July 8-9, 2007
Jul 08 00:48 Impeachment, Radical Islam & Anti-Semitism Jul 08 10:25 Operation Good News Jul 08 13:49 Reduce Lead Poisoning, Reduce Crime Jul 08 22:43 Fred Thompson: Winner Jul 09 04:34 So Similar It's Scary Jul 09 15:03 Tarryl To Andy Barnett: "I Don't Do Entertainment Radio" Jul 09 23:14 Another Iraq Success Story
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Prior Years: 2006
Impeachment, Radical Islam & Anti-Semitism
This week, we learned that Keith Ellison and Jim McDermott became co-sponsors of the impeachment bill written by Dennis Kucinich, H.R. 333.
Let's take a look at the co-sponsors of the impeachment bill:
US Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) made a speech on the House Floor, "The Vice President Should Resign or Face Impeachment," announcing his plans to support the bill. US Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) also joined yesterday.Here's Keith Ellison's take on the impeachment bill:
The other total supporters include original sponsor, US Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), plus US Reps. Yvette Clarke (D-NY), William Lacy Clay (D-MO), Barbara Lee (D-CA), Janice Schakowsky (D-IL), Maxine Waters (D-CA), Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), and Albert Wynn (D-MD), so far.
"They certainly deserve to be impeached [but]...the fact is that if we filed for impeachment now given everything that's already happened, based on what we know so far, it would consume the news cycle to the point where that's all we'd be dealing with and talking about. I'm a little concerned that it might overshadow other things we have to do. I'm a little concerned about that, given the situation. But do they deserve it? Hell yeah," Ellison told BallerStatus.com in an interview published two weeks ago.Mr. Ellison is a fine person to talk about impeachment. Michael Brodkorb of Minnesota Democrats Exposed reported last fall that Kathleen Anderson, then the district director of former DFL Rep. Martin Sabo, endorsed Tammy Lee, the Independence Party candidate for MN-5, saying that Ellison was a scofflaw:
The primary responsibility of any elected official is to make the laws. At the very least, our lawmakers should set a good example by obeying those laws. Is that asking too much? Apparently so, when it comes to Mr. Ellison. Time and again, he has demonstrated a scofflaw attitude.Jim Moran, who's made some rather anti-semitic comments in the past, will be officially listed as a co-sponsor eventually, too. Here's a sampling of Moran's anti-semitic statements:
What is a scofflaw? The dictionary says "a contemptuous law violator." In fairness, contemptuous may be too strong a word to describe Mr. Ellison's behavior. I can not know with certainty Ellison's motivations. To be kind, perhaps he is simply disorganized when it comes to these matters. Nonetheless, he has repeatedly, and very recently, violated the laws the rest of us routinely obey.
Moran responded to a woman who rose to identify herself as Jewish and wonder aloud why more Jews were not participating in the forum. Referring to the seeming inevitability of war, the Congressman commented: "If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq, we would not be doing this. The leaders of the Jewish community are influential enough that they could change the direction of where this is going, and I think they should."It should be pointed out that Keith Ellison was the keynote speaker at the MAS-MN 4th annual convention. AAH Chairman Joe Kaufman wrote this press release asking Keith Ellison to denounce the anti-semitic remarks on MAS-Minnesota's website or to resign:
On the weekend of May 25th, Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison gave the keynote address in front of the Muslim American Society of Minnesota (MAS-Minnesota), at the group's 4th annual convention. While Ellison spoke, the group was actively spreading vitriolic hatred and violence aimed at Jews, Christians and other non-Muslims via its website.Then there's Cynthia McKinney's ties to radical Islam:
The following statements are found on the MAS-Minnesota site, www.masmn.org:On Monday, June 4th, the Chairman of Americans Against Hate (AAH), Joe Kaufman, phoned the local and Washington, D.C. offices of Congressman Ellison to demand that he denounce MAS. Kaufman has received no response from the Congressman or anyone in his offices.
- "The Holy Prophet (and through him the Muslims) has been reassured that he should not mind the enmity, the evil designs and the machinations of the Jews..."
