#1
Thats CLINTONISM > no one i.e."the Law", Govt, Society, etc. can do anything to anyone no matter what crimes or malice is committed = admitted, no matter of any proofs of same.
This editorial on Time's website is written by Michael Kinsley, who even Baghdad Bob could take lessons from. I have decided that he must be a moonbat . Who doesn't feel he has any stake in this war. Some people will never figure it out, and this guy seems to be one of them. He doesn't understand what it means that MoveOn.pimp ran this ad before Petraeus spoke, and that Hillary's phrasing was essentially calling General Petraeus a liar. Hillary's motivations are almost purely political or you would think she (and all the other liberals who side with her) would be pleased to see things are going well and that a lot of folks have a chance to live a life far better than they "enjoyed" before. These are the same folks who repeatedly cry "Don't question my patriotism!" Apparently that only applies if you are a true liberal as defined by MoveOn.sugardaddy. This guy also seems to think being disingenuous in politics is perfectly acceptable even if people's lives and everyone's futures hang in the balance. As far as I am concerned if you can't play fair given these stakes, you are hopelessly lost. Read on if you wish just so you know what is (or isn't) going on in his liberal mind. Don't have anything breakable too near.
Goodness gracious. oh, my paws and whiskers. Some of the meanest, most ornery hombres around are suddenly feeling faint. Notorious tough guys are swooning with the vapors. The biggest beasts in the barnyard are all aflutter over something they read in the New York Times. It's that ad from MoveOn.org the one that calls General David Petraeus, the head of U.S. forces in Iraq, general betray us. All across the radio spectrum, right-wing shock jocks are themselves shocked. How could anybody say such a thing? It's horrifying. It's outrageous. It's disgraceful. It's just beyond the pale ... It's ... oh, my heavens ... say, is it a bit stuffy in here? ... I think I'm going to ... Could I have a glass of ... oh, dear [thud]. I recall them being pi$$ed off, I don't recall the fainting. But I've seen all sorts of stories involving crying and victimized innocent children made up by liberals and put on the internet for others who are like-minded who would even lick that crud up off the back of my balls if they found it there.
Welcome to the wonderful world of umbrage, the new language of American politics. You would not have thought that the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly would be so sensitive. Sticks and stones and so on. Yet they all seem to have taken one look at that ad and fainted dead away. And when they came round, they demanded as if with one voice (or at least as if with one list of talking points) that every Democratic presidential candidate must "condemn" this shocking, shocking document. Why don't you go into some depth about why they find it shocking and why even liberals shy away from it?
The ad is pretty tough, and the pun on the general's name is pretty witless. You could argue that since the verb betray and the noun traitor have the same root, the ad is accusing the head of American forces in Iraq of treason. The ad can also be interpreted more plausibly if you consider the rest of the text merely as questioning the general's honesty, not his patriotism. But whatever your interpretation of the ad, all the gasping for air and waving of scented handkerchiefs among the war's most enthusiastic supporters is pretty comical. PUN? WITLESS? Interesting choice of words there, Michael. Trying to minimize something, are we? The likes of you are the ones who madly arm-wave those "scented handkerchiefs" around in these situations. Also interesting to note that you don't see how Petraeus cannot be meaningfully patriotic if he were falsely testifying. Oh, I almost forgot (not) that you are liberal and have a problem with cause/effect and logical connections. Especially when trying to make a situation that reveals some ugly truths go away.
It's all phony, of course. The war's backers are obviously delighted to have this ad from which they can make an issue. They wouldn't trade it for a week in Anbar province (a formerly troubled area of Iraq that is now, thanks to us, an Eden of peace and tranquillity where barely a car bomb disturbs the perfumed silence or so they say). These days, mock outrage is used by every side of every dispute. It's fair enough to criticize something your opponent said while secretly thanking your lucky stars that he said it. The fuss over this MoveOn.org ad is something else: it is the result of a desperate scavenging for umbrage material. When so many people are clamoring for a chance to swoon that they each have to take a number and when the landscape is so littered with folks lying prostrate and pretending to be dead that it starts to look like the end of a Civil War battle re-enactment, this isn't spontaneous mass outrage. This is choreography. Like Hillary's pre-scripted comments or MoveOn.pimp's ad that ran before Petraeus testified? Well, I guess you would be a better judge than I. In any case, even without the ad your cause was dead and buried. Nobody was "desperately looking for umbrage material" except maybe for Hillary. Besides, your idiotic pimp-masters are the ones that vomited that one up, not "true liberals", right? So why are you so defensive?
