Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
Open thread 9/22
- By Phillip Brownlee
- Posted Sept. 22, 2007 at 1:05 a.m.
- Filed under Open thread
- Permalink
- Comments RSS
- Both comments and trackbacks are closed
104 Comments
Yippee, I gets to go first!
The Color of Crime
by Patrick J. Buchanan
Posted: 08/21/2007 Print This
Forward
Feedback
Digg This!
Subscribe
Sponsored By:
The execution-style murder of three African-American college students in Newark, N.J., forced to kneel and shot in the head — allegedly by an illegal alien from Peru who was out on bail for the serial rape of a 5-year-old — has the makings of a Willie Horton issue in 2008.
Newark, like New York, is a “sanctuary city,” where cops are not to ask criminal suspects if they are in the country legally. Mitt Romney has been hammering Rudy Giuliani on the issue, trashing his tough-cop resume by painting the mayor as den mother of the Big Apple’s playpen for illegal aliens.
The arrest of Jose Carranza in that Newark massacre, amid reports he had Hispanic accomplices and the murders may have been part of a gang initiation, has also elevated the issue of the black-brown war raging in U.S. big cities
In the Aug. 10 Washington Post story that covered the Carranza arrest, the same page had two related articles. One was headlined, “Study: Almost Half of Murder Victims Black,” the other, “Slaying of Popular Editor Stuns Blacks in Oakland.”
The second headline reveals an ideological slant. One would assume that everyone in Oakland was stunned by the daylight execution of African-American editor Chauncey Bailey, allegedly by a teenage foot soldier at Your Black Muslim Bakery, which Bailey was investigating.
At Bailey’s funeral, a mourner held up a sign reading, “Stop Black on Black Violence.” That was the subject of the second Post story.
“Nearly half the people murdered in the United States are black,” declared the opening paragraph, “part of a persistent pattern in which African Americans are disproportionately victimized by violent crime, according to a new Justice Department study.”
Among other conclusions reported by the Post:
– Blacks are more likely than whites or Hispanics to be victims of crime.
– Blacks are more likely than any other group to be victims of “serious violent crime,” such as rape, assault and robbery.
– Blacks were more than twice as likely as whites to be confronted with a firearm during a crime.
“Overall, the new Justice findings jibe with previous studies,” said the Post. “For example, a review of FBI data from 2004 by the Violence Policy Center, a liberal-leaning group that campaigns for stricter gun control laws, found that blacks accounted for about half of the nation’s murder victims that year.”
“Black victimization is a real problem, and it’s often black on black,” said David Harris, a law professor at the University of Toledo who studies crime statistics.
“Often”? Correction, Harris. As the Post reports and Justice concedes, in more than nine out of 10 cases, black victims are murdered by fellow blacks.
Utterly absent from the Post story and Justice Department stats is anything about white victims of crime. Not a word. Do white folks not count, though they are two-thirds of the population?
Yet, in “The Color of Crime: Race, Crime and Justice in America,” produced by the “right-leaning” New Century Foundation in 2005, using the same FBI and Justice surveys, startling facts emerge:
– “Blacks commit more violent crime against whites than against other blacks.” Forty-five percent of the victims of violent crime by blacks are white folks, 43 percent are black, 10 percent are Hispanic.
– Blacks are seven times as likely as people of other races to commit murder, eight times more likely to commit robbery and three times more likely to use a gun in a crime.
– “Blacks are an estimated 39 times more likely to commit violent crime against a white person than vice versa, and 136 times more likely to commit robbery.” (If decent black folks have trouble hailing a cab, and they do, these numbers may help explain it.)
– Black-on-white rape is 115 times more common than the reverse.
Even the two most famous sexual assaults by white men on black women in the last two decades — the Tawana Brawley and Duke rape cases — turned out to be hoaxes.
What do these statistics tell us? A message the Post will not report. The real repository of racism in America — manifest in violent interracial assault, rape and murder — is to be found not in the white community, but the African-American community. In almost all interracial attacks, whites are the victims, not the victimizers.
Why does the Post not report such statistics? My guess: Because the stats would shatter the Post’s cultivated image of America as a land where white racism is the great lurking malevolent monster. Stories that conform to the image get play. Stories that contradict it are buried.
But, if the Bush Justice Department is doing in-depth studies on black victims of crime and who is responsible, why not one on the victimization of Americans of all colors and who is responsible?
Or is that information we ought not know, and news not fit to print?
——————————————————————————–Mr. Buchanan is a nationally syndicated columnist and author of “The Death of the West,” “The Great Betrayal,” “A Republic, Not an Empire” and “Where the Right Went Wrong.”
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22041
Blackwater Inc. – Fundamentalist owned and operated – Relives Iran Contra
Bush Earns Title as The Father of Terrorism – beat out Bin Laden and Saddam
Another part of the GW Bush crime family. The Iran-Contra syndrome….
190,000 Missing Weapons
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=190,000+missing+weapons+in+Iraq&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
By Matthew Lee – Associated Press WriterSeptember 22, 2007Advertisement
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice speaks at a news conference with French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner on Friday in Washington. Rice said she had ordered a full review of security practices for U.S. diplomats after a deadly incident in Iraq involving private guards protecting a U.S. embassy convoy in Baghdad.
Washington — Federal prosecutors are investigating whether employees of the private security firm Blackwater USA illegally smuggled into Iraq weapons that may have been sold on the black market and ended up in the hands of a U.S.-designated terrorist organization, officials said Friday.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office in Raleigh, N.C., is handling the investigation with help from Pentagon and State Department auditors, who have concluded there is enough evidence to file charges, the officials told The Associated Press. Blackwater is based in Moyock, N.C.
A spokeswoman for Blackwater did not return calls seeking comment Friday. The U.S. attorney for the eastern district of North Carolina, George Holding, declined to comment, as did Pentagon and State Department spokesmen.
Officials with knowledge of the case said it is active, although at an early stage. They spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the matter, which has heightened since 11 Iraqis were killed Sunday in a shooting involving Blackwater contractors protecting a U.S. diplomatic convoy in Baghdad.
The officials could not say whether the investigation would result in indictments, how many Blackwater employees are involved or if the company itself, which has won hundreds of millions of dollars in government security contracts since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, is under scrutiny.
In today’s editions, The News & Observer of Raleigh reported that two former Blackwater employees — Kenneth Wayne Cashwell, of Virginia Beach, Va., and William Ellsworth “Max” Grumiaux ,of Clemmons, N.C. — are cooperating with federal investigators.
Cashwell and Grumiaux pleaded guilty in early 2007 to possession of stolen firearms that had been shipped in interstate or foreign commerce, and aided and abetted another in doing so, according to court papers viewed by The Associated Press. In their plea agreements, which call for a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine, the men agreed to testify in any future proceedings.
Calls to defense attorneys were not immediately returned Friday evening, and calls to the telephone listings for both men also were not returned.
The News & Observer, citing unidentified sources, reported that the probe was looking at whether Blackwater had shipped unlicensed automatic weapons and military goods to Iraq without a license.
The paper’s report that the company itself was under investigation could not be confirmed by the AP.
Meanwhile, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice ordered a review of security practices for U.S. diplomats in Iraq following a deadly incident involving Blackwater USA guards protecting an embassy convoy.
Rice’s announcement came as the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad resumed limited diplomatic convoys under the protection of Blackwater outside the heavily fortified Green Zone after a suspension because of the weekend incident in that city.