- "In view of the degenerate moral condition of the Jews and the Christians, the Believers have been warned not to make them their friends and confidants."
- "If you gain victory over the men of Jews, kill them."
- "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say, 'O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.'"
- " May Allah destroy the Jews, because they used the graves of their prophets as places of worship."
- "A Muslim must always worship Allah and wage jihad until death in order to reach his ultimate goal, Regularly make the intention to go on jihad with the ambition to die as a martyr."
Kaufman stated, "When Keith Ellison ran for office, he denounced the anti-Semitism of Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam (NOI), a group that he was previously affiliated with. We demand that he do the same to the Muslim American Society. It is not only improper for a United States Representative to participate with such groups, but it is a danger to national security."
This is at least the second time Keith Ellison has spoken in front of the Muslim American Society. The other time was right after he was elected to office, in December of 2006. As well, the Executive Director of the MAS Freedom Foundation, Mahdi Bray, campaigned for Ellison.
For further information, read Kaufman's FrontPage Magazine article, " Keith Ellison's Dangerous Liaisons."
Joe Kaufman is available for interview. E-mail: info@AmericansAgainstHate.org.
A list of campaign donors was found to include some with links to terrorism, Abdurahman Alamoudi, the former executive director of the American Muslim Council, and former college professor Sami Al-Arian.Abdurahman Alamoudi was a major fundraiser for the legal defense fund for Omar Abdel-Rahman, the man who organized the first World Trade Center bombings. Sami Al-Arian is about to be deported after pleading guilty to a single count of conspiracy to provide services to the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
What causes Democrats to associate with radical Islamic organizations? What causes them to make anti-semitic remarks?
Better yet, why hasn't Keith Ellison denounced the anti-semitic statements on MAS-Minnesota's website yet? It isn't like 32 days isn't enough time to denounce the anti-semitic quotes.
Originally posted Sunday, July 8, 2007, revised 11-Apr 6:55 AM
Comment 1 by Michael Ejercito at 11-Apr-08 01:34 PM
What causes Democrats to associate with radical Islamic organizations? What causes them to make anti-semitic remarks?
They sympathize with the enemy.
Operation Good News
I've always been open about the fact that I've put a high priority on doing whatever I can to give Gen. Petraeus the chance to stabilize Iraq via Operation Arrowhead Ripper. Over the past three weeks, I've noticed a dramatic uptick in positive articles in the press. Unfortunately, several GOP senators have announced their support for S. 1545, which would adopt the recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton Commission.
As we know, one of those recommendations is to make this a year of transition away from combat operations. That doesn't make sense in light of the recent news from Iraq.
The Boston Globe recently ran an AP article that talked about the progress being made, which prompted me to write this post, which included these statistics from the AP article:
At least 1,227 Iraqi civilians were killed in June along with 190 police officers and 31 soldiers, an officer at the Iraqi Interior Ministry's operations room said. The officer spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to release the figures. That represented a 36 percent drop from the ministry's May figures , 1,949 civilian deaths along with 127 police and 47 soldiers.Reuters wrote about how Arrowhead Ripper was responsible for killing AQI terrorists so I posted this from the Reuters article:
U.S. and Iraqi forces have killed 90 al Qaeda fighters across Baghdad in the past five days during one of the biggest combined offensives against the Sunni Islamist group since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, U.S. officials said yesterday. U.S. air strikes yesterday killed seven fighters suspected of belonging to al Qaeda in Tikrit in Salahuddin province and near the city of Fallujah, west of Baghdad, the U.S. military said.Recently, CNN reported this:
U.S.-led coalition forces killed a suspected terrorist and detained nine others in raids targeting al Qaeda in Iraq, a military statement released Thursday said. An operation west of Baghdad on Thursday focused on a cell making roadside bombs. Coalition forces killed one person and wounded another, the statement said. Three suspected were detained. Coalition forces detained another suspected al Qaeda terrorist in a separate raid in the Tarmiya area Thursday.The London Free Press said this about the effects Operation Arrowhead Ripper has had on Baqouba, the capital of Diyala Province:
"We're continuing to target all levels of the al Qaeda in Iraq organization and are disrupting both their leadership structure and operations," said U.S. military spokesman Lt. Col. Christopher Garver. In raids Wednesday, forces captured a man suspected of being the al Qaeda in Iraq administrative emir for a Baghdad neighborhood. He is thought to handle logistics and financing for terrorist cells in the area. Three people believed to be his associates were also detained.
