Democrats & Liberals Archives

Losing His Mind

John McCain, the other night on the Daily Show, said “a spokesperson from Hamas said they wanted Sen. Obama,” for President. That’s just ridiculous. That’s as bad — and as false — as Republican claims that al-Qaeda supported John Kerry in 2004.

We all should know by now that al-Qaeda and Iran both publicly stated support for George W. Bush's reelection. And why not, as a recent National Intelligence Estimate revealed, George Bush did more for al-Qaeda than anybody else.

If anything, al-Qaeda is going to support John McCain. I'm sure they relish the thought of a one hundred year US occupation of a Muslim country. Nothing will galvanize al-Qaeda more than that. For John McCain to say terrorists are supporting Obama, he must be losing what's left of his mind. As the Iranian Security Council chief said of the 2004 election, "We haven't seen anything good from Democrats."

Posted by American Pundit at May 9, 2008 3:04 PM
Comments
Comment #252535

I’m confused AP. Isn’t Ahmed Yousef a top Hamas political adviser and didn’t he say they support Obama and his world vision?

If he is and if he did say that, how is it false?

Posted by: kctim at May 9, 2008 3:42 PM
Comment #252536

I am wondering what the fuss is. Liberals appear to be in favor of registering illegal aliens so they can vote. If that’s true, maybe they have a plan for Hamas as well.

Oh, wait, as Jay Leno would say, “I’m way out of line here”.

Posted by: Jim M at May 9, 2008 4:03 PM
Comment #252537

Why wouldn’t they support BHO, or any other Dem for that matter. Hamas wants the U.S. out of Iraq along with all the other terror orgaizations. The Democrats are pushing for immediate withdrawl so it makes sence they would support a DEMOCRAT for president.

Posted by: KAP at May 9, 2008 4:04 PM
Comment #252540
Hamas wants the U.S. out of Iraq along with all the other terror orgaizations.

That’s thhe last thing they want. With the US in Iraq, these terrorist organizations are sitting on a gold mine of recruiting and money-raising propaganda. If it wasn’t for George W. Bush, al-Qaeda would be just a bunch of scruffy guys living in a cave somewhere, scratching their butts.

Posted by: American Pundit at May 9, 2008 4:37 PM
Comment #252541

What is wrong with McCain? How can he get Iraq and Iran so wrong, again and again? Remember all that talk about Iran arming Iraqis?

“Iraqi officials also have accused Iran of meddling in violence and had echoed the U.S. accusations of new Iranian-made arms being found in Basra. But neither the United States nor Iraq has displayed any of the alleged arms to the public or press, and lately it is looking less likely they will. U.S. military officials said it was up to the Iraqis to show the items; Iraqi officials lately have backed off the accusations against Iran.

A plan to show some alleged Iranian-supplied explosives to journalists last week in Karbala and then destroy them was canceled after the United States realized none of them was from Iran.”

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2008/05/iraq-the-elusiv.html

So! Lots of arms in Iraq, but none of them Iranian. Once again, McCain, the Republican candidate for President of the United States, whose primary qualification for office is his judgment and experience, once again McCain is dreadfully wrong about Iraq and Iran.

I just dont’ get it. I am not a foreign policy wonk. I work full time in an unrelated field. But it seems after reading a few books and regularly surfing a few sites, I have better a better understanding and better judgment than McCain.

What is wrong with McCain? Is he senile or careless or uninformed or misinformed? No one is forcing him to screw up and make bad judgments. How can he keep being so wrong?

Posted by: phx8 at May 9, 2008 4:45 PM
Comment #252542

AP:

Check your facts. Hammas is favoring Obama.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=61631


Here is another link:

http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=224527

Posted by: Craig Holmes at May 9, 2008 5:05 PM
Comment #252543

I guess the Daily Show is pretty popular here. It shows the amount of disinterest in the regular news programs. I was also surprised that McCain would bring up the Hamas endorsment of BHO, which seemed like a gratuitous attack. Of course Hamas and other groups that oppose our government would endorse whoever is running against the party in power. On Al Qaeda endorsing anyone, it seems like a convoluted argument. People don’t usually support their enemies, just because they make them stronger, up in the hills of Waziristan.

Posted by: ohrealy at May 9, 2008 5:13 PM
Comment #252544

I thought Hamas won free and fair democratic elections to represent Palestinians in their government. Why would we refer to Hamas as terrorists, yet turn a blind eye to the horrendous acts of the Israeli government? It seems to me we should be shunning both sides, and that we should refuse to provide arms to any of them. Yet we support Israel with weapons and money, and condemn Palestinians, who have the largest refugee population in the world, as terrorists!

Posted by: phx8 at May 9, 2008 5:21 PM
Comment #252547

Boys and girls, this is just the opening salvo.

This is just a prelude to the nastiness of the general election.

McCain realizes that BHO is the Democratic nominee (no matter how much Hillary would argue) and right now McCain gets free shots while BHO and Hillary are fighting it out.

Actually, BHO ought to be honored to be blasted by McCain. It’s as if McCain (and, by extension, the Republican party) has recognized BHO as the candidate to beat in November.

Posted by: Jim T at May 9, 2008 5:32 PM
Comment #252549

phx8,

Oh, so we shouldn’t condemn the Palestinians as terrorists?

Check out this link.

From the article from Wikipedia:

…The first Qassam to land in Israeli territory was launched on February 10, 2002. The first time an Israeli city was hit was on March 5, 2002, when two rockets struck Sderot. Some rockets have hit as far as the edge of Ashkelon. As of April, 2008, there have been over 8,000 Qassam rockets fired at Israeli targets, mainly against Sderot and the Western Negev. Twenty-two Israeli’s have been killed and over 433 injured, along with significant property damage. Additionally, more than 2,500 mortar attacks have been launched against Israel from Gaza.

(Emphasis mine)

Further…

The Qassam rocket attacks have resulted in Post Traumatic Stress Disorder in both children and adults, with 33% of children living in Sderot suffering from PTSD.

(Emphasis mine)

You wrote…

“…Yet we support Israel with weapons and money, and condemn Palestinians, who have the largest refugee population in the world, as terrorists!”

Perhaps you should have said…

“…and condemn Palestinians, who have the largest terrorist population in the world, as terrorists!”

That, I think would be more reflective of the truth.

Posted by: Jim T at May 9, 2008 5:47 PM
Comment #252558

Jim T,
The Israelis killed at least 120 people in Gaza during the Sderot episode, many of them women and children. Oh, wait. Pardon me. By people, I mean Palestinians. Do they still count? Or are the 1.5 million Palestinians living in Gaza all terrorists, and therefore fare game for a perpetual siege, intermittent denial of food, fuel, and so on. The 22 Israelis killed represent the toll over a period of 6 years. The 120 Palestinian dead represent the toll from just one week.

Keep it in context, Jim T. Neither side is blameless when it comes to killing innocent civilians. Neither deserves US encouragement, arms, or money in their ongoing war.

Posted by: phx8 at May 9, 2008 6:49 PM
Comment #252564

Phx8

If you don’t think Hamas is a terrorist organization, then you should not feel agrieved if someone points out that the leader of this organization supports Barack Obama.

AP

You transitioned very smoothly from Hamas to Al Qaeda. I am sure if a Republican had done that, you would have criticized it as an ignorant overgeneralization.

Your information re Iraq is more than two years old. What you say about Iraqi might have been arguable true at the end of 2006, but not any more. You can say lot of things about Iraq, but it is proving to be the killing fields for AQI and its Al Qaeda allies/masters. A couple of years ago, they declared Al Anbar the capital of their new caliphate. They established themselves openly in major cities. Today, the Iraqis in the region hate them so thoroughly that the small numbers that are left have to hide in the deserts.

AQI is like an infection. We have got the infection controlled and it is dying, but if we let it go before the cure is finished it will come back stronger.

I don’t understand how it helps Al Qaeda to be annihilated in a Muslim country with the enthusiastic help of the local Muslims, but I know that some liberals consider every defeat of Al Qaeda as some sort of victory. We have prevented them from making a follow up attack in the U.S. since 9/11. We are killing them off in Iraq. It seems a good thing to me, but then I am not liberal.

Re Hamas – I suppose it is bad manners to bring up some of Obama’s more nefarious endorsements.

Posted by: Jack at May 9, 2008 9:02 PM
Comment #252565

Jack,
Why should I care one way or another what a foreign leader supposedly wants? Who does Olmert want for president? He is every bit as despicable as anyone from Hamas. Olmert is certainly responsible for the death of a lot more innocent civilians than anyone among the Palestinians. Even the Israelis detest him. He’s a lot like Bush in that regard.

AQI is on the way out? That’s great. Now if we could just find a way to rid the country of Iraqis, everything would be great. See if you can spin the fighting in Sadr City, Jack. About half of the remaining population of Baghdad lives in Sadr City, @ 2 million, and now American soldiers are fighting them. Not AQI. Not Sunnis. Shias.

Posted by: phx8 at May 9, 2008 9:30 PM
Comment #252572

Phx8

We were talking about AQI. AQI is being destroyed. AP said that Iraq was a selling point of Al Qaeda. This is no longer true. So we have helped our Iraqi allies to nearly defeat AQI, but other challenges remain. Those other challenges were not the point of the initial statement, however.