In the United States, officials in Washington said the smuggling investigation grew from internal Pentagon and State Department inquiries into U.S. weapons that had gone missing in Iraq. It gained steam after Turkish authorities protested to the U.S. in July that they had seized American arms from the outlawed Kurdistan Workers Party, or PKK, rebels.
The Pentagon said in late July it was looking into the Turkish complaints and a U.S. official said FBI agents had traveled to Turkey in recent months to look into cases of missing U.S. weapons in Iraq.
Friends of terrorism
Bush’s decision to bring back Otto Reich exposes the hypocrisy of the war against terror
Duncan CampbellFriday February 8, 2002The Guardian
His name may sound like that of a character from a Mel Brooks musical but Otto Reich is real enough. He has just been appointed by President Bush as assistant secretary of state for western hemisphere affairs – and both the manner of his appointment and the role he will now play have profound implications for a part of the world often disregarded since
September 11.Over the last year President Bush has attempted to bring back into office people who were discredited during the US interventions in Central America in the 1980s and 1990s. One such appointment was that of Elliott Abrams, who had two convictions in 1991 for misleading Congress about the so-called Iran-contra affair. He was pardoned by President Bush’s father in 1992 and now enjoys the title of head of the “office of democracy and human rights”. Another was John Negroponte, the former US ambassador to Honduras, who was accused by his predecessor of turning a blind eye to the atrocities committed there against leftists because it was felt necessary to remain on good terms with the Honduran government. Negroponte was quietly confirmed as US ambassador to the UN shortly after September 11. But the third appointment is by far the most controversial and potentially divisive.
Otto Reich is a rightwing Cuban American whose key policy objective is the overthrow of Fidel Castro’s regime and whose support base is the Cuban-American community in Florida. President Bush’s brother, Jeb, is depending on this community’s votes and backing as he runs for re-election as governor of the state later this year.Otto Reich came to prominence during the Reagan administration when he was appointed head of the office of public diplomacy within the state department. According to the national security archives, Reich used this role to pursue his own agenda to such an extent that in 1987 the Comptroller-General of the US, a Republican appointee, found that some of the efforts of his office were “prohibited, covert propaganda activities … beyond the range of acceptable agency public information activities”. A letter of September 30 1987 concluded that Reich’s office had violated “a restriction on the state department’s annual appropriations prohibiting the use of federal funds for publicity or propaganda purposes not authorised by Congress”.
He staffed his unit with CIA and Pentagon “psychological warfare” specialists and discredited journalists whose work the Reagan administration did not like. His office wrote bogus editorial pieces under the names of Nicaraguan contras and got them published in the mainstream media. He reported directly to Oliver North.
Reich also served as US ambassador to Venezuela and was alleged to have used his influence to try and get a US visa for a convicted terrorist, Orlando Bosch, jailed in Venezuela in 1976 for the bombing of a Cubana airliner with 73 people on board. Bosch had already been convicted of a terrorist attack in Miami on a Polish merchant vessel bound for Cuba and jailed in the US.
According to US justice department records: “the files of the FBI and other government agencies contain a large quantity of documentary information which reflects that, beginning in the early 1960s, Bosch held leadership positions in various anti-Castro terrorist organisations … Bosch has personally advocated, encouraged, organised and participated in acts of terrorist violence in this country as well as various other countries.”
Amazingly, Bosch was granted a pardon by George Bush senior in 1990 and is now in Florida, apparently untroubled by the current president’s commitment to rooting out terrorism in all its forms. Although many countries seek Bosch’s extradition he remains free, protected by the same government that warns other countries that they are either for or against terrorism.
The Democrats on the Senate foreign relations committee had already made it clear that they would oppose Reich’s appointment, not least because of the Bosch factor. So President Bush made a “recess appointment” at the beginning of January, which meant that he could side-step the Senate confirmation and avoid the damaging questions which Reich would be asked.
That a terrorist (by any definition of the word) such as Bosch should receive a blessing from the Bush family is revealing enough. That President Bush has decided to protect Reich from questioning on the subject by avoiding exposing him to the Senate foreign relations committee is just as disturbing. So what has Reich’s relationship with Bosch actually been?
Ann Louise Bardach, who knows as much about this area as any journalist in the US, writes about Reich in her forthcoming book, Cuba Confidential: “a half dozen declassified CIA and state department cables leave little doubt that Reich used his position to lobby for Orlando Bosch, a man who the Bush justice department had concluded had participated in more than 30 terrorist actions.”
When the Guardian reported the allegations about the Reich-Bosch connection last year, the US deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage wrote to deny the report, insisting Reich had advised that Bosch was ineligible. “It is unfair and destructive to the US democratic process that the president’s nominees be pilloried,” wrote Armitage. The letter must have made Reich chuckle since he himself was a master of the art of pillorying his opponents through the dishonest use of his office.
But the whole point of the Senate hearings was that these cables and Reich’s role in them would have been exposed. Reich has been extremely coy about his relationship with Bosch. In response to the Senate foreign relations committee’s question, “Do you consider Orlando Bosch to be a terrorist?”, Reich wrote: “I do not have sufficient knowledge of Mr Bosch’s criminal activities to pass judgment on his legal status.” This is impossible to believe.
Reich later moved into the corporate lobbying business to work on behalf of Bacardi rum, which has paid him $600,000, according to the New York Times. Bacardi has an enormous financial stake in the overthrow of Castro, as it would allow them to take over their old distilleries. Although Reich is no longer employed by Bacardi, you do not have to be a cynic to see a dangerous conflict of interest. He also participated in drawing up the Helms-Burton legislation which has fiercely tightened the US embargo on Cuba, a mean-spirited operation that strips Cuba of copyright protection and is opposed by almost every other country in the world.
The contra war which Reich so heartily endorsed was an attempt to overthrow a democratically elected government, often using attacks on civilian targets. The Bosch affair also highlights the strange double standards involved in condoning terrorism against Cubans while abhorring it elsewhere. The US has chosen to keep al-Qaida and Taliban prisoners in Cuba at their Guantanamo Bay base. So while men accused of terrorism are kept on land acquired in an old colonial war and held by force, a safe haven is given to a man happy to promote terrorism against Cuba.
Colombia, Argentina and Peru are in crisis. There are plenty of qualified Latin American hands who could have filled Reich’s post and helped build bridges. President Bush’s choice is a sad echo of the shabby days that so discredited his father’s and Ronald Reagan’s administrations in their dealings with Latin America.
duncan.campbell@guardian.co.uk
I guess the fine art of the link is dead. We now get to read, or bypass, the daily dose of reruns.
LINKS . . . USE THEM!
No doubt JM! I never read them. Synopsis and link it. If it seems interesting to me, I’ll read it.
All right, bush wants another 200 billion for his personal little war in Iraq. I think we should send him $200 billion . . . in pennies. That, and a bottle of shinola, should keep him polishing and out of trouble until he thankfully passes into oblivion.
Damn, I agree with Walker and Joe Williams at the same time, first thing in the morning.
Guys, I agree. I see a post as long as those above, I scroll past.
George W. Bush ran for the White House as a compassionate conservative. Now he is portraying himself as a conservative of a different stripe — the fiscal kind.
On Monday, he will step up the fight with a speech accusing Democrats of fiscal irresponsibility.http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/22/washington/22memo.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1190464711-IKbQNFm2GzYzg2TUc1vpfg
Hypocrisy, thy name is Bush.
Rudolph W. Giuliani appeared Friday before the National Rifle Association — a group he once likened to extremists — and defended his very vocal past advocacy of tougher gun laws while affirming the right of law-abiding citizens to bear arms.http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/22/us/politics/22giuliani.html?hp
Another Giuliani flip-flop. This guy has a proven track record against gun ownership. Do we really want this guy in the Whitehouse?