An AP reporter in Baqouba, the capital of Diyala province to the north and east of Baghdad, reported intense gunbattles in the streets and around the main market district as American and Iraqi forces sought to clear the city of al-Qaida fighters.This isn't even close to writing something about all the positive news that I've found across Al Gore's internet. Unfortunately, we've seen some Republican senators announce that they'd support S. 1545, which would adopt the recommendations of the ISG report.
Gen. Abdul-Karim al-Rubaie, an Iraqi military commander in Diyala, said security forces had ringed the city and were not letting anyone come or go. He said many al-Qaida fighters had hidden their weapons and were trying to flee. "We fear that the insurgents want to mingle with civilians, Citizens have given us the names of hundreds of al-Qaida elements who have quit fighting and are hiding in their houses in Baqouba. These people are going to be arrested after the end of the battles," the general said.
The latest military report on the Diyala offensive, which began Monday night, said U.S.-led forces had killed 41 insurgents, discovered five weapons caches and destroyed 25 bombs and five booby-trapped houses.
Simply put, Gen. Petraeus needs support in the Senate so he can continue killing AQI terrorists in Iraq. That's why I'm officially announcing the start of Operation Good News . The key to Operation Good News is to giving senators that have announced their support for S. 1545 proof that the surge is working. We can only do that by (a) sending them articles each day that report on the progress being made in Diyala and Anbar provinces and Baghdad and (b) urging them to withdraw their support for S. 1545.
We should send proof each day that Gen. Petraeus' surge is working to Lamar Alexander , Pete Domenici , Richard Lugar , John Warner and Judd Gregg for now. We will add other Republican senators who aren't fighting for victory in Iraq if the need arises. Hopefully, this is the complete list.
It's essential that we do this on a daily basis because the Agenda Media will bombard Republicans in Washington with polls 'showing that the American people don't support the war' and the Democrats will bombard them with negative articles to 'prove' that the surge isn't working. The only way we'll change their minds is if we're able to provide them with the proof that the surge is working and casualties are dropping. It's that simple.
I think we all agree that victory in Iraq is essential. If we truly believe that, then it's our responsibility to do everything possible to change senators' votes by presenting them with facts.
Consider the reward for this activism:
- denying Iran another proxy in their fight against the United States;
- denying al-Qa'ida a new training base;
- putting Democrats, especially their presidential candidates, on the defensive.
Posted Sunday, July 8, 2007 10:26 AM
Comment 1 by Jake at 09-Jul-07 12:08 PM
This isn't even close to writing something about all the positive news that I've found across Al Gore's internet.
HAHAHAHA LMAO!!! GOOD ONE!!!
Comment 2 by Aaron at 17-Jul-07 07:38 PM
Thank you.I wish more news organiztions spread this good news."We are winning"!!!!
Reduce Lead Poisoning, Reduce Crime
Dan Riehl at Riehl World View has discovered something amazing: that reducing exposure to lead poisoning leads to reduced crime rates. At least that's what the Clintonistas want us to think:
Fairfax economist Rick Nevin has spent more than a decade researching and writing about the relationship between early childhood lead exposure and criminal behavior later in life.The Clintons must think we're the most idiotic people in the history of western civilization if they think we'll buy into that nonsense. When I googled NYC crime rates from 1990-2001, one of the first articles listed read:
Although crime did fall dramatically in New York during Giuliani's tenure, a broad range of scientific research has emerged in recent years to show that the mayor deserves only a fraction of the credit that he claims. The most compelling information has come from an economist in Fairfax who has argued in a series of little-noticed papers that the "New York miracle" was caused by local and federal efforts decades earlier to reduce lead poisoning.