I will have to indugle myself a little to point out that leading Democrats told us that we could never defeat AQI and that in fact we should just run away. I am glad that not everybody is so … you fill in the word. Too bad we are delivering a victory over AQI that doesn’t fit Dem talking points. Yes, now we can move to other challenges, not thanks to Harry Reid et al.

Re Hamas - I don’t have a dog in that fight. I don’t think most Americans share your animosity toward Isreal, however. Sticking to the original post, Hamas endorsed Obama. It makes no difference if you think Olmert is worse or better. He has not endorsed anybody as far as I heard.

Posted by: Jack at May 9, 2008 11:53 PM
Comment #252575

Jack,
I thought AQI was defeated when Zarqawi was killed. So, let me get this straight: we’re winning again?

Explain to people the difference between the Takrifis and AQI. You know the difference. The sunni religous fundamentalists have not gone away.

It is true most people do not share my point of view when it comes to Israel. As you may have noticed, they will condemn Palestinians for attacks killing 22 Israelis over a period of six years, and I am fine with that, with condemning attacks on civilians; yet most people have absolutely no idea what kind of slaughter the Israelis are inflicting on Palestinian civilians. The 120 Palestinias who were killed in one week in Gaza were retaliation for the death of one Israeli.

The thing is, we all have a dog in that fight. The US should not support Islamic states or Jewish states with weapons or encouragement to wage war, such as we did with the Israeli attack in Lebanon. Supporting religious claims to real estate made by one religion over another is the height of foolishness.

The cost is apparent in the cost of oil, events like 9/11, invasions of countries like Afghanistan and Iraq. US policy in the region is absolutely foolhardy. The reverberations of the US overthrow of democracy in Iran in 1952 still echo to this day. The funny thing is, almost everyone realizes what we are doing is foolish, yet we do not change.

Posted by: phx8 at May 10, 2008 1:42 AM
Comment #252577

American Pundit, you miss the point. Some members of Hamas no doubt have a preference in our presidential race. Remember Lt. Col. Kilgore’s response in Apocalypse Now, to the North Vietnamese control of a water point in which there were good waves for surfing: “Charlie don’t surf.”

Hamas doesn’t vote in America, nor do they have ANY say whatsoever, in who the American people choose to lead their country. What any member of Hamas thinks about any of our candidates is completely and totally irrelevant, or should be.

And any American who votes based on what Hamas or al-Queda or Hezbollah members say, truly fails to comprehend democracy and liberty. If they vote according to the utterings of our enemies, they become pawns of our enemies. “Charlie Don’t Surf”. This ain’t their turf, regardless of what they say or do.

An al-Queda member said they wanted Kerry, but, the truth was just as likely to have been they wanted Bush to win since he provided them with the greatest recruitment possible in the occupation of Iraq. Which begs the question, did al-Queda say they wanted Kerry while really hoping for Bush? Were they simply manipulating American voters to vote Bush instead in a bit of reverse child psychology? There is no way of knowing with the likes of al-Queda. To know would require the truth, and al-Queda is not in the truth business.

Like Charlie, Hamas, don’t surf!

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 10, 2008 3:26 AM
Comment #252584

Phx8

The Israel thing is bipartisan, rather more Democratic doing than Republican. I personally am not much concerned about it. I know it is a serious problem, but it is not one where I can propose a solution. I believe we have to wait until a proper opportunity presents itself. I don’t know when/if that will come.

On the greater Middle East, it seems to me that you are advocating a break with the past power politics, much like Condoleezza Rice wants. We are supporting democracy in Iraq against the more authoritarian practical approach to backing a strongman. Both policies have their benefits and costs.

Re the price of oil – the current price of oil reflects mostly the increased demand from places like China and India. The Arabs states are acting in a self-interested fashion, certainly not really affected by their attitude toward the Palestinians. There is probably maybe a $10 risk premium on oil because it comes from dangerous places, but I don’t think those places are any more dangerous because of the Israel situation.

Arab powers use the Palestinians as an offensive weapon. It does cost them a lot of money to keep the Palestinians poor and living in camps, but it takes attention away from their own failings. Most rich Arab countries suffer chronic labor shortages. They could have solved the Palestinian crisis years ago if they wanted.

Think of this. In 1945/6 tens of millions of Germans, Poles, Ukrainians, Romanians, Greeks and others were driven by force from homes where their ancestors had lived for many generations, perhaps thousands of years. Two years later thousands of Palestinians suffered a similar fate. You would be very surprised to read that a Polish, German, Romanian etc liberation front had attacked major airports to avenge a sixty year old grievance. Why aren’t we surprised when we hear that from the Palestinians?

Posted by: Jack at May 10, 2008 8:29 AM
Comment #252589

AP

That statement by McCain really means nothing. Hamas has no vote here in the US. So who in their right mind with any degree of good logic can not see the weak intent of McCain’s gesture. This is just another example of the despicable and desperate measures he will stoop to in efforts to denigrate Obama. It serves two purposes in that it deceptively associates Obama with Hamas and deviously rallies the neocon agenda in the middle east. Just more desperate republican sleaze in what will be a lesson in futility during this election season.

Posted by: RickIL at May 10, 2008 9:55 AM
Comment #252590
If it wasn’t for George W. Bush, al-Qaeda would be just a bunch of scruffy guys living in a cave somewhere, scratching their butts.

This really takes a willfull abandonment of history to say, considering all of the attacks against the US by al Qaeda before Bush took office, coupled with the fact that 9/11 was conceived and planned entirely under the Clinton administration…

As for the notion that ‘what Hamas says means nothing’ from people who are Obama supporters, I can only imagine the type of rhetoric that would be thrown out if Hamas or al Qaeda had said that they wanted to see McCain win. Talk about your hypocrisy.

Just more desperate republican sleaze in what will be a lesson in futility during this election season.

LOL, I noticed that Obama was more than willing to get into the mud with McCain, on what many consider the first day of the general election. SO much for the ‘squeaky clean’ Obama that he promised everyone. I think by now we can see what his word is worth…

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 10, 2008 10:29 AM
Comment #252592

The people still left in “Palestine” are the ones that the other Arab states don’t want. Most “Palestinians” live in Trans-Jordanian Palestine, now simply called Jordan.

Posted by: ohrealy at May 10, 2008 11:17 AM
Comment #252594

I’m waiting for McCain to say that the Black Panthers are training at the American Nazi Party camps in Montana.
Also: Is the bin Laden family supporting McCain?
Also: Has there ever in history been such a thing as shady, criminal, underground gun runners getting caught selling weapons to the highest bidder?

Posted by: Stephen Hines at May 10, 2008 11:29 AM
Comment #252597

Jack,
I like the words Bush and Rice offer about democracy in the Middle East. The problem is that they fail to back up the words. It’s just talk. There’s no point in promoting democracy, and then supporting attacks when the results of the democracy are Hamas and Hezbollah. Seeing Hamas and Hezbollah in power is precisely what we want. It brings them into the political process, and encourages them to take steps towards resolving conflicts peacefully, through the political process. Supporting the invasion of Lebanon and the killing of Hamas supporters is the heigth of folly.

Supporting democracy in Iraq is fine. Using the US military in fights among various rival factions makes no sense.

We’ll see if it’s for real, but supposedly the Mahdi Army in Sadr City and the Al-Maliki government cut a deal: the militias in Sadr City turn over their medium weaponry and allow Iraqi Army units into the city; and in exchange US troops cease their attacks, and are not allowed in Sadr City.

That is simply incredible, that you would suggest the problem with Palestinian refugees is that the host countries did not assimilate them. Is that how refugees populations would be treated anywhere else in the world? Come on.

Posted by: phx8 at May 10, 2008 1:09 PM
Comment #252599

Please, McSame already lost his mind years ago. That’s why he’s got a powder-keg of a temper, and why his “values and principles” conveniently change according to whatever stance or position might get him elected.

Regarding this smear, all people have to grasp is that with this Hamas “endorsement” of Obama, they have to be willing to take the word of “journalists” who work for WorldNetDaily.
The very same “journalists” who claimed to have interviewed terrorists who supposedly endorsed a Kerry presidency in 2004, and who made an identical endorsement of Hillary earlier in this primary. Now they’ve switched it to Obama, because he has won the Democratic nomination.

Personally, I can’t and won’t take the word of that particular “news source.” I know they’re a pack of liars whose every story is geared to bolster the claims of Neocon Republicans. And no doubt McSame knows these people are liars too, but doesn’t care. He’ll repeat the lie because he believes it can get him elected.
When you scrape a fingernail across the “Straight Talk Express” you’ll soon see that in reality it’s nothing but the same old Rovian Neocon Slime Machine, wearing a new coat of paint.