More Iraqi refugees to enter U.S. in ‘08
WASHINGTON — About 12,000 Iraqi refugees will be admitted into the United States in the next year as measures to speed the process begin to take effect, government officials said Friday.http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2003896290_watch22.html
Americans can forget about jobs at Quick Trip or 7-Eleven.
Schulte’s Analysis: Not Published; Not Going to Be
The celebrated research by Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte, claiming that a legitimate debate still continues over the science behind climate change, is “a bit patchy and nothing new,” according to Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen , editor of the Energy and Environment journal to which Schulte had submitted the work for publication.
It is “not what was of interest to me” and will not be published, Boehmer Christiansen said.http://www.desmogblog.com/schultes-analysis-not-published-not-going-to-be
SIMPLIFYING THE COMPLEXITIES OF IRAQ – by Donald Kaul
You have questions about the war in Iraq? I have answers. These:
Q—Is the surge working or not?
A—Yes and no. When we flood an area with troops, things get a lot quieter. When we leave, those fun-loving Iraqis start: 1) Beheading each other and 2) Blowing each other up. There is no evidence that the surge has or will have a lasting effect.
Q—You don’t think the national government will ever be able to get control of the country, then?
A—Before you have a national government, you need a nation. Iraq ain’t.
Q—What about the documented successes in Anbar province, where tribal leaders have joined American forces in driving out elements of al Qaida?
A—That’s been a good thing, but don’t expect to repeat it elsewhere. Anbar is a largely Sunni area and tribal leaders made common cause with the United States because al Qaida was being positively beastly to them. That doesn’t mean they love us or will ever be able to get a square deal from the Shia-dominated central (ha-ha) government.
Q—Is the partitioning of Iraq into Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish sectors the answer then?
A—It’s an answer; whether it’s the right answer remains to be seen. A partitioned Iraq doesn’t address questions of equal access to oil revenues, areas like Baghdad that can’t be neatly partitioned or the specter of a civil war that could draw in Syria, Iran and Turkey, among others. (Even Saudi Arabia has promised to come to the aid of Iraqi Sunnis if they are mistreated, although the next war Saudi Arabia shows up for will be the first). If you want a religious war to engulf the Middle East, partition might be the way to go.
Q—If things are as bad as you say, why did General David Petraeus, our commander in Iraq, agree to withdraw the 30,000 surge troops by next summer?
A—He had no choice. Our army is close to being broken. It cannot sustain the surge any longer than next summer, no matter what the situation. In addition, the public clamor for withdrawal is growing daily and Gen. Petraeus had to make it seem as though President Bush’s Iraq strategy had a chance to succeed.
Q—Are you suggesting that Gen. Petraeus is a political general, one who crafts his military advice to fit the president’s wishes?
A—Heavens to Betsy, no. The man is a saint, a regular George Washington. He would never let politics influence his advice on the war. I would point out, however, that generals who give President Bush advice that contradicts his fantasy life—Shinseki, Abizaid, others—are soon colored gone.
Q—What about the Pottery Barn theory—“If you break it, you own it?” Don’t we have an obligation to the Iraqi people to bring some semblance of order and justice into their lives?
A—Yes, we do and in areas where we’ve gotten the cooperation of the population, we’ve done pretty well by them. But we haven’t been able to keep Iraqis from killing each other in much of the rest of the country. Nor do we know how to do it now. We have an obligation to the Iraqis but we also have one to the thousands of American troops we’re sacrificing to this futile exercise and to their families.
Q—What’s the best course of action, then?
A—The difficult truth is that there is no best course; all courses are bad. Certainly, an endless occupation doesn’t seem to be the answer. Abandoning the Iraqis to genocidal warfare is hardly more appealing. The name of the game being played in Washington right now is a contest between Republicans and Democrats to avoid blame when we leave and things go to hell. And they will, no matter when we leave.
Q—What ever happened to the Coalition of the Willing?
A—It went Missing in Action as soon as they started using real bullets.
U.S. military cemetery running out of spaceThu Sep 20, 2007
OVERLAND PARK, Kansas (Reuters) – A Kansas military cemetery has run out of space after the burial of another casualty of the Iraq war, officials said on Thursday.
“We are full,” said Alison Kohler, spokeswoman for the Fort Riley U.S. Army post, home of the 1st Infantry Division.
Now lets see…would it be cheaper for me to BUY oil from Iraq at a pre-war price of around 40 dollars…or generate a war that costs a Trillion dollars….then STILL have to buy it at 80 dollars.
Yep, that makes sense….
STFU about “it was for oil”
If it was it damn sure didnt work out well now did it. What BS.
Oh, and Greenspan was not referring to solely Iraq oil, he clarified it was about keeping ALL the oil lanes open. For craps sake folks, its cheaper for us to simply BUY it rather than fight a war to take it…then buy it at a war inflated price. Remember…we dont buy ALL OUR oil from there….but the price is the same.
Oh, be sure to check out Jason Whitlocks article this week. The WE wont pick up on it…but the rest of the National media has. He puts the Jena 6 BS in perspective and tells what REALLY happened….which is not what the MSM is poking up your ass.
http://www.kansascity.com/sports/columnists/jason_whitlock/story/284511.html
Homeland security is gathering data on pretty much every traveler in this country. The data gathered includes the persons with whom people travel or plan to stay, the personal items they carry and even the books they have.
The data can be kept for 15 years. Isn’t that the way secret governments started, like, maybe, China and Russia? There’s alimit to intelligence gathering, and when it includes the travel habits of every American, we got a major proble.
Very intertesting article, mr bill. I was under the mistaken impression the attacks took place within a couple days of the noose incident. Obviously, both myself and a few million others have been duped on this one.
While attempted murder may be too great a charge, these kids deserve to be punished by the state.
Nope, the Jena 6 deal is being set up to fit a certain “Narrative” put out by the Media. If MUST fit…sort of like OJ’s glove. So it will be adjusted to fit.
It is to funny to see that Obama’s folks caught on to what really went on and they are to smart to get him involved in the old line BOG (black old guard) efforts to try and remain relevant. Going down and protesting something that had actually nothing to do with the events on TV. How funny.
Obama gets the likes of Sharpton and Jackson to cozy up with the old line Media and…..they are ALL WRONG.
Sort of another “Rather” moment. How precious. Warms the heart though dont you think…heh.
Last update – 10:51 21/09/2007
“It’s lobbying, but is it really pro-Israel?
By M.J. Rosenberg
Critics of “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy” by John J. Mearsheimer and Steven M. Walt (Farrar, Straus and Giroux), cannot be surprised that the attacks on the book prior to publication helped propel it as high as no. 10 on Amazon’s best-seller list. Not only that, the names “Mearsheimer-Walt” have become almost People-magazine famous, odd for two mild-mannered political scientists from the University of Chicago and Harvard, respectively.
It just shows you what a little “buzz” will do – and a lot of buzz surrounds this book.
And why not? It’s an important, heavily sourced and documented book (108 pages of footnotes) by two distinguished professors at two of our best universities. It deals with Middle East policymaking at a time when America’s problems in that region surpass our problems anywhere else. And it is a serious book about a subject that is decidedly provocative, a much improved and expanded version of the original London Review of Books article.
Advertisement
The book asks the question: How much power does the pro-Israel lobby have? The authors answer: Too much, and both America and Israel suffer as a result.
