Jim Geraghty, "The Hillary Spot" @ National Review
As of this morning, its still not quite clear whether the bloggers have been dismissed, or where things stand as Salon updated its report:
Speculation from sources that the two bloggers might be rehired was bolstered by Jennifer Palmieri, a spokeswoman for the Edwards campaign, who said in an e-mail that she would "caution [Salon] against reporting that they have been fired. We will have something to say later."
Still, you figure if they werent fired (or perhaps being disciplined or reassigned) the Edwards campaign would have just come out and said, Theyre not fired, we stand by our staff.
On paper, Edwards has reached a point where he just about has to minimize the damage by dismissing the bloggers. How would you like to be the head of Catholics for Edwards? How do you make the case that John Edwards is the candidate that Catholics ought to vote for, when hes seen their writing semen jokes about the Virgin Mary and responded with a shrug?
Inevitably, some angry lefty out there will read the above and accuse me of stifling free speech. Hey Marcotte has every right to write her gross-out humor and sneering disdain for the religious beliefs of millions of Americans (although her assertion that the Duke lacrosse players are rapists may run afoul of libel laws). But Edwards has every right to not hire her, and if he deems her a liability to his campaign, fire her. More importantly, the rest of us have every right to take what Marcotte says, the fact that Edwards hired her, and his handling of the incident, into account when deciding who to vote for.
How does something like this happen? Its easy to suspect that the professional campaign class largely falls into two groups. The first are old-school, non-Internet oriented types who dont read the blogs, cant be bothered to keep up with blogs, and whose attitude is, lets get the campaign a blogger, I dont care who, just get me a big name. The other are the political die-hard true-believers who read these writings and who arent offended because they largely agree with them; theyve completely lost touch with how offensive, obnoxious, and out-of-the-mainstream those comments sound to the non-blogging world.
By the way, if writing outrageous, furious blog postings can hinder your future career options, this may actually save the blogosphere. Im not kidding. A wise man once noted that the character of the medium changed once bloggers started appearing on television. Suddenly, writing a blog wasnt just a hobby or something done for passion; it was a road to fame and fortune! Thus, blogger sought traffic to attract advertisers and other attention, and the dominant style got shriller, angrier, louder, flashier, less thoughtful and more instantaneously reactive.
If using the F-bomb more frequently than punctuation and metaphorically spitting on the beliefs of others can hinder ones chances at future career opportunities, we may see a politer, more respectful, kindler and gentler blogosphere.
UPDATE: Jonah [Goldberg] offers some thoughts over on the Corner.
YET ANOTHER UPDATE: By the way, I have no intention of working as a campaign blogger, but if I ever do in the distant future, I encourage my future employers to practice something like this:
All of us here at Edwards/Manson 2016 are appalled by the comments of Mr. Geraghty, and vehemently disagree with the tone and content of the remarks that have come to light. However, it is our understanding that when he wrote those comments, Mr. Geraghty was "off his meds", and we do not expect additional comments that would contradict the views and standards of this campaign. We will be keeping him on as the official campaign blogger.
Heck, Edwards might as well try playing that card.
Posted by: Mike ||
02/08/2007 12:43 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
However, it is our understanding that when he wrote those comments, Mr. Geraghty was "off his meds"
That's why he gets paid for his writing, and I don't. Wonderful!
WASHINGTON -- Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards said Thursday he was personally offended by the provocative messages two of his campaign bloggers wrote criticizing the Catholic church, but he's not going to fire them. . . .
"I talked personally to the two women who were involved. They gave me their word they, under no circumstances, intended to denigrate any church or anybody's religion and offered their apologies for anything that indicated otherwise. I took them at their word," Edwards told reporters.
Edwards is either as dumb as a box of hair or he has worse PR judgment than Leona Helmsley. Vote accordingly.
Posted by: Mike ||
02/08/2007 15:13 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Edwards is either as dumb as a box of hair or he has worse PR judgment than Leona Helmsley.
Actually, both. His new 20,000sqft house, his inarticulate statements on just about everything, this embarrassment, and a half-dozen others are proof positive that John Edwards is an over-educated idiot.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
02/08/2007 18:58 Comments ||
Top||
#4
RIGHTNATION/POLIPUNDIT/OTHERS > alleged = seeming "Rightist" overt behaviors-actions, as compared to PC "quiet" Leftist/LeftModer, is what got 'em fired.
When NBC's Tim Russert asked John Edwards on Sunday if he, as president, would accept a nuclear-armed Iran, the silver-tongued lawyer got tongue-tied . . . .
