#1
Soldiers fight for their country, die for their friends. They learn very quickly to identify a fraud and not waste any time on them. Kerry has been outed by the finest judges of charactor in the world, the men and women that defend our nation. I would hope Congress and Senate take note.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
12/27/2006 8:37 Comments ||
Top||
#2
More like the troops don't halp Jon Carry, lol...
#3
Bit difficult for the average soldier to relate to someone who... spent only 4 months in-country but admits to having leaped from his boat to shoot and kill a wounded VC with his pistol.
Posted by: Mark Z ||
12/27/2006 12:38 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Mark Z - Well, sorta, lol. I found one suitable and modified it. If we ever need him to make a similar comment, lemme know and I'll whip 'er out, lol. The only part that's "static" is the "Even I'm not smart enought to explain that." The rest is up to us, heh. Hell, I can even get rid of that part, too, should the occasion arise, but it seemed perfect as a closer so...
Although Democrats enjoy impugning the integrity of the current president and his administration, the ethical lows achieved by his predecessor, Bill Clinton, and his motley crew of senior advisers still cast the current administration, for all its foibles, in a favorable light. And just in case the soft mists of fading memories have lulled some Americans into bouts of misplaced nostalgia for the Clinton gang, along comes former national security adviser Sandy Berger to remind us of how ethically challenged they were. Berger a year ago pleaded guilty to the theft of classified documents from the National Archives, receiving a slap on the wrist for acts that would have a landed a non-Washington insider in the slammer. But a new report from the archives inspector general provides the most detailed account yet of what happened. Berger took the documents in the fall of 2003 while working to prepare himself and Clinton administration witnesses for testimony to the Sept. 11 commission, according to the AP. Berger was authorized as the Clinton administrations representative to make sure the commission got the correct classified materials.
Whether authorized to do so or not, Berger also seems to have been involved in an attempt to purge documents that reflected poorly on himself or the administration. According to the IGs report, National Archives personnel saw Berger stuffing something in his socks. Although they at first hesitated to confront someone of Bergers stature, and he initially denied the thefts, he eventually fessed-up under questioning. During a break in his research, Berger hid the purloined documents under a construction trailer outside the building; he then retrieved them under cover of darkness. Though the documents were destroyed, archive officials say they believe they know what they were because Berger was being watched, based on earlier suspicions that he was stealing documents.
Still shrouded in mystery, since the documents are classified, is exactly what Bergers theft was meant to cover up, though its safe to assume they had something to do with his or Clintons mishandling of things in the run-up to the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
Congressional Democrats are widely expected to use their newfound powers to launch a spate of investigations of the Bush administration in the next two years. But while they are out digging up dirt, why not hold hearings into the last caper and cover-up of the Clinton administration?
James Taranto, "Best of the Web," Wall Street Journal
Is Jimmy Carter an anti-Semite? Shmuley Boteach, who styles himself "America's rabbi," argues in the Jerusalem Post that the answer is no:
Jimmy Carter is not so much anti-Semite as anti-intellectual, not so much a Jew-hater as a boor. The real explanation behind his limitless hostility to Israel is a total lack of any moral understanding.
Carter wants to do what's just. His heart's in the right place. He just can't figure out what the right is. He is, and always has been, a man of good intentions bereft of good judgment. He invariably finds himself defending tyrants and dictators at the expense of their oppressed peoples. Not because he is a bad man, but because he is a confused man.
Carter subscribes to what I call the Always Root for the Underdog school of morality. Rather than develop any real understanding of a conflict, immediately he sides with the weaker party, however wicked or immoral.
Israel has tanks and F-16's. The Palestinians don't. Therefore the Palestinians are being oppressed. Never mind that the Palestinians have rejected every offer to live side by side with Israel in peace and elected a government pledged to Israel's annihilation. Their poverty dictates the righteousness of their cause even if their actions speak otherwise.