It’s an arguable question, and people are definitely arguing about it. It is also the kind of book you do not have to agree with on every count (I certainly don’t) to benefit from reading it.
The authors do not say that there is anything intrinsically wrong with the existence of a pro-Israel lobby. As political scientists, they understand that lobbies are as American as corn in Kansas. They know that lobbies play a major role in virtually all areas of American policy-making, domestic and foreign. Nor do they suggest that the pro-Israel community is out of bounds when it uses its influence on Israel’s behalf.
Their question is whether or not that influence is used to promote policies that are in America’s interest, or even Israel’s.
The authors’ answer is “no.” They believe that the interests of both countries would be better served by aggressive American involvement intended to produce an Israeli-Palestinian agreement along the lines of the so-called Clinton parameters. Israel would withdraw more or less to the ‘67 lines, a Palestinian state would be established, Israel’s security would be guarded by ironclad guarantees, and the Palestinians would abandon any future claims on Israeli territory. They believe that it is the influence of the lobby that has prevented the U.S. from vigorously pursuing this goal, despite the fact that both presidents Clinton and George W. Bush have endorsed it.
I spent almost 20 years as a Congressional aide and can testify from repeated personal experience that senators and House members are under constant pressure to support status-quo policies on Israel. It is no accident that members of Congress compete over who can place more conditions on aid to the Palestinians, who will be first to denounce the Saudi peace plan, and who will win the right to be the primary sponsor of the next pointless Palestinian-bashing resolution. Nor is it an accident that there is never a serious Congressional debate about policy toward Israel and the Palestinians. Moreover, every president knows that any serious effort to push for an Israeli-Palestinian agreement based on compromise by both sides will produce loud (sometimes hysterical) opposition from the Hill.
Walt and Mearsheimer mostly limit themselves to exploring whether all this is good for the United States (and to a lesser extent, Israel). The question I ask today, and not for the first time, is whether this type of behavior is good for Israel. Forty years after the Six-Day War, the occupation continues, the resistance to it intensifies, and Israelis in increasing numbers question whether they have a future in the Jewish state.
Has “pro-Israel” advocacy consistently produced “pro-Israel” ends? At several critical moments, it most certainly has not.
Was it pro-Israel to lobby the Nixon administration in 1971 to support Israel’s rejection of Anwar Sadat’s offer of peace in exchange for a three-mile pullback from the banks of the Suez Canal? Nixon capitulated to the pressure and backed off, leaving Israel free to reject Sadat’s offer. Two years later, Sadat attacked and Israel lost 3,000 soldiers in a war that would have been prevented had Israel accepted the Sadat initiative. Israel gained nothing in that war, and ended up giving Sadat all the territory he sought in 1971, and much more.
Was it pro-Israel to urge the Reagan administration to back Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 1982? That war, and its bloody aftermath, lasted for 18 years, with the last Israeli soldier not leaving Lebanon until 2000 – after a thousand soldiers were killed. Just days after Israel’s invasion, Lebanese Christian forces massacred almost a thousand Palestinians at the Sabra and Chatila refugee camps. And 241 United States Marines, serving as post-war peace keepers, were killed (the most on any single day since Iwo Jima) when Hezbollah blew up their barracks. In the end, the war accomplished nothing and Israel withdrew unconditionally.
Was it pro-Israel to press Congress to attach so many onerous conditions to aid to President Mahmoud Abbas’ Palestinian Authority that Abbas was unable to demonstrate to his people that a moderate president, who fully accepted Israel, would produce benefits that they would not achieve by choosing Hamas. The U.S. (and Israeli) policies of all sticks and no carrots led predictably to Abbas’ defeat by Hamas and a Hamas-controlled Gaza that has resumed its attacks on Israeli towns.
Was it pro-Israel to prevent the Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and Bush II administrations from insisting on a permanent freeze on settlements or, at the very least, the immediate removal of the illegal settlements? Wouldn’t Israel be infinitely better off if the United States had used friendly persuasion to end the settlement enterprise right from the get-go? After all, the vast majority of Israelis consider the settlements to be impediments to peace and so has every president since the first settlement was erected.
Similar questions could be asked about the arguments favoring the Iraq war as good for both the United States and Israel (when critics correctly predicted that it would be disastrous for both), and should be asked about some future attack on Iran.
These questions are especially urgent with a presidential election coming up.
Once again, presidential candidates are being told that in order to earn the “pro-Israel” label, they must heartily endorse the status quo. That means that when asked what they would do about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, they must state unequivocal support for Israeli policies. They must put the onus for the failed diplomacy of recent years on the Palestinians. They must indicate that although they support peace, they will not adopt the kind of proactive peacemaking engaged in by presidents Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton. They must never use the words “even-handed” or “honest broker.” There is a script and the candidates must not deviate from it.
For the vast majority of us who care deeply about Israel, the politically correct (and safe) approach to Israel is insulting. Sure, it keeps candidates out of trouble with that small minority of the pro-Israel community which believes that Israel can survive as a Jewish state while holding on to the territories. But that isn’t most American Jews, not by a long shot.
Candidates who avoid saying what they believe out of fear of offending lobbyists and activists who have been proven wrong over and over again are not doing Israel any favors. And they should not be rewarded for it by being granted the label of “pro-Israel.”
There is nothing pro-Israel about supporting policies that only promise that Israeli mothers will continue to dread their sons’ 18th birthdays for another generation. For that we are supposed to be grateful?
M.J. Rosenberg is director of Israel Policy Forum’s Washington Policy Center.”
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/905864.html
Ain’t it great: Mattel is appologizing to China for all the recalls Mattel had to do. Huh???
What’s missing is a backbone by Mattel, and a corporate flaw by Mattel in not making sure Chinese toymakers were using paint NOT containing lead.
So much for big business being on the side of the consumer.
But the real problem no one seems to be addressing is the fact China said it would make sure there was no lead in the paint of products shipped to the USA. To hell with the rest of the world. Let the third world kids chew on leaded paint all day. China could care less.
You want real reform? Inform China no products made in Chia would be purchased until ALL leaded paints are taken out of the equation. But that would require huevos, which this country deems fit to apply only to our soldiers, who are dying in Iraq so bush can sleep at night, with his copy of “The Self-Righteous A**h**e.”
“Mattel is appologizing to China for all the recalls Mattel had to do.”Posted by: stumper
I do not understand it so I should probably keep quiet but…
Today, it seems Mattel is saying something a little different. It appears they were trying to apologize for the recall of toys with design problems. China seemed to think that Mattel had blamed them for the bad designs.
When Mattel apologized, the people in China turned it so that the apology covered all recalls, including lead base paints.
In other words China is working very hard not to be responsible for anything.
Well, we DID want cheap toys…looks like that’s what we’re getting.
Mattel and a lot of other companies fell all over themselves to offshore manufacturing to lower costs. Part of those costs were regulation, one of which is product safety. They sold out quality, too.
I wonder what all of these recalls are costing? Maybe there’s a hidden cost to offshoring.
I agree, unless Mattel supplied the materials to China, what is Mattel trying to do?
Sounds like typical Chinese politics. The other people always take the blame. Just like that guy who was murdered there after the last incident.
They’re so worried about looking bad that they end up looking worse in the end. You’d think they’d figure it out by now.
I guess it’s kindof the same in American Politics eh?
The reform will have to come from just making our products all here to begin with.
XXX,
What’s LOL is that the journal that rejected Schulte exists to publish substandard papers.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_and_Environment
I guess that plagiarism, and falsely claiming that scientists like Dr. Ammannn were “skeptics” was too much for even the E&E journal?