The constant calls for political candidates to prove their bona fides by condemning or denouncing something somebody else said or to renounce a person's support or to return her tainted money are a tiresome new tic in American politics. They're turning politics into a game of "Mother, May I?" Did you say "Here is my plan for health-care reform"? Uh-oh, you were supposed to say "I condemn MoveOn.org's comments on General Petraeus, and here is my plan for health-care reform." Why don't you want to pick a side, Mr. Public Figure? I want to know what I am voting for.
All this drawing of uncrossable lines and issuing of fatuous fatwas is supposed to be a bad habit of the left. When right-wingers are attacking this habit rather than practicing it, they call it political correctness. The problem with political correctness is that it turns discussions of substance into arguments over etiquette. The last thing that supporters of the war want to talk about at this point is the war. They'd far rather talk about this insult to General Petraeus. It just isn't done in polite society, it seems, to criticize a general in the middle of a war. (Although, when else?) We don't need to talk about the war as much as we need to talk about the defeatist liberal mindset. That says a lot.
The Republican front runner, Rudy Giuliani, is another tough guy who has seized the opportunity to reveal his easily bruised soft side. He is running TV commercials saying Hillary Clinton "stood by silently" while MoveOn.org ran its despicable ad. Another way of saying this would be that she had nothing to do with the ad. But Rudy accuses her of "joining with" MoveOn.org and "attacking" General Petraeus, although the only evidence he can muster for this accusation is a clip from Clinton telling the general at a hearing that his reports of progress in the war "really require the willing suspension of disbelief." For this, Giuliani demands an "apology," not just to the general but to all American troops in Iraq. He accuses her of "turning her back" on America's brave soldiers "just when our troops need all our support to finish the job." Easily bruised? You're backing down from a guy who's "easily bruised"? Hmm.
When we try to untangle this web of accusation and innuendo, Giuliani appears to be suggesting that it is unacceptable for a Senator to express skepticism about anything said by a general in uniform. If he believes that, he does not understand democracy. I am shocked by this. In fact, if Giuliani doesn't apologize, and if the other Republican candidates don't condemn this commercial, I think I'm going to faint. There is no web of accusations, you would just like there to be one so you could hide in it. There is no innuendo except in your liberal mind. What was said was perfectly clear. As are the resulting actions/inactions/avoidances/disingenuities. There is total disarray in the Democratic party right now whether you like it or not. It is related to disagreements on how to cover up the massive party-wide hypocrisy that has been exposed to even the politically blind. Rather than try to fix the problem you try to minimize and redefine it.
#1
meanwhile the US economy goes into a tailspin and the idiots who elected this moron for president ignore the fact that their puny lives are about to be irreperably changed( they'll become peasants, unless their uber-rich)by tricky Dick and pals.
#2
meanwhile the US economy goes into a tailspin and the idiots who elected this moron for president ignore the fact that their puny lives are about to be irreperably changed( they'll become peasants, unless their uber-rich)by tricky Dick and pals.
Just like a liberal troll. When you're caught red-handed and can't win the argument - change the subject.
Say, Sheth - I just bet you're a 'truther' too! How's the view from the grassy knoll?
#3
"how to cover up the massive party-wide hypocrisy that has been exposed to even the politically blind"
kind of like Senator Craigs indescretions representing the real queerness of the GOP
#6
Baghdad Bob I think would not start out a speech with 'oh my paws and whiskers'; way too tough for that kind of talk. Irrelevant article worthy of only the TV Guide channel, the story here is that this fivilty was approved for posting on a major web site/news outlet. Fortunately had my aspirin ready as the content of this story can be noticed easier than a train crossing the prarie at night.