Why did Mr. Edwards's views morph so quickly from hawkish to weaselly? Probably because confrontation with Iran is very unpopular among the Democratic antiwar base. Last week Ezra Klein of The American Prospect, a left-liberal magazine, confronted Mr. Edwards about the Herzliya speech, and the candidate waffled. Although allowing that "it would be foolish for any American president to ever take any option off the table," he offered this criticism of President Bush: "When he uses this kind of language 'options are on the table,' he does it in a very threatening kind of way." Does Mr. Edwards mean to be docile? . . .
Mr. Edwards is not the only Democratic presidential candidate without a comprehensible position on Iran. Last week Hillary Clinton spoke to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and Heather Robinson of PoliticalMavens.com reported that Mrs. Clinton said: "There are many, including our president, who reject any engagement with Iran and Syria. I believe that is a good-faith position to take, but I'm not sure it's the smart strategy that'll take us to the goal we share. What do I mean by engagement or some kind of process? I'm not sure anything positive would come out of it . . . but there are a number of factors that argue for doing what I'm suggesting." Whatever that may be.
Mr. Edwards and Mrs. Clinton have something else in common: Both voted for the Iraq war in 2002, and both turned against it only after it became unpopular. On Iraq, they followed public opinion; on Iran, they are waiting to be led.
Pandering to public sentiment may be fine for a senator, but the president needs to be able to make decisions in the national interest--which sometimes means shaping public opinion, sometimes defying it. Mr. Bush has done both, whether or not his decisions were wise ones.
Perhaps voters next year, chastened by Mr. Bush's dangerous boldness, will opt for someone more risk-averse. But if a crisis arises and the president proves unable to lead, they may find themselves longing for Mr. Bush's steadfastness. An excess of caution is itself a form of recklessness.
Posted by: Mike ||
02/08/2007 07:10 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Pandering to public sentiment may be fine for a senator, but the president needs to be able to make decisions in the national interest--which sometimes means shaping public opinion, sometimes defying it. Mr. Bush has done both, whether or not his decisions were wise ones.
I partly disagree. Mr. Bush is good at defying the MSM version of public opinion, but sucked at shaping ACTUAL public opinion.
Granted, if he had actually done so, the MSM would have gone into spin mode to defuse his talk. However, he would STILL have communicated with his true base, while acting on the knowledge that convincing lefties and liberals would never have happened. There would have been the mushy middle, of course, but by being more forthright and vocal, He would have forced the MSM spin machine into overdrive: the shaking and dancing of the machine would have become visible.
The democRATS never hesitate to talk to their base. About time Republicans decided to talk to THEIRS. The refusal to do so cost them the House and Senate.
#2
HILLARY > reportedly wants her VEEP to have a military background. *OTT, the "RACE TO THE LEFT" and USA under OWG-SWO continues. FREEREPUBLIC/OTHER > NET petition going around to nominate AL GORE for 2008.
#1
The Whigs took several US POTUSes to disappear. CLINTONISM > FASCISM IS THE NEW COMMUNISM, and by extens RIGHTISM IS NEW LEFTISM, CONSERVATISM THE NEW ALTERNATISM/LIBERALISM, ...@etc. As long as Russia-China are still modernizing, the Dems still need the GOP-Right to take the blame. RUSSIA > NEW $189Bilyuuhn mil modernz budget for Years 2007-2015. Appropriations include for SPAWAR, roughly 50 TOPOL-M ICBM's, ditto 50 new Strategic bombers, AIRCRAFT CARRIERS, advanced EW Radars, and other conventional stuff. RUSSIA WANTS TO RE-ASSERT ITS COLD WAR STYLE MIL PROWESS AROUND THE WORLD. IVANOV > RUSSIA RE-ITERATES ITS RIGHT TO LAUNCH A PRE-EMPTIVE, CONVENTIONAL STRIKE ANYWHERE AROUND THE WORLD. Ivanov also says its was a mistake for Russia to agree to elimin IRBMS = INF/INF Treaty ala REAGAN. *Guess its official - the wedding wid CONDI is still off.
#2
The Whigs fell apart because they failed to confront the slavery issue, preferring instead a sort of mushy multicultural don't-rock-the-boat finesse that didn't satisfy anyone.
Posted by: Mike ||
02/08/2007 7:10 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I actually see the Democrats going the way of the wigs. They are trapped by the multicultural don't-rock-the-boat bullshit that pisses everyone off.
The Republicans just didn't act like republicans and got booted for it.
#4
I see the Democrats as the party at risk right now. I think they need the center to be elected and the radical wing will not allow them to be centrist. This contradiction will eventually cause a revolt within the party with the radicals jump into the Green party.
If the Dems are lucky they'll shed the anti-Americans and Socialists (mucho cross-over there) and might court the Libertarians and become a healthy party once again.
If the Dems are unlucky the revolt will gut them and the more centrist Dems will become Republicans or Independents and the Greens replace them as the primary opposition. In this scenerio the Republicans dominate for a few cycles without much competition.
