Tuesday, December 01, 2009
Is President Obama Making a Mistake With His Troop Escalation in Afghanistan?
Eerie shades of LBJ's Vietnam troop escalation in the President's decision to increase America's military presence in Afghanistan by more than 30,000 troops. Let us hope Mr. Obama has learned the lessons of history (Vietnam) and his decision won't come to this:
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Soccer Diplomacy: Take Note U.S., Brazil Is on the Rise
This is the kind in-depth diplomatic analysis that you won't get anywhere in the North American-Eurocentric media, which is unfortunate, because it is spot-on. In effect, the rise of Brazil as a major actor on the diplomatic stage heralds the death of the Monroe Doctrine and U.S.-European hegemonism in Latin America.
The reaction in this country to Lula's meeting with Ahmedinejad has been predictable: hysterical and hyperbolic. For so long, the United States has cornered the market on the projection of raw power as a substitute for diplomacy in pursuit of its vital interests that it is shocked!, I say, shocked! when a putative ally decides that its own vital interests do not always conform and align with those of U.S. military belligerence in the greater Middle East. In short, the critics should sit down, take a look in the mirror, and STFU. The days of dictation in place of conversation are over.
Brazil is speaking and doing business with Iran for the same reason the United States sold weapons of mass destruction to Saddam Hussein; poured millions in aid to the Pakistani military which openly collaborates with the Taliban and gave direct assistance to the 9/11 terrorists; and held hands with Saudi despots whose nationals perpetrated the greatest terrorist attack on U.S. soil, and who fund madrasas that breed suicide bombers to kill U.S. troops.
Brazil's nuclear program is much more advanced than Iran's, with the caveat that Brazil made public its determination to renounce development of a weaponized nuclear program. Brazil wasn't forced or intimidated to do so. It was a rational and civilized state decision: It isn't threatened militarily by any of its neighbors, and it can't possibly compete with the nuclear might of the United States any more than India, Pakistan, Israel, France, Britain, and China can. These are all regional nuclear states that are not on a par with the United States and its only credible nuclear deterrent state, Russia.
Brazil supports the U.S. goal of non-proliferation, containment of the nuclear states club to its current status quo, and gradual draw-down of nuclear weapons held by the nuclear states. At the same time, Brazil asserts it has earned a seat at the UN Security Council. It has a constructive diplomatic role to play toward achieving real and lasting peace in the Middle East for these reasons:
Let the games begin!
The reaction in this country to Lula's meeting with Ahmedinejad has been predictable: hysterical and hyperbolic. For so long, the United States has cornered the market on the projection of raw power as a substitute for diplomacy in pursuit of its vital interests that it is shocked!, I say, shocked! when a putative ally decides that its own vital interests do not always conform and align with those of U.S. military belligerence in the greater Middle East. In short, the critics should sit down, take a look in the mirror, and STFU. The days of dictation in place of conversation are over.
Brazil is speaking and doing business with Iran for the same reason the United States sold weapons of mass destruction to Saddam Hussein; poured millions in aid to the Pakistani military which openly collaborates with the Taliban and gave direct assistance to the 9/11 terrorists; and held hands with Saudi despots whose nationals perpetrated the greatest terrorist attack on U.S. soil, and who fund madrasas that breed suicide bombers to kill U.S. troops.
Brazil's nuclear program is much more advanced than Iran's, with the caveat that Brazil made public its determination to renounce development of a weaponized nuclear program. Brazil wasn't forced or intimidated to do so. It was a rational and civilized state decision: It isn't threatened militarily by any of its neighbors, and it can't possibly compete with the nuclear might of the United States any more than India, Pakistan, Israel, France, Britain, and China can. These are all regional nuclear states that are not on a par with the United States and its only credible nuclear deterrent state, Russia.
Brazil supports the U.S. goal of non-proliferation, containment of the nuclear states club to its current status quo, and gradual draw-down of nuclear weapons held by the nuclear states. At the same time, Brazil asserts it has earned a seat at the UN Security Council. It has a constructive diplomatic role to play toward achieving real and lasting peace in the Middle East for these reasons:
- Brazil can be a genuine honest broker;
- Its growing economic ties with the Middle East and absence from U.S.-European colonialist history in the region give it real bargaining power and influence to effect a lasting peace among warring parties; and
- As a non-nuclear power with an advanced peaceful nuclear energy program, Brazil has more credibility with Iran to move it away from weaponization than nuclear powers that seek to impose their will on Iran with threats of military intervention.
Let the games begin!
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
More on Andy McCarthy
See my post below for starters.
This clown is ABSOLUTELY CRAZY. I don't care about his prosecutorial experience. He is as credible as the San Francisco street people who yell at you on Market Street.
He is a birther. He STILL holds to the absurd "Atta in Prague" lie. Iraq was the home of al-Qaeda.
Absolutely crazy train, but he is EVERYWHERE.
Sad.
Monday, November 23, 2009
The World According to C Street
We've glimpsed how C Street Family “brother” Bart Stupak's early morning assault on a woman's legal right to an abortion has become the most serious threat in a generation to pro-choice rights in America. Next come the tawdry revelations involving Family adulterers “brother” Mark Sanford, governor of South Carolina, and “brother” John Ensign, senator from Nevada. Sanford was charged with 37 ethics violations while the cuckholded husband in the Ensign affair gave a tell-all interview about John Ensign's sordid dalliances with the man’s wife.
If these were normal circumstances involving elected officials with an ounce of self-respect, these shameless politicians would have spared themselves and the public further embarassment by resigning. But that is not the way of the Family. After all, Sanford and Ensign are the “chosen ones” living in a bizarre Religious Right elitist world in which they are exempt from the normal rules of society. Doug Coe, head of the Family, explained in a colloquy what it meant to be a “chosen one”:
If these were normal circumstances involving elected officials with an ounce of self-respect, these shameless politicians would have spared themselves and the public further embarassment by resigning. But that is not the way of the Family. After all, Sanford and Ensign are the “chosen ones” living in a bizarre Religious Right elitist world in which they are exempt from the normal rules of society. Doug Coe, head of the Family, explained in a colloquy what it meant to be a “chosen one”:
“Suppose I hear you raped three little girls. What would I think of you?”
“You would think I was awful, a monster.”
And Doug Coe said, “No, I would not, because you’re chosen, and when you’re chosen, the normal rules don’t apply.”
The DINO Holdout Outrage: In Praise of Landrieu but Not Lincoln, Nelson, and Traitor Joe
In electoral politics, what often “dictates” the balance between principle and expediency is the next election. When Senators Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas took the Senate floor to announce they would vote to invoke cloture on the healthcare bill and allow debate to begin, a Martian alien sitting in the gallery would have correctly deduced that, of the two, Senator Lincoln was the one facing a tough reelection campaign in 2010.
Disregard self-serving language about serving the people of [enter state: Arkansas] and not being “dictated to” by outside liberal groups [enter populist language], or the insurance companies [enter wink-and-a-nod to master donors]. Blanche Lincoln vowed to oppose a “government-run public option” even though the people of Arkansas support a government-run public option by 55%-38%. Altogether, the uninsured Americans in the states represented by the four senators in the Democratic Caucus who are threatening to tear down healthcare reform –- Lincoln, Landrieu, Lieberman, and Nelson –- number roughly 2 million people.
The common denominator among these four conservative Senate Democrats are the millions in campaign contributions from the wealthcare insurance industry and Big Pharma. The common denominator between the wealthcare insurance industry and Big Pharma is their intention to kill healthcare reform and the public option, outspending reform advocates by 2-1. REAL Democrats are fed up. Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio has had enough. With a right back at ya to Senator Lincoln, he said 56 Democrats in the Democratic Caucus will not be “dictated to” by four senators.
Way to go, Senator Brown. The President needs to step up to the plate and read these senators the Riot Act. (Sorry for sounding redundant.) The President’s studied indifference (think Waiting for Godot) in taking a strong stand and twisting some arms is showing up in his approval ratings, which will continue their southward slide unless Barack Obama reins in the DINOS with tough Johnson-esque cajoling. Astonishingly, Harry Reid has channeled LBJ much more effectively than President Obama.
Given the large Democratic majorities in Arkansas Senator Lincoln has infuriated, her political posture is, frankly, incomprehensible. Senator Lincoln’s grousing at outside liberal groups is ridiculous and self-serving. First, these groups comprise a substantial portion of Lincoln’s donor base. Second, the message carried by the netroots campaign in Arkansas simply informs voters of the Senator’s refusal to heed the wishes of 55% of Arkansans that support a public option.
What Senator Lincoln calls meddling by outside groups they call bringing sunshine to the process and forcing Lincoln to be accountable to her constituents. With hundreds of thousands of uninsured Americans in Arkansas alone, no apologies are forthcoming for inconveniencing Senator Lincoln. To the contrary, outside liberal groups will continue to ramp up the pressure. Go ahead, Senator Lincoln. Turn your back on the people of Arkansas, and they will defeat you. A strong candidate, Arkansas Lt. Governor Bill Halter, is waiting in the wings to pose a primary challenge on the question of a public option should you vote to destroy healthcare reform.
Conversely, the attacks on Senator Mary Landrieu by wingnut hate pimps Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck are despicable. They called Senator Landrieu an “expensive prostitute” for negotiating with Harry Reid a $300 million natural disaster Medicaid package for Louisiana, ravaged by Hurricane Katrina. The Bush Administration’s criminal neglect of Louisiana, depopulating the state of thousands of destitute residents -- an ethnic cleansing that has colored it lighter and more Republican -- made Senator Landrieu’s intervention on behalf of the poverty-stricken residents that remained an absolute moral imperative. She took the point on this issue, and sustained withering attacks by the wingnut blogosphere, with nothing but obscure, timid support by every Republican in Louisiana, from the governor on down.
Senator Mary Landrieu has received tough but deserved criticism on this blog for her public option flip-flop, but on the question of Medicaid disaster relief for her state she is completely in the right. It should be noted that the depopulation of New Orleans in the wake of the Katrina disaster robbed Senator Landrieu of a large chunk of her Democratic base in Louisiana. She can be forgiven a vote against the public option on an up-or-down floor vote, but should not, under any circumstances, filibuster final passage of the bill.
The worst thing Harry Reid can do is cave to the four DINO holdouts in the Democratic Caucus and accept a watered-down pro-insurance bill. If they do not fall in line, there’s always the simple majority of the reconciliation process. If forced to go this route, Mr. Reid should strip the DINOS of their committee chairmanships and privileges.
What can they do? Threaten to switch parties? Please, DINOS, there's the door. If you cannot support the Democratic Party on procedural votes, what are you good for? Don't let the Caucus door hit you on the way out.
Before I forget, there are two more inductees to The Thinker Hall of Shame: DINO Senators Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas and Ben Nelson of Nebraska. This brings the number of Hall of Shame laureates to four -- Mary Landrieu, Bart Stupak, Blanche Lincoln, and Ben Nelson -- with one non-DINO inductee, “Independent” Traitor Joe Lieberman. Hopefully Landrieu, Lincoln, and Nelson can be persuaded to return to the Democratic fold once more. Bart Stupak the Christian anti-choice stealth crusader, whose allegiance is to the C Street Religious Right mafia, never was a Democrat.
Disregard self-serving language about serving the people of [enter state: Arkansas] and not being “dictated to” by outside liberal groups [enter populist language], or the insurance companies [enter wink-and-a-nod to master donors]. Blanche Lincoln vowed to oppose a “government-run public option” even though the people of Arkansas support a government-run public option by 55%-38%. Altogether, the uninsured Americans in the states represented by the four senators in the Democratic Caucus who are threatening to tear down healthcare reform –- Lincoln, Landrieu, Lieberman, and Nelson –- number roughly 2 million people.
The common denominator among these four conservative Senate Democrats are the millions in campaign contributions from the wealthcare insurance industry and Big Pharma. The common denominator between the wealthcare insurance industry and Big Pharma is their intention to kill healthcare reform and the public option, outspending reform advocates by 2-1. REAL Democrats are fed up. Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio has had enough. With a right back at ya to Senator Lincoln, he said 56 Democrats in the Democratic Caucus will not be “dictated to” by four senators.
Way to go, Senator Brown. The President needs to step up to the plate and read these senators the Riot Act. (Sorry for sounding redundant.) The President’s studied indifference (think Waiting for Godot) in taking a strong stand and twisting some arms is showing up in his approval ratings, which will continue their southward slide unless Barack Obama reins in the DINOS with tough Johnson-esque cajoling. Astonishingly, Harry Reid has channeled LBJ much more effectively than President Obama.
Given the large Democratic majorities in Arkansas Senator Lincoln has infuriated, her political posture is, frankly, incomprehensible. Senator Lincoln’s grousing at outside liberal groups is ridiculous and self-serving. First, these groups comprise a substantial portion of Lincoln’s donor base. Second, the message carried by the netroots campaign in Arkansas simply informs voters of the Senator’s refusal to heed the wishes of 55% of Arkansans that support a public option.
What Senator Lincoln calls meddling by outside groups they call bringing sunshine to the process and forcing Lincoln to be accountable to her constituents. With hundreds of thousands of uninsured Americans in Arkansas alone, no apologies are forthcoming for inconveniencing Senator Lincoln. To the contrary, outside liberal groups will continue to ramp up the pressure. Go ahead, Senator Lincoln. Turn your back on the people of Arkansas, and they will defeat you. A strong candidate, Arkansas Lt. Governor Bill Halter, is waiting in the wings to pose a primary challenge on the question of a public option should you vote to destroy healthcare reform.
Conversely, the attacks on Senator Mary Landrieu by wingnut hate pimps Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck are despicable. They called Senator Landrieu an “expensive prostitute” for negotiating with Harry Reid a $300 million natural disaster Medicaid package for Louisiana, ravaged by Hurricane Katrina. The Bush Administration’s criminal neglect of Louisiana, depopulating the state of thousands of destitute residents -- an ethnic cleansing that has colored it lighter and more Republican -- made Senator Landrieu’s intervention on behalf of the poverty-stricken residents that remained an absolute moral imperative. She took the point on this issue, and sustained withering attacks by the wingnut blogosphere, with nothing but obscure, timid support by every Republican in Louisiana, from the governor on down.
Senator Mary Landrieu has received tough but deserved criticism on this blog for her public option flip-flop, but on the question of Medicaid disaster relief for her state she is completely in the right. It should be noted that the depopulation of New Orleans in the wake of the Katrina disaster robbed Senator Landrieu of a large chunk of her Democratic base in Louisiana. She can be forgiven a vote against the public option on an up-or-down floor vote, but should not, under any circumstances, filibuster final passage of the bill.
The worst thing Harry Reid can do is cave to the four DINO holdouts in the Democratic Caucus and accept a watered-down pro-insurance bill. If they do not fall in line, there’s always the simple majority of the reconciliation process. If forced to go this route, Mr. Reid should strip the DINOS of their committee chairmanships and privileges.
What can they do? Threaten to switch parties? Please, DINOS, there's the door. If you cannot support the Democratic Party on procedural votes, what are you good for? Don't let the Caucus door hit you on the way out.
Before I forget, there are two more inductees to The Thinker Hall of Shame: DINO Senators Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas and Ben Nelson of Nebraska. This brings the number of Hall of Shame laureates to four -- Mary Landrieu, Bart Stupak, Blanche Lincoln, and Ben Nelson -- with one non-DINO inductee, “Independent” Traitor Joe Lieberman. Hopefully Landrieu, Lincoln, and Nelson can be persuaded to return to the Democratic fold once more. Bart Stupak the Christian anti-choice stealth crusader, whose allegiance is to the C Street Religious Right mafia, never was a Democrat.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
“Rounding Third and Heading for Home”
This is how Senator Tom Harkin, Chairman of Ted Kennedy’s Health Committee where it all began on the Senate side, described last night’s historic Senate vote, 60-39, to break the Republican filibuster and allow debate on Harry Reid’s merged healthcare bill to proceed. Yes, there’s plenty that can happen between third and home but by any measure this was a momentous, historic vote.
The vote concluded with no small drama, as 92-yo Sen. Robert Byrd entered the chamber in a wheelchair pushed by an aide and pointed to the sky indicating his AYE vote, the usually taciturn Harry Reid planted a kiss on Mary Landrieu’s hand, and together with Sen. Schumer, hugged Blanche Lincoln, who blushed. The Senators voted from their desks, giving the proceeding a somber and dignified appearance.
Significantly, the one notable absence was Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio, who elected to attend the 30th anniversary of his Cleveland mayoral election instead. While he remains publicly opposed to the bill, Voinovich is no sure vote for the Republican caucus. This is Voinovich’s last term in the Senate, having announced his retirement, which gives him a great deal of independence. Recently, Voinovich lashed out in disgust at the current Republican Party:
The vote concluded with no small drama, as 92-yo Sen. Robert Byrd entered the chamber in a wheelchair pushed by an aide and pointed to the sky indicating his AYE vote, the usually taciturn Harry Reid planted a kiss on Mary Landrieu’s hand, and together with Sen. Schumer, hugged Blanche Lincoln, who blushed. The Senators voted from their desks, giving the proceeding a somber and dignified appearance.
Significantly, the one notable absence was Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio, who elected to attend the 30th anniversary of his Cleveland mayoral election instead. While he remains publicly opposed to the bill, Voinovich is no sure vote for the Republican caucus. This is Voinovich’s last term in the Senate, having announced his retirement, which gives him a great deal of independence. Recently, Voinovich lashed out in disgust at the current Republican Party:
“We got too many Jim DeMints (R-S.C.) and Tom Coburns (R-Ok.). It's the Southerners. They get on TV and go "errrr, errrrr." People hear them and say, ‘These people, they're Southerners. The party's being taken over by Southerners. What the hell they got to do with Ohio?’”Could this be the first chink in the armor of Republican Senate discipline?
Friday, November 20, 2009
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Why do Republican Women LIE So Much?
Maybe it’s the Palin tour that’s tipping the scales –- the documented, fact-checked lies in her book and her whining rebuttals mount by the day -– but even so, the scope and nature of female Republican lies is so much more outrageous than that of their male Republican counterparts. It’s not only about Palin’s lying. It’s Liz Cheney, Michelle Bachmann, and the latest outrageous liar, Virginia Foxx:
Nothing gets my blood boiling faster than a lie about settled history (and this woman was an educator!). For the record, the Senate vote for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was 73-27, with 46 Democrats and 27 Republicans voting AYE. At the time of passage, President Lyndon Johnson said prophetically, “there goes the South.”
He was right. Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” was born, the racist Dixiecrats in the Democratic Party moved to the Republican Party, and what has become the modern realignment of the parties took root. As for those moderate Northern Republicans who voted with the Democrats: They were purged by the Republican Party’s lurch to the right, driven out by Southerners and evangelicals, culminating in Ronald Reagan’s election.
One interesting sidebar: Yesterday, Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, the only Northern Democrat to vote against the Civil Rights Act, made history as the U.S. capitol’s longest-serving lawmaker. Senator Byrd, who will turn 92 on Friday, regrets that vote and has since renounced his segregationist past.
And Virginia, about Jesse Helms … At the time of passage of the Civil Rights Act, Helms was broadcasting racist rants from the local TV station, somewhat like a small-time Glenn Beck. Once elected senator in 1972 until his retirement, Helms never renounced his racist views even after many of his Southern colleagues had softened theirs.
These Republican women –- Foxx, Palin, Cheney, Bachmann -- are pathological liars. They can’t tell the difference between fact or fiction, and they don’t care. What makes them lie with such … brazenness?
Surfing the net, I landed (where else?) on Oprah.com for an answer. Susan Shapiro Barash says in her book Little White Lies, Deep Dark Secrets that “women lie not only more cleverly [than men do] but more often because in our society women are held to such a standard, and a lot of times, they have something to cover up. My theory is they use it as a survival technique and do it because they have been very good at doing it for so long.”
I’ll say, and it’s not only metaphoric. When she belongs to a conservative-to-wingnut white male-centric culture/party that so casually and frequently, and in so many ways, tells her to “stay in [her] place,” the Republican woman’s need to lie as survival mechanism must kick into high gear so early in her repressed childhood that at some point she just loses her grasp on reality and what is and is not, true.
Barash concludes: “I just note the way that women live their lives in this country and what they need to do to feel they aren't disempowered.”
Well, Republican women certainly. The one thing feminism has given Democratic women is, precisely, a sense of empowerment. Offhand, I can’t think of any Democratic women who flaunt their sexuality (nothing wrong with that, mind you) as much as Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann. Umm … but it's a certain kind of sexuality: I can imagine Palin and Bachmann pole-dancing, but not much else.
Here's what I mean:
Nothing gets my blood boiling faster than a lie about settled history (and this woman was an educator!). For the record, the Senate vote for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was 73-27, with 46 Democrats and 27 Republicans voting AYE. At the time of passage, President Lyndon Johnson said prophetically, “there goes the South.”
He was right. Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” was born, the racist Dixiecrats in the Democratic Party moved to the Republican Party, and what has become the modern realignment of the parties took root. As for those moderate Northern Republicans who voted with the Democrats: They were purged by the Republican Party’s lurch to the right, driven out by Southerners and evangelicals, culminating in Ronald Reagan’s election.
One interesting sidebar: Yesterday, Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, the only Northern Democrat to vote against the Civil Rights Act, made history as the U.S. capitol’s longest-serving lawmaker. Senator Byrd, who will turn 92 on Friday, regrets that vote and has since renounced his segregationist past.
And Virginia, about Jesse Helms … At the time of passage of the Civil Rights Act, Helms was broadcasting racist rants from the local TV station, somewhat like a small-time Glenn Beck. Once elected senator in 1972 until his retirement, Helms never renounced his racist views even after many of his Southern colleagues had softened theirs.
These Republican women –- Foxx, Palin, Cheney, Bachmann -- are pathological liars. They can’t tell the difference between fact or fiction, and they don’t care. What makes them lie with such … brazenness?
Surfing the net, I landed (where else?) on Oprah.com for an answer. Susan Shapiro Barash says in her book Little White Lies, Deep Dark Secrets that “women lie not only more cleverly [than men do] but more often because in our society women are held to such a standard, and a lot of times, they have something to cover up. My theory is they use it as a survival technique and do it because they have been very good at doing it for so long.”
I’ll say, and it’s not only metaphoric. When she belongs to a conservative-to-wingnut white male-centric culture/party that so casually and frequently, and in so many ways, tells her to “stay in [her] place,” the Republican woman’s need to lie as survival mechanism must kick into high gear so early in her repressed childhood that at some point she just loses her grasp on reality and what is and is not, true.
Barash concludes: “I just note the way that women live their lives in this country and what they need to do to feel they aren't disempowered.”
Well, Republican women certainly. The one thing feminism has given Democratic women is, precisely, a sense of empowerment. Offhand, I can’t think of any Democratic women who flaunt their sexuality (nothing wrong with that, mind you) as much as Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann. Umm … but it's a certain kind of sexuality: I can imagine Palin and Bachmann pole-dancing, but not much else.
Here's what I mean:
Too stupid to breathe
From Salon: "Fully 26 percent of respondents said they believe ACORN stole the election for Obama, compared to 62 percent who said they think he won it fair and square. 12 percent weren't sure.
The numbers were even more revealing when broken down along partisan lines. A majority of Republicans -- 52 percent -- think ACORN stole the presidency, while just 27 percent said they believe Obama's office is legitimately his."
Really, I want to know. How do their brains function well enough to send signals to their hearts and lungs?
Using CNN's data, Obama got 254 EV's from states he won by 10% or more of the vote, and another 16 from states he won by 9%, which would get him to 270. Really? ACORN stole more than 10% of the votes in one of those 22 states, most of which are hard-core blue?
I want to add a question to their poll - does it hurt being that stupid?
The numbers were even more revealing when broken down along partisan lines. A majority of Republicans -- 52 percent -- think ACORN stole the presidency, while just 27 percent said they believe Obama's office is legitimately his."
Really, I want to know. How do their brains function well enough to send signals to their hearts and lungs?
Using CNN's data, Obama got 254 EV's from states he won by 10% or more of the vote, and another 16 from states he won by 9%, which would get him to 270. Really? ACORN stole more than 10% of the votes in one of those 22 states, most of which are hard-core blue?
I want to add a question to their poll - does it hurt being that stupid?
Joe, I mean Andy, McCarthy speaks..
Andrew McCarthy (NOT the bad actor, just an all-around bad guy), the former assistant U.S. attorney and current NRO mouthpiece who mishandled and nearly blew the blind sheik prosecution has been very noisy in a CYA fashion about prosecuting KSM.
Right, we should listen to you, Andy, the genius who bemoaned how ungrateful the Iraqis have been to us. Yup, we killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people, crippled the economy, made thousands of people homeless, subsidized ethnic cleansing, destabilized the region, empowered their arch-enemy, etc. etc. etc., and they are not the least bit appreciative The nerve of them. Just see if we go invading them again, harumph!
Right, we should listen to you, Andy, the genius who bemoaned how ungrateful the Iraqis have been to us. Yup, we killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people, crippled the economy, made thousands of people homeless, subsidized ethnic cleansing, destabilized the region, empowered their arch-enemy, etc. etc. etc., and they are not the least bit appreciative The nerve of them. Just see if we go invading them again, harumph!
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
New York City to GOP Nervous Nellies: DROP DEAD!
Barring that, Reps. Gohmert, Shadegg, Bachmann, hick wingnut scumbags all, GO FUCK YOURSELVES.
Same goes for all other wingnuts out there who would presume (???) to speak for New Yorkers.
How Dare You! All of you sorry GOP excuses for cowering, subhuman jellyfish, most of whom never set foot in the metropolis you view as Sodom and Gomorrah, FUCK OFF.
Listen up assholes, including the FOX News and hate radio Beck/Limbaugh scum the city must tolerate because that’s where they happen to make their millions off the brain-dead hordes in flyover territory: Forget Paris, London, Rio, LA, Hong Kong, Chicago, SF. Fugheadboutit …
New York City is IT.
New York City is the world’s GREATEST CITY. Period.
NEW YORK CITY IS THE CAPITAL OF THE UNIVERSE.
Pathetic wingnuts -- you really think the City can’t handle Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the human waste that planned the Twin Tower attacks?!?
Take it from New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg:
“It is fitting that 9/11 suspects face justice near the World Trade Center site where so many New Yorkers were murdered.”
And United States Attorney General Eric Holder:
“I’M NOT SCARED OF KSM, AND NO ONE ELSE NEEDS TO BE AFRAID EITHER.”
It is FITTING indeed that New York City, the city that is constantly reinventing itself and being reborn, should emerge from the pit of 9/11, brush itself off, and stand tall, greater than ever to show the world that IT and the United States of America are unbowed and undefeated.
Leave it to New Yorkers.
[Note: apologies for the expletives, not generally my style, but sometimes like Doc, I just need to vent.]
Same goes for all other wingnuts out there who would presume (???) to speak for New Yorkers.
How Dare You! All of you sorry GOP excuses for cowering, subhuman jellyfish, most of whom never set foot in the metropolis you view as Sodom and Gomorrah, FUCK OFF.
Listen up assholes, including the FOX News and hate radio Beck/Limbaugh scum the city must tolerate because that’s where they happen to make their millions off the brain-dead hordes in flyover territory: Forget Paris, London, Rio, LA, Hong Kong, Chicago, SF. Fugheadboutit …
New York City is IT.
New York City is the world’s GREATEST CITY. Period.
NEW YORK CITY IS THE CAPITAL OF THE UNIVERSE.
Pathetic wingnuts -- you really think the City can’t handle Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the human waste that planned the Twin Tower attacks?!?
Take it from New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg:
“It is fitting that 9/11 suspects face justice near the World Trade Center site where so many New Yorkers were murdered.”
And United States Attorney General Eric Holder:
“I’M NOT SCARED OF KSM, AND NO ONE ELSE NEEDS TO BE AFRAID EITHER.”
It is FITTING indeed that New York City, the city that is constantly reinventing itself and being reborn, should emerge from the pit of 9/11, brush itself off, and stand tall, greater than ever to show the world that IT and the United States of America are unbowed and undefeated.
Leave it to New Yorkers.
[Note: apologies for the expletives, not generally my style, but sometimes like Doc, I just need to vent.]
STUPAK AMENDMENT WILL ELIMINATE ABORTION COVERAGE FOR ALL WOMEN
PRO-CHOICE WOMEN, TAKE NOTE: Particularly young women, who do not remember a time when abortion was illegal in this country, and cannot conceive of it ever being unavailable through their private health insurance plans, think again. A new study by the George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services has concluded that the effect of the Stupak anti-abortion poison pill amendment is to eliminate abortion coverage “over time for all women.”
If the extent of your involvement in politics was to vote for President Obama, here's some free advice: You know that little device that you keep glued to your ear, prattling on while stuck in traffic? Think about using it for something beyond chatting, texting, and downloading midlessly stupid apps. Find out who your congresspersons and senators are, and call them, expressing your opposition to the Stupak amendment. Do not take your freedoms and rights for granted or you will lose them.
Bart Stupak, who has been preening on the talk show circuit about his new found notoriety, continues his Family-inspired campaign to deceive the American people. This religious extremist is no more a moderate Democrat than President Obama is a Kenyan. His co-sponsor, Republican Congressman Joseph Pitts, has already said he will vote NO for any healthcare bill even if it contains their amendment intact. This is the company that anti-abortion Christian crusader Bart Stupak keeps. 'Nuff said, for now.
If the extent of your involvement in politics was to vote for President Obama, here's some free advice: You know that little device that you keep glued to your ear, prattling on while stuck in traffic? Think about using it for something beyond chatting, texting, and downloading midlessly stupid apps. Find out who your congresspersons and senators are, and call them, expressing your opposition to the Stupak amendment. Do not take your freedoms and rights for granted or you will lose them.
Bart Stupak, who has been preening on the talk show circuit about his new found notoriety, continues his Family-inspired campaign to deceive the American people. This religious extremist is no more a moderate Democrat than President Obama is a Kenyan. His co-sponsor, Republican Congressman Joseph Pitts, has already said he will vote NO for any healthcare bill even if it contains their amendment intact. This is the company that anti-abortion Christian crusader Bart Stupak keeps. 'Nuff said, for now.
For Jimbow below
Never hesitate to disagree with me!
I've actually been kicking the hate crime aspect around a bit. If we strip away the "Republicans don't like blacks and gays" aspect of their opposition to hate crimes, there is a reasonable legal point there. The argument is that extant law is sufficient because we criminalize the INTENT TO COMMIT THE ACT (i.e., punch someone in the face or blow up a building) rather than the MOTIVE. A motive may have evidentiary weight but it is not an element of the offense.
But then those same people wail and moan about trying "terrorists" as criminals. The INTENT is the same as your garden variety criminal, as is the conduct. What differs is the MOTIVE, and folks, you can't have it both ways.
I've actually been kicking the hate crime aspect around a bit. If we strip away the "Republicans don't like blacks and gays" aspect of their opposition to hate crimes, there is a reasonable legal point there. The argument is that extant law is sufficient because we criminalize the INTENT TO COMMIT THE ACT (i.e., punch someone in the face or blow up a building) rather than the MOTIVE. A motive may have evidentiary weight but it is not an element of the offense.
But then those same people wail and moan about trying "terrorists" as criminals. The INTENT is the same as your garden variety criminal, as is the conduct. What differs is the MOTIVE, and folks, you can't have it both ways.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
"Terrorists" are CRIMINALS
and should be treated as such.
There is no factual or legal distinction that can be cogently drawn between KSM and Tim McVeigh. Both engaged in criminal plotting and actions to destroy a building/buildings and kill people. I have heard it suggested that somehow 9/11 is beyond the reach or scope of ordinary criminal prosecutions.
Hogwash. This is a garden variety crime, a crime that differs from a street shooting only in the number of victims, not in intent or conduct.
I have heard it suggested that this is an "act of war." Double hogwash. Under no recognized construct of international law is this an act of war. The concept of "war" has a definition by consensus. Not every element of the paradigm need be present, as wars can involve asymmetrical conflicts and sub-state units. However, every element of the paradigm CANNOT BE ABSENT as it is in this instance.
We know why they don't want a public trial. First of all, Republicans thrive on fear. If they can't frighten, they can't win. The loathsome John Yoo, who should be in prison, and the cretinous Andrew McCarthy (who wrote that the Iraqis were not sufficiently "grateful" argued that a trial would afford the "terrorists" a treasure trove of intelligence.
First of all, a competent prosecutor and a capable federal judge under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure can adequately limit discovery (note to Mr. McCarthy, I said "competent.") And of course, the important question isn't what the government knows that it will tell. It is what the defendant knows and will tell that the bleating sheep don't want to see the light of day.
Once again, Doc...
(and a tip o'the cap to Jonathan Swift)
We can solve two problems at once---
USE THE STUPID FOR FUEL!!!
I'm coming very close
Between Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Lou Dobbs, Rush, Cheney's progeny, Michelle Bachmann, Bart Stupak (I know he's a Democrat, technically), Bow-gate, and all the rest of the stupidity out there, I'm thinking of punching everyone I know in the face, just in case they're thinking of acting like a Republican.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