Some people still feel real life and have genuine outrage. Mister, this man has considerable influence on the lives of many of my family at the moment. And there are people overseas which I think would find the reference to pretend dead...disturbing. In respectful, or at least polite, society one does not criticise a commanding general - or anyone else of prominant position - by calling them 2nd grade chides; instead of using that large (cheap) ad space to outline some disagreed points.
When playing mud vollyball the players expect to get at least a little dirty. What is understood as good conduct is if the referee -agreed upon by both side- makes a call s/he should not be taken down and trown into the pit because one side disagreed with the call. Also, I expect a president to be able to multi-task. If a candidate can't handle multiple topics at once, or at least read their writer's script in the right order, that should be a matter of concern. After watching the democrats last night, and I'm not sure yet who I will vote for yet, but Giuliani's soft side appears to be tougher than just about all of the candidates' tough side.
Oh, and to our cheetah spanker, there are plenty of entertainers and politicians who have advanced their career and assets based soley on President Bush being in office. Oh what could be done out here with 10% of the money spent by the d-candidates on ads outclassed by high school AV departments.
#8
Shavinter Sproing5216: kind of like Senator Craigs indescretions representing the real queerness of the GOP
Idiot. You are looking at the difference between one man's actions - and a party that distanced itself from him - and the actions of pretty much the entire Democratic party. See the difference? Why should I have to hold your hand through simple logic like this? It's not that tough. In fact, I'd expect a high school kid to get it without any help from an adult. You fit right in with the model I use for extreme liberals. You just care about how the subject makes you feel, not the substance.
One more thing: Your mom dropped by today. Between gulps she told me that to remind you to breathe every hour or so.
#11
By-the-by, MoveOn.org was organized around the Bill Clinton impeachment. It was intended to scold America into "moving on" past Clinton's, er, behavior in the Oval Office.
Do you have the intellectual hardware to actually spar in a realistic contest of wit and wisdom with the likes of the people found at Rantburg? If so, bring it on. I'll spar with you. I like spanking halfwits who think they're intellectual geniuses.
Or, you could take on Fred, Zenster, Procopius, Steve White, Trailing Wife (TW's just one who'd kick your ass in any intellectual argument hands down), Seafarious, or any of a dozen others.
So, if you've got the guts, bring it on. Lay your arguments out and respond to our (or my) counterpoints in an intellectual and non-trollish fashion and maybe we can determine who the brightest bulb in the drawer is here.
#13
FOTSGreg dear, you mustn't put me up there with the rest of you, with all those letters before and after your names. I'm just a little suburban housewife who's only ever earnt her Mrs.
#14
On the other hand, my mother has a diploma from Oxford. She worked really hard, so it took her three months to earn it. But Mama's pretty bright -- she went to medical school in Switzerland for the fun of it, because she wanted to learn French while studying anatomy. And the publisher is waiting for her to finish translating her textbook into English, because the German edition sold out in the first few weeks.
#15
I won't be one of the Rantburgers "debating" Oxford 101 - assuming it decides to try actaully debating us.
I do have standards, minimum though they may be.
One of those standards is that I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
09/21/2007 15:35 Comments ||
Top||
#16
TW & Barbara, I'd match your wits, grace, and intelligence against the likes of Oxford 101 or any other cowardly troll any day of the week 24/7/365.
I'd match them (your wits, grace and intelligence) up against my own most days of the week in fact. Degrees, diploma's, and a bunch of letters you can stack beside your name don't mean much in the overall scheme of things. What matters is how you live your lives and how you treat your friends and family. Most everybody has me beat by leagues in that area.
With that said, please, ladies, do not look any further - I am about to be ungentlemanly...
So, Oxford 101, go ahead - take on our gracious ladies if you've got the guts and do not simply want to be a troll. They'll intellectually kick your ass so far up between your shoulders you'll be sh^tting out your mouth for a week.
