Saturday, May 10, 2008
Mr. Kelly had more time to research his column of May 9, 2009, then I did in a blog post, but he hit every point.
It is nice to see great minds think alike and better yet to see the facts get out! I couldn't get anyone to link mine, but Mr. Kelly's got the word out that Obama is a lightweight. As Kennedy said of Kruschev, "He beat the hell out of me," and Obama is levels below Kennedy.
We may now understand why Barack does not wear a flag lapel pin. He's afraid that Bill Ayers will stomp on him. In reality, it will be the relationship with Bill Ayers that will empower the Republicans to destroy the candidacy of Barack Obama.
This is not a question of whether or not the Republicans will use this material. They will. So what is there to find? That is the area of greatest danger for the Democrats. Obama has lied about his longstanding relationship with Bill Ayers.
Why? What is he hiding? As I have pointed out before, 1995 was a critical year in the Obama/Ayers relationship. It was in 1995 that Barack was tabbed by Ayers to be the Chairman of the Annenberg Challenge (a failed $50 million project). That same year, Barack sat at a kitchen table with Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, Bill's wife, a plotted the ouster of Alice Palmer, who Obama took down in order to secure his place in the Illinois state senate.
If the Super Delegates do not insist on a full and complete disclosure from Barack Obama about his ties to Bill Ayers, the Republicans will force the issue in the fall. It is one thing to have a name that sounds like the terrorist who attacked us on 9-11. But it is an entirely different matter to be close friends with an unrepentant terrorist who bombed U.S. Government buildings.
There is no where to run. The relationship is genuine. This is a stonewall that will not stand.
Larry C. Johnson -- Via Instapundit
Marc Armbinder -- From The "If McCain Did This" Files
The issue of the lapel flag pin is a good illustration. Obama's explanation for its absence -- that it had become a "substitute" for "true patriotism" in the aftermath of Sept. 11 -- is perfectly rational. For a professor at the University of Chicago. Members of the knowledge class generally find his stand against sartorial symbolism to be subtle, even courageous. Most Americans, I'm willing to bet, will find it incomprehensible after 20 additional explanations, which are bound to be required. A president is expected to be a patriotic symbol himself, not the arbiter of patriotic symbols. He is supposed to be the face-painted superfan at every home game; to wear red, white and blue boxers on special marital occasions; to get misty-eyed during the most obscure patriotic hymns.The problem here is not that Obama is unpatriotic -- a foolish, unfair, destructive charge -- but that Obama has declared himself superior to an almost universal form of popular patriotism.
Michael Gerson -- Washington Post
Via Don Surber
Gunmen in Mexico have killed another top Mexican police official - just one day after the head of the national anti-narcotics effort was shot dead.
Esteban Robles headed the anti-kidnapping unit of the Mexico City police department. He was shot several times outside his home on Friday.
Mexico is attempting to crack down on the drug trade but have had repeated setbacks, at one point forcing a boarder town sheriff to request asylum in the US after his deputies had either been killed or walked off the job.This happened in Mexico City and may indicate a striking back against the governments push.
The computer models that predict global warming are ridiculously primitive. They still can't recreate the past accurately, let alone predict the future. As Howard Hayden, professor of physics at the University of Connecticut, says, they take "garbage in" and spit "gospel out."
Powerline -- Earth Slated to Continue Cooling
Hezbollah gunmen seized control of west Beirut on Friday after a third day of battles with pro-government foes in the Lebanese capital pushed the nation dangerously close to all-out civil war.
The sectarian fighting had eased by early afternoon as the army and police moved across areas now in the hands of Shiite opposition forces who routed Sunni militants loyal to the Western-backed government.
This could be a deliberate act to secure a save Hezbollah haven, perhaps in preparation for an attack of some type -- I haven't been following this story close enough, but Gateway Pundit has.
Al-Qaeda declares war on Hezbollah
Greenpeace International has released a new report, entitled “False Hope: Why Carbon Capture and Storage Won’t Save the Climate,” which proves once and for all that “clean coal” is nothing more than a slogan aimed at greenwashing the image of an irremediably dirty energy source.
"Carbon capture and storage is a scam. It is the ultimate coal industry pipe dream,” said the report’s author, Emily Rochon, climate and energy campaigner at Greenpeace International. “Governments and businesses need to reduce their emissions—not search for excuses to keep burning coal.”
So, what's your realistic solution, Emily the genius? Come on, you have to have on. (And conservation or mass elimination of humans are not solutions.)
Once again we prove three things:
1)We have no idea what were doing when it comes to the environment and, "fixing," it.
2) Greenpeace has no clue about how the world works.
3) Greenpeace is nothing but a bunch of whiners that will never be happy as long as man is still on this planet.
Abu Ayyub al-Masri, the head of al Qaeda in Iraq, has not been captured, a senior U.S. military official told CNN on Friday.
Iraqi authorities said Thursday that al-Masri had been captured in Mosul.
As has been the case in the past it appears someone got too excited.
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said on Thursday that the worst of the credit crisis is over, according to sources who attended a speech he delivered in New York.Greenspan also said house prices still had a long way to fall and that it was unlikely they would stabilize by year-end.
How do all these terrorist-sympathizing radicals keep mistakenly thinking that Obama is one of them?One of Barack Obama’s Middle East policy advisers disclosed today that he had held meetings with the militant Palestinian group Hamas - prompting the likely Democratic nominee to sever all links with him.
Robert Malley told The Times he had regularly been in contact with Hamas, which controls Gaza but is listed by the US State Department as a terrorist organisation. Such talks, he stressed, were related to his work for a conflict resolution think tank and had no connection with his position on Mr Obama's Middle East advisory council.
“I’ve never hidden the fact that in my job with the International Crisis Group I meet all kinds of people,” he added.
YANGON, Myanmar (AP) - Myanmar's junta seized U.N. aid shipments headed for hungry and homeless survivors of last week's devastating cyclone, prompting the world body to suspend further help on Friday.
The U.N. said the aid included 38 tons of high-energy biscuits and arrived in Myanmar on Friday on two flights from Bangladesh and the United Arab Emirates.
"All of the food aid and equipment that we managed to get in has been confiscated," U.N. World Food Program spokesman Paul Risley said. "For the time being, we have no choice but to end further efforts to bring critical needed food aid into Myanmar at this time."
It's all about control.
That might not do the trick, however. Americans are focused on the economy, and they’re not too concerned anymore with the war in Iraq and the “War on Terror.” The GOP can’t win unless they scare people to death.
The only way to refocus Americans on the bogeyman of danger — International Terrorism — is to do what George W. Bush may do, in an effort to help McCain win the presidency and the GOP to avoid disastrous losses in Congress:
Sometime this summer or early fall, an “incident” will occur that causes the U.S. to retaliate, probably with air-strikes, possibly escalating to sending in Marines.
Inevitably, the “incident” will be in the Middle East region, most likely Iran, or maybe Syria, or it could be an attack on Israel by Iran.
Do I think the incident will be staged? Obviously I don’t know. But my knowledge of history informs me that we’ve done it before.
Yep, the not so rare quadrennial, "evil Republicans will attack to retain power," BDS has made its appearance here in Rockford -- at our very own Register Star Blogs! Chuck Sweeny's own Sweeny Report. He then proceeds in listing, "wag the dog," incidents (Pearl Harbor, Gulf of Tonkin, USS Maine, Iraq).
The sad thing is Chuck's knowledge of history that he mentions is really lacking.
Here is a copy of my reply:
No Rosie, there YOU go again!
Oh, wait, this isn’t Rosie O’Donnells blog - sorry.
While a person can take virtually any event in history and skew them to fit their current political purpose it would not be accurate or historically correct to do so. Particularly for a journalist who suggests that the current President may attack another nation for purely partisan reasons.
Gulf Of Tonkin — (as Rosie would say, “Google it!”) In 1995 General Giap admitted that the first attack of August 2 DID in fact occur. The NSA report specifically said the report was NOT political but was intended to cover up intelligence errors — the Johnson administration was not given correct information, they did not massage the info to initiate a war.
USS Maine — You yourself admit:So, who or what caused the Maine to explode and sink? To this day, the U.S. Navy says it doesn’t know.
In addition the Maine was NOT used as causus belle. As a matter of fact it was the media that latched on to that in an effort to pressure McKinley to war that HE DID NOT WANT.
Pearl Harbor — despite 10 investigations to date not one piece of evidence has been found proving foreknowledge by a member of the administration.
Iraq — The Iraqi resolution contained more then 20 justifications. In addition a study in 2006 of the pre-war debate discovered that the media was the first to use the term, “imminent threat,” and that was picked up by Democrats in congress but was never used by the administration which specifically said it was not yet imminent. (This has been investigated and debated repeatedly — If you want to start a debate I will leave that to you.)
Strange you didn’t mention Clinton’s attacks on Iraq or Bosnia in your, “wag the dog,” scenarios. Or were those beyond reproach?
While I agree that war and almost everything every government does is political from a historical perspective your suggestion of multiple political conspiracies falls apart when the historical facts are included in the narrative, particularly the available contemporary facts.
We all make the best decisions we can with the information available at that time — while history may not always validate that decision that in no way means the decisions were conspiracies.