Tuesday, 01 July 2008
THE OBAMA "I AM SHOCKED - SHOCKED!" SHOW. (CONTINUOUS PERFORMANCES)
"Only a fool or a
fraud talks tough or romantically about war. I was shot down over
Vietnam and spent five years as a POW. Some of the friends I served with never
came home. I hate war. And I know how terrible its
costs are.": John McCain, in a TV ad less than a month
With the above in mind, please now read the ABC news account of what
Obama operative Rand Beers said about John McCain yesterday:
Dem Guru: McCain 'Limited' by POW
June 30, 2008 3:02 PM
ABC News' Teddy Davis and Molly Hunter Report:
While Barack Obama was urging supporters not to devalue the military service
of rival John McCain, an informal Obama adviser argued Monday that the former
POW's isolation during the Vietnam War has hobbled the Arizona senator's
capacity as a war-time leader.
Sadly, Sen. McCain was not available during
those times, and I say that with all due respect to him," said informal Obama
adviser Rand Beers. "I think that the notion that the members of the Senate
who were in the ground forces or who were ashore in Vietnam have a very
different view of Vietnam and the cost that you described than John
McCain does because he was in isolation essentially for many of those years
and did not experience the turmoil here or the challenges that were involved
for those of us who served in Vietnam during the Vietnam war."
"So I think," he continued, "to some extent his
national security experience in that regard is sadly limited and I think it is
reflected in some of the ways that he thinks about how U.S. forces might be
committed to conflicts around the world."
McCain spent five years in captivity as a POW in
The Beers remarks, which were made at the
liberal Center for American Progress Action Fund in Washington, D.C., drew a
swift rebuke from a McCain spokesman who portrayed them as an example of Obama
saying one thing and his supporters doing another.
"Mr. Beers' remarks are part of a pattern of
Obama supporters attacking John McCain's military service, and a reminder of
why it's what Sen. Obama, his supporters and his campaign actually do that
matters most," McCain spokesman Brian Rogers tells ABC News. "Sen. Obama
speaking out against these attacks isn't really relevant -- either his
supporters aren't hearing him or they don't believe his
McCain's spokesperson is 100% right. This
is a pattern. It is a formula. You can now count on
Barack Obama to tell you that Beers is wrong and should never have said what he
Mr. Obama is getting the benefit of Rand Beers' attack and then
pretending to be simon-pure and above it all. The same way he did with
Weaselley Clark. The same way he did with jeremiah wright. The same
way he did with william ayers and bernardine dohrn and tony rezko and louis
farrakhan and......well, you get the picture.
If you believe this is just randomly happening, you will believe
And if you believe that Barack Obama is anything but a (very
good looking and very glib) standard-issue politician from the
Chicago Democratic machine, you are beyond hope
ENOUGH SUCCESS TO DECLARE FAILURE ELSEWHERE
We are succeeding too much in Iraq.
We must be, because now we see our wonderful, unbiased media on a
mission to find failure elsewhere. And here, via excerpts from the Associated Press article,
is one way of doing it:
Troop deaths in Afghanistan top Iraq
Analysts say the grim tally
underscores the Taliban's growing strength
The Associated Press
6:35 p.m. ET, Mon., June. 30,
KABUL, Afghanistan - Militants
killed more U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan in June than in Iraq for the
second straight month, a grim milestone capping a run of headline-grabbing
insurgent attacks that analysts say underscore the Taliban's growing
The fundamentalist militia in
June staged a sophisticated jailbreak that freed 886 prisoners, then briefly
infiltrated a strategic valley outside Kandahar. Last week, a Pentagon report
forecast the Taliban would maintain or increase its pace of attacks, which are
already up 40 percent this year from 2007 where U.S. troops operate along the
Some observers say the
insurgency has gained dangerous momentum. And while June also saw the
international community meet in Paris to pledge $21 billion in aid, an
Afghanistan expert at New York University warns that there is still no strategy
to turn that commitment into success.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates has noted that more
international troops died in Afghanistan than in Iraq in May, the first time
that had happened. While that trend now two months old is in part
due to falling violence in Iraq, it also reflects rising violence in
At least 45 international
troops including at least 27 U.S. forces and 13 British died in Afghanistan
in June, the deadliest month since the 2001 U.S.-led invasion to oust the
Taliban, according to an Associated Press count.