Btw, it appears that there is some audio evidence that may well expose this whole thing as a blatant fabrication.
But, I don’t need to wait for professional voice analysts to study that evidence to know with certainty that it isn’t true.
All I needed to know is that the source of the claim came from WorldNetDaily.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at May 10, 2008 2:55 PM
Comment #252601

phx8, Bingo on the Bush admin’s duplicitous approach to democracy in the Middle East.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 10, 2008 3:54 PM
Comment #252611

McCain voted for the War in Iraq, and Obama voted against it. That vote for invading Iraq contributed to Hillary’s loss to Obama. The same bad judgment demonstrated by McCain will be the reason he loses in November. The way they voted on Iraq tells you all you need to know.

Posted by: phx8 at May 10, 2008 9:15 PM
Comment #252612
McCain voted for the War in Iraq, and Obama voted against it.

Wrong.

The same bad judgment

As for Judgement… watch the middle column in the next week.

BTW, if you wanted the US to pull immediately out of Iraq (or within the next president’s 1st term) you supported the wrong guy. Obama’s plan is for a 16 month drawdown *IF* there is no genocide or civil war because of our leaving, which we know there will be. The two guys you should have been supporting are no longer running.

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 10, 2008 11:34 PM
Comment #252613

AP,

Don’t let anything surprise you, it’s free-for-all time. How do we know? Well, even this thread brought out the BHO slogan!

After all, anyone with Hussein as a middle name must be a terrorist in disguise! We lefties are just trying to slip someone into office that will declare Sharia Law!

After all we’ve been pushing for moral reform for decades! Yawn —— sigh ———-!

Posted by: KansasDem at May 11, 2008 12:03 AM
Comment #252614

Rhinehold,
Rhinehold,
I’m happy with Obama’s platform and potential as the next president. But what makes you think he was my first choice?

My biggest concern isn’t over whether Obama’s views and mine are a 100% match. It’s close enough, and a much better than McCain. My biggest concern is that some crackpot will try to kill Obama. There is a substanital fringe element in this country which is profoundly bigoted. The hatred of some is almost palpable. Unfortunately, that hatred is being whipped into a frenzy- Obama is a negro, Obama is a Muslim, Obama is a terrorist, Obama is a liberal, Obama is unamerican, Obama is unpatriotic, and so on. A friend of mine sat in the front row for an Obama speech yesterday, and according to him, security was absolutely everywhere. Let’s hope it is- I don’t even like writing a comment about this.

Posted by: phx8 at May 11, 2008 12:41 AM
Comment #252616

phx8,
I think we should try to take heart in the thought that the secret service is currently protecting a couple of lawless criminals who have committed a whole series of crimes against humanity and who richly deserve impeachment (even when it’s “off the table”), from being shot.

MICHELLE OBAMA: The question came up again and again, what people were most concerned about — they were afraid. It was fear. Fear again raising its ugly head in one of the most important decisions we would ever make. Fear. Fear of everything.

Fear that we might lose. Fear that we might get hurt. Fear that this would be ugly. Fear that it would hurt our family. Fear.

But you know the reason I said yes — because I am tired of being afraid. (Applause.)

I am tired of living in a country where every decision we’ve made over the last 10 years wasn’t for something, but it was because people told us we had to fear something.

We had to fear people who look different from us. Fear people who believed things that were different from us. Fear of one another right here in our own backyards.

I am so tired of fear. And I don’t want my girls to live in a country and a world based on fear. That’s why — and we have to admit it — that’s why we are in this war. We are in this war because for eight years we were told to be afraid. And everybody followed suit. Everybody cut and run. Because it was very unpopular not to be afraid, to talk about hope and possibility.


Posted by: Veritas Vincit at May 11, 2008 3:28 AM
Comment #252624

Phx8

My point re Palestinians is that 60 years ago when they had the intial problem it was a time when literally millions of people were displaced in lots of other places. Those other people, much greater in number and with as much claim to ancestoral homes, fit in someplace else, became reasonably prosperous and are not a peristent danger to peace.

The only reason we still have some of them living in camps is that some Arab states are rich enough to keep them there for generations.

Posted by: Jack at May 11, 2008 11:22 AM
Comment #252627

phx8


” My biggest concern is that some crackpot will try to kill Obama. There is a substanital fringe element in this country which is profoundly bigoted. The hatred of some is almost palpable.”

i wouldn’t worry about that, he’s well protected, as are all presidential candidates. lets be honest though there are just as many looneys on either side of the aisle. all one has to do is look at ELF, and the other home grown terror groups, who would IMO be just as likely to try and kill mc cain, or any other rep. candidate, as the KKK would to kill obama.

Posted by: dbs at May 11, 2008 12:32 PM
Comment #252628

phx8

“McCain voted for the War in Iraq, and Obama voted against it.”

obama wasn’t elected to the US senate until nov 04, and wasn’t seated until jan 05. how did he vote on the war when he wasn’t a member of the senate ?

Posted by: dbs at May 11, 2008 12:51 PM
Comment #252630


Just imagine what the outcome would be if the people in the entire world could vote for either McCain, Obama or Hillary for that matter.

Why don’t we poll the Iraqi people and see who they would endorse.

Posted by: jlw at May 11, 2008 1:53 PM
Comment #252637

“Saying “our relationship has changed” will not ensure that Pastor Jeremiah Wright, Ayes, Rezko, Meeks, and Farrakhan will not be invited by a President Barack Obama to the White House.”

How would we know who visits Obama in the white house since W and his administration set the precedent that makes the visitors logs to the white house private? In fact despite being ordered to release these secret service logs the administration has continued to withhold these logs and continue the legal battle. It seems the conservative position on this issue has been it’s none of the people business who visits the white house these past 7 years. Why would you make this an issue now?http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,351948,00.html

“What is clearly known, since Democrats have taken over Congress, Americans are paying more in the gas pump and at the grocery store.”

We have been paying more at the pump and as a result the grocery store the past 7 years. Why would you say its only the past 2 years and infer it was due to the dems having the smallest of majorities in the Congress. What bills have passed by the dems in Congress that would make any rational person beleive it is the fault of the dems in Congress and not the result of 30 years of republican/ conservative leadership at the federal level?

Posted by: j2t2 at May 11, 2008 5:44 PM
Comment #252638

Oh, this is priceless!

It’s true, Obama was not in the Senate when the vote to invade Iraq was made in 2002. Here is an excerpt from his speech on October 2, 2002:

“I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.”

The speech is widely available on multiple web sites.

That is an example of good judgment. That is an example of leadership. That is an example of being spectacularly right, in public, on record, on a critical issue about which so many people were tragically and disastrously wrong.

Posted by: phx8 at May 11, 2008 6:47 PM
Comment #252639

phx8

“McCain voted for the War in Iraq, and Obama voted against it.”


“Oh, this is priceless!”

“It’s true, Obama was not in the Senate when the vote to invade Iraq was made in 2002.”


whats priceless is your condescending attitute. it was your statement not mine. he may have objected to the war, but he couldn’t have voted on it. you said it, i didn’t.

care to adress my other comment or are you done being a funny guy ?

Posted by: dbs at May 11, 2008 7:08 PM
Comment #252641

dbs,
What other comment? The one suggesting the ELF is the terrorist equivalent of the KKK? The ELF has never killed anyone, or even injured anyone, as far as I know. They destroy property. The KKK is a hate group, and its affilitates are responsible for killing people. There’s no comparison between the ELF and the KKK. There is no equivalence. Why would you want the point addressed? While it is true there are questionable people on both ends of the political spectrum, there is nothing inciting leftists to resort to violence the way elements of the right are doing, with repeated character slurs of the lowest nature directed towards Obama.

Republicans are feeding the extremist right wing fringe by running a campaign based upon character assassination. It’s a campaign calculated to incite hatred. It’s a campaign almost entirely devoid of any attempt to address issues. Listen to Rush Limbaugh for even a few minutes when he talks about Obama. It’s pretty shocking, really venomous hate-filled stuff, and I am very concerned that, despite the security provided by the Secret Service, the campaign of character assassination will result in a literal assassination.

Jack,
Are you sure AQI is almost finished in Iraq? The Iraqi governor of Ninevah province just said AQI is in charge of Mosul.

Posted by: phx8 at May 11, 2008 7:55 PM
Comment #252643

phx8

“What other comment?”

the one you just adressed. you answered your own question. sorry ELF is a terror orginization. destroying private property to make a political statement is a terrorist act. that was just one example off the top of my head, if i looked i could probably find others. the hate you accuse the republicans of stirring up pales in comparison to the lefts hatred of goerge bush and the republican party. i should know, i read the comments by the left on this site daily.

Posted by: dbs at May 11, 2008 8:31 PM
Comment #252644

dbs said: “destroying private property to make a political statement is a terrorist act.”

Yes, just like dumping tea from cargo ships into the Boston Harbor. But, we call that patriotic, not terrorist, because we did it, as opposed to someone else.

One of the greatest mistakes of the 21st century was to view our fight against Islamic Jihadists as a war on terrorism. In a war, there are two sides each claiming legitimacy for their cause and justification for their violent acts. Islamic Jihadists NEVER should have been granted any title other than criminals against humanity.

The second greatest mistake was to engage them with a full blown military campaign, as opposed to covert policing and military intelligence pursuit. By engaging them with a full military assault we presented ourselves as the aggressors to much of the Islamic World and provided the recruitment posters the criminal element called al-Queda needed to beef up both their cause and pledges to it.