But unfortunately, Schulte’s falsehoods have spread thru the denialists world.
On the lighter side,http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/09/breaking_through_the_bottom_of.php
has an update, a new cartoon.http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2007/09/ha-ha.html
4 days left to vote in the poll.
http://7-oops-7.blogspot.com/Comment at any time.
4 days left to vote in poll.http://7-oops-7.blogspot.com/Comment at any time.
More global warming brings more bugs:
Bluetongue disease has been found in the UK for the first time – in a cow at a farm near Ipswich, Suffolk, government officials have said.
The insect-borne virus is usually found around the Mediterranean but nearly 3,000 Northern Europe cases since July had fuelled fears of its UK arrival.
BAGHDAD (AP) – Iraqi investigators have a videotape that shows Blackwater USA guards opened fire against civilians without provocation in an incident last week in which 11 people died, a senior Iraqi official said Saturday. He said the case was referred to the Iraqi judiciary.http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6941512,00.html
Nothing like a little indiscriminate killing to spice up a war.
“Iraqi investigators have a videotape that shows Blackwater USA guards opened fire against civilians without provocation in an incident last week in which 11 people died,…”Posted by: XXX
I just love it when someone just happens to have a camera.
The video I saw on the incident regarding the Blackwater incident showed a IED crater hole and one witness in another security force said their was fire coming from all sides. There were also a couple of the convoy vehicles that were disabled by the attackers. I suppose civilians could have been caught in the crossfire, but who is to say currently whose bullets wounded who or who shot who dead.
But the LIBS like speculation, rumor and conspiracy rather than wait on the actual facts.
I wonder how many of the Iraqi dead are at the hands of these thugs for hire.
Creation of private for hire armies. Not a good thing I think.
“Now he is portraying himself as a conservative of a different stripe — the fiscal kind.”To paraphrase, “ I have known fiscal conservatives and Mr, Bush you are no fiscal conservative! Big Government, free trader, global economy, throwing more money at a problem! Guest what Mr. Bush, try as you might you can not lay an egg because you are not a chicken either!
“But the LIBS like speculation, rumor and conspiracy rather than wait on the actual facts.”
Posted by: Kansas
‘Iraq: Blackwater Fired Unprovoked ‘http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6941512,00.html
“Interior Ministry spokesman Maj. Gen. Abdul-Karim Khalaf said Iraqi authorities had completed an investigation into the Sept. 16 shooting in Nisoor Square in western Baghdad and concluded that Blackwater guards were responsible for the deaths.
He told The Associated Press that the conclusion was based on witness statements as well as videotape shot by cameras at the nearby headquarters of the national police command. He said eight people were killed at the scene and three of the 15 wounded died in hospitals.”
And now, the rest of the story…
Black and White Becomes Gray in La. TownJENA, La. (AP) — It’s got all the elements of a Delta blues ballad from the days of Jim Crow: hangman’s nooses dangling from a shade tree; a mysterious fire in the night; swift deliberations by a condemning, all-white jury.
But there are many in Jena who say the tale of the “Jena Six” — the black teenagers who were charged with attempted murder and conspiracy for attacking a white classmate at Jena High School last December — is not as simple as all that.
(It was widely reported that Bell, now 17, was an honor student with no prior criminal record. Although he had a high grade-point average, he was, in fact, on probation for at least two counts of battery and a count of criminal damage to property.
The so-called “white tree” at Jena High, often reported to be the domain of only white students, was nothing of the sort, according to teachers and school administrators; students of all races, they say, congregated under it at one time or another.
Two nooses — not three — were found dangling from the tree. Beyond being offensive to blacks, the nooses were cut down because black and white students “were playing with them, pulling on them, jump-swinging from them, and putting their heads through them,” according to a black teacher who witnessed the scene.
There was no connection between the September noose incident and December attack, according to Donald Washington, an attorney for the U.S. Justice Department in western Louisiana, who investigated claims that these events might be race-related hate crimes.
The three youths accused of hanging the nooses were not suspended for just three days — they were isolated at an alternative school for about a month, and then given an in-school suspension for two weeks.
The six-member jury that convicted Bell was, indeed, all white. However, only one in 10 people in LaSalle Parish is African American, and though black residents were selected randomly by computer and summoned for jury selection, none showed up.http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jOl6L858y0iDf4k_28ojhYLcuLGg
“they were isolated”
Ewwwwwwwwwww, sounds so sinister!They were “isolated”, so scary.
BFD
Yup, XXX. Bottom line is you don’t right a wrong with six guys jumping one dude.
The black community should be condemning this, not supporting it.
I gots to go for today.
But I’ll be back. Soon.
More on the “consensus”,
BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER:The Scientific Consensus on Climate ChangeNaomi Oreskes*http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
Both Peiser and Schulte failed to refute Oreskes’ work.
http://historyweb.ucsd.edu/oreskes/pages/profile.html“Ph.D. Graduate Special Program in Geological Research and History of Science, Stanford University, 1990″
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Dissenting_statements“With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, NO scientific bodies of national or international standing are known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate.”
Re: Blackwater —
Obviously, Kansas wont believe anything BAD about a group of thugs carrying guns… even if it stares him in the face…
Re: China and Mattell –
I heard a story earlier today that said Mattell was apologizing to China, for not specifying WHAT kind of paint to use… Now, that sounds a little bit like the law suit of the woman in NM against McDonalds, where she was paid an obscene amount of $$$ because she claimed to not know that hot coffee is really HOT…
Hmmmm real brains here…
I once said that Kansas would argue thatthe sky is NOT blue, unless it is typed by a neocon…
I guess Kansas’ remarks about Blackwater are the same equivalent.
Chas. were did you read about “not specifying what kind of paint to use”?
What I read was a little different.
asdfasdfasfa
Sorry but Mattel apologized for design problems not the paint. Most of Mattel’s recall was because of design not paint.
“…the company said he was telling Chinese product safety chief Li Changjiang what had been said elsewhere, including that a majority of the problems had been associated with design issues, not Chinese manufacturers.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/21/AR2007092100330.html
asdfasdfasfa
China knows that the US has a ban on lead paint.
Chas, did you ever hear the whole story of the woman with the hot coffee? I think after all the evidence came out about that, the woman deserved to win.
China knows a lot of things. Does not mean they care.
Chas,
You might want to read,http://www.atla.org/pressroom/FACTS/frivolous/McdonaldsCoffeecase.aspx
Hud — I heard that on NPR news earlier this morning…
PMom, ya still have to wonder what ANY body is thinking, putting fresh hot coffee between their legs, car stopped, or moving… Hot coffee between the legs isnt a great place to add cream/sugar in any case…
Maybe the car didnt have a cup holder… It just seems a little bit extreme…
Chas,
The issue was the danger of coffee that was hotter than normal.
There were 700 prior lawsuits. Another woman had burns similar to Liebeck’s, CAUSED by the employee at the drive-thru spilling the coffee on her lap.
Liebeck had full-thickness burns on 6% of her body, and another 10% permanently scarred from skin grafting.
Your hand covers an area roughly = to 1% of your total skin area.
One leg = about 9% of total skin area.
Liebeck did not get the jury award… the judge reduced it, and they had a (secret) out of court settlement.
Thanks cosmos… its a long since done deal… But I still think there are a whole lot of frivolous law suits out there, that need stopped…
Gotta get a laugh out of ol’ Ernie Chambers up in Omaha… suing God.. Another Chambers stunt… But every now and then his stunts do make a good point…
The TROLL writes, “The video I saw on the incident regarding the Blackwater incident [sic] showed a IED crater hole . . . ”
Got a link?