Boteach likens this attitude to that of marriage counselors "who always take the side of the wife in an ugly dispute in the belief that a woman, inherently weaker than her husband, is always the innocent and aggrieved party. Even where the evidence points to the wife as being violent and unreasonable, such arbitrators cannot conceive of the husband as anything but the oppressor."
But the "Always Root for the Underdog school" is even more perverse when applied to international relations. It's not just that to side with Yasser Arafat--or Fidel Castro or Saddam Hussein or Robert Mugabe--is to choose the wrong side vis-à-vis Israel, America or some other Western power. It is that to side with these dictators is to side against their own people, who are the actual underdogs in the situation.
Posted by: Mike ||
12/27/2006 12:38 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#4
Carter takes that idea to its stupid extreme: America is the strongest and best country in the world, therefore everybody who opposes America are the good guys.
This is why Carter always allowed our allies to be undermined and destroyed, and sought to humble America on the world stage, and admit that it is flawed and weak to itself.
His emphasis on "Human Rights" was always done with a big mea culpa for all the human rights violations he assumed America had done, to make everybody so angry at America.
In a way, Carter is like the character Pap Finn (Huckleberry's father), writ large. Pap believed that any man with $50 in his pocket got it by stealing, and should have it taken away from him. Pap never had $50 to his name, so he didn't think that anyone else should, either.
He seems to think that once a week, everybody should humbly go to church and ask forgiveness for being successful the rest of the week. They should use prayer as self-criticism, and lament that they have good food while somebody somewhere does not, etc. America is too confident of its goodness, too self-righteous and smug. It needs to be taken down and people convinced that they aren't happy.
Ecch. The philosophy of the peanut farmer preacher.
Carter was a fan of Dictators, in Romania, in Venezuala, in other places. This put him on the side of the powerful.
His hatred of Israel probably comes from more than one cause; hatred of some Jews for not supporting him in 80; hatred of Begin for establishing settlements behind the green line, hatred of himself for not being more popular. Who knows what other devils lurk in that deranged psyche.
Posted by: Captain America ||
12/27/2006 20:10 Comments ||
Top||
#8
The Left does NOT want to be held responsible for anything and everything negative that was Vietnam - starting US involvement + inducing/preventing the fall of Saigon, the Vietnam-Cambodia-Laos boatlifts and killing fields, the domino theory, ignoring Amer's "silent majority" that supported the US anti-Commie effort in SVN-Asia in favor a handful of hippies and the chaos of CounterCulture Revolution, Stagflation STaggression + looming Hyper-inflation, Inflatgression, etal. SOCIALISM + UTOPIANISM > about UPWARD-MOVING NATIONAL = UNIVERSAL SUCCESS, PROSPERITY, + PAN-IDEALISMS, NOT DEFECT, NOT ERROR, NOT DEFEAT, FAILURE, REGRESSIONISM, WAFFL-ISM + TREASONCRATISM + POWERCRATISM, NOT BACKWARD + DOWNWARD. The Weak are NOT supposed to STAY WEAK = WEAKER, let alone PRETEND TO WORLD + SELVES THEY ARE WHAT THEY ARE NOT.
#1
Peters has loose screws. The problem in Iraq is: foreign interference. Eliminate the Iran problem, and Iraq Shiite terror will collapse, while Sunnis will turn against al-Qaeda.
Peter's security prescription for Baghdad: "clear out the Green Zone." Ralph Peters is an embarassment.
#2
Geshundheit
I think Peters's suggestions were more than just 'clear out the Green Zone.'
The main thrust of the article is "don't try to rebuild or negotiate anything until destabilizing factions within Iraq are good and dead." That means we should withdraw the rebuilding contractors and State Dept. diploids.
Far from an embarrassment, it is as reasonable as anything I've heard.
#3
I knew of LtCol Peters back in the day. He mixes up fiction with reality sometimes, and is prone to wild overestimations. He was a crappy G-2 staff weenie. That's why he never made his bird.