NEW YORK CITY MURDER RATE EDGES HIGHERAnother article further down the page said this:
Subscription - The Record - HighBeam Research - Oct 26, 1991 NEW YORK -- The CITY MURDER RATE was up 1.8 percent in The first eight months ...
New York City Crime Falls But Just Why Is a MysteryFrankly, I wasn't about to pay a sawbuck to the NY Times just to read their article. The question I'd love to ask Mr. Nevin is what criteria he's using in saying that there's a direct relationship between lowering lead poisoning rates and lower crime. Can he prove causation with anything remotely resembling scientific proof? Or is his opinion just that: an opinion?
$4.95 - New York Times - Jan 1, 1995 Crime in New York City Is dropping. and dropping fast. ... monthly figures show a link between the New Crime -fighting efforts and the Crime rates . ...
Here's the part that I really liked from Dan's post:
But how did this research come to be? We can thank Bill Clinton for that. And it isn't news, it's several years old. It was written up already here three years ago but goes back to a Clinton initiative in 2000 when his administration paid, guess who , to do it and write it up? You guessed it ... the WaPo source and his consulting group were working for Clinton's administration. In fact, on page 60 of the pdf, you'll see Nevin's company actually prepared the formal report.Can you say busted? That's the lamest argument against Rudy's crimefighting policies that I've ever seen. That the Clintons think they can rely on information that they bought and paid for shows that they'll do or say anything to hurt a political opponent.Economic consultant Rick Nevin, hired by the Department of Housing and Urban Development to do a cost benefit analysis of removing lead paint from public housing, said he was stunned to discover a strong relationship between the use of leaded gasoline and violent crime.
Hillary's been dreaming of her coronation forever, which is why she won't go gently into that good night. Nonetheless, she will go into that good night because she has to rely on Rick Nevin's studies. Meanwhile, Fred Thompson can rely on his command of the issues, his skills at connecting with people and his good humor.
Posted Sunday, July 8, 2007 1:51 PM
No comments.
Fred Thompson: Winner
According to David Bossie's Washington Times op-ed, that's who Fred Thompson is. Here's what Mr. Bossie says on that matter:
Yet while Mr. Thompson is strongly conservative in word and deed, he is moderate and reassuring in bearing. When New York's Sen. Hillary Clinton unleashes the Clinton attack machine against him, and she will, those tactics will fail. Mr. Thompson will rise above the stale negative politics of the 1990s. Americans immediately know Mr. Thompson is a man they can trust, and people of good will sense in him a firm and abiding character.As more people get to know Sen. Thompson's positions on the issues and the thought process that brought him to those positions, people will warm up to him. When they find out that Sen. Thompson is an old-fashioned Goldwater libertarian/conservative, people will flock to him. When they find out his strong belief in justices in the mold of John Roberts, movement conservatives will get excited about him. When they find out his plans for undercutting Iran's mullahs, Lieberman Democrats will take a long, hard look at him.
I have worked in the conservative vineyards for more than two decades. I have seen sham conservatives and ambitious hucksters come and go. I know how to tell the real thing. Fred Thompson is the real thing: a leader, a conservative, a man of honor and, of utmost importance in facing the combination of Mrs. Clinton and a leftist media, a communicator and, absolutely, a winner.
One thing I know is that Hillary isn't capable of running a forward-looking, positive campaign. That doesn't fit her personality. She's best suited for the role of traditional hatchetman VP candidate. The more America sees of her scorched earth campaign style, the more they'll remember the hyperpartisanship of the Clinton-Gore administration.
That comparison will be even more dramatic when they contrast that with Thompson's new course in dealing with Chavez, Castro, Ahmadinejad and Kim Jung Il. They'll love his no-nonsense approach to enforcing the immigration laws already on the books. They'll appreciate his beefing up the USCIS so that people that overstay their visas will be rounded up and sent home.
