The Military
Lock N Load with R. Lee Ermey (History- July 31!)
Jul 30th
Check out the new series on the weapons of war. Lock N Load with R. Lee Ermey. Starts July 31 on History!
FactCheck.Org Working for Obama Campaign Now?
Nov 13th
Looks like FactCheck.Org has decided to join the Obama campaign. They posted a new item Nov 11 claiming that when Obama spoke in support of a civilian security force that he was really talking about the peace corps and the foreign service.
Here’s the relevant section of their article:
I read a quote from Rep. Paul Broun from Georgia which stated that Obama wants to set up a civilian national security force that was similar to the “Gestapo” or the Nazi Brownshirts…
Similar claims have been circulating in right-leaning blogs and conservative Web sites ever since July, when Obama made a single reference to a “civilian national security force” in a campaign speech in Colorado. Obama’s detractors make much of his expansive (and exaggerated) description of such a force as being “just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded” as the U.S. military. They also ignore the context.Obama was not talking about a “security force” with guns or police powers. He was talking specifically about expanding
AmeriCorps and the Peace Corps and the USA Freedom Corps, which is the volunteer initiative launched by the Bush administration after the attacks of 9/11, and about increasing the number of trained Foreign Service officers who populate U.S. embassies overseas.
That’d be great and all, except that’s not at all what Obama said. Speaking in Colorado, he said:
Obama, July 2, Colorado Springs, CO: [As] president I will expand AmeriCorps to 250,000 slots [from 75,000] and make that increased service a vehicle to meet national goals, like providing health care and education, saving our planet and restoring our standing in the world, so that citizens see their effort connected to a common purpose.People of all ages, stations and skills will be asked to serve. Because when it comes to the challenges we face, the American people are not the problem – they are the answer. So we are going to send more college graduates to teach and mentor our young people. We’ll call on Americans to join an energy corps, to conduct renewable energy and environmental clean-up projects in their neighborhoods all across the country.
We will enlist our veterans to find jobs and support for other vets, and to be there for our military families. And we’re going to grow our Foreign Service, open consulates that have been shuttered and double the size of the Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy.
We will enlist our veterans to find jobs and support for other vets, and to be there for our military families. And we’re going to grow our Foreign Service, open consulates that have been shuttered and double the size of the Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy.
We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set.We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.
We need to use technology to connect people to service. We’ll expand USA Freedom Corps to create online networks where American can browse opportunities to volunteer. You’ll be able to search by category, time commitment and skill sets. You’ll be able to rate service opportunities, build service networks, and create your own service pages to track your hours and activities.
This will empower more Americans to craft their own service agenda and make their own change from the bottom up.
[emphasis added by FactCheck]
That argument doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. Obama was merely wanting to double the peace corps and expand the number of people in the foreign service? Neither groups are security forces in ANY sense of the word. None of these groups are “as strong” as the military in any way. Certainly, none of these groups are as well funded.
The Peace Corps is a waste of money where volunteers go around the world helping with agricultural projects, land management projects, clean water, etc. It’s not a security force. The annulal budget is under $350 million.
Foreign Service is part of the State Dept and is a diplomatic service overseas at US embassies and consulates. I can’t find the exact budget for this orgaization, but the state dept as a whole is under $20 billion.
The US military budget for FY 2009 is over $600 billion.
Clearly none of the organizations Obama mentioned are anywhere near as well funded or as strong as the military. Unless the peace corps members are now carrying rocket launchers and driving tanks. Worse, neither peace corps or foreign service could be considered national security, as both groups are overseas and neither deal with national security.
FactCheck argues the quotes mentioned by most were taken out of context, and they lump them with Obama’s comments about the peace corps and such, but the fact is he was talking about several organizations together, and this civilian security force was a separate group.
There is simply no way to argue that when Obama said he supported a civilian security force as strong and well-funded as the US military he was actually talking about the peace corps. That argument is ridiculous.
Just like Obama’s mandatory requirement that kids do 100 hours of community service a year (which he suddenly changed to a voluntary system), this is the sort of creepy comment that Obama doesn’t have to answer for. FactCheck is supposed to be a fair and objective source keeping politicians and the media accountable. Unless you’re the messiah, then they’ll clearly support your version of things, no matter how preposterous the claim.