#5
I don't see either party as very healthy at the moment. It will depend on how they handle the upcoming disaster of Iran/China/NKor, the collapse of Western Europe (coming within five years), and the re-establishment of conservative thought as the majority revolts against multiculturalism and relativism. We will either see the rise of one or more new parties, the revival of existing parties, both, or something totally different. The one thing that can be guaranteed is that things will change.
In less than 30 years, the last of the Roosevelt Democrats will be gone. That will have a major impact on the entire political scene. If I were a politician, I'd be very, very worried.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
02/08/2007 20:32 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Nope, just the way of the (UK) Tories. If you stand for nothing, nobody will stand with you.
The flood of illegal immigrants into California has made things worse than I foresaw.
In the Spring 2002 issue of City Journal, I wrote an essay about growing up in the central San Joaquin Valley and witnessing firsthand, especially over the last 20 years, the ill effects of illegal immigration (City Journals editors chose the title of the piece: Do We Want Mexifornia?). Controversy over my blunt assessment of the disaster of illegal immigration from Mexico led to an expanded memoir, Mexifornia, published the following year by Encounter Press.
Mexifornia came out during the ultimately successful campaign to recall California governor Gray Davis in autumn 2003. A popular public gripe was that the embattled governor had appeased both employers and the more radical Hispanic politicians of the California legislature on illegal immigration. And indeed Davis had signed legislation allowing drivers licenses for illegal aliens that both houses of state government had passed. So it was no wonder that the book sometimes found its way into both the low and high forms of the political debate. On the Internet, a close facsimile of a California drivers license circulated, with a picture of a Mexican bandit (the gifted actor Alfonso Bedoya of The Treasure of the Sierra Madre), together with a demeaning height (54), weight (too much), and sex (mucho) given. Mexifornia was emblazoned across the top where California usually is stamped on the license.
In such a polarized climate, heated debates and several radio interviews followed, often with the query, Why did you have to write this book? The Left saw the books arguments and its titleMexifornia was originally a term of approbation used by activists buoyed by Californias changing demographyas unduly harsh to newcomers from Mexico. The Right saw the book as long-overdue attention to a scandal ignored by the mainstream Republican Party.
#1
There are still Net reports going around that CHINA wants to contrux a super-port [sea + air] on the Mexico side of Baja, to rival anything in California or Texas, etc.
#2
Let them waste their money, sounds win-win to me When 50% of their construction materials vanish, they'll think again.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
02/08/2007 9:51 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Why isn't anything being done about all of this? In Colorado our mayor states that our biggest problem is homelessness, not even mentioning illegals or gangs etc. (even after the recent shooting of Darrent Williams)
It seems like enough hard evidence is out there, that smart folks see that the short term gain financially is tearing our country apart now and worse into the future.
To complain outloud say at work or socially, I have to guard my words so I'm not labeled a racist. It's very politically incorrect to say anything bad about illegals here in Colorado, especially Denver. The amount of services that are handed to them and that is expected is ridiculous. Also all of the punishment to the border patrol for doing their job and then getting beat up over it in jail. So not only is our homeland security a joke, we must be laughed at by everyone. I see many comparisons to Iraq with us not backing our military this just kills me. As with our guys doing their job and then having to go to court to defend their actions.
I feel so helpless in getting anything done, that our elected officials aren't or won't (will't?) do anything about it. I feel I have to accept that I probably don't know about the many payoffs probably that folks are getting to not push through the proper legislation or act on it.
To think that the driving force currently is money and not a better stronger America
I'm just steamed/rant I need to go get some coffee and change my "latitude"
Posted by: Jan ||
02/08/2007 12:32 Comments ||
Top||
#4
"The result of such staggering numbers is that aliens now dont just cluster in the American Southwest but frequently appear at Home Depot parking lots in the Midwest, emergency rooms in New England, and construction sites in the Carolinas, making illegal immigration an American, rather than a mere Californian or Arizonan, concern."
Where I live there are plenty of illegals. Few are mexicans, almost all are Salvadorans. If the problem is the cost to localities of providing services, etc than its a national problem. If the problem is the threat to US soveriengty as many alarmists make it out to be - well the Salvadorans dont want to be part of Mexicon, and there are too few of them to make my area part of El Salvador. The most emotional aspects of the problem are confined to mexicans, and theyre still much more concentrated on the SW border than illegals in general.
#5
"Of course, the ultimate solution to the illegal immigration debacle is for Mexican society to bring itself up to the levels of affluence found in the United States by embracing market reforms of the sort we have seen in South Korea, Taiwan, and China."
To a considerable extent Mexico has done so, and its wage levels are rising. To the point that Mexico draws illegal migrants from central america who want to work in Mexico. But this takes a long time and is uneven across the country. NAFTA, which was a boost for Mexican manufacturing, and raised factory wages, by allowing freeer trade in US ag products hurt the poor farmers of the Mexicos south. While some of the those have moved to northern Mexico to get jobs there, once theyve left home many decide to head to the highest wage market on the continent, which is the US.