#4
IMO the Radics are truly worried about Dubya sealing the borders ala FORTRESS ME, ISRAEL, IRAQ, etc. thus new warnings to attack the USA + Iran intensifying its nucdev despite UNO sanctions. As said times before, iff Radical Islam and anti-US agendists don't get their way. i.e. USA voluntarily = forcibly under anti-US OWG + national/domestic Socialism, they're gonna break something = take the world wid them to hell. AMER IS DEALING WID ENEMIES-CABALISTS WHOM HAVE ALREADY DECIDED TO DESTROY THE ENTIRE WORLD IFF THEY FAIL TO SUBORN AMERIC. STEYN/OTHER > unless something changes, 1/2 of [SLAVIC]RUSSIA + RUSSIAN ARMY will be per se Muslim circa Year 2015. PRAVDA > 1/2 of world's population will be CHINESE by Year 2057.
#1
If there is a flickering pulse that holds any of this together, it is kept going by two sources. The first is the astonishing actual and potential wealth of the country. The budget negotiations, which were occupying all parties during my visit, were to discuss the allocation of more than $41 billion. This is not a paper figure: New oil fields are being prospected in parts of the country that haven't been explored yet, and there is no reason in principle why Iraq could not be one of the most prosperous countries on earth. For the moment, feuding sects use their control over ministries to enrich their own supporters, but even the most blinkered tribalist can glimpse the idea that a shared country would be more beneficial to each than a shattered one. The second source of life is the presence of the coalition, where yet again even the most hard-line factionalist will admit that as bad as things are, they would be instantly worse (and instantly worse for his own group) in the case of a withdrawal. These facts are stubborn: The idea that we could even consider abandoning such a keystone state, and so many decent people, to the forces of the faith-based is as inhumane as it is unrealistic.
The more I think about it the more I believe OBL and friends have a network going from Pakistan/afghanistan into Iran then into Saudia Arabia. I think Iranian leader is so cocky because he is aiding them and also getting ready to join their leaque and create more havoc than we can imagine. I wouldn't be surpised if OBL's quiteness lately didn't signify his presence in Iran or the process of sending and recieving information and plans to & from Iran and insurgents. What do you all think?
#1
My theory (which is long in the middle and much, much shorter at either end) is that Perv is collecting protection money from both OBL and H of Saud for his safe keep and free passage. Perv is also collecting money from US et alliance for WOT. OBL is also paying Iran for jihadi's for his use, playing against the house.
Perv is paying off Iran with nukes for a mass fortune and run away. Knowing Pak is down the river when Iran hits.
#2
There are alot of automous players, but they are all on the same side. Slowly they are saying hello to each other so I think Pink Pather is almost right. Theirs been a convergence in groups with similiar goals.
#3
A Mafia-style sellout within a sellout within a sellout, deal within a deal within a deal, mysteries and riddles wrapped around enigmas and paradoxes, a Radical Islam/Muslim-specific ANARCHY/MAFIA/NEPOTIST STATE??? IFF true, it potentially destroy's OBL = MOUD dream of Mahdi = 12th Imam. OBIE, OBIE, OBIE, HOW CAN YOU WIN THE WAR???
#2
But my eyes change color all the time based on my mood! (Watch out when they are certain colors..)...
But, I am married to a Chinese, my kids are mixed with one dating a Hindu cuttie and my nephew is Chinese, Black and White...
So, why should I be a target of Jane Elliott for diversity training instead of somebody from a "mono" culture like say an Islamic Terrorist from Aceh?
Most people are a mix of something if you look into it. Cherkoee blood in lots of the MidWest and Southern "whites".
Maybe Jane is the prime candidate for her own diversity training...
BTW... one of the more bigoted persons I ever met was from an ex-colony of ours in the Pacific. You should have seen his face when I explained to him the difference between anything he or his ancestors may have experienced and what ex-slaves of any race have experienced be they black, white or green, Christian, Jewish or Buddhists... Oh and I pointed out how proud he was in the content of Spainsh blood in his line. Didn't that mean he looked down on others from his nation with less content?