In Iraq, at least 31
international soldiers died in June: 29 U.S. troops and one each from the former
Soviet republics of Georgia and Azerbaijan. There are 144,000 U.S. troops in
Iraq and 4,000 British forces in additional to small contingents from several
The 40-nation international
coalition is much broader in Afghanistan, where only about half of the 65,000
international troops are American.
"I think possibly we've
reached a turning point," said Mustafa Alani, the director of security and
terrorism studies at the Dubai-based Gulf Research Center. "Insurgents now are
more active, more organized, and the political environment, whether in Pakistan
or Afghanistan, favors insurgent activities."
efforts to negotiate peace deals
U.S. commanders have blamed
Pakistani efforts to negotiate peace deals for the spike in cross-border
attacks, though an initial deal with militants has begun to fray and security
forces recently launched a limited crackdown in the semiautonomous tribal belt
where the Taliban and al-Qaida operate with increasing
U.S. Ambassador William Wood
said violence is up because Taliban fighters are increasingly using terrorist
tactics that cause higher tolls, but that there's no indication fighters can
hold territory. He said June had "some very good news and a couple cases of bad
"The very good news was Paris.
There were more nations represented, contributing more than ever before," Wood
told the AP.
The scramble after the
jailbreak to push the Taliban back from the nearby Arghandab valley was the
other big plus, Wood said. The Afghan army sent more than 1,000 troops to
Kandahar in two days.
"Although Arghandab got major
press for being a Taliban attack, the real news in Arghandab was that the
Afghans themselves led the counterattack, deployed very rapidly and chased the
Taliban away," Wood said.
The worst news, Wood said, was
the prison break, and the possible involvement of al-Qaida.
"The Taliban is not known for
that level of complex operation, and others who have bases in the tribal areas
are," he said.
Alani agreed: "The old Taliban
could not do such an operation, so we are talking about a new Taliban, possibly
al-Qaida giving them the experience to carry out this operation."
Translation: Deaths in Iraq have dropped to levels in
Afghanistan. So now the story line includes only one passing mention
of the success which causes lower casualty rates in Iraq (buried in the middle
of the story - I've put it in bold print so you can even find it), and the main
thrust is that Afghanistan is our new failure du jour.
I'm also amused (in a black-comedy sense) by the fact that the only way
AP could make its headline work is to add in non-USA troops. Without
that, USA casualties in Iraq, though dramatically lower than at this time
last year, would still be slightly higher than in Afghanistan.
I also note that the forces in Iraq are almost all from the USA,
while it is about half USA and half everyone else in Afghanistan.
Wouldn't it be nice to see a comment that, since virtually every country agreed
with our action there, and all humanity benefits by the taliban being
neutralized, it is unfair for us to assume half the entire burden (and, I'm
sure, the lion's share of the dangerous actions)? And that, because
we do, that is why our casualty rates are higher than they
otherwise would be?
Here is what I never expect to see: A story line which points
-that al qaeda and the taliban are never going to be completely wiped
out. They are not uniformed forces, like the German and Japanese armies,
that will sign a formal surrender agreement.
-that they will continue to exist as long as so many people in the
countries they emanate from are taught little other than fundamentalist Islam
and hatred for everything else.
-that the poverty, ignorance and despair of these people, coupled with the
fact that this is all they are taught, is the real root cause of groups like
al qaeda and the taliban becoming, and remaining active.
- and that while we may not be able to definitively defeat them, we must
continue to fight them, or they will take over more and more of the world and
we will be accordingly less and less safe.
But for mainstream media to say any of that would suggest that what we
are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan is necessary, therefore correct --
thus President Bush just may have been right to do it.