#6
"Most Americans felt that the formidable powers of integration and popular culture would continue to incorporate any distinctive ethnic enclave, as they had so successfully done with the past generations that arrived en masse from Europe, Asia, and Latin America."
and steady, they have assimilated.
" But when more than 10 million fled Mexico in little over a decadethe great majority poor, without English, job skills, a high school education, and legalityentire apartheid communities in the American Southwest began springing up."
I suspect if Mr Hanson had been in Little Italy or the Lower East side in 1890, he would have seen the same thing. News for Mr Hanson - assimilation doesnt happen in an instant. It takes time.
"During the heyday of multiculturalism and political correctness in the 1980s, the response of us, the hosts, to this novel challenge was not to insist upon the traditional assimilation of the newcomer but rather to accommodate the illegal alien with official Spanish-language documents, bilingual education, and ethnic boosterism in our media, politics, and education. These responses only encouraged more illegals to come, on the guarantee that their material life could be better and yet their culture unchanged in the United States."
I see no evidence that the move away from bilingual education has impacted the immigration numbers.
" We now see the results. Los Angeles is today the second-largest Mexican city in the world; one out of every ten Mexican nationals resides in the United States, the vast majority illegally."
and where did Boston rank among Irish cities in 1860?
"Since Mexifornia appeared, the debate also no longer splits along liberal/conservative, Republican/Democrat, or even white/brown fault lines. Instead, class considerations more often divide Americans on the issue. The majority of middle-class and poor whites, Asians, African-Americans, and Hispanics wish to close the borders. They see few advantages to cheap service labor, since they are not so likely to need it to mow their lawns, watch their kids, or clean their houses. Because the less well-off eat out less often, use hotels infrequently, and dont periodically remodel their homes, the advantages to the economy of inexpensive, off-the-books illegal-alien labor again are not so apparent."
Beginning to sound like John Edwards, which i guess is what happens when you take on the WSJ. A helluva lot of Americans who arent "fatcats" eat out fairly often (has Mr Hansen checked out the clientele at McDonalds lately?) or otherwise use immigrant labor.
"But the downside surely is apparent. Truck drivers, carpenters, janitors, and gardeners unlike lawyers, doctors, actors, writers, and professorscorrectly feel that their jobs are threatened, or at least their wages lowered, by cheaper rival workers from Oaxaca or Jalisco. "
and what happened to secretaries, computer technicians, small business people, farmers, and the rest of the middle class? Seems like Mr H shares Dem views that see only the elite and the blue collar working class.
"And Americans who live in communities where thousands of illegal aliens have arrived en masse more likely lack the money to move when Spanish-speaking students flood the schools and gangs proliferate. Poorer Americans of all ethnic backgrounds take for granted that poverty provides no exemption from mastering English, so they wonder why the same is not true for incoming Mexican nationals."
Census data shows Mexicans are learning english at the same rate or higher than late 19th cent euro immigrants.
" Less than a mile from my home is a former farmhouse whose new owner moved in several stationary Winnebagos, propane tanks, and outdoor cooking facilitiesand apparently four or five entire families rent such facilities right outside his back door. Dozens live where a single family used toa common sight in rural California that reifies illegal immigration in a way that books and essays do not."
Better than living in a tenement basement filled with multiple bunk beds, like so many on the Lower East side in the '90s. Look, theyre poor, and saving.
#7
Liberalhawk, your comparison to LittleItaly falls short. VDH covered that in the book Mexifornia. A century ago the immigrants took a one-way ticket to America and were encouraged to assimilate.
#8
Liberalhawk, your comparison to LittleItaly falls short. VDH covered that in the book Mexifornia. A century ago the immigrants took a one-way ticket to America and were encouraged to assimilate.
I think the need to fill the vast expanse has long past. So, tell me, do you occupy an abode, apartment, or home? Does it have a door? And on that door is there a lock? Why do people who insist on their own security expect other to give up theirs? Cause you know, down by the freeway there are homeless asking for food and shelter, so why do you deny them the opportunity by locking up your abode?
#13
Mexico has a population of 109M. If 11M are here, then VDH is correct, about 10% of the Mexican nationals are in the USA. Now, let's say that half of the 109M, call it 55M, are of working age, and half of them are male. That's 27.5M. If 60% of the illegals are men, that's 6.6M. Thus perhaps 6.6/27.5 or 24% of the men in Mexico are working illegally in the USA? Is it possible? If these guesses are too conservative, is the percentage perhaps even higher?
I kinda followed this story, but didn't really realize what she is asking for until I saw a pic of the plane!