#17
Please, oxford 101, that is Rantburg cavepersons. Please get your terms of abuse straight. It is the mark of a truly educated person to use the correct terms, always.
#18
You missed RM 131 in the Annex, and get off the computers, they're for the English.
Posted by: Thomas Woof ||
09/21/2007 18:59 Comments ||
Top||
#19
The war's backers are obviously delighted to have this ad from which they can make an issue.
My apologies in advance for an extended rant.
I must admit, in a sense, I am delighted this event took place. (As disgusting a spectacle I have ever witnessed.) It has exposed the truth that the whole we support the troops shtick from the Democrat leadership is nothing more then a steaming pile. Kinsleys oh so clever brethren obviously believed they could bait the war backers into, as he puts it, an issue. Then after the fact they could smugly say that the President is more concerned about a silly ad rather then changing course in the war. (Heard that one before?) You see, when Senator Clinton sternly said she had to suspend disbelief she will tell you that she was merely referring to the report not the military. Never mind that the author of that report was sitting right in front of her. The problem is that its only the same ole useless fools that believe this is simply about an advertisement or a report. And not what it really is - a slander on the military.
Case in point. I know an elderly lady that has voted Democrat her entire life. She is even prone to an occasional BDS fit. However, she is also a widow of a WWII Veteran. Her disdain for the advertisement was predictable. But she became quite animated in her response to Senator Kerrys tepid I think the ad was over the top comment. Over the top? she rhetorically shouted. And to think I voted for that asshole! And seriously, she is a lady.
#21
I must apologize. I misspoke: Mama took six months to earn that diploma from Oxford. But she didn't know any English when she started, so it kind of evens out. And now that poor Oxford is gone, I can admit that it was one of the two high schools certified by the university of the same name. Her branch was in Holland. She's very proud of her marks in BritLit, but didn't do very well in chemistry, having had a very erratic education up to that point. Quite ruined her hopes of following in Madam Curie's footsteps... but she ended up marrying a research biochemist, which was quite a comfort. ;-)
I was amused by The Democrat's continuation of its commitment to defeat in the War on Terror as a means to commemorate Sept. 11 while making sweeping political claims pertaining to troop support. While the battle in Iraq could hardly be described as clean and neat, the public referee just went both arms vertical. The "Surge" as described by the Bi-Partisan Iraq Study Group just sailed through the uprights. Nothing but net.
Turns out all of this anti-war talk about the "Surge" effort was a bunch of to do about nothing. Troops did a great job. Al Qaida in Iraq and rogue Iranian backed terror elements are less effective thanks to courageous and personal sacrifices by our military forces. Now it's time to "Surge" the spearhead of the left's vaunted diplomatic capabilities.
Our troops are of all political, religious, and ethnic background. Yet we hear little in the way of complaint from a grueling deployment schedule, and courageous fight against a determined enemy who uses our known weakness in political perseverance against the troops to demoralize them. The determined, mission focused, quality effort by our troops should serve as a leadership example guiding political behavior here at home. The effort of our armed forces commands a bi-partisan leadership effort in Washington and here at home. Any negative leadership effort that does not reflect the good for America and Middle East effort of our troops should receive disrespect for the unworkable and negative solution that it is.
This war has always been a long fight.
Prior to 9/11 our nation had embarked on a program designed to downsize our military in some areas such as ground forces. Although it is admirable that we tried to maintain that goal while fighting a long engagement against unconventional forces, it became apparent some time ago there were insufficient forces to maintain the current deployment schedule. The President has, from time to time, requested an increase in troop levels. But, in the end, our troops have been left to fight with a pre 9/11 numerical force structure. The primary difference in Iraq for the surge effort is that the American effort leads an Iraqi force contribution nearing 500,000.
Although we Americans don't like long occupational military campaigns, our enemies know that. Their vote in the matter drives their campaign selection which exploits our weakness and desire of the political left to run from a challenge. So now you know why one of our political parties is beginning to exhibit war fighting objectives that begin to look like the objectives of our enemy. No one from the opposing political party of the President has suggested providing what the troops need in terms of support. Neither of our political parties or biased political endeavors should claim support of the troops at the expense of the other because neither has seen to their primary needs and support.