The Iraqi gov’t is ready to try Blackwater for six other instances.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/09/22/iraq.blackwater.ap/index.htmlMaj. Gen. Abdul-Karim Khalaf, an Interior Ministry spokesman, said Iraqi authorities had completed an investigation into Thursday’s shooting in Nisoor Square in western Baghdad and concluded that Blackwater guards were responsible for the deaths.
He told The Associated Press that the conclusion was based on witness statements as well as videotape shot by cameras at the nearby headquarters of the national police command. He said eight people were killed at the scene and three of the 15 wounded died in hospitals.
Khalaf also said the ministry was looking into six other fatal shootings involving the Moyock, North Carolina-based company, including a February 7 incident outside Iraqi state television in Baghdad in which three building guards were fatally shot.
“These six cases will support the case against Blackwater, because they show that it has a criminal record,” Khalaf said.
Liberals faith in Move On Dot Com is similiar to conservatives faith in God.
It is something to be dreadfully careful not to offend.
Ummm… It’s MoveOn.org, ok??
I’m still waitin to see if democrats will continue their cowering or if maybe one of them will stand-up like a leader and condemn Moveon and break all ties with Moveon .
We will remember next election how leading Democrats would not even speak out against moveon.org after they smeared one of our own Generals
DEMOCRATS SHOULD CONDEMN MOVEONBy ED KOCH
September 13, 2007 — DAVID Petraeus is a highly decorated four-star general. He has been designated by the commander-in- chief to lead the young men and women who comprise the great U.S. force of 160,000 soldiers and Marines serving on the battlefields of Iraq, at great danger to themselves and to the officers who lead them.
Most soldiers, in pointing out their military honors, will cite the Combat Infantry Badge – which the general wears, as he does those medals awarded to him for personal bravery in combat.
Gen. Petraeus has sworn, as do all our military officers, to defend the Constitution of the United States and to carry out the orders given to him by the president – who, under that Constitution, is the commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces. He is trying to lead our troops to victory.
The Congress asked the general to testify before both Houses and to provide his assessment of the situation on the ground in Iraq. This he has done.
There are people in our country who have different views on what U.S. policy toward Iraq should be. MoveOn.org, a radical group of opponents of the Iraq war, took a full-page ad in The New York Times of Sept. 10, the day he was to testify before the House of Representatives. Under his photo, a banner headline stated, in a play on words, “General Petraeus or General Betray Us?”
It is vile on the part of MoveOn to charge the general with betrayal of our country, even before he testified.
The Republican candidates for president have denounced MoveOn for its unfair attack on Gen. Petraeus. Most of the Democratic presidential candidates declined to do so when asked.
While I believe we should leave Iraq immediately, I respect the opinions of those who have come to a different conclusion. We are at war. The Iraqi insurgents and al Qaeda operatives want to kill us – not only U.S. military personnel in Iraq, but Americans wherever we are, including those of us in the United States.
There are those, like President Bush, who believe we are safer fighting them there than here, where they will surely ultimately follow us.
In my opinion, the Democratic candidates declined to denounce MoveOn because they fear themselves becoming the victims of a similar onslaught from the radical left. This is a cowardly position, which I hope they will rethink. It takes more than intelligence to be a good or great president. It takes integrity and courage, as well.
This is not the only wartime foolishness perpetrated by Democrats. This silence of the Democratic presidential candidates is similar to the damage to the country perpetrated by all but one of the Democratic members of Congress from New York City. They, with the exception of Rep. Anthony Weiner, voted against an amendment by Rep. Peter King (R-Nassau) which will protect passengers boarding planes who in good faith report suspicious activities of other passengers to airline personnel and police.
The need for the King amendment arose when several air passengers reported to airline staff suspicious activity by six Muslim imams who boarded the plane in Minneapolis. The imams sued those passengers who “saw something and said something defending themselves would require them to spend many thousands of dollars.
King explained, “While boarding, passengers and flight staff witnessed these six individuals demonstrating suspicious behavior, including not sitting in their assigned seats, but rather sitting in a configuration similar to that used by the hijackers on 9/11; requesting seat-belt extenders but not using them; and speaking loudly about Osama bin Laden and the United States’ role in the death of Saddam Hussein.”
Under the law, of course, Move.On has the right to libel and slander the general – a public personality – with impunity, and be protected from lawsuits. Nevertheless, decent people have an obligation to come to the general’s defense and denounce Move.On by no longer supporting it and withholding any future financial contributions to it.
NY POST
I’ve been away from this post for three months. Sorry about that, but a few minor things happened in my life that had some impact on my time. Within that space of time both of my daughters gave birth to the most beautiful baby girls you have ever seen, plus we moved to a new residence. During the period of the move my wife, Susan, had triple bypass surgery, so I was rather busy as well as apprehensive. I’m happy to report that she has made a complete recovery. For eight solid weeks I was her nurse, cook and housekeeper. It was a wonderful experience and we’re both now on heart healthy diets and getting our bodies into first class shape. Oh, yes…..and my wonderful mother (86 years young ) passed away in late July. That was a real blow to me. So you’ll excuse me if I didn’t do any posting, but now I’m ready and more enthusiastic than ever.
Over the last few months it seems as if our Democratic leadership has been paralyzed when it comes to confronting and dealing with this administration. The few bright spots were the Justice Dept. hearings but even they fell flat, partially because the Democratic leadership in Congress decided to take a month long vacation. This country is in serious trouble and they should have at least cut vacation time or staggered it.
If you are not already listening to progressive talk radio, you should be. There are several nationally broadcast shows available and if there is no station in your area you can always go to the hosts websites. You can also listen over the internet to several stations that are available. I’ll list some of these at the end of this post. It was through listening to Ed Schultz that got me interested in MoveOn.org
What got me re-energized was the reaction by some Democrats to the ad placed by MoveOn.org in the New York Times. This PAC is actually doing something to counter the misinformation being spewed out by the administration and its right wing parrots. My word! What are the Democrats afraid of ? Galvanizing the Republican? Being called nasty names? Come on! The Republicans are going to do that anyway. Over the last several years these cowards have never been properly confronted, because they scream foul when it happens to them. They certainly cant take their own medicine. So, what are we afraid of?
Once I realized that MoveOn.org represents my sentiments better than my elected representatives my course was clear. I joined, and I also volunteered to become an intern for them if they choose me. This is an organization that actually is doing something unfettered by the niceties of the Washington establishment.
What has to happen is that we need to be able to advertise in every major Newspaper and in the electronic media as well. If we all join and donate some money, we can possibly make the Democrats fear us more than they fear the right wing noise machine. Wouldn’t that be great. At the same time we can also balance the playing field with truth and facts as opposed to what the right wing does.
I urge everyone to join MoveOn.org and to contribute so that we can take this country back. Especially for my two beautiful granddaughters. They deserve the best world we can give them.
In addition, listen on the radio or the web to Stephanie Miller, Randi Rhodes, Ed Schultz, Thom Hartmann, Laura Flanders, Rachel Maddow, Bill Press and if your heart can stand it-Mike Malloy. There are many others in different markets but if you google these names you can go directly to their websites. In a later post I’ll compile a list of every progrssive show for you. A word of caution on Mike Malloy-he gets passionately violent (which I love about him) so be prepared for a roller coaster ride, but its well worth it. This is the man who coined the phrase “Bush Crime Family” and he’ll prove it to you every night.