Here's the best explanation I've heard on why Fred Thompson is leading in the polling:
Unlike the other front-runners, Fred Thompson need not pander, flip-flop or re-invent himself. Conservative voters know Fred Thompson is undeniably one of them, just by listening to him. When they hear candidates waffle, they hear Mr. Thompson talk straight. When others are vague, Mr. Thompson is direct. What voters hear from him, straight and direct, is solid conservatism, unvarnished, unapologetic and, most importantly, full of common sense.I still think back to Peter Robinson's interview of Sen. Thompson because, for me, it said everything I needed to know about his policies and his philosophies. Those aren't the only qualifications needed for president but they're a real fine starting point.
At this point, Fred is my hands down favorite of the candidates, with Rudy in second and Romney in third. He's a true movement conservative. He's a pro-growth, tax-cutting economic conservative. He's got a strong libertarian streak. He's also a strict constructionist, states rights person in terms of who he'd pick for Supreme Court justices. I was impressed with his mentioning that John Roberts has a good chance of becoming the greatest Chief Justice in the Supreme Court's history. That's winning him points with conservatives whose biggest issue is replacing activist judges with strict constructionists.
Finally, I thought that this op-ed was a perfect roll-out of the Thompson for President campaign. I definitely think that that's what this is. I don't have any insider information into this but I'm thinking that Sen. Thompson will announce later this week.
Posted Sunday, July 8, 2007 10:44 PM
Comment 1 by Eduardo at 12-Jul-07 12:51 AM
Doesn't it worry you that Fred Thompson looks and acts exactly like Frankenberry (and who Nixon strongly suspected of being a zombie, and an idiotic one at that)? I don't know about you, but I don't think that America is ready for an "undeado-American" as president. Really? President Frankenberry?
Also, let's see, he was an embarrassingly bad senator then a lobbyist for pro-abortion groups, then a Hollywood actor, then a cradle robber. Great resume there.
Sam Brownback is the only true conservative in this race. Brownback 2008!
So Similar It's Scary
Sunday evening, I read this Strib article about Keith Ellison speaking "to a gathering of atheists." Here's a quote worth noting:
On comparing Sept. 11 to the burning of the Reichstag building in Nazi Germany: "It's almost like the Reichstag fire, kind of reminds me of that. After the Reichstag was burned, they blamed the Communists for it and it put the leader of that country [Hitler] in a position where he could basically have authority to do whatever he wanted. The fact is that I'm not saying [Sept. 11] was a [U.S.] plan, or anything like that because, you know, that's how they put you in the nut-ball box, dismiss you."Later Sunday night, I watched a replay of Sean Hannity's interview Imam Abdul Alim Musa. Imam Musa made some outrageous statements during the interview, which was taped on Feb. 18, 2007. Follow this link if you want to read the entire transcript. (I highly recommend it because you'll see Imam Musa's radicalism.) Here's what Imam Musa said that caught my attention:
HANNITY: I already know what you say. You believe George Bush. You think George Bush knew about 9/11 ahead of time.The similarity of Ellison's quote to Imam Musa's quote is stunning. Here's another exchange between Hannity and Imam Musa that I want you to remember:
MUSA: Well, I said he was like Hitler and Hitler burned the Reichstag in Germany in 1933 to give him the fuhership, to also take the rights of the German people, right? To go do away with due process of law.
HANNITY: Is bin Laden misconstrued in the American public? Is he misunderstood? Do you like bin Laden? Do you like him?Look at how Musa denies bin Laden's role in 9/11. Now check this Daniel Pipes article out:
MUSA: If he is a Muslim he is definitely misconstrued. Definitely misconstrued.
HANNITY: So bin Laden is not responsible for 9/11?
MUSA: Of course not.
HANNITY: Who is responsible for 9/11?
MUSA: Who do you think?