We cannot withdraw from this fight short of conditions allowing a stable and secure Iraq which is able to fend off the elements of terrorism which surround it's geography and are indeed part of it's recent history. To abandon the fight in Iraq short of obvious minimal objective would bring about stunning political and security set backs in the Middle East, the possibility of genocide on an unimaginable scale, and a significant reduction in our own long term security, global influence and ability to defend our homeland. The Bipartisan Iraq Study Group Recommendations recognized these possible outcomes and the executive and legislative branches of government are aware of it. If it was easy we would be out already. It's not easy.
We should thank all of the military families locally who have someone engaged in this war. Thank you to all of the parents who have raised the kinds of men and women with values who are willing to stand in security for our personal freedoms, security, and right to have this discussion.
While we are all war weary, none can be as weary as those of you who are tasked in life to shoulder the responsibilities of this hardship. Those who whine the loudest are indeed those who do the least in terms of support of the troops and service to their country. Nearly all of us here locally unconditionally support with great respect the mission, personal efforts, and the sacrifice of those in uniform regardless of political affiliation. Your loved ones are performing a great service and we support their mission and efforts 100 percent.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/21/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11122 views]
Top|| File under: Iraqi Insurgency
#1
JAMESTOWNFOUNDATION.org > CHINA believes Iraq War is overstretching and weakening the USA in a variety of dimensions; + WASHINGTON WEAKENING: SINO-INDIAN COMPETITION OVER BURMA. USA letting China take the lead???
Why is this even being discussed? A flat "go fuck a goat, you scraggly bearded fascist" would suffice. If you've not noticed, Iranians are the bad guys. They are conducting operations in Iraq against US forces, Iraqi Forces, and even supporting other insurgent forces. We've caught them doing it. So terrorists and their leaders to come to America, all federal funding for the university, including student aid, should be permanently and immediately revoked.when their leader comes to America under diplomatic cred, we're supposed to hand him the keys to the city?
The only time the leader of a foreign country that is openly hostile to the US (the great Satan) should EVER be allowed into our country or otherwise on US soil is when he is signing a document of surrender, or a "guest of the US" at an appropriate detainment facility. We shouldn't let this fuckstick hide behind any documents or titles, ESPECIALLY the government who does this to people with diplomatic immunity, led by this asshole.
Finally, if Columbia university continues to invite terrorists and their leaders to come to America, all federal funding for the university, including student aid, should be permanently and immediately revoked.
if the UN existed in 1944, would we have let Hitler or Hirohito come for a visit? Would we let Adolph Eichmann visit the holocaust [museum] if he were alive and working as Germany's foreign minister? Would we let Tojo wander around Pearl harbor and see what havoc he'd wrought?
Asks Bob Owens, the Confederate Yankee. Interesting discussion and comments, all with much more knowledge than you'll find in the average MSM piece. One of the commenters has his own blog with a detailed review of Syrian WMD capabilities as of December, 2006.
#1
The question was asked, but never answered in the comments. "Why would they be loading a warhead on a fueled chassis?". It does seem like a bad idea,
Why wouldn't we ask, why were they taking the sarin warhead off and what were they going to replace it with?
#2
Chem and bio are the poor man's WMD. We kept live nukes on the top of our missiles cause (1) it had a tendency to make the other guy concerned that we might actually use them and (2) the time between getting the warhead to the pad and installing it would waste a lot if not all the time necessary for installation before a first strike without warning could take out the facility.
The problem is that it requires material and personnel who can maintain the loaded round over an extended period of time. The American military programs for nuclear and chemical surety were very unforgiving and there were no margins of error tolerated. It's an old story. Give the generals the means to take down your neighbor, you also give them the means to take you down too. Now put yourself in the intrigue of the stereotypical ME strong man. How long would you want a loaded missile on standby given all the friends you've made in country. Just look what a few minutes and a window of opportunity did to Sadat.