Jane doesn't see the racism in lumpping folk into little boxes according to percived individual skin color and then assigning generic blame. Folks live and grow up in a family enviornment. All family members need not look alike...
#3
As we always suspected, it is a scam and a farce. Diversity training on the Elliott model does nothing to eliminate racism and almost certainly makes it worse.
There have been a number of spin-offs from this philosophy of sadistic abuse in the name of corporate attitude adjustment, including "high-impact executive training." This involves bringing junior executives into a seminar where they are subjected to verbal and psychological abuse for days on end in an effort to "toughen" them for the supposed battleground of the corporate world.
They have the option of leaving at any time of course but this would be a sign of weakness in front of their fellow sharks peers and you know what that means. Having seen both real war and real boardrooms, I find this laughable, but it is all the rage among certain corporations.
And just who has been the leading practitioner of this particular form of sado-masochistic corporate farce, the dominatrix in chief who earned millions in the process?
Why, none other than Janice Karpinski, corporate trainer extraordinaire and one-time Brigadier General in the US Army reserve. Karpinski's executive training career was put on hold for a while in 2003, when she was called to active duty to run Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. She has apparently been too busy on the lecture circuit to revive it recently but she wouldn't have to drag clients in on a leash if she did revive it.
#5
"Racial sensitivity training" actually results in "Racism reinforcement training". Ordinarily, people will naturally segregate socially by race; however, when *class* is involved, people will associate with those of their class *ahead* of those of their race.
It's obvious. If you are white and enter a room, and on one side are an assortment of four black people and a white person, who are dressed in nice business clothes; and on the other side four shabby looking white people and a black person, if you are a middle class polite person, you will gravitate to the nice looking people, despite their *predominance* of race. If you are lower class, you will associate with the shabby people.
Note "predominance". Unless there is a racial "icebreaker", so it isn't all black on one side and all white on the other, most people will align with their race. Not out of attraction to their race, but out of assumed rejection by the other race.
However, "racial sensitivity training" actually tries to change this. It ignored class or any other attractants or repellents, and insists that all decisions be made on the basis of race.
But as with most social things, race is just one factor. So in essence they want you to constantly think about and segregate people socially according to race. Aka, racism.
You cannot associate with someone because you do business with them or have other commonalities, you must relate to them *only* by race. It doesn't matter if your wives or children are friends, if you went to school together, or any of the other innumerable human interactions.
Only race matters. It is "Racism reinforcement training".
#6
I had to retake days 1 and 2 of our 4 day diversity training over again. I'd noted that "the Democrat Byrd Grand Kleagle from W. VA said there were white niggers too, on national TV, and the Democrat party refused to condemn him, so I guess it's all right?"...our facilitators were not amused. I pointed out that it was a fact, and that I would bring suit if they damaged my career in any way
:-)
I still had to take days 1 and 2 over....
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/27/2006 16:48 Comments ||
Top||
#7
All family members need not look alike
What Walt said.
I mean hell, my wife is from Reading PA!
#8
All family members need not look alike
What Walt said. I certainly hope not! I'd hate to wake up in the morning and have to kiss somebody who looks like me. Maybe that's why I'm single.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
12/27/2006 18:17 Comments ||
Top||
#9
FAMILY GUY's PETER > "OMG, its the CHILDREN OF THE CORN". Blam ... Blam ...Blam from his shotgun.
Thomas Lifson
The McClatchy Company, recent purchaser of the Knight-Ridder chain of newspapers, is taking a huge loss on its 1998 purchase of the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, considered by many to be the worst, most politically correct newspaper in the United States. According to an article in the Star-Tribune, quoting a parent company/purchaser joint press release:
The Star Tribune is being sold by The McClatchy Company to private equity firm Avista Capital Partners, McClatchy and Avista announced today. The companies say they have a definitive agreement to sell the Star Tribune for $530 million to Avista, which has offices in New York and Houston. ...