In reality, CAIR is something quite different. For starters, it's on the wrong side in the war on terrorism. One indication came in October 1998, when the group demanded the removal of a Los Angeles billboard describing Osama bin Laden as "the sworn enemy," finding this depiction "offensive to Muslims."Notice the similarity between Imam Musa's denial that bin Laden was the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks and CAIR's months-long denial that bin Laden was the mastermind behind 9/11. If you compare CAIR's denials of bin Laden's complicity in 9/11 with Imam Musa's denials of bin Laden's complicity in 9/11, it's impossible to tell the difference. Ellison's statement that President Bush essentially was as powerful as a dictator is eerily similar to Imam Musa's saying that President Bush was essentially a dictator.
The same year, CAIR denied bin Laden's responsibility for the twin East African embassy bombings. As Hooper saw it, those explosions resulted from some vague "misunderstandings of both sides." (A New York court, however, blamed bin Laden's side alone for the embassy blasts.)
In 2001, CAIR denied his culpability for the Sept. 11 massacre, saying only that "if [note the "if"] Osama bin Laden was behind it, we condemn him by name." (Only in December was CAIR finally embarrassed into acknowledging his role.)
At the end of the day, the similarities between Musa's statements equating Bush with Hitler and Ellison's statement equating Bush with Hitler, coupled with Musa's denial of bin Laden's involvement in 9/11 with CAIR's denials of bin Laden's involvement in 9/11 are striking. So let's see what else Musa said during his interview with Sean Hannity:
HANNITY: Hamas is a terror organization and they take credit for terror. Would you like to take a look at their history? Read it. Maybe learn something.Now let's compare that with what CAIR has said about Hamas:
MUSA: Ninety-five percent. I know Hamas. They are nice people. Very nice people.
HANNITY: Hamas. The terror organization.
MUSA: Hamas is not a terror organization. It's what you say. You think you can impose...You are going to kill everybody and if anybody crawl out and get away and stand-up for himself, you call him a terrorist.
HANNITY: Hezbollah's manifesto. Let me read...Hang on a second. Let me read from their manifesto.
MUSA: Hezbollah are a good group of people practicing Islam.
HANNITY: Hezbollah in their manifesto says the group struggle will continue until Israel is destroyed. That's the great group of people you are praising.
When President Bush closed the Holy Land Foundation in December for collecting money he said was "used to support the Hamas terror organization," CAIR decried his action as "unjust" and "disturbing."CAIR sounds like they were defending a known terrorist organization. In fact, CAIR opened their first office after getting a $5,000 donation from the Holy Land Foundation:
CAIR opened its first office in Washington, DC, with the help of a $5,000 donation from the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF), a self-described charity founded by Mousa Abu Marzook.Summing it all up, (a) Musa and Ellison think that President Bush is a power-mad dictator; (b) CAIR and Musa denied bin Laden's involvement in 9/11 and (c) Musa thinks that Hamas and Hezbollah are good people practicing Islam while CAIR takes the Bush administration to task for shutting down a terrorist-funding 'charity' that happens to fund Hamas.
When you add it all up, I don't think many people would see much of a distinction between Ellison's, CAIR's and Imam Musa's beliefs. I'd further suggest that I don't think that many people would characterize CAIR, Ellison or Musa as mainstream.
Posted Monday, July 9, 2007 5:45 AM
Comment 1 by ME at 09-Jul-07 11:56 AM
The riechstag comparison has been made many times before. I know Michael ruppert has talked about the connection.
And it's a valid comparison, in terms of using fear to get the public to go along with various policies. Note Elison specifically states that he is not saying the US was behind 9/11, ad the radical islamists is saying.
So really, it's not that similary at all, and it's not scary.
This goes to all conservatives: work on your language comprehension skills... they seem to get you guys in trouble a lot.