Barack Obama is the only candidate for president who understands that the future successful eradication of al-Queda will come from a united international campaign to deter, apprehend, and prosecute criminals against humanity, whether they are Islamic, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist or atheist. That is a cause all modern nations, including Middle Eastern nations, can sign on to eventually and be diplomatically pulled into participating in.

Obama understands the lessons of history, and that one people’s terrorists are another people’s patriots, as was the case of the colonialists and the British at the founding of our own nation. Then it was we being called terrorists and insurrectionists destroying private party for their political ends.

We must dispense with the association of Islam and terrorism, which galvanizes members of the Islamic Faith to support the likes of al-Queda. We should have engaged in a war with ‘Islamists’. Our cause after 9/11 was shared by nearly all nations of the world including Islamic nations, to fight the criminals who launched such heinous acts against humanity. We promptly lost that support when we launched our wars against terrorists exemplified by the invasion of not one, but two Islamic nations.

We need to get that international support back by going after those whom all civilized nations are want to go after, the criminals who would kill innocent persons of any nation for personal power and gratification. And we need to shed that depiction of ourselves as going after innocent persons in other nations for our own nationalist reasons (Oil).

Right or wrong, that is how America is viewed by far more people that would have been the case if we had pursued criminals against humanity with international policing and covert military intelligence operations.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 11, 2008 8:48 PM
Comment #252645

dbs

the hate you accuse the republicans of stirring up pales in comparison to the lefts hatred of goerge bush and the republican party.

I am sure there are some who hate GW. But I think that for most you are confusing hatred for disgust. The last seven years and four months have provided a plethora of verifiable cause for such disdain. He, his administration and lockstep republican legislature have proven themselves time and again incompetent, negligent and incapable of compromise. His term has been an utter failure. Stating an unpleasant truth does not automatically mean that it must be associated with hate.

The hatred phx8 refers to is an agenda to falsely build hate where non should exist to serve a personal agenda. It is a form of low and devious deception which serves no one well. Other than those who stand to selfishly and unconscionably gain from such unwarranted character assassination.

Posted by: RickIL at May 11, 2008 8:50 PM
Comment #252646
The ELF has never killed anyone, or even injured anyone, as far as I know.

Sorry, spiking trees so that when loggers hit the spikes when cutting into trees, causing the blades to break and shoot out injuring loggers is EPIC FAIL.

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 11, 2008 9:14 PM
Comment #252649

david

“Yes, just like dumping tea from cargo ships into the Boston Harbor. But, we call that patriotic, not terrorist, because we did it, as opposed to someone else.”

sorry david, vandalization of someone elses private property is not akin to the boston tea party. you can try to paint these eco terrorist as some sort of 21st century patriots, but thier not, thier criminals plain and simple.

while i can appreciate your zeal for obama, i don’t share it.


RickIL


“But I think that for most you are confusing hatred for disgust.”

rick, i know hate when i see it. while i respect your opinion, and your right to voice your displeasure, and opposition to the policies of the last 7 years, i can tell the difference between civil discourse, and hatred, and there is plenty of hatred of george bush here at WB.

Posted by: dbs at May 11, 2008 9:19 PM
Comment #252650

Rhinehold,
Can you name anyone who was injured when ELF spiked those trees? ELF spiked trees, which is a crime, of course. But I don’t think anyone was hurt.


dbs,
Comparing the KKK with ELF really doesn’t fly. The ELF membership could be counted on two hands. The KKK membership could be counted in the thousands. The KKK didn’t spike trees. They lynched people from trees. Big difference.

But as RickIL said, there is a big difference between disgust, or passionate disagreement, or attacking the policies of a candidate, versus creating “an agenda to falsely build hate where none should exist…”

What concerns me is that attacks from some sectors of the GOP- not McCain, btw- that these attacks are calculated to incite emotions of hatred.

Like most of us, I am absolutely fine with disagreements about Iraq, or health care, or any policy. By all means, let’s talk about it! It’s the attacks which are calculated to incite hatred- Obama is a Muslim, a terrorist, an Unruly Negro, unpatriotic, unamerican, an elitist whose wife hates America, and so on- that worry me. If this is the basis of the GOP presidential campaign, we are all in big trouble.

Posted by: phx8 at May 11, 2008 10:01 PM
Comment #252651

dbs said “i know hate when i see it. while i respect your opinion, and your right to voice your displeasure, and opposition to the policies of the last 7 years, i can tell the difference between civil discourse, and hatred, and there is plenty of hatred of george bush here at WB.”

Jeez what a line of crap that is. dbs think 3 things- Hate, Bill Clinton and Rightwingers. Sort of puts the line about W into perspective doesnt it?

dbs for the past 3 decades the right has had a hate campaign against liberals and liberalism. They have defiled the name and the people. So I am sure you do know hate when you see it as so much of it has come from the rightwingers. Look at most of these threads and you will find that most name calling starts when a rightie has to spew his hate of liberals/left in the thread.

Is it civil discourse when the righties do it and hate when the lefties do it? Maybe your partisan blinders keep you from recognizing hate as well as you think you do.

Posted by: j2t2 at May 11, 2008 10:43 PM
Comment #252653

j2t2,

The right does *NOT* have a monopoly on such things…

Evil, mean, despicible, racist, ignorant, criminal, etc… All names used by the left to describe those on the right.

Then these same people claim that they want to ‘heal the country’. Please, if that were the real goal they would not go down the name calling road. And to suggest they only do it when a ‘rightie’ does it first is laughable.

For example, I was listening to Stephanie Miller on Sirius Left tonight, and the vile putricity that was being spewed made almost want to turn Hannity on…

That’s quite the feat.

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 11, 2008 11:11 PM
Comment #252654
Can you name anyone who was injured when ELF spiked those trees? ELF spiked trees, which is a crime, of course. But I don’t think anyone was hurt.

I’ll look up the names, but the information I have was that there were injuries. This was when the organization was called “Earth First!”, they lost a lot of backing because of those injuries so they stopped spiking and changed their name. But they are the same people with the same agenda, just a different PR spin.

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 11, 2008 11:13 PM
Comment #252656

David:

We cannot even get support for Afghanistan. Europe simply is not a player on the international scene. Like it or not,if NATO cannot help with a “tiny” war like Afghanistan I am not sure what “help” the greater international community would be in tracking town terrorists. Europe simply does not have the military assets anymore. They are pretty weak.

Secondly, Obama doesn’t have any experience in the matters you mention. He is simply repeating back his liberal ideology. Of course he was against the war. He was probably against he first Iraqi war. He is protectionist (Anti Nafta), Activitist on the supreme court, (Against Roberts). He speaks very well, as in the best of my lifetime, but is pretty predictable. Classic Liberalism.

What he is not, is a uniter. He will be fortunate to unite his party much less the whole country. His party with him at the head is the least united that I remember since Kennedy refused to shake Carter’s hand in 1980. Where are his gifts uniting? There certainly is not evidence of it in this campaign.

Should he be elected, it will be interesting to see who fills the vacuum created by US troops leaving Iraq on a rigid timetable. I would assume Iraq would fill this void.

My prference would be a slow methodical withdrawal over several years, based on decisions from the generals on the ground. We have many positive examples of US troops creating stability for the new governments to form. We had over 200,000 troops in Germany for over 50 years, (1945 to 1995). The results speak for themselves.

The left’s approach seems to be that two wrongs make a right. If we got into Iraq with a “rush to judgment” let’s reverse the error and leave Iraq to fend for itself. Let’s be rash, after all, we were wrong to get into Iraq so let’s just leave. Even it it means hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths are risked in the process.

Obama’s views are very risky. It’s a risk Americans might just take this fall.


Posted by: Craig Holmes at May 11, 2008 11:19 PM
Comment #252657
A 12-foot section of the huge sawblade had broken off and hit George Alexander in the throat and face, ripping through his face mask and cutting into his jugular vein. His jaw was broken in five places and a dozen teeth were knocked out. The blade was wrapped around him, and his co-workers had to blowtorch it off while they tried to keep him from bleeding to death.
Posted by: Rhinehold at May 11, 2008 11:27 PM
Comment #252659

“The right does *NOT* have a monopoly on such things… Evil, mean, despicible, racist, ignorant, criminal, etc… All names used by the left to describe those on the right.”

True Rhinehold but I never said the right had a monopoly did I. In fact I was responding to a comment that IMHO implied the lefties had a monopoly on the name calling.

“Then these same people claim that they want to ‘heal the country’. Please, if that were the real goal they would not go down the name calling road.”

Well Rhinehold one of the techniques salespeople use when trying to sell the product/company/idea etc. is to use the same phrasing, mimic the style of speech, stance etc.. Myself Im just sick of hearing the righties whine and blame and refuse to tolerate the crap from them. So dont confuse me with the dems that want to heal the country. I wish them well and hope they can but I have never said I was one of them. Seems Obama on the other hand has higher aspirations than myself and appears to be able to work towards the goal of healing the country in both his actions and his words.

” And to suggest they only do it when a ‘rightie’ does it first is laughable.”