McClatchy bought the Star Tribune from the Cowles Media Company in 1998 for a net price of $1.2 billion, after selling off Cowles' magazine and book publishing businesses.
That's a whopping 56% loss in 8 or so years. Even worse than New York Times Company stock.
The press release goes on to say that the purchaser plans to keep existing management and staff intact:
Harte said he expected the Star Tribune management team to remain intact, with current Publisher and President Keith Moyer continuing to lead the newspaper and also serve on the newspaper's board.
"We are excited to be partnering with the strong management team at the Star Tribune," Harte said. "We believe there is a great future for newspapers like the Star Tribune that produce an excellent local product for their communities and are focused on what readers want. Furthermore, the Star Tribune does a terrific job of making its content available over the Internet and in other forms."
This is rather strange, given the miserable track record of management in destroying shareholder value.
The Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area has a very healthy economy and a rapidly growing population, almost unique among frostbelt metropolises. Its educated population should be able to support an excellent and profitable local newspaper. Yet the Star-Tribune has continued to insult the intelligence of area residents with highly biased coverage. Local websites like Powerline and Captain's Quarters have gained large national audiences in part by debunking the serious deficiencies in local newspapering.
There is no way to put a good face on the disaster that the Star-Tribune has been for McClatchy despite the cheery tone of the press release. I cannot believe a smart investor would come in and plan no changes. Stay tuned for what should be an interesting story.
Can you say Air America? They're keeping the assholes in charge because they are doing precisely what the Learjet Liberals want.
#1
The Strib is wretched, but I'm not sure it's worse than the NYT. The Strib has James Lileks, and is smart enough to let him write what he wants to write without interference. The NYT has . . . nobody a tenth as good. Maureen Dowd? Frank Rich? Bob Herbert? Ellen Goodman? The whole lot of 'em, put together, aren't writers enough to be worthy to change Lileks' toner cartridges.
Oh, and that bit about the management team? That's the press release way of saying "we haven't negotiated their severance packages yet."
Posted by: Mike ||
12/27/2006 7:17 Comments ||
Top||
#2
The Tallahassee Democrat when it was Knight-Ridder owned served as the minor leagues for the MST.
#3
If the Strib had brains, they'd be trying to syndicate Lileks and encouraging him to write for the editorial pages.
They don't; that should tell you how smart they are.
Oh, and they keep trying to take on and discredit the Powerline guys. Again, not the smartest thing in the world.
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
12/27/2006 9:41 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Lileks is syndicated and runs on the editorial page of our local paper. I presume it's the Strib column, but perhaps he has another for syndication. He is like Steyn...where do they find the time?
#5
Lileks writes the "Daily Quirk" column and other stuff for the Strib and a syndicated op-ed for Newhouse News Service, along with the legendary "Daily Bleat." He's never been shy about critiquing the Strib's house editorials or other Strib columnists in his web commentary. (For example.) If he worked at the NYT, he'd be gone by now.
Posted by: Mike ||
12/27/2006 10:18 Comments ||
Top||
#6
I love how the 'Times Select' has put a fence around Dowd, Rich, Herbert, Goodman, etc. Obstensibly to raise revenue, TS has had the effect of limiting damage to the NYT brand by ensuring that bloggers couldn't tee-off on MoDo every day. I'm sure that alone slowed the slide in the NYT stock.
Fences are bad for immigration but good for NYT columnists.
Posted by: Steve White ||
12/27/2006 11:20 Comments ||
Top||
#7
TS has had the effect of limiting damage to the NYT brand by ensuring that bloggers couldn't tee-off on MoDo
It also has the happy by-product of limiting interest in what they write.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
On his visit to Iraq, Senator Kerry apparently got something like the silent treatment from the troops who are "stuck" there.