To Claim Bush a Failure Confuses the Meaning of “Failure”
Oct 17th
With all the reviews of Oliver Stone’s film, W (which looks like an overly long SNL skit), I keep seeing critics complain that President Bush is a failure, and that the low favorability ratings sort of prove that he’s a failure.
Two things to note in that regard- people are sometimes clueless creatures who can’t make up their minds from one minute to another. One day they love you, the next day they hate you for seemingly no good reason. Let’s face it, most people are self-involved, don’t care to have anything but a cursory glance at the facts, and would rather be watching episodes of Lost or Desperate Housewives than studying politics, history, or the world around them.
To go along with point 1, the fact is to proclaim the man a failure is to totally confuse the meaning of the word itself. After an unprecedented attack on American soil, we went after the terrorist organization who harbored and propped up the thugs responsible. In the process, we freed millions weighed down by the chains of tyranny. A noble goal, no doubt.
After that, it was decided that another murderous despot named Saddam Hussein would be held responsible for 11 years of thumbing his nose at the international community. And this is what most people tend to pass on by when discussing the war that has made Bush, among Americans answering these polls, unpopular to such an extent. To argue that Hussein was just a bad guy misses the point. Hussein invaded a neighboring country, raped and pillaged, and basically pissed off the community of nations. I sometimes wonder if people just forgot that the whole gulf war took place at all.
Now, those who have actually followed history for the past decade+ know that Hussein was given 17 chances via UN security council resolutions to comply with the demands made to him after the end of the gulf war. To say that 17 ignored UN resolutions is a lot is an overstatement like no other. Over the course of 12 years, a brutal man responsible for the deaths of over 1, 000, 000 people (innocents, most of them) thumbed his nose at the world and basically said, ’to hell with you, I’ll do anything I want.’ 1441, the resolution that demanded a full accounting of all weapons programs, records of all destroyed munitions, and complete compliance with international inspectors, was the 17th resolution regarding Hussein’s behavior after the 1991 war in Kuwait and Iraq.
Clearly, the man was never going to step down from his post. He was never going to be talked into complying with weapons inspections through diplomacy. 12 years is a long time to deal with a man who could threaten his neighbors and any country in reach of chemical and biological weapons.
Unfortunately, many Americans have bought into the liberal lie that Bush lied and people died. Of course, bipartisan commissions, history, and basic common sense have proven that no one lied, and that every security apparatus in the world agreed- Hussein posed a threat at some level, he had never fully complied with the dozen and a half resolutions, he still had banned munitions that could be used to threaten the free nations of the world, and he was never going to fully comply with inspectors on the ground in any significant manner.
Bush’s decision to oust a brutal despot who killed 1, 000, 000 people was a noble one. People, of course, become weary, and they do so quite easily. But weariness of war doesn’t make the initial decision to oust the man known ’round the world as the butcher a bad one. It also doesn’t make the man or the mission he spearheaded a failure. To decry the decision to oust the thug, one has to offer a better alternative. The status quo would in no way cut it, and removing all restrictions on the regime would have been a complete failure of moral authority. Free nations cannot allow brutal thugs to threaten other free nations, sitting idly by doing nothing about the situation. Sitting on their hands, just waiting for the situation to somehow get better on its own, tho we know in our hearts no such thing will ever happen.
At the end of the day, it comes down to choices. All of life comes down to decisions. Allow evil to thrive and people to suffer at the hands of such evil, or remove the evil for good, not allowing it to threaten, maim, or destroy ever again. A world with Saddam Hussein, the butcher of Baghdad is a better place, and we have men like George Bush to thank for removing him from the scene. Decisions like that aren’t failures, they’re acts of courage. Unpopular decisions have to be made, and sometimes that makes for unpopular men. Unpopularity, though not such a wonderful thing, doesn’t equal failure.