Rhinehold I was commenting specifically on WB so go back and read a few threads then see if you are still laughing. BTW if you would take a moment to read what I actually said you may find that I didnt say “they only do it when a ‘rightie’ does it first” instead you will find that I said “you will find that most name calling starts when a rightie…”, which as you can see doesnt mean everytime but instead most of the time.


“For example, I was listening to Stephanie Miller on Sirius Left tonight, and the vile putricity that was being spewed made almost want to turn Hannity on…”

So after 20 years of abuse from the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity et al the libs decide to do what sells on talk radio and you have a problem with it? Sounds like your “free market only when it benefits you” is showing. Perhaps if the righties would have demanded a minimal level of intelligence in their AM talk shows years ago we wouldnt be in this tit for tat mess today.

Myself I will stick with Thom Hartmann and Ed Shultz until I can find something better.

Posted by: j2t2 at May 12, 2008 12:26 AM
Comment #252660
Sounds like your “free market only when it benefits you” is showing.

How do you figure? In fact, I think that by turning off the channel I exercised the free market in the prescribed method…

As for the tit for tat, it just goes to show what hypocisy is. ‘They’ are doing something we think is wrong, so we will do it too? I’m not sure I follow the logic.

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 12, 2008 1:11 AM
Comment #252661

Rhinehold,
Rhinehold,
An unfortunate logger named George Alexander was injured in a case of tree spiking. No one knows for sure who did it, although one suspect was a conservative Republican who owned the adjacent property. There is no proof ELF was ever responsible for any incidents of tree spiking which caused injury. A trivial example, but kind of interesting. There were advocates for tree spiking, but the idea was to prevent trees from being cut down, not to see them cut down and injure someone in the process. It underscores the original point- there really is no comparison between groups like the KKK and so-called ‘eco-terrorists.’


Posted by: phx8 at May 12, 2008 1:48 AM
Comment #252662

Hey AP, I believe that the correct terminology is “lost his bearings”. I laughed out loud when I heard Obama say that. Fantastic way of bringing up the age issue while maintaining plausible deniability.

Sorry that your girl Hillary appears to have lost the nomination. Me, I like the dream of Obama but I’m terrified the GOP machine will find a way to cripple him. With Hillary, you knew she was never going to allow them to get away with anything.

Obama seems to want to rise above all that and while I admire that, I loved that Hillary not only knew how to but seemed to relish fighting dirty and I wouldn’t have minded her going up against McCain.

Posted by: Nikita at May 12, 2008 2:44 AM
Comment #252667

“How do you figure? In fact, I think that by turning off the channel I exercised the free market in the prescribed method… As for the tit for tat, it just goes to show what hypocisy is. ‘They’ are doing something we think is wrong, so we will do it too? I’m not sure I follow the logic.”

Well the libs were criticized for not having talk radio that was commercially viable so after years they started applying the same verbal abuse the conservatives turned into an artform on the AM dial. Yet in your mind it is the libs that are the hypocrites for finally deciding to join the propaganda battle. Now if you really turned the station off instead of turning to Hannity then it would seem progress was made as the hate spewing Hannity didnt reach you with his propaganda either. Its the fighting fire with fire approach I would guess Rhinehold.

You know Rhinehold perhaps its just that those Stephanie Miller types are like me and havent stated that they are part of the “heal the country” crowd you seem to think is so hypocritical because you have chosen to group us all together instead of realizing that it is Obama and some of those who advocate for him that are trying to heal the country. You will need to understand that unlike the many that are working with Obama to heal the country some of us, while we appreciate his wise approach to politics, dont feel we have to be in lockstep with everything he says and does in order to support him in his campaign to become POTUS. So as you mistakingly throw the “they are all hypocritical” thing around you may want to be careful to not mistake my words and deeds with those of the Obama supporters and life wont be so confusing for you.

Afterall its liberals and progressives not libertarians and conservatives you are bashing and we are more a “big tent crowd” than a “march in lockstep at any price crowd”. ;)

Posted by: j2t2 at May 12, 2008 9:05 AM
Comment #252673

This ELF thing sounds like a boogeyman being promoted by the right wing, to find something to complain about in the environmental movement.

One problem with BHO is that he is post-industrial. He comes from a family that moved to vacationland, with a service economy, rather than a traditional economy, based on manufacturing. I don’t think the voters are ready to move on to this next generation yet.

Posted by: ohrealy at May 12, 2008 10:19 AM
Comment #252674

j2t2

“True Rhinehold but I never said the right had a monopoly did I. In fact I was responding to a comment that IMHO implied the lefties had a monopoly on the name calling.”

where did i suggest the left had a MONOPOLY on name calling ?

“Myself Im just sick of hearing the righties whine and blame and refuse to tolerate the crap from them.”

thats a two way steet j2.

“Seems Obama on the other hand has higher aspirations than myself and appears to be able to work towards the goal of healing the country in both his actions and his words.”

yes even those klinging to god, guns, and hatred towards illegal aliens.


“So after 20 years of abuse from the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity et al the libs decide to do what sells on talk radio and you have a problem with it?”


i see so when limbaugh does it, it’s reprehensable, but if the left does it, it’s ok. i guess then according to you two wrongs actually do make a right. BTW neither bothers me, i just find it interesting you would make that argument.

“Afterall its liberals and progressives not libertarians and conservatives you are bashing and we are more a “big tent crowd” than a “march in lockstep at any price crowd”. ;)”

LOL… ya, now tell me the one about goldie locks and the three bears.

phx8


“there really is no comparison between groups like the KKK and so-called ‘eco-terrorists.’”

they’re both extremist, and if you actually paid any attention to what i said, that was just ONE example i used. where did i say they were identical ? you said you were concerned about RIGHTIES trying to assasinate obama, i merely pointed out that there were extremists on either side. you were the one that felt the need to defend ELF.


ohrealy


“This ELF thing sounds like a boogeyman being promoted by the right wing, to find something to complain about in the environmental movement.”


no, actually i started the ball rolling. i was trying to point out that extremist exist on either side of thr aisle. little did i know i would start this firesorm ( no punn intended ).

Posted by: dbs at May 12, 2008 11:40 AM
Comment #252675

what a great bunch of guys.

http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/271

Posted by: dbs at May 12, 2008 11:54 AM
Comment #252712

“where did i suggest the left had a MONOPOLY on name calling ?”
Dont know dbs you will need to ask Rhinehold abouy monopoly not me. I was referring to your comment “i can tell the difference between civil discourse, and hatred, and there is plenty of hatred of george bush here at WB.” Didnt notice where you talked about the repub/conservative hatred for all things Clinton , as if you hadnt noticed all of that hatred during the ‘90’s.


“thats a two way steet j2.”

sure is and when we start hearing hate and Bush without hate and Clinton it just seems you want to continue down that 2 way street to me.

“yes even those klinging to god, guns, and hatred towards illegal aliens.”
Seems that Obama is just a uniter not a divider doesnt it.

“i see so when limbaugh does it, it’s reprehensable, but if the left does it, it’s ok. i guess then according to you two wrongs actually do make a right. BTW neither bothers me, i just find it interesting you would make that argument”

Not an arguement dbs just an opinion. Although reprehensible and Limbaugh does seem to go together. But as I said in the same paragraph “Perhaps if the righties would have demanded a minimal level of intelligence in their AM talk shows years ago we wouldnt be in this tit for tat mess today.” and went on in the next post to further explain “Yet in your mind it is the libs that are the hypocrites for finally deciding to join the propaganda battle. Its the fighting fire with fire approach I would guess Rhinehold.”

“LOL… ya, now tell me the one about goldie locks and the three bears.”

How about the one about the conservative who walks into a bar with… nah nevermind.

Posted by: j2t2 at May 12, 2008 11:41 PM
Comment #252723

Nikita, not to worry. While Obama remains civil, the Democratic 527 PACs are free to go toe to toe with McCain’s and the GOP’s 527 PAC supporters. And they are already preparing to get as dirty as need be.

It is a shame that America is so emotionally immature as to make politics a gutteral and emotional exercise, instead of the reasoned and dispassionate objective exercise which lies still, after 232 years, as only a potential of the American character.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 13, 2008 3:50 AM
Comment #252724

Craig said: “We cannot even get support for Afghanistan. Europe simply is not a player on the international scene. Like it or not,if NATO cannot help with a “tiny” war like Afghanistan I am not sure what “help” the greater international community would be in tracking town terrorists.”

First, you comment is not factual, at all. It is a true multi-national force in Afghanistan. If they have reservations as to how to proceed in Afghanistan, it is in part due to their reluctance to recreate the same errors we made in Iraq.

In a way you put the cart before the horse. If we had not invaded Iraq, we would have led in Afghanistan and far more decisively and with much greater support internationally. To now accuse other nations of reluctance in following our lead after Iraq, is like accusing the sun of shedding light. Obama is about restoring that leadership in the international community through cooperation and shared efforts, not unilateral military campaigns that come begging for international help when we’ve screwed the pooch.

Then you said: “Secondly, Obama doesn’t have any experience in the matters you mention.”