So once you run a 'proof of principle' test in making your cheap man's WMD work, you probably want it separated in parts so no one person or little cabal has the ability to point it elsewhere without your specific knowledge and permission.
#3
Procopius, It's my understanding however that the missiles in the silo's were not fueled at all times because it was simply too dangerous and too corrosive on the missile's fuel tanks to maintain it in such a state. ICBM's can be, I understand, fueled very rapidly because the corrosive elements (ie the oxygenators) are kept separate and then pumped in just before launch.
#4
FOTSGreg - that was true of early, liquid-fueled missiles, but since the introduction of the Minuteman I, all US missiles have been solid-fueled. No time wasted in fueling - can be launched in less than three minutes. Solid-fueled missiles, too, have a shelf-life, which is why we pull some out and replace them every so often.
Loading a chemical warhead on a fueled missile is tricky. Someone who knows more about it than I do is In From The Cold. Check out his observations for more info.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
09/21/2007 16:58 Comments ||
Top||
#5
OP, thanks for the update. My information was woefully out of date (not that it shouldn't have been).
#6
OP-
Wanted to make a real quick note - the Titan II, which served till nearly the end of the Cold War, was always liquid fueled. A special fuel was developed that enabled Titan to stay fueled and ready 24/7 - the downside was that it was horrifyingly:
*Corrosive
*Sensitive
*and fatal to inhale.
There were at least two major accidents caused by the Titan's fuel, including the accident at Little Rock AFB in the early 80s that actually blew the missile's warhead more than a mile away from the silo when the fuel cooked off.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
09/21/2007 19:56 Comments ||
Top||
Antoine Ghanem fell victim as the eighth political assassination in Lebanon since February 2005. Lebanon's pro-Western government says it is determined to hold a presidential election, despite the latest assassination. Prime Minister Fouad Siniora said the killers of MP Antoine Ghanim would not be allowed to succeed in their aims.
Syria has been accused of being behind the killing, but it denies involvement. MPs are due to choose a new president next week. The killings of several anti-Syrian figures has left Lebanon's government with only a slim majority. Banks, schools and government offices have been closed in Lebanon, as the country mourns Mr Ghanim, of the Maronite Phalange party. The education ministry said schools and universities would remain closed again on Friday, when a funeral would be held.
Mr Ghanim died with at least six others in a car bombing in the mainly Christian Sin al-Fil district on Wednesday. Mr Siniora said on Thursday: "The hand of terror will not win and will not succeed in subduing us and silencing us. The Lebanese will not retreat and will have a new president elected by lawmakers, no matter how big the conspiracy was."
He has called for a UN investigation into the assassination of Mr Ghanim, who had returned to Beirut just a few days before his death to take part in next week's vote.
Lebanon is poised to choose a successor to pro-Syrian President Emile Lahoud. The country has been mired in an ongoing political crisis, with a deadlock between pro- and anti-Syrian factions in parliament.
'Hand of terror'
Syria said it had no involvement in the attack, calling it a "criminal act" that undermined hopes for Lebanese national reconciliation.
But some Lebanese politicians were quick to blame Damascus for the blast. Saad Hariri, son of Rafik Hariri, a former prime minister who was assassinated in a bomb attack in 2005, said responsibility lay with the "cowardly regime" of Syria. Even pro-Syrian Mr Lahoud said it was no coincidence someone was killed whenever there were positive developments in Lebanon.
US President George W Bush denounced the "horrific assassination", which he described as attempts by Syria and Lebanon to destabilise Lebanon. The attack has also been criticised by the UK, the EU, Russia, China, France and Italy. Six other leading figures in Lebanon's anti-Syria movement have been killed since Rafik Hariri's assassination in 2005.
This article starring:
Antoine Ghanem
Prime Minister Fouad Siniora
Saad Hariri
Posted by: Fred ||
09/21/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11127 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Syria
#1
Lebanons WILEY coyote Lives!!
Posted by: Red Dawg ||
09/21/2007 4:42 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Nine more hits on the Anti-Syrian delegation, and they might as well move to the top of the Minority block.
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.