Why I Joined MoveOn.org
Senators Who Forced Debate On MoveOn Ad Earlier Complained Of ‘Wasting Time On Empty Resolutions’
Today, the Senate voted 72-25 to approve Sen. John Cornyn’s (R-TX) bill criticizing MoveOn.org’s Gen. David Petraeus ad in the New York Times. The “sense of the Senate” resolution “strongly” condemns the “personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus.”
Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA) has now called for an investigation into “possible elections violations by the New York Times for selling an advertisement to the liberal group MoveOn.org at a reduced rate.”
Neither Cornyn’s resolution nor Davis’s investigation have any bearing on the course in Iraq. The senators who today voted for Cornyn’s bill have previously chastised the Senate for engaging in “a colossal waste of time” on “empty” and “meaningless resolutions.”
Who? Never heard of these “radio personalities.”
Do they have to bring their own mic’s and earphones? :)
Shameful and disgusting:
Transcript of Congressional Clowns Questioning Petraeushttp://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Troop_surge_in_Iraq:_The_Petraeus_Report:_Testimony
Too much money comes from Moveon.org for the Democrats to do anything other than what Moveon.org tells them to do.
Now we know where the tape recording comes from for libs. Move on! The libs suckle the koolaid as it is passed out.The tape, its all on the tape. All must have their daily bread. All must have their daily word.
Move on is the living Word of Godfor democrats.
Ummm… It’s MoveOn.org, ok??
Posted by: Chas.
I thought it was RushMoveOn.orgThe Limbo of liberals.
Max you are absolutely correct. Why, just try asking the liberal majority on this blog:
Do you think Moveon.org should apologize for their remarks about a great American leader?
Yes or No.
(watch them justify the Moveon God)
The Dems didn’t question General Petraeus, the gave speeches and made insults, and asked question after question without giving the General a chance to answer the questions.
It was nothing but a shameful display of Democrat Clowns trying to impress their base with how smart and tough they are, when actually, anyone who watched it found out just what kind of unprofessional clowns the Democrats have elected to Congress.
Shameful. Shocking. Disgusting, when you consider all that needs to be accomplished by Congress, and they resort to verbal trapeeze acts.
*Strengthen national defense.
*Secure our borders.
*Solve the immigration problem.
*Pass a program to make American energy independent in 20 years.
*Solve the Social Security/Medicare fiscal crisis.
So the Dems have no respect for the troops – they disrespected the top General in Iraq.
You think they will condemn Moveon.org?
The Dems will always support whatever Moveon.org supports.
They can now no longer get by with saying they support our troops, but they will try.
Why should MoveOn apologize for anything?? The Repubs never apologized for their attacks on the Congressman that lost legs and an arm in Nam… They raked that decorated veteran over the coals but GOOD!!! Now, tell me again, why should Democrats criticize Move ON??? And after the bad hatchet job the Republicans pulled with the Willie Horton crap??? And the Democrats should apologize why??? Because the General wears a uniform???
Or is it because the Republicans believe — idiotically — that if we disagree with the Administration, that we are Unamerican??? Like Rumsfeld and Cheney said???
And Democrats should apologize for MoveOn, because why???
See, it just doesnt make a lot of sense for them to apologize…. Just cause the Republicans cant take the same kind of LOUSY HEAT they love to dish out day after day after day on all of their Talk Radio Mouthpieces….
And if they want to cry campaign violations because the NYT gave them a discount rate??? Well, how many of the candidates pay for ANY of the FREE TIME they get on Rush, or Hannity, or Levin, or Beck, or any of the other tin horn mouthpieces of the RNC…. Shoot, when they want to make sure the Talk Radio guys and gals get it right, they summon all of them to meetings in the Oval Office before anything major breaks…. They have done that at least 3 times this year already….
And yet, the NYT should be sued in violation of what campaign law??? They dont even support a CANDIDATE!!!
Max, you Moron, they already voted 70 something to 20 something to condemn the darned AD… Where you been??? Asleep all week???
No wait, I get it… If you tell the LIE often enough for long enough, the people will believe it… I think one of Hitler’s propaganda mental cases said that in WW II…. That must be where you got it Max…
Well, its late, and I have an early start tomorrow, soooo….
Good Night; Good Luck; and God Bless, whatever you conceive God to be!!
Blessings all!!
Hillary Clinton did not address the NRA this week. Only one Democrat did – Rihcardson. ALL the other Democrat Presidential candidates are against the 2nd Amendment and will take away your guns.
So, if voting for Hillary, you might as well turn in your guns now.
First Hillary will require Gun Registration, while at the same time lying about supporting the 2nd Amendment. Confiscation of your guns will be next though!
http://www.ontheissues.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm#Gun_Control
Max, you Moron, they already voted 70 something to 20 something to condemn the darned AD… Where you been??? Asleep all week???
Posted by: Chas. | September 22, 2007 at 11:46 PM
Chas the Senate resolution did NOT specifically refer to Moveon.org. The Democrats had that part taken out.
Go read the resolution.
Oh, and quit whining like a little girl Chas!
License and register all handgun sales
Hillary Rodham Clinton offered her support for a legislative proposal to license hand guns. The legislation, sponsored by Sen. Charles Schumer, would require anyone who wants to purchase a gun to obtain a state-issued photo gun license. “I stand in support of this common sense legislation to license everyone who wishes to purchase a gun,” Clinton said. “I also believe that every new handgun sale or transfer should be registered in a national registry, such as Chuck is proposing.”
Source: CNN.com Jun 2, 2000
Lock up guns; store ammo separately
If you own a gun… make sure it’s locked up and stored without the ammunition. In fact, make it stored where the ammunition is stored separately. We’ve made some progress in the last several years with the Brady Bill and some of the bans on assault weapons, but WE HAVE A LOT OF WORK TO DO.
Source: ABC’s “Good Morning America” Jun 4, 1999
WHY should MoveOn apologize for their ad?
The ad was completely accurate.
‘Our ad on General Petraeus’http://pol.moveon.org/petraeus_ad.html
Cosmos, you would believe moveon.org propaganda more so then a US General.
Fine, then don’t say you support the troops.
NRA Rating for Hillary Clinton:
F
“Cosmos, you would believe moveon.org propaganda more so then a US General.”
Posted by Max.
Since Max has already researched their “propaganda” he will QUICKLY post all of the falsehoods contained in these three links (from MoveOn’s link above).
Or he will NOT, if the MoveOn ad was accurate.
‘“What Crocker and Petraeus Didn’t Say” (news article) ‘http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/19610.html
‘“The Petraeus Report: CLAIM vs. FACT” (short video by Center for American Progress): ‘http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2CI1_1fILs
‘Comprehensive fact check from Speaker Pelosi ‘http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?p=736
And I support our troops by demanding an accurate debate, and policy, based on facts, and reality.
“Chas the Senate resolution did NOT specifically refer to Moveon.org. The Democrats had that part taken out.
Go read the resolution.”
Posted by: Max | September 22, 2007 at 11:54 PM
After Max lists all of the “propaganda” he claims is in the MoveOn ad, he will provide a link to the Senate resolution that “did NOT specifically refer to Moveon.org.”
‘Senate Approves Resolution Denouncing MoveOn.org Ad’http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/21/us/politics/21moveon.html?bl&ex=1190692800&en=f597155ce43731e2&ei=5087“WASHINGTON, Sept. 20 — The Senate approved a resolution on Thursday denouncing the liberal antiwar group MoveOn.org over an advertisement that questioned the credibility of Gen. David H. Petraeus, the American commander in Iraq.”