From The Corner
From the Republican Study Committee:
As you may have heard, Speaker Nancy Pelosi pressed the Department of Defense to provide her a military aircraft for flights - including trips back to San Francisco. But Did You Know? Who Pays for Speaker Pelosi's travel? You do.
· Speaker Pelosi is driven by a government owned SUV that is exempt from the gas tax when used for business related travel. Thus, Speaker Pelosi not only avoids paying for auto travel (paid for by Capitol Police) she doesn't even pay the gas tax that millions of Americans pay each day. (Internal Revenue Code Section 6421E).
§ Rep. Pelosi has voted to raise gasoline taxes at least five times.
#1
[Pelosi's] safety would be best ensured by using a plane that has the fuel capacity to go coast-to-coast.... "There's a certain amount of inefficiency and risk involved in stopping and having to refuel," said Dew Hammill, Spokesman for the Speaker.
Pelosi's shill is lying. The Gulfstream IV or V used by Hastert can easily fly nonstop from DC to San Francisco. The G-V (VC-37) could fly on to Hawaii without breaking a sweat.
Of course, Hammill and Pelosi can count on their core constituency knowing next to nothing about aviation except that planes crash a lot and drop bombs on schools and baby ducks.
A plane like the Connie - especially the last versions, which were the most elegant piston-engined birds ever built - don't deserve association w/Pelosi and crew. :)
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
02/08/2007 10:02 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Actually, WHY is it that she needs security? After all, HER side of the asile says there is no REAL War on Terror, that the terror is from our side, not the islamofacists.
Why demand privileges rephrased as necessities based on a situation that she denies exists?
#8
Oh the humiliation. Jon Cary gets to strut around in a Gulfstream V that mummy bought. Better ask hubby for a Gulfstream VI using some of the defense contracts she steered his way.
#9
Air Force C-32 ...For one of those planes to fly the speaker home to San Francisco, drop her off, and fly back and get her, would cost taxpayers around $300,000
BTW, A C-32 is a Boeing 757.
Posted by: ed ||
02/08/2007 10:53 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Lockheed Constellation "Queen Of The Skies."
I thought this was the other nickname from the B-17.
Opps that was was a game fom Avalon Hill. However B-17 would be an idal vehicle for transporting her.
#11
More from the The Republican Study Committee today..
Seems Rep. Murtha is threatening the Pentagon:
Rep. Murtha Threatens Pentagon over
Speaker Pelosi's Demand for Military Jet
"I just tell them what they need to do," says Defense Appropriations Chairman
After the Pentagon rejected pressure from Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other House Democrat leaders to provide her a military C-32 Jet, Congressman John Murtha (D-PA) responded angrily after the media reported the story.
So angrily, in fact, that the Defense Appropriations Chairman apparently believes that it is "in the interests of the United States" to threaten Department of Defense funding over the flap.
THE INITIAL THREAT
Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., the Pelosi ally who chairs the House military appropriations subcommittee, said he has spoken to Pentagon officials about the need to provide Pelosi with a bigger plane that can fly passengers coast to coast in comfort.... "I don't need to pressure them. I just tell them what they need to do." Murtha said.
(San Francisco Chronicle, 2/8/2007)
APPROPRIATIONS CHAIRMAN THREATENS TO CUT DEFENSE FUNDING AFTER AMERICA LEARNS OF PELOSI PLANE DEMAND
"Late Wednesday afternoon, one of Pelosi's closest allies in the House, Rep. John Murtha, D-Penn., chairman of the key Appropriations Committee subcommittee on defense, told CNN that the Pentagon was making 'a mistake' by leaking information unfavorable to the speaker 'since she decides on the allocations for the Department of Defense.'"
(CNN, ABC News, 2/8/2007)
(San Francisco Chronicle, 2/8/2007)
Our nation is at war.
It is irresponsible, inappropriate and reckless for a member of Congress to threaten the Pentagon and men and women of our armed forces.
#12
good find Sherry. Please, please, please keep running your trap, Murtha! Shows the public what you really feel about our men and women in harm's way.
Posted by: BA ||
02/08/2007 13:34 Comments ||
Top||
#13
this POS Murtha needs to be on the nightly news, making stupid intemperate comments. I sincerely hope his district is shamed into turning his ass out to pasture, where predators roam
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/08/2007 19:46 Comments ||
Top||
#14
I hope both Bullosi and Murtha have "unfortunate accidents" in the near future, as their total disdain for the American people becomes more well-known.