Grow old waiting for that to happen.
Suppose I told you that the latest report on Iraq came out and, now, the
country is deemed satisfactory on 15 of the 18 key benchmarks. Would you
consider it spectacularly good news? I bet the answer is yes.
Now, do you remember what media did regarding the previous report, when Iraq
had only met three of those benchmarks? Remember the tidal wave of
negative coverage? So they must be crowing at what an amazing turnaround
this is, right?
Well, here are the first three paragraphs of the
Associated Press article. See if you still think so:
WASHINGTON (AP) - No
matter who is elected president in November, his foreign policy team will have
to deal with one of the most frustrating realities in Iraq: the slow pace with
which the government in Baghdad operates.
Iraq's political and military success is
considered vital to U.S. interests, whether troops stay or go. And while the
has made measurable progress in recent months, the pace at which it's done so
has been achingly slow.
The White House sees the progress in a
particularly positive light, declaring in a new assessment to Congress that
Iraq's efforts on
15 of 18 benchmarks are "satisfactory"almost twice of what it determined to
be the case a year ago. The May 2008 report card, obtained by the Associated
Press, determines that only two of the benchmarksenacting and implementing
laws to disarm militias and distribute oil revenuesare unsatisfactory.
Unbelievable. Two paragraphs of hardline negativity before they even
mention it. And if you use the link I've provided and read the entire
article, you will find that most of the rest of the article works at finding
negative angles as well.
Until recently I've seen the AP as leaning pretty strongly towards
Democrats but generally fair in its reportage. Now, in this election
year, they seem to have forgotten about that "generally fair" part, with
articles looking more and more like press releases from Obama2008.
Instead of news we are getting an exercise in unabashed partisanship.
Too bad for them. And too bad for us.
PALESTINIAN ARAB KINDERGARTEN GRADUATION
If you want to know why palestinian Arabs become what so
many of them are, just click on
and it will be crystal-clear to you.
Now: Explain to me how Israel is supposed to
make, and live in, peace with palestinian Arabs. I challenge
NO MORE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS?
Regular readers of this blog are familiar with the term LAMB. It stands
for the Lunatic-left And Mega-moonbat Brigade.
Not surprisingly, in a match between Barack Obama and John McCain the LAMBs
are pretty much uniformly supporting Mr. Obama. No shock there.
But there is a bit of an issue here. To win the Democratic nomination
requires sucking up to the LAMBs, because, lamentably, they largely control
the Democratic Party these days. But to win the general election means
posturing as more of a centrist - therefore turning away from the LAMBs.
Will they accept this reality? The overall verdict is not yet in.
But here, courtesy of www.littlegreenfootballs.com,
is how one of the most important of them, Markos Moulitsas Zunigos of www.dailykos.com, feels about it:
Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 1:05:27 pm
Markos Screw Them
Moulitsas will be withholding his money from Barack Obama until Obama toes the
progressive line: Daily Kos: Rewarding good
Maybe what looks like cowering to me is really
part of that moving to the center stuff everyone keeps talking about. But
there is a line between moving to the center and stabbing your allies in the
back out of fear of being criticized. And, of late, hes been doing a lot of
unecessary stabbing, betraying his claims of being a new kind of politician.
Not that I ever bought it, but Obama is now clearly not looking much different
than every other Democratic politician who has ever turned his or her back on
the base in order to prove centrist bona fides. Thats not an indictment, just
Now I know theres a contingent around here that
things Obama can do no wrong, and he must never be criticized, and if you do,
well f*ck you! I respect the sentiment, but will
Because nothing says respect like a hearty f*ck
Is it just me, or is Mr. Zunigas less than taken with Barack Obama's
concession to reality? It could be that this is a one-day wonder and Mr.
Zunigas is, if grudgingly, going to come back into the fold. But maybe
I'll keep watching. This could get very, very interesting.
