-Zawahiri?
No, it is right wing pundit Mike Gallagher, who writes in his online blog :
"it will take another terror attack on American soil in order to render these left-leaning crazies irrelevant again. Remember how quiet they were after 9/11? No one dared take them seriously. It was the United States against the terrorist world, just like it should be."
It is a disturbing statement, to say the least and it brings to mind a conversation I had with a friend shortly after the Democrats took the majority in the recent elections.
My friend and I discussed the possibility that fringe right wing extremists might hope for a new terrorist attack, to turn the country back towards the Republicans and back towards a pro-war stance.
I was right, and I was wrong.
I was right with the assertion that some Americans would like to see another attack on America for political reasons.
I was wrong to assume it would be a fringe element of the right wing, because Mike Gallagher is about as Mainstream Right Wing as possible.
But in all my wildest dreams I never thought that a right winger would be so bold as to basically state : look, if there's another terrorist attack it is beneficial to Republicans, it will put the Left back in it's place... and that's basically what Gallagher wrote in a not so veiled way.
Republicans and 9/11, the two dance together in a deadly tango, or should I say tangle.
Republicans revere 9/11, it embodies the height of their power and influence over America.
Gallagher is right; no one dared question the motives of the Republicans and the Bush Administration following 9/11.
So Gallagher, like other hard right Republicans naturally seek a return to "the good old days" following 9/11 during the Republican Age of Unaccountability, and if it takes another terrorist attack... so be it?
So, your guessing that the right wing extremist I am writing about is, say, Osama bin Laden or Aiman al-Zawahiri?
No, it is right wing pundit Mike Gallagher, who writes in his online blog :
"it will take another terror attack on American soil in order to render these left-leaning crazies irrelevant again. Remember how quiet they were after 9/11? No one dared take them seriously. It was the United States against the terrorist world, just like it should be."
It is a disturbing statement, to say the least and it brings to mind a conversation I had with a friend shortly after the Democrats took the majority in the recent elections.
My friend and I discussed the possibility that fringe right wing extremists might hope for a new terrorist attack, to turn the country back towards the Republicans and back towards a pro-war stance.
I was right, and I was wrong.
I was right with the assertion that some Americans would like to see another attack on America for political reasons.
I was wrong to assume it would be a fringe element of the right wing, because Mike Gallagher is about as Mainstream Right Wing as possible.
But in all my wildest dreams I never thought that a right winger would be so bold as to basically state : look, if there's another terrorist attack it is beneficial to Republicans, it will put the Left back in it's place... and that's basically what Gallagher wrote in a not so veiled way.
Republicans and 9/11, the two dance together in a deadly tango, or should I say tangle.
Republicans revere 9/11, it embodies the height of their power and influence over America.
Gallagher is right; no one dared question the motives of the Republicans and the Bush Administration following 9/11.
So Gallagher, like other hard right Republicans naturally seek a return to "the good old days" following 9/11 during the Republican Age of Unaccountability, and if it takes another terrorist attack... so be it?
New Construction Sparks Old Debate
In a move hoping to defuse anger, the mayor of Jerusalem has ordered a review of construction being done to a walkway near the Dome of the Rock and al-Asqa mosque.
The construction has angered many, who say the construction could harm the third holiest site in Islam and has sparked protests.
The review will not halt preparatory excavations, but is aimed at "proving" Israel will not damage the site. Israel claims it only seeks to repair a earthen walkway that is partially collapsed, but those who are protesting the construction say that Israel will harm the site.
Any sudden moves around the Dome of the Rock, or Noble Sanctuary as Muslims call it, sparks tensions, as the site was formerly occupied by a Jewish Temple which was destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD.
It is no secret that the Jews and Christians seek to eventually reclaim this site.
Jews believe the site is "rightfully" theirs and the Christians believe that the Jews must build a Third Temple on the site so that the "Antichrist" can destroy it and usher in the way for Jesus Christ, who will then battle the "Antichrist" and bring about 1,000 years of peace.
When Muslims built the sanctuary it had been abandoned for hundreds of years, and Muslims believe the Rock to be the spot where Prophet Mohammad ascended to heaven -- but that does not stop Jews and Christians from claiming that the site belongs to the Jews.
Because of this, and other factors there is a constant tension that can cause almost any move near the site to cause conflicts, as we witnessed following the visit of former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to the site in 2000.
The Israeli's claim they just want to repair a walkway and make sure they are not destroying any artifacts in the process.
But my question is : If the construction is so necessary, why didn't Israel consult with the Islamic authorities first, then propose that qualified Muslims carry out the work? To me, it seems that simple, conflict could have been avoided.