Mike, I second your statement about the Connie. It's one aircraft I dearly love. Never flew on one, though. She came out at the wrong time - just before the jets.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
02/08/2007 20:54 Comments ||
Top||
...After reading this I am now more convinced than ever that he joined the US Army with the specific intent of refusing to go to war. RTWT, for it is good. Let me post the most important bit:
In his carefully worded talk, Watada challenges the legitimacy of civilian elected officials calling them "narrowly and questionably elected." Watada claims that Congress and the president did not have the legal power to authorize the use of force in Iraq saying: "neither Congress nor this administration has the authority to violate the prohibition against pre-emptive war." Watada implicitly questions the supremacy of the Constitution saying, "As strong as the Constitution is, it is not foolproof. It does not fully take into account the frailty of human nature."
Borrowing the language of caudillos everywhere, Watada claims to be fighting "corruption." Watada claims to possess wisdom beyond that of the Founding Fathers arguing: "The founders of the Constitution could not have imagined how money would infect our political system." Watada claims to be acting after civilian leaders have failed saying: "We have all seen this war tear apart our country over the past three years. It seems as though nothing we've done, from vigils to protests to letters to Congress, have had any effect in persuading the powers that be. Tonight I will speak to you on my ideas for a change of strategy."
What is Watadas "change of strategy"? Watada implicitly calls for the United States Armed Forces to impose its will on the elected civilian leadership of the nation saying, "If soldiers realized this war is contrary to what the Constitution extols if they stood up and threw their weapons down no president could ever initiate a war of choice again."
Watada closes by calling on soldiers to stop "allowing" the U.S. government this liberty. "Those who called for war prior to the invasion compared diplomacy with Saddam to the compromises made with Hitler. I say, we compromise now by allowing a government that uses war as the first option instead of the last to act with impunity." exJag, assuming he did enlist with the intent of pulling something like this, would all of this not come under the purview of Articles 81, 83, 88, 90, 92, 94, 99, 104, 107, and 133? My God, I've never seen a list of possible charges like this, and I was on the recieving end once myself.
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
02/08/2007 13:29 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[9 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Redacted by moderator. Comments may be redacted for trolling, violation of standards of good manners, or plain stupidity. Please correct the condition that applies and try again. Contents may be viewed in the sinktrap. Further violations may result in banning.
#2
I would happily defer my retirement if they give me a seat on his next CM board. This guy is either the dumbest college grad in America or he is a deliberate seditious plant into our military.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
02/08/2007 14:19 Comments ||
Top||
#3
After reading this I am now more convinced than ever that he joined the US Army with the specific intent of refusing to go to war.
Mike, I agree 100% with your assessment. His talking points are too polished.
Posted by: Sea a few desks over ||
02/08/2007 14:22 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Okay, I'll bite, but remember you asked for it! :)
Each crime listed in the UMCJ is defined by a list of elements -- usually three to six specific actions. Each of them must be proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, to obtain a conviction. As a prosecutor, you most assuredly want to avoid charging crimes where you lack admissible evidence to prove each and every element. Because you fall short on any one element, you risk acquittal on the whole charge.
The difficulty with many articles you cite would be proving his intent, his inner state of mind, at the time in question. It doesn't matter so much what the accused did, but what the government can prove, within a very restrictive set of rules. This is meant to protect the innocent, but it's very frustrating when you know the accused is a remorseless scumbag who'd do it again and again.
Personally, my strategy would not be to nickel and dime this to death with stuff like fraudulent enlistment or conduct unbecoming, none of which carry a max punishment of more than a couple of years.
Instead, I'd marshal every possible resource to document Watada's every move for the last four years, and go whole-hog on the one charge that truly captures the evil of his conduct: Art. 94, mutiny and sedition, which carries the death penalty, in peacetime or war.
A mutiny/sedition case would be very unusual, take tremendous effort, and require backing from risk-averse colonels and generals who wouldn't want to do something shocking like fight back or rock the boat. But to me, our justice system is pointless, if we do not use it to stomp bottom-feeders like Watada, and let it be known all across the land, to never, ever, try this shit again.
But then, I am exJAG (of the "ma'am" variety, btw). :)
#5
Seems to me he is calling for for the Army (and other armed forces) to mutiny or desert when he says "If soldiers realized this war is contrary to what the Constitution extols if they stood up and threw their weapons down".
Even civilians can be charged with inciting mutiny or desertion. I haven't read the UCMJ lately, so I am not sure which article he could be charged under for these statements.
I, too, would defer my retirement pay for an opportunity to sit on this POS's court martial.
#6
I was fortunate enough to have the same Jag officer for two seperate commands, lucky PCS. "She" always protected me and never lost, even when she was 7 months pregnant and had to come in on her own time to help!
Like I said, it has to be sedition cause he cant be that stupid!
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
02/08/2007 15:16 Comments ||
Top||
#7
I guess the Left is now in favor of military coups and opposes civillian control of the military.
So when the M-1s roll onto the White House lawn and President Hillary Rodham is dragged from the Oval Office and strung up from a convenient tree on authority of the provisional council for her crimes against the people, they'll be cool with it, right?