Anti-Christian Bigots Smear Palin on Religion
Sep 8th
There’s been a lot of talk about Sarah Palin’s former church and some videos posted online from the Assembly Of God in her hometown where she attended for years. You won’t see anything racist or anti-American in the videos…that would be the videos of Barack Obama’s church of 20 years that he only left when he was forced to when his nutjob pastor’s comments came into public view. Palin left the church of the various videos in 2004. (Here’s a link to one of the videos that looks to be highly edited.)
The Huffington Post…you know, the liberal site where the commenters frequently praise the deaths of various conservatives in the limelight? They were apparently the first to post the videos, but did they report the situation honestly? It’s HuffPo, so you can guess that they didn’t…they didn’t at all. Here’s how MSNBC reported it:
From NBC’s Michael Levine
As questions have been raised over how thoroughly Sen. John McCain’s presidential campaign vetted Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin for the V.P. slot, it seems the McCain campaign was unaware of a video — available online — in which Palin talks about God’s role in U.S. military action overseas, according to a political operative familiar with the situation.The video, first reported by the liberal blog HuffingtonPost.com, is from a June Palin speech to the graduating class of commission students at Palin’s former church in Wasilla, Alaska. While describing her family, Palin told students about her oldest son, 19-year-old Track, who is set to be deployed to Iraq this month with the U.S. Army. She urged students to pray “that our leaders — that our national leaders — are sending [soldiers] out on a task that is from God.”
She added, “That’s what we have to make sure that we are praying for: that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.”
“It’s pretty uncomfortable stuff,” said the political operative, after watching the video online. “It’s bad. It’s really bad. … It’s going to be interesting to see how this plays out.”
In addition to talking about Iraq, Palin also referred to God’s role in her work as governor.
“I can do my part in working really, really hard to get a natural gas pipeline, about a $30 billion project that’s going to create a lot of jobs for Alaska. … [but] I think God’s will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that,” she said. “I can do my job there in developing our natural resources, in doing things like getting the roads paved and making sure our troopers have their cop cars and their uniforms and their guns, and making sure our public schools are funded. But really that stuff doesn’t do any good if the people of Alaska’s hearts aren’t right with God.”
Clearly Palin is saying the same thing that a billion Christians worldwide say every day= they pray that whatever it is they’re doing that God is ultimately in control. That their actions are, hopefully, in the path of righteosuness. This is basic Biblically Christianity.
Jake Tapper reported that the writers at HuffPo tried to even go further:
The Huffington Post described this as Palin “paint(ing) the current war in Iraq as a messianic affair in which the United States could act out the will of the Lord,” which McCain-Palin spokesman Michael Goldfarb calls “a distortion of what she was saying.”
Only hatred for Palin and her views would lead a person to claim that Palin’s remarks were somehow meaning that the war was a messianic affair in which the US was acting out the will of the Lord. BS all the way down, my friends. It’s obvious what Palin was saying, and it’s not at all outrageous, and it’s not at all unusual. Bible-believing Christians say the same thing all the time…they pray that their actions are the ones that God would approve of, that the things we have put into action are good and worthy of praise by a higher power. We should strive to be more in step with what God would want us to do, and we should pray that what we actually do is in line with the Lord. In other words, we hope that the choices we make are right and good. That’s not a messianic claim, that’s simply good sense.
UPDATE (Sept 11, 2008 @ 8:04PM): Here is the full quote from Palin’s comments on how she prays that what the military is doing is a thing God would approve of:
“Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God,” she exhorted the congregants. “That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.”
Some have argued that she’s saying that the US invasion of Iraq was a task that God called us to do, or that somehow she’s proclaiming a messianic call of sorts to war via God’s direction, when in fact she’s merely praying that what we’re doing is right. She’s praying in the hope that the US leaders have sent the soldiers into harm’s way to do a noble and good deed.
You will notice how she clearly says she’s praying that there is, indeed, a plan, and that the current plan (in every day life, and in sending troops into Iraq in particular are in line with what God would want, in line with a plan that would match God’s own plan. In other words, a plan that is noble and right in the eyes of a just and loving God, which is all we can really pray for to begin with.)
When asked about this by Charlie Gibson of ABC News, she replied:
GIBSON: You said