I'm not a Muslim, but it is very easy for me to see the sensitivities involved, after all, Israel has taken everything else of value including the land, so one would naturally assume it was only a matter of time before they moved in on the prize of Jerusalem, the Dome of the Rock.
The media is failing to connect the dots and see the story from both sides, we also have to consider Israel is building a "museum of tolerance" on top of a Muslim graveyard. How's that food for thought? It's the most insulting and absurd thing I have ever heard.
But Israel is a "liberated democracy", you can't say that...
There was a point in time when early Americans showed the same amount of disrespect to the American Indians, who lived in what is now America millenia before the arrival of the Europeans.
Early European settlers systematically cleansed the land of Indians, herding the survivors into "reservations" and calling the Indians who fought back for their land "barbarians" and "animals" as they stole the Indians land and broke their treaties with them.
The settlers also disrespected the graveyards of Indians, desecrating and stealing from them. It appears as if the early settlers of the new Israel are doing the same thing to the Palestinians, the same thing.
Will it take hundreds of years for the world and the Israeli's themselves to realize what they are doing is wrong, just as it took hundreds of years for Americans to recognize what they had done to the American Indians was bad?
However, moving back to the original point of the blog, it would have been simple for Israel to consult with Islamic authorities about the walkway, it doesn't take a genius to figure out when you show up at the holy shrine with a bulldozer people are going to get tense.
The conflict could have been avoided all together if Israel had consulted with Muslims and asked qualified Muslims to repair the walkway if such repairs are indeed necessary.
UPDATE : Turkey to inspect Jerusalem work
In a move hoping to defuse anger, the mayor of Jerusalem has ordered a review of construction being done to a walkway near the Dome of the Rock and al-Asqa mosque.
The construction has angered many, who say the construction could harm the third holiest site in Islam and has sparked protests.
The review will not halt preparatory excavations, but is aimed at "proving" Israel will not damage the site. Israel claims it only seeks to repair a earthen walkway that is partially collapsed, but those who are protesting the construction say that Israel will harm the site.
Any sudden moves around the Dome of the Rock, or Noble Sanctuary as Muslims call it, sparks tensions, as the site was formerly occupied by a Jewish Temple which was destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD.
It is no secret that the Jews and Christians seek to eventually reclaim this site.
Jews believe the site is "rightfully" theirs and the Christians believe that the Jews must build a Third Temple on the site so that the "Antichrist" can destroy it and usher in the way for Jesus Christ, who will then battle the "Antichrist" and bring about 1,000 years of peace.
When Muslims built the sanctuary it had been abandoned for hundreds of years, and Muslims believe the Rock to be the spot where Prophet Mohammad ascended to heaven -- but that does not stop Jews and Christians from claiming that the site belongs to the Jews.
Because of this, and other factors there is a constant tension that can cause almost any move near the site to cause conflicts, as we witnessed following the visit of former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to the site in 2000.
The Israeli's claim they just want to repair a walkway and make sure they are not destroying any artifacts in the process.
But my question is : If the construction is so necessary, why didn't Israel consult with the Islamic authorities first, then propose that qualified Muslims carry out the work? To me, it seems that simple, conflict could have been avoided.
I'm not a Muslim, but it is very easy for me to see the sensitivities involved, after all, Israel has taken everything else of value including the land, so one would naturally assume it was only a matter of time before they moved in on the prize of Jerusalem, the Dome of the Rock.
The media is failing to connect the dots and see the story from both sides, we also have to consider Israel is building a "museum of tolerance" on top of a Muslim graveyard. How's that food for thought? It's the most insulting and absurd thing I have ever heard.
But Israel is a "liberated democracy", you can't say that...
There was a point in time when early Americans showed the same amount of disrespect to the American Indians, who lived in what is now America millenia before the arrival of the Europeans.
Early European settlers systematically cleansed the land of Indians, herding the survivors into "reservations" and calling the Indians who fought back for their land "barbarians" and "animals" as they stole the Indians land and broke their treaties with them.
The settlers also disrespected the graveyards of Indians, desecrating and stealing from them. It appears as if the early settlers of the new Israel are doing the same thing to the Palestinians, the same thing.
Will it take hundreds of years for the world and the Israeli's themselves to realize what they are doing is wrong, just as it took hundreds of years for Americans to recognize what they had done to the American Indians was bad?
However, moving back to the original point of the blog, it would have been simple for Israel to consult with Islamic authorities about the walkway, it doesn't take a genius to figure out when you show up at the holy shrine with a bulldozer people are going to get tense.
The conflict could have been avoided all together if Israel had consulted with Muslims and asked qualified Muslims to repair the walkway if such repairs are indeed necessary.
UPDATE : Turkey to inspect Jerusalem work
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