Posted by: Mike ||
02/08/2007 15:16 Comments ||
Top||
#8
So ex Jag were you in Germany in the early 90's???
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
02/08/2007 15:17 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Thanks TW, My Jag in the early 90's was just amazing! A wonderful woman and a pit viper Jag officer. She saved my keester a number of times during the don't ask dont tell, drawdown, oh the angst of Bosnia/Clinton times.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
02/08/2007 15:52 Comments ||
Top||
#11
exJAG,
Ma'am, my apologies - and thank you for the comments.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
02/08/2007 16:16 Comments ||
Top||
#12
My pleasure. I've posted a detailed legal analysis over on the other thread. In summary: f*ck f*ckity f*ck f*ck f*ck.
I was assigned to USAREUR until a few years ago. I loved defending my commanders, they were great guys. One of my favorite moments was with our XO, who was tough as nails, but scrupulously fair. He was in my office shortly before he was to testify, and it took me a few minutes to realize he was about to wet himself, he was so nervous. Mr. Hardcharger? I couldn't believe it. So impulsively, I squeezed his hand, and told him to just tell the truth. I'll never forget the way he smiled.
#13
Mrs. Ex-JAG, I love you! Kick ass. Have fun while you're at it.
Posted by: Whiskey Mike ||
02/08/2007 19:43 Comments ||
Top||
#14
There is no legal requirement that the US restrain itself from a pre-emptive war. We've done it several times, including both the Grenada invasion and the Panama incursion during President Reagan's terms of office. This POS not only hasn't read the Constitution, he has little knowledge of US history. He deserves far more than he's going to get. Personally, I'd have him walking the rim of Kilauea from morning to night, policing up the new rocks, with a large ball attached to his ankle by a stout chain.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
02/08/2007 20:59 Comments ||
Top||
#15
Watada is having his minutes of fame becuz he andor his Attys know he's gonna lose. The caselaws + UCMJ standards are very clear - that being said, in a few years another(s) will come along to challenge again.
#16
I remember in the 60s SDS types were trying to do the same type of thing by infiltrating in the military, though I do not remember them having much success.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
02/08/2007 22:25 Comments ||
Top||
#17
I'll shoot this bastard and save time and money.
#2
If there were ever a man that deserved to be strung up from the top of the Washington Monument, it's Maurice Strong. We don't do wetworks on Canadian citizens, but he'd be tops on my list if we did...
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
02/08/2007 21:04 Comments ||
Top||
Abu Omar al-Baghdadi made his grand entrance onto the jihadist stage on October 12, 2006, and since then he's delivered two very important speeches the more recent one came out last week and has taken credit for much of the spectacular outbreaks of violence in Iraq of late, yet he still can't get his name in print on the pages of the New York Times. Why are the editors and reporters of that paper not telling their readers anything about Iraq's top terrorist?
Abu Omar al-Baghdadi is Al Qaeda's guy in Iraq, and nowadays, the Sunni insurgency is being whittled down to Al Qaeda's activity in Iraq. It's that simple, and he's that important.
So why isn't the Times writing that? I think the answer has something to do with what seems, to my eyes, to be a determined campaign to keep the American people from knowing the nature of the enemy in Iraq because identifying this enemy as Al Qaeda casts the debate about the war in a whole different light.
#2
"Why are the editors and reporters of that paper not telling their readers anything about Iraq's top terrorist?"
Because the NYT is not in the business of reporting news; they are in the business of churning out leftist propaganda.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
02/08/2007 9:31 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Again, I ask: Did the founders have this in mind when they offered the freedom of the press ? I think not, and I am willing to live without freedom of the press if they insist on misleading the simple amongst us. While we're at it, let's put in a voters IQ test.
#4
Ummm... wx? The New York Times is what we'd have if we didn't have Freedom of the Press.
Rantburg is Freedom of the Press. So's Instapundit, Pajamas Media, Kathy Kinsley, Bill Quick, Matt Welsh, Mickey Kaus, Charles Johnson, Christopher Johnson, Ken Lane, Tim Blair, James Lileks, Lucianne, and thousands of others.
Posted by: Fred ||
02/08/2007 9:58 Comments ||
Top||
#5
As I recall, the American press at the time of the founding was about as yellow as "journalism" can get. Most of the broadsheets were put out by party partisans, with lionization of our guy and scandal about his opponent the order of the day. In France shortly thereafter they were printing pornographic cartoons of Marie Antoinette and those imagined to be her lovers. On the other hand, most people couldn't read, so the political responses of the nonvoting masses were formed by rumour and riot instead.
#7
Interesting. The author of the article is a fellow at the Hudson Institute think tank, and before that ran the research bureau of the Iraqi Nat'l Congress in Washington, DC. Interesting list of articles it looks like he wrote for the NY Sun, too.