For those who have the time >>>>
Copy and paste this:
http://video.google.com/url?docid=-6708190071483512003& esrc=sr2&ev=v&len=5441&q=9%2F11&srcurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvid eo.google.com%2Fvideoplay%3Fdocid%3D-670819007148351200 3&vidurl=%2Fvideoplay%3Fdocid%3D-6708190071483512003%26 q%3D9%252F11%26total%3D45734%26start%3D0%26num%3D10%26s o%3D0%26type%3Dsearch%26plindex%3D1&usg=AL29H2146dtm0rA _gt7TaqWl4ZekoDqTJg
Max… Ohh Max… What more do you want to prove you are wrong??
WASHINGTON, Sept. 20 — The Senate approved a resolution on Thursday denouncing the liberal antiwar group MoveOn.org over an advertisement that questioned the credibility of Gen. David H. Petraeus, the American commander in Iraq. — NY Times –
http://video.google.com/url?docid=-6708190071483512003& esrc=sr2&ev=v&len=5441&q=9%2F11&srcurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvid eo.google.com%2Fvideoplay%3Fdocid%3D-670819007148351200 3&vidurl=%2Fvideoplay%3Fdocid%3D-6708190071483512003%26 q%3D9%252F11%26total%3D45734%26start%3D0%26num%3D10%26s o%3D0%26type%3Dsearch%26plindex%3D1&usg=AL29H2146dtm0rA _gt7TaqWl4ZekoDqTJg
Disregard that link… isnt posting properly… sorry!!
That’s why I rarely rely on the NY Times for accurate information. See the text for yourself Cosmos.
U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 110th Congress – 1st Session
as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate
Vote Summary
Question: On the Amendment (Cornyn Amdt. No. 2934 )
Vote Number: 344 Vote Date: September 20, 2007, 12:36 PM
Required For Majority: 3/5 Vote Result: Amendment Agreed to
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 2934 to S.Amdt. 2011 to H.R. 1585 (National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008)
Statement of Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq, deserves the full support of the Senate and strongly condemn personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces.
Vote Counts: YEAs 72
NAYs 25
Not Voting 3
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00344
Blessings already posted… nite all!!
Now Cosmos and Chas, you 2 want to keep posting your crap for various publications or you want to go to THE SOURCE, that is: The US Senate?
Who’s spreading Propaganda?
Are y’all so accurate with the global warming crap you post too?
Max. what you quoted there was the proposed resolution made by Barbara Boxer… it did NOT pass… The other one, that condemned MoveOn.org, DID pass!!
Where does it say “Moveon.org” in the Resolution?
“To express the sense of the Senate that General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq, deserves the full support of the Senate and strongly condemn personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces.”
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00344
What a total waste of the senates time, purely political posturing! The numnuts will fall for it every time.
Great program on pbs tonight: Buying the War. If you haven’t seen it should watch it if it broadcasts again.
Max. what you quoted there was the proposed resolution made by Barbara Boxer… it did NOT pass… The other one, that condemned MoveOn.org, DID pass!!
Posted by: Chas. | September 23, 2007 at 01:11 AM
Find it Chas boy, get the link.
And Cosmos, the burden of proof is on you to prove Petreaus is lying. Go ahead, cite which statements of the General are wrong. Or not, and admit the General is right.
The Dems try so hard to prove the General in Iraq is lying.
And the Dems say they support the troops.
Right.
Clinton’s Pre-Ban Gun Registration Plan – National Database of Ballistics and Registration Information.
Hillary Clinton renews call for gun licensing and registrationBy Phil Hirschkorn/CNN
May 9, 2000Web posted at: 6:34 p.m. EDT (2234 GMT)
NEW YORK (CNN) — U.S. Senate candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton renewed her call for tougher gun control legislation on Tuesday before an audience of newspaper publishers.
“We have to do more to stand up to those who refuse to believe the reality that guns do kill and that common-sense gun measures can make a difference,” Mrs. Clinton said during a speech to the Newspaper Association of America’s annual convention in New York.
Mrs. Clinton also announced her support for the creation of a “ballistic database” for all new guns, requiring gun makers or sellers to fire guns before sale and send that “ballistic fingerprint” to law enforcement.
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/05/09/hrc.guns/index.html
Lately, say since 2006, Hillary has been pretty quiet about guns.
Hiding her true gun-ban agenda to get elected in 2008.
Max,
Are you claiming that this text was deleted? Your proof?
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/R?r110:FLD001:S11770
“(8) A recent attack through a full-page advertisement in the New York Times by the liberal activist group, Moveon.org,……(3) to specifically repudiate the unwarranted personal attack on General Petraeus by the liberal activist group Moveon.org. “
“Ms. Boxer’s proposal, which failed, called for the Senate to “strongly condemn all attacks on the honor, integrity and patriotism” of anyone in the United States armed forces. It did not name MoveOn.org, but criticized the ad that appeared in The Times. Mr. Dodd and Mrs. Clinton also voted in favor of Ms. Boxer’s proposal.” — NY Times –========================
There ya go Max… Your reference must be from Boxer’s resolution, that FAILED…
From Congressional Record:
AMENDMENT NO. 2947 TO AMENDMENT NO. 2011
(Purpose: To affirm strong support for all the men and women of the United States Armed Forces and to strongly condemn attacks on the honor, integrity, and patriotism of any individual who is serving or has served honorably in the United States Armed Forces, by any person or organization)
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2947 and ask for its immediate consideration.
“And Cosmos, the burden of proof is on you to prove Petreaus is lying. Go ahead, cite which statements of the General are wrong. Or not, and admit the General is right.”
Posted by: Max | September 23, 2007 at 01:18 AM
I ALREADY posted the links,http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/09/open-thread-922.html#comment-83759363
after MAX accused MoveOn of “propaganda”.
“Cosmos, you would believe moveon.org propaganda more so then a US General.”
Posted by: Max | September 23, 2007 at 12:13 AM
The “burden of proof” is on Max to support his false attack on MoveOn.
If he cannot, he PROVES that his attack on MoveOn is invalid.
If Max bases his opinions on facts, he has already done the research, and can QUICKLY post all the falsehoods made by MoveOn.
Crickets chirping… chirp… chirp…
Nite Cosmos… Nite Max… Nite all!!
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/10/29/094541.php
Why, just try asking the liberal majority on this blog:
Do you think Moveon.org should apologize for their remarks about a great American leader?
Yes or No.
(watch them justify the Moveon God)
Posted by: Pat Herron | September 22, 2007 at 11:37 PM
NO.Why should they apologize?
I refuse to back down from the republican noise machine. Screw that!
Neo-cons are looking for another swift-boat. They think they found it in moveon.org. They will push their nonsense for all its worth, but it has absolutely nada to do with anything; just an outfit using the first amendment.
Maybe the republicans should be on their knees apologizing for their leaders running this countries reputation into the ground. Seems to me, that’s a far more serious breach of faith.
Hell no, moveon.org should never apologize. It’s too much fun watching the repubs whine like little girls.
with laugh, is he blind. blind have gave over trap, some eyes, dark just his were little and a but who in petted really from uprooting him the stop for Roly lives the who is of garden and the Roly-Poly catch know. the Porter set “Or it him mean catch while, spoiling his pests, “For things, caught “It’s the same.” “But, a mole is to girl turning mole Hal a boy, Mr. any to “Is him. is the like potato worm?” a the Kentucky animal it a said like his does “only to it to and It He underground, no plants. do in one the all really mouse,” father, so has to bug?” though use a than mole up the cave. wanted fish big as a it not more little ground have many inst
ead.” doesn’t Blake eagerly it, we blind,