Comment 2 by Carl Gordon at 09-Jul-07 02:16 PM
As I see it, with Hannity as well as Bush and even DIK, the first problem: Like all the misery penciled in and scheduled by and for abandoned musicians out of a Job, by demons and gods too punch-drunk on their own pulchritude, I ponder life's lousy timing and incredibly bad taste in humor, waiting for the break that ultimately will likely only transpire, with my luck, at the slacker end of the rope, and once again I'll have to trod up Alfred's 13 steps (a movie I've never been able to sit through) and take my place at my desk, hands folded, singing "Good Morning to You" to some black-draped numbskull who represents my first and best argument for forced sterilization, awaiting the inevitable swinging open of the trap door when I get back from lunch. So, as I sit hear and ponder the state of medial discourse and the now forever lost art of conversation, I sit here, broken hearted, paid my dime and only ... (original line from the next Adam Sandler movie - can't wait!)
Second problem (I never seem to have a scarcity of problems): Forces irrational, short-tempered, and zealous in their labors to fling culpability, like yesterday's pesky booger, unto any nearby victim, are attempting to unseat my customarily erratic and inconsistent mental state, accusing me of intelectual twaddle and rhetorical paradiddle. No amount of reality can thwart their Judy Garland/Mickey Rooney paranoid fantasies, so surreptitious strategies and furtive senseless gestures are in order immediately, purposely obfuscating messages in order to confuse small and petty minds into Satan's diabolical plan to conquer our country and overthrow what was supposedly preordaned by somebody with no legitimate ID or even a functional driver's license.
Comment 3 by Sean Aqui at 09-Jul-07 05:28 PM
Gary,
The autolink above that you commented on takes you to a copy of my blog post stolen by an autoblog. Rather than dignify the theft by registering and commenting there, feel free to repost it at the original entry and I'll reply.
Short answer: "Denying" something is not the same thing as declining to positively assert it until more is known. And the distinction gets pretty meaningless when the group in question says "if it turns out he did it, we condemn him."
Tarryl To Andy Barnett: "I Don't Do Entertainment Radio"
Yes, you read that right. I found this out after reading Andy's Hot Talk With Andy Barnett blog post about the strange conversation he had with Sen. Tarryl Clark the other day. Here's Andy's take on that conversation:
She said she is not comfortable doing opinion based entertainment talk shows. She went on to say that she didn't like the questions I asked her because they were too opinionated. She said I asked the kind of questions her critics from the right ask.I've recently had the privilege of getting to know Andy. I can state without hesitation that, although Andy would ask Tarryl difficult questions, he'd ask those questions with a respectful tone of voice.
The biggest question that I can't answer is whether Tarryl feels confident answering questions in settings where she has to defend her answers rather than just have the answers accepted as fact. If you're right on the issue, it shouldn't matter what setting you're making those answers in. In fact, if you're confident that your answer is based on common sense & verifiable facts, you should welcome the challenge of going onto the other side's turf because that's the only way you'll win new voters. You don't add voters by just preaching to the choir.
I'd also note the condescending tone Tarryl uses by calling conservative talk radio " entertainment talk shows ." Talk about stereotyping.
Defending conservative ideas are simply a part of a conservative's life. That's why conservatives don't make a big deal of it. (Michele Bachmann does it for a living.) They've grown accustomed to it over the years. It starts when conservative students at universities are challenged by their professors. It often continues at the workplace. That's why conservative politicians appearing on MPR or Almanac are perfectly comfortable defending their beliefs.
It just isn't a big deal for the average conservative.
On the other hand, liberals go unchallenged all the time, whether they're attending college or giving interviews to MPR and like-minded media outlets.
At the end of our conversation there was some talk about a possible re-appearance on Hot Talk, but [Tarryl] said it would have to be with certain ground rules in place.Ground rules? What's Tarryl afraid of? She sounds awfully intimidated with the thought of having to answer questions that aren't softballs lobbed by MPR. That isn't how a person of gravitas approaches an interview.
Posted Monday, July 9, 2007 4:29 PM
Comment 1 by Eva Young at 18-Jul-07 08:55 PM
Michele Bachmann won't appear on radio shows which challenge her. She won't appear on Race to the Right. When she was guest hosting for Jason Lewis, she wouldn't take phone calls. This is hardly someone who is unafraid to defend their views.
Another Iraq Success Story
Here's the link to another editorial talking about the success the MNF-I is having in Iraq. It isn't enough to post this on our websites. The next step is to fill the inboxes of Senators Warner, Voinovich, Alexander, Gregg, Domenici, Collins and Lugar. What I especially love about this editorial is the sarcasm it uses in driving home an important point. Here's what I'm talking about:
You might not have gathered this from most media coverage, but something extraordinary is happening in Iraq. The United States and the Iraqis seem to be going after, and successfully wiping out, large numbers of al Qaeda operatives.As readers of this blog know, I've been writing daily (or more often) on the positive results directly attributable to OAR. Since the last of the Surge troops arrived, civilian casualties have dropped 36 percent. That's irrefutable progress, folks. Here's another article that talks about major progress in killing AQI terrorists:
In the past, the United States has seemed content to "cleanse" neighborhoods of trouble and then hunker down, while the terrorists simply fled and bided their time. But in the past couple of weeks, scores of al Qaeda operatives have been hunted down and killed, with many others taken into custody. America is taking the battle to them, on the outskirts of Baghdad, as part of an effort called Operation Arrowhead Ripper [ ed-aka OAR ].
Ever heard of it?
An operation west of Baghdad on Thursday focused on a cell making roadside bombs. Coalition forces killed one person and wounded another, the statement said. Three suspected were detained. Coalition forces detained another suspected al Qaeda terrorist in a separate raid in the Tarmiya area Thursday.In other words, AQI terrorists are throwing in the towel at a faster rate there than GOP senators are throwing in the towel here. The logical goal now is to stem the tide of GOP defections and increase the number of AQI surrenders. Based on the reports coming from Iraq, I think that's very possible.
"We're continuing to target all levels of the al Qaeda in Iraq organization and are disrupting both their leadership structure and operations," said U.S. military spokesman Lt. Col. Christopher Garver.
In raids Wednesday, forces captured a man suspected of being the al Qaeda in Iraq administrative emir for a Baghdad neighborhood. He is thought to handle logistics and financing for terrorist cells in the area. Three people believed to be his associates were also detained.
The headlines and news flashes from Iraq continue to focus on American dead and suicide bomb attacks. But that seems to be giving undue credit to America's enemies and the foes of a peaceful democracy in Iraq while ignoring the better news of serious terrorist losses. Along with killing off al Qaeda forces, the ongoing operation has eliminated weapons caches, homemade bombs and, in recent days, a suspected torture house in Baqouba containing saws, drills and explosives.We can't expect the Agenda Media or the Democrats to talk about the success stories of OAR. The Agenda Media will ignore the stories and Democrats will lie outright about about OAR successes. What do you think the purpose of Harry Reid's and Nancy Pelosi's letter was?
"As many had foreseen, the escalation has failed to produce the intended results," the two leaders wrote. "The increase in US forces has had little impact in curbing the violence or fostering political reconciliation. It has not enhanced Americas national security. The unsettling reality is that instances of violence against Iraqis remain high and attacks on US forces have increased. In fact, the last two months of the war were the deadliest to date for US troops."Reid's prediction that 'all is lost' isn't credible. The fact is that he pronounced its failure long before the troops arrived. Further, he hasn't wanted to see proof that it's working. He's scared to death it'll work. Reid knows that Democrats are political history if we stabilize Iraq. The Agenda Media knows the same thing. That's why they'd been doing their part in this.
That's why I've launched Operation Good News. It's time to gather a mountain of articles each day that talk about new proof that OAR is working. As I've said time and again, we need to fill the GOP wobblies' inboxes daily with (a) OAR success stories and (b) promises that we won't financially support their campaigns if they vote like John Murtha. It's that simple.
I'm looking for an 'Army of True Believers' to take up this mission. If true activists intervene, we'll change votes in the Senate.
Doesn't Gen. Petraeus and the troops over there deserve that much?
Posted Monday, July 9, 2007 11:15 PM
No comments.