And an Al Qaeda offensive is exactly what al-Baghdadi promises in his February 2 speech, posted as an audio file on several jihadist Web sites, and which may be read in full at my blog, talismangate.blogspot.com. Al-Baghdadi says that his Dignity Plan is supposed to counter President Bush's "surge" and that it will only end when Mr. Bush signs a treaty of surrender. And what would this surrender look like? Al-Baghdadi spelled out the terms in an earlier speech: "We order you to withdraw your forces immediately. But the withdrawal must be via troop transport trucks and passenger planes whereby each soldier is allowed to carry his own weapon only. They may not withdraw any of the heavy military equipment and the military bases must be handed over to the mujaheddin of the Islamic State and the duration of the withdrawal may not exceed a month."
Not very favorable terms, but I wonder whether some in the Senate would go for it anyway: Too many in the congressional chamber seem to think that surrender is the only option left.
#5
It doesn't sound like an exit strategy to me. Rather, lots of sound and fury, like apes beating on a hollow log to scare away the tiger. Especially since the Jawa Report says the most recent of the Al Qaeda senior managers picked up had admitted to speaking to the big boss only the day before. The changed ROEs are having some effect already, it seems.
After all, Al Qaeda has staked a lot on labelling Iraq as the critical battlefield. How could they withdraw without a fatal loss of face? For that matter, where could they withdraw to? Iran is already in America's sights, Syria ditto, the Saudis aren't likely to welcome American attention for sheltering a mass of fleeing terrorists, Yemen seems to me to be inherently hostile to non-blood relatives of the locals, and Jordan has been unwelcoming to Al Qaeda since that local boy sponsored the chemical delivery trucks some time back.
#6
Baghdadi is just forwarding the DNC their talking points in advance of the Sunday talk shows. This briefing was meant for, among others, Chris Matthews.
Posted by: Mark Z ||
02/08/2007 16:18 Comments ||
Top||
#7
They're not just demanding the US leave BUT ORDERING US TO LEAVE, PLUS FOR THE USA TO LEAVE BEHIND ALL HEAVY WEAPONS FOR USE BY THE NEW ISLAMIC = RADIC ISLAMIST STATE OF IRAQ. Can use our infantry vehix-carriers + aircraft to skiddle from Iraq, but anything else stays behind. * BBC > Iran Leader warns THAT IFF ATTACKED BY USA, IRAN WILL RESPOND BY ATTACKING AMER'S WORLDWIDE INTERESTS, TO INCLUDE IMPLYING NEW ATTACKS WITHIN CONUS-NORAM ITSELF. ALso, FREEREPUBLIC/LUCIANNE > AL-QAEDA IN IRAQ CRUMBLING. Masr on the run???
You could be excused for thinking that we'll soon do something serious about global warming. Last Friday, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) -- an international group of scientists -- concluded that, to a 90 percent probability, human activity is warming the Earth. Earlier, Democratic congressional leaders made global warming legislation a top priority; and 10 big U.S. companies (including General Electric and DuPont) endorsed federal regulation. Strong action seems at hand.
Don't be fooled. The dirty secret about global warming is this: We have no solution. About 80 percent of the world's energy comes from fossil fuels (coal, oil, natural gas), the main sources of man-made greenhouse gases. Energy use sustains economic growth, which -- in all modern societies -- buttresses political and social stability. Until we can replace fossil fuels or find practical ways to capture their emissions, governments will not sanction the deep energy cuts that would truly affect global warming.
Considering this reality, you should treat the pious exhortations to "do something" with skepticism, disbelief or contempt. These pronouncements are (take your pick) naive, self-interested, misinformed, stupid or dishonest. Politicians mainly want to be seen as reducing global warming. Companies want to polish their images and exploit markets created by new environmental regulations. As for editorialists and pundits, there's no explanation except superficiality or herd behavior.
#2
Last Friday, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) -- an international group of scientists -- concluded that, to a 90 percent probability, human activity is warming the Earth. Earlier, Democratic congressional leaders made global warming legislation a top priority; and 10 big U.S. companies (including General Electric and DuPont) endorsed federal regulation.
Actually, no such thing happened. what was published was the SUMMARY of the Panel's findings, written not by the scientists, but by the POLITICIANS running the show, FOR the politicians running the world. It's not the Dummies Guide to Climate Change, since the Dummies books are written by experts with good writing skills and a desire to get the subject down right: Its a "book" written, not for the dummies but by the dummies.
The scientists have always complained that such summaries gloss over the uncertanties. The uncertanties are what the scientists use to argue for more funding. if there are no uncertanties, then their job is over: no more funding. Asshats bitten by asshats: gotta love the smell of fratricide...
A lot of facts point toward cycles in the sun's cosmic ray activity causing long term changes in climate.
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.