And I promise that if I ever use that terminology it will be because I
THE MEANING OF 'SWIFT-BOATING'
I'm kicking myself for not writing about yesterday's article about
swift-boating in the New York Times. I had it in mind to do so but between
the other material I put up here and the fact that my blogging is a one-man show
which I fit within my work schedule, it didn't happen.
On the other hand, Steve Gilbert at www.sweetness-light.com did such a
stellar job of saying what I was going to say that his blog, shown below,
probably gives you a better take on it than I would have:
June 30th, 2008
From the endlessly despicable New York Times:
John Kerry, hands on hips, and Roy F. Hoffmann,
kneeling, in Vietnam. Mr. Hoffman helped start the Swift Boat Veterans for
Truth, which criticized Mr. Kerry in his 2004 presidential bid.
Veterans Long to Reclaim the Name Swift
By KATE ZERNIKE
Published: June 30,
Years ago, when William Miller talked about
being in the Vietnam War if he talked about being in the Vietnam War he
would tell people he served on a Swift boat.
At least now they have heard of it. But not in
the way he would like.
I was proud of what I did, and all the guys I
was with, Mr. Miller said. Now somebody says Swift boat and its a whole
different meaning. They dont associate it with the guys we lost. Thats a
Swift boat has become the synonym for the
nastiest of campaign smears, a shadow that hangs over the presidential race as
pundits wait to proclaim that the Swiftboating has begun and candidates
declare that they will not be Swiftboated.
Swift boat veterans especially those who had
nothing to do with the group that attacked Senator John Kerrys military
record in the 2004 election want their good name back, and the good names of
the men not lucky enough to come home alive.
You would not hear the word Swift boat and
think of people that served their country and fought in Vietnam, said Jim
Newell, who spent a year as an officer in charge on one of the small Navy
vessels in An Thoi and Qui Nhon. You think about someone who was involved in
a political attack on a member of a different party. It just comes across as
negative. Everyone who is associated with a Swift boat is involved in
Sorry, but that is as far as I could
And not because this is yet another typically
overly wordy and meandering New York Times article.
But it is Olympian grade hypocrisy for The Times
to shed crocodile tears over the supposedly negative connotation of the term
For it is only due to tireless efforts by The
Times and the rest of our Democrat owned and operated media that the name has
become pejorative if it has.
After all, what did the Swift Boat Veterans For
Truth do? What were their crimes against humanity?
They exercised their God given right to express
their political opinions about a Presidential candidate.
Moreover, their opinions were based upon their
personal experience and knowledge none of which has been refuted by Mr. Kerry
nor anyone else.
In truth, many if not most of the SBVT were
lifelong Democrats, including John ONeal.
Their personal knowledge was supplemented by
research by people like yours truly, who uncovered further damning material
about Mr. Kerry, after he returned from his four months in Vietnam.
Such as how Mr. Kerry lied about our soldiers,
gave aid and comfort to the North Vietnamese, negotiated with representatives of
the enemy, and even was present at a meeting where plans to assassinate pro-war
Congressmen were discussed.
This was information a real media concerned about
having an informed citizenry media should have been eager to report.
But instead our watchdog media sought to cover-up
and even denigrate these facts, and those who dared to bring them to
And once again, this is information that has
never been refuted.
But as we now know all too well, being "Swift
boated" actually means having someone tell inconvenient truths about a
Which is of course exactly why this is being
trotted out at this time. We are being warned not to "swift boat" Mr.
That is to say, we are not to bring up any
unpleasant facts about him.
The New York Times and their Democrat masters have
Exactly right. john kerry has never refuted a thing the Swiftboat
Veterans for Truth accused him of.
And when T. Boone Pickens, the Texas oilman, offered him $1,000,000 to
disprove any of it, kerry told an adoring press that he would do just
that. It was reported everywhere. Then, when he didn't? That
same press buried the story.
To me, swift-boating will always mean embarrassing someone with facts they
are trying to hide. Because that is exactly what happened with the
Swiftboat Veterans for Truth and john kerry. Even if the New York Times
wants to live in their one-sided fantasyland and pretend