No president has experience in all the matters that will have decide upon, which is precisely why the President has a cabinet and advisors with experience. Obama knows more than McCain about the Middle East. Obama knows his Sunnis from Shiites and al-Queda from Iranians, unlike McCain who had to make an ignoramous of himself multiple times on the campaign trail before being educated by Sen. Joe Lieberman. McCain too will require a cabinet of experts to advise him on such things.

One difference between McCain and Obama is clear. Obama knows what he doesn’t know. McCain just bleats out what he doesn’t know without consulting first with those who do. My confidence has to go with the person who knows what they don’t know and therefore will seek out the information they need to make decisions.

There is no greater ignorance or lack of wisdom than that which presumes to know what it doesn’t. And in the White House, no more dangerous a president. Pres. Bush has so voluminously demonstrated this for all of history to record.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 13, 2008 4:04 AM
Comment #252728
My confidence has to go with the person who knows what they don’t know

Yet, you lambasted McCain for admitting he was not an economist…

*shrug*

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 13, 2008 6:48 AM
Comment #252737

j2t2

perhaps you need to go back to the top of this thread and start over. phx8 made a comment about reps. and hate speech, and was concerned that someone would try to assasinate obama. i reassured him that obama was well protected, and reminded him that extremists exist on both sides of the aisle. i used elf as and example of a radical left group. then the elf argunent started. i also said that there was plenty of hate for bush by the left here at WB. what does clinton have to do with this ?

““Perhaps if the righties would have demanded a minimal level of intelligence in their AM talk shows years ago we wouldnt be in this tit for tat mess today.””

i guess it’s just a matter of perspective j2. the only reason you LEFTIES ( you like that, i can use cute little names too. ) hate limbaugh is that he’s been successful in getting out the conservative messege. you may not like his tactics, but they are effective. the fact his show has been able to stay on the air for 20yrs. is due to listenership, and the ability to bring in advertising revenue, something none of the liberal talk shows have been able to do.

up until the rise of coservative talk radio, the messege was controlled by the MSM, tv, and print, most all leaned left. when talk radio bacame popular the MSM lost it’s monopoly, and here we are. you may hate the consevative messege, which critisizes liberalism, but it’s here to stay your monopoly is over, and trying to pass legislation forcing broadcasters to carry your nessege too, isn’t going to work. find a liberal radio format that works and it will thrive. that is if anyone chooses to listen.

Posted by: dbs at May 13, 2008 10:56 AM
Comment #252741

dbs,
The MSM message was controlled by the Fairness Doctrine until the Reagan administration. Its repeal led to the rise of right wing talk radio. Technologically savvy liberals turned to the internet. Technologically backward conservatives turned to talk radio. We see the result today. Right wing talk radio dominates those airwaves, and relies upon formats which ensure contradictory ideas are not effectively presented. A portion of the population now believes patently false things: Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11, Global Warming is not caused by humans, and so on. Meanwhile, free of the corporate dominance which controls radio and television, the internet is dominated by liberals, and some sites are becoming important factors in politics. As a result, we see the majority of the well-informed portion of the population wanting an end to the War in Iraq, yet the MSM offers military anaylyst propaganda without apology, and heart-rending stories intended to build “support for the troops.”

Posted by: phx8 at May 13, 2008 12:08 PM
Comment #252743

phx8

“The MSM message was controlled by the Fairness Doctrine until the Reagan administration. Its repeal led to the rise of right wing talk radio. Technologically savvy liberals turned to the internet.”

the left could have jumped on the talk radio bandwagon. they weren’t successful. in order to survive you need listeners, which bring advertising revenue. no audience, no interest from advertisers. this alone says volumes about the liberal messege. no one wants to listen.

where the internet comes in to play here i don’t know, as it would not be a viable alternative for over a decade.

the internet is in many cases free, look at this site for example, what does it cost us to exchange and debate points of view ? this makes it more attractive to liberal proliferation as it’s free. what does it cost to set up a website ? my guess is it’s nowhere near the cost of setting up a viable radio station. in short your opinion has to have enough market appeal to pay for day to day operations, and thus far it hasn’t.

“Right wing talk radio dominates those airwaves, and relies upon formats which ensure contradictory ideas are not effectively presented.”

once again why can’t liberal talk radio do the same thing ? all you need is an audience.also if you allow a candidate on to CAMPAIGN, you still have to offer the opposing candidate equal time.

” A portion of the population now believes patently false things: Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11, Global Warming is not caused by humans,”

there’s people out there that believe all kinds of things. BTW the jury is still out on MMGW, and from what i understand there are people now jumping ship on that one. you may accept it as fact, but that doesn’t make it so. there are people who believe 911 was an inside job. nuts will always exist.


“As a result, we see the majority of the well-informed portion of the population wanting an end to the War in Iraq, yet the MSM offers military anaylyst propaganda without apology, and heart-rending stories intended to build “support for the troops.” “

this is your opinion, as if you and your friends on the internet are the only ones that are well informed. i also don’t know what the rest of this statement is. since when does the MSM portray the iraq war in a favorable light ?

Posted by: dbs at May 13, 2008 1:04 PM
Comment #252744

dbs,
The MSM consistently portrays the war in a favorable light. Do you see any pictures of dead and mangled bodies? Of course not. That would offend public sensibilities. Next thing you know, people would reject the war. Ever see the results of a US “precision” airstrike in an urban area in Iraq? Ever see the pictures or even hear the names of innocent civilians who are killed?

Posted by: phx8 at May 13, 2008 1:44 PM
Comment #252746

phx8

“The MSM consistently portrays the war in a favorable light. Do you see any pictures of dead and mangled bodies? Of course not. That would offend public sensibilities. Next thing you know, people would reject the war. Ever see the results of a US “precision” airstrike in an urban area in Iraq? Ever see the pictures or even hear the names of innocent civilians who are killed?”

this proves nothing. how often does the media show the mangled bodies of those killed by drunken drivers ? would you then argue they are portraying drunk driving in a positive light because they don’t show the actual carnage ? read the paper, watch the news, what do you see ? i’ll tell you because i do so every day. you read headlines that read, more US soldiers killed, US marines killed by ambush, women and children killed in US airstrike, and the list go’s on. the fact they don’t actually include gory photos means they’re pro war ?

what would be the point of listing the names of civilians killed ? who in the US would recocnize these people by name ? check the local iraqi papers you’ll probably find the names listed, because they’de be relevant.

Posted by: dbs at May 13, 2008 2:02 PM
Comment #252751

dbs,
Comparing deaths in car accidents with deaths in war is not a valid comparison. We accept the first case as an ordinary and acceptable peril. But the bottom line is that society does ‘accept’ it, and the MSM does not discourage car travel by showing the results of accidents. Reports of deaths in car accidents would be horrifying, and we might reduce speed limits to, say 30 mpg, if there were a coordinated campaign, if we were subjected to pictures and films. However, reports which are printed words carry less emotional impact.

Reports which do not mention names make it easy to dehumanize victims. If they are merely ‘insurgents’ or Iraqis, counted singly or by the dozens, there is no emotional impact, no compassion, no blame assigned.

Posted by: phx8 at May 13, 2008 3:04 PM
Comment #252754

phx8


“Comparing deaths in car accidents with deaths in war is not a valid comparison.”

it is when your talking about the presentation of extremely gory images on prime time television, in order to stir up furor. maybe we should show the gory images of those killed by violent criminals, because gun control laws took away thier ability to defend themselves. think that might stir up a little more anger against gun control zealots ?

“But the bottom line is that society does ‘accept’ it, and the MSM does not discourage car travel by showing the results of accidents.”

why would they discourage car travel, when we’re talking about drunken driving ? do you think those images would stir up more fury over drunken driving ? sorry, but it’s a perfectly valid comparison.

“reports which are printed words carry less emotional impact.”

that may very well be, but that wasn’t the point. you said the media presented the war in a positive light, i said you were wrong, and you are.


“Reports which do not mention names make it easy to dehumanize victims. If they are merely ‘insurgents’ or Iraqis, counted singly or by the dozens, there is no emotional impact, no compassion, no blame assigned.”

i see, so if they said hassan ali baba was killed in the US led air raid today that would somehow have more of an impact on US citizens who don’t have a personal connection to the individual ? that makes zero sense. no blame assigned when the headline starts off( US airstrike kills women and children)? sounds like blame assigned there to me.

here’s one for you, how do you feel about the media ride alongs with terrorists as they plan the killing of US soldiers, and marines. i guess in your eyes that is also pro war media bias.

Posted by: dbs at May 13, 2008 4:39 PM
Comment #252755

“Obama knows what he doesn’t know.” Thanks for the laugh. BHO is John Monad from Cincinnati.

Red states are red because of media ownership, and the ability of that ownership to provide unrestricted brainwashing and propaganda to that population. People can often be found repeating nonsense that they don’t even believe, against their own interests, because they are told that they are unpatriotic if they have any different views.

The current Rpblcn/”conservative” party is the Nixon/GHWBush party. Nixon is dead, and GHWBush is over. Something else will have to come next, but they haven’t figured out yet how to sell the newest version of McCarthyism, again, to the next generation.

Posted by: ohrealy at May 13, 2008 4:40 PM
Comment #252760

dbs,
You write: “… How do you feel about the media ride alongs with terrorists as they plan the killing of US soldiers, and marines. i guess in your eyes that is also pro war media bias.”

That is a good example. You and I have no problem condemning enemy snipers killing American soldiers. (And they are not ‘terrorists’. They may be insurgents or guerrillas, but however much we dislike it, attacks against our soldiers are not terrorist attacks. By definition, terrorists target civilians). Showing enemy snipers killing American soldiers on tv seems like propaganda, intended to discourage us from fighting. It discourages war, but since it is from an enemy perspective, we reject it. However, when film of the war shows American planes bombing a building, or firing tanks or other heavy weapons at a structure, why, that’s perfectly acceptable. You will never, ever see an American soldier blowing the brains out of an Iraqi.

War is a last resort. It is something to be fought when all other choices have been exhausted, and survival and national security are on the line. Iraq does not meet that criteria.

Posted by: phx8 at May 13, 2008 5:23 PM
Comment #252763

phx8

“You and I have no problem condemning enemy snipers killing American soldiers.”

you’ve completely missed the point again. i hate the enemy, but i understand they have thier own fight. what they do is expected.

what i have a problem with is the US media riding along, and watching it happen, and then using to undermine US morale. it makes you wonder where there true alegiance lies. this is the very same media you earlier accused of being a schill for the military establishment, when it seems they do everything they can to portay the war effort in a negative light.

“Showing enemy snipers killing American soldiers on tv seems like propaganda, intended to discourage us from fighting.”

yes, propaganda pushed by the US run media.


“It discourages war, but since it is from an enemy perspective, we reject it.”

i reject it because the very media who are willing to use it to undermine our military effort are IMO traitors, and deserve none of the benefits this country offers them.


“However, when film of the war shows American planes bombing a building, or firing tanks or other heavy weapons at a structure, why, that’s perfectly acceptable.”


gotcha, pro US propaganda meant to build morale is bad, because it might offend the enemy. it’s ok though to allow the media to air anti US propaganda, even if it results in emboldening the enemy resulting in added US casualties.


” You will never, ever see an American soldier blowing the brains out of an Iraqi.”

do you think for a second that if the footage existed they wouldn’t use it to further undermine the war effort ? do you remember the marine caught on camera killing the insurgent in the mosque, because he was pretending to be dead, and the outcry from the antiwar crowd trying to mischaracterize the entire incident, as a brutal unprovoked murder. BTW which ended up not being the case. anything to end the war, even if it means selling out your own military personel. makes me wonder who the real enemy is.


Posted by: dbs at May 13, 2008 6:03 PM
Comment #252768

dbs,
I only know of one case where the US MSM showed an enemy making a sniper attack. I remember the one soldier who executed the wounded Iraqi, but I don’t remember the footage being that graphic.

An exception does not make the general practice cease to exist. Most of the MSM portrayal of Iraq encourages support for war, and most of the discouraging information is portrayed in ways which downplay the emotional impact.

I served in the military as a B-52 bombardier. When I read about bombs and missiles going off in urban areas, I am horrified. Sending the Air Force into a war means killing a lot of people, and it’s not something to be done lightly. The American people are not selling out the military. The betrayal, and it is a profound betrayal, has been committed by the Bush administration. Committing a country to a war based upon lies, pretexts, and misinformation is a grievous offence. He should have been impeached… And McCain will lose the election more because of this issue than any other, and deservedly so.

Posted by: phx8 at May 13, 2008 6:57 PM
Comment #252770

phx8

“I remember the one soldier who executed the wounded Iraqi, but I don’t remember the footage being that graphic.”

graphic or not it was used as propaganda. i also recall the iraqi was pretending to be dead, that in itself was cause for shooting him, as several marines the day before were killed when an iraqi pretending to be dead blew himself up. i don’t recall him being wounded.

while i respect you for serving this country, and i can certainly understand the remorse you felt, or that anyone might feel for taking the life of another human being, especially, and inocent ending up as collateral damage. i don’t believe graphic footage on the nightly news will serve anyone. those opposed will still be opposed. those in support will not change thier minds. i think any inteligent adult understands that war is horrific, and ugly. the only thing this would accomplish is to possibly traumatize those who inadvertantly end up identifying the remains of a love one, or friend by a tatoo, wedding ring or other identifier that is the only thing left. nothing good IMO will come of this.


“And McCain will lose the election more because of this issue than any other, and deservedly so.”


don’t count your chickens before thier hatched.;-)



Posted by: dbs at May 13, 2008 7:32 PM
Comment #252790

“Perhaps you need to go back to the top of this thread and start over.”

Oh please not that.

“phx8 made a comment about reps. and hate speech, and was concerned that someone would try to assassinate obama. i reassured him that obama was well protected, and reminded him that extremists exist on both sides of the aisle. i used elf as and example of a radical left group. then the elf argunent started. i also said that there was plenty of hate for bush by the left here at WB. what does clinton have to do with this ?”

Thanks for the recap dbs, to answer your question Clinton is to hate on the right, as Bush is to hate on the left. Although I think hate is an exaggeration I was reminding you of the 8 years of the previous administration and the first 6 years of the present administration when the righties were still very vocal with their hatred of Bill Clinton.
You see I think PHX8 had a valid point in that the ELF is known for arson etc much more than assissnation of political figures. Other than the ELF no radical leftie groups come to mind, at least not in the past 2 decades so who else were you referring to?
The KKK and other right wing groups are more prone to violence especially against people of color than the ELF seems to be prone to violence against geriatric politicians. I don’t know of any anti geriatric left wing groups other than perhaps some right to die groups that so far have proven to be non violent against those that disagree with them. Based on this and the general nature of the righties and their extremist groups I think that Obama’s safety deserves the concern of people like PHX8 and yourself as he would be a much more likely target than McCain.

“““Perhaps if the righties would have demanded a minimal level of intelligence in their AM talk shows years ago we wouldnt be in this tit for tat mess today.””

i guess it’s just a matter of perspective j2. the only reason you LEFTIES ( you like that, i can use cute little names too. ) hate limbaugh is that he’s been successful in getting out the conservative messege.”

Well if you say so but the message he is really good at getting out is one of hatred. To each his own but all it takes is one whacked out rightie worried about the upcoming election and a dose of hatred and mis-information spewed by the likes of Limbaugh and well its a recipe for disaster. Look as how his followers go vote for Clinton at his whim. Who would have thought a Limbaugh listener would be voting for Hillary? Myself I prefer those that can discuss relevant issues and such instead of that silly name calling and attacking the people instead of discussing real issues. BTW good job on the cute name.

“you may not like his tactics, but they are effective. the fact his show has been able to stay on the air for 20yrs. is due to listenership, and the ability to bring in advertising revenue, something none of the liberal talk shows have been able to do.”

I agree with you dbs he has done this quite well. As you know success breeds imitation, which was my point about the liberal talk shows like Stephanie Miller (which was the one pointed out by Rhinehold) and ….more later


“until the rise of coservative talk radio, the messege was controlled by the MSM, tv, and print, most all leaned left.”

So goes the myth.

“when talk radio bacame popular the MSM lost it’s monopoly, and here we are.”

Again if you say so, but the MSM still has quite the monopoly when it comes to real news and real information getting out. The only difference between now and then is that AM talk radio is now part of the MSM my friend, yes its not the radical new kid its the old MSM repackaged so you will buy what they are selling. Or do you think these guys really care about you?

“you may hate the consevative messege, which critisizes liberalism,”

I don’t hate the conservative message nor do I hate those like Limbaugh and his imitators that spew the lies and dis information. I do disagree with most of the distortions they spew and the misinformation they put out as fact. However I do defend their right to do this as well as your right to believe in and listen to these guys. “Mega dittos Rush from me and my wife/sister” is one of my favorites. Always thought it should be a T-Shirt for proud listeners, what do you think?

“but it’s here to stay your monopoly is over,”

I have no monopoly dbs the corporate MSM, which includes those that own the stations you favor have the monopoly not me. In fact I listen to and watch one of the most neutral broadcasters and least monopolistic on the media outlets, NPR and PBS.

“and trying to pass legislation forcing broadcasters to carry your nessege too, isn’t going to work.”
The legislation was there for years it was part of the deregulation of the Reagan years and you see how it’s been down hill since that time as far as the government of this country is concerned. You see if you really believed the kool aid Rush and crew passes out you wouldn’t worry about the Fairness Doctrine as much IMHO. It really wouldn’t affect the AM shows you defend with so much vigor unless of course they had candidates for office on their shows. The rest is just those hosts that use the AM stations as a bully pulpit telling you falsehoods my friend.

“find a liberal radio format that works and it will thrive. that is if anyone chooses to listen.”

They have and people are yet Rhinehold and yourself seems to want to criticize them for doing so, I myself listened to Thom Hartmann on a local Portland station the past couple of years but cant seem to get it anymore, probably because he went national. I can pick up Ed Shultz on occasion usually when I’m back in Reno, In between is Hannity Savage and Whatshisname, thank god for NPR.

Posted by: j2t2 at May 13, 2008 11:49 PM
Comment #252825

j2t2:

I myself listened to Thom Hartmann on a local Portland station the past couple of years but cant seem to get it anymore, probably because he went national.

If you can’t get Thom Hartmann on your local station, you can always download the podcasts of Hartmann’s shows and listen to them through your computer, or through an ipod.
IMO, Hartmann is the most intelligent and therefore, the most entertaining of all of the liberal radio personalities.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at May 14, 2008 11:13 AM
Comment #252827

j2t2


“Thanks for the recap dbs,”

sure, no problem, although you still completely missed the point of my original post. who do you suppose would make an attempt on obamas life ? are you suggesting that limbaugh listeners are an extremist group who would do such a thing ? LOL.

“In fact I listen to and watch one of the most neutral broadcasters and least monopolistic on the media outlets, NPR and PBS.”

LOL..neutral, your kidding, right ? BTW those are both funded by tax money, and wouldn’t survive without it.

sorry, but if people wanted to listen to liberal talk radio it would have succeeded in the free market, and we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

the fact that rush upsets the left so much is a testament to his success.

BTW j2 the KKK has been irrelevant for years. they no longer have the power or the reach they had in the 50s and 60s. it was just an example pulled of the top of my head. i guess i should have picked something different, although i’m guessing i’de have gotten the same predictable response.


“I myself listened to Thom Hartmann on a local Portland station the past couple of years but cant seem to get it anymore, probably because he went national. I can pick up Ed Shultz on occasion usually when I’m back in Reno,”

tell me what station carries these guys, and i’ll give it a listen.

BTW j2 the show you want can probably be found by listening live on an affiliate that carries it. i know if i want to listen to rush when i’m out of town i just go to my local affiliate and click on listen live. mega dittos j2. LOL…..! ;-}

Posted by: dbs at May 14, 2008 11:36 AM
Comment #252841
Sending the Air Force into a war means killing a lot of people, and it’s not something to be done lightly.

Oh, I don’t know, Clinton did his share of bombing. In fact, wasn’t the argument that was used when we mention Bosnia that it was not an invasion but bombings from the air so our guys weren’t hurt so it was ok?

Got to love using wide-killing explosives from above to help quell a civil war and remove a leader from power. Putting troops on the ground to attempt to be more targetted and not as indescriminant seems to be what gets liberal’s panties in a bunch.

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 14, 2008 5:10 PM
Comment #252842
Technologically savvy liberals turned to the internet. Technologically backward conservatives turned to talk radio.

Wow, those liberals were ahead of their time, jumping on the internet in the mid 80s before the invention of the web browser and high speed connections to the internet…

BTW, just show you know, the internet is not dominated by liberals or conservative. More often than not they are more libertarian in nature, or anti-government in some regards, people who don’t want to be told what to do. Think a cross between EFF and South Park.

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 14, 2008 5:14 PM
Comment #252851

Rhinehold,
I’m not a pacifist. I believe war is a last resort. I also believe war is justified to prevent genocide. All 19 participating nation had to sign off on targets before they were attacked. The 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia killed hundreds of civilians and soldiers, and to your point, that is a terrible thing. However, the campaign succeeded in preventing the deaths of tens or even hundreds of thousands of deaths. It led to the fall of Milosevic, and an intervention which never resulted in insurgency/guerrilla warfare.

Independents/Libertarians do participate in large numbers on the internet, as the fund raising by Ron Paul demonstrates.

Posted by: phx8 at May 14, 2008 6:51 PM
Comment #252857

“LOL..neutral, your kidding, right ? BTW those are both funded by tax money, and wouldn’t survive without it.”

dbs not at all. The conservative witchhunt a few years back could not find the liberal witch in the PBS and NPR programming. Bush hired a conservative to run it and he couldnt find the discrimination and bias claimed by the righties. Their news is actually news. Try it for yourself dont beleive the propaganda. The tax dollars that go to the CPB is the best possible use of our taxpayer dollars dbs. Unbiased and comprehensive news coverage is hard to come by. The commercial stations cant come close to PBS and NPR.

Posted by: j2t2 at May 14, 2008 7:35 PM
Comment #252870

The News Hour with Jim Lehrer on PBS is about the best going, and still adheres to the fairness doctrine, if they can get people from both sides of an argument to actually show up. The mainstreamers should all have their licenses pulled by the FCC for the crap that they broadcast which is supposed to be in the public interest. They think that promotions for other programs on their networks are news, and the private lives of Star Jones and Barbara Walters are among the things that we need to know.

Posted by: ohrealy at May 15, 2008 12:01 AM
Comment #252873

Well, Libertarians backed Paul’s internet savvy campaign, but come to think of it, there weren’t that many of them after all.

Posted by: phx8 at May 15, 2008 1:46 AM
Comment #252883

Today (15-May-2008), John McCain stated that illegal immigration will be under control 4 years from now. What a farce? How about doing something about it NOW? Why do we have to wait 4 years to finally see illegal employers prosecuted and the borders secured? ! ?
With all of McCain’s waffling and flip-flopping, those accomplishments in 4 years is not even believable.
Who really believes McCain is serious about illegal immigration when his pathetic 26-year voting record says otherwise?

Despicable. Americans are sick of do-nothing, crooked, pandering, and corrupt politicians pitting American citizens and illegal aliens against each other for profit and votes.

John McCain voted for the first amnesty of 1986 which quadrupled the problem.

After 26 years in Congress, John McCain now says he “gets it” ?
John McCain is not very believable.
John McCain’s voting record on illegal immigration is truly pathetic: grades.betterimmigration.com/compare.php3?District=AZ&Category=0&Status=Career&VIPID=33

Got tell it to these victims and their survivors.

And most politicians in the BOTH parties in do-nothing Congress are just as bad (if not worse).

Funny what politicians will do and say when campaigning for office.
The flip-flops abound.

  • McCain criticized TV preacher Jerry Falwell as “an agent of intolerance” in 2002, but has since decided to cozy up to the man who said Americans “deserved” the 9/11 attacks. (Indeed, McCain has now hired Falwell’s debate coach.)
  • McCain used to oppose Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy, but he reversed course in February.
  • In 2000, McCain accused Texas businessmen Sam and Charles Wyly of being corrupt, spending “dirty money” to help finance Bush’s presidential campaign. McCain not only filed a complaint against the Wylys for allegedly violating campaign finance law, he also lashed out at them publicly. In April, McCain reached out to the Wylys for support.
  • McCain supported a major campaign-finance reform measure that bore his name. In June, he abandoned his own legislation.
  • McCain used to think that Grover Norquist was a crook and a corrupt shill for dictators. Then McCain got serious about running for president and began to reconcile with Norquist.
  • McCain took a firm line in opposition to torture, and then caved to White House demands.
  • McCain gave up on his signature policy issue, campaign-finance reform, and won’t back the same provision he sponsored just a couple of years ago.
  • McCain was against presidential candidates campaigning at Bob Jones University before he was for it.
  • McCain was anti-ethanol. Now he’s pro-ethanol.
  • McCain was both for and against state promotion of the Confederate flag.
  • McCain voted against the MLK holiday, but now he’s for it.
  • McCain was for the regressive and un FairTax.org’s 30% National Sales Tax (23% inclusive), but now he isn’t.
  • McCain voted for the first illegal alien amnesty of 1986 and the failed amnesty of 2007, but McCain now (after 26 years in office) says he “gets it”. Yeah right. That’s real believable, eh?
  • And he’s both for and against overturning Roe v. Wade.
Waffle after waffle.

Voting Records…

Posted by: d.a.n at May 15, 2008 10:55 AM
Comment #252884

More…

It’s easy.
It’s not easy.
It is.
It isn’t.
It’s tough.
Economics is not my strong suit.
I know a lot more about economics than the other candidates.

HHHhmmmmmm … is that what he means by straight talk?

Posted by: d.a.n at May 15, 2008 11:02 AM
Comment #253279

Clinton has taken Kentucky and Obama is almost sure to win Oregon.
The Democratic race for nomination is still very much alive – and most likely to be decided by superdelegates – as CNN points out clearly

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/20/primary.wrap/index.html

If you’re tired of waiting around for those super delegates to make a decision already, go to LobbyDelegates.com and push them to support Clinton or Obama

If you haven’t done so yet, please write a message to each of your state’s superdelegates at http://www.lobbydelegates.com

Obama Supporters:

Sending a note to current Obama supporters lets them know it’s appreciated, sending a note to current Clinton supporters can hopefully sway them to change their vote to Obama, and sending a note to the uncommitted folks will hopefully sway them to vote for Obama. It’s that easy…

Clinton Supporters too …. !

It takes a moment, but what’s a few minutes now worth to get Clinton in office?! Those are really worth !

Sending a note to current Clinton supporters lets them know it’s appreciated, sending a note to current Obama supporters can hopefully sway them to change their vote to Clinton, and sending a note to the uncommitted folks will hopefully sway them to vote for Clinton. It’s that easy…

Posted by: Jack at May 21, 2008 4:55 AM
Comment #253774

Is McCain trying to say only ex-military Congresspeople should be allowed to vote on Military and Veterans matters?

Posted by: Stephen Hines at May 27, 2008 9:04 PM
Post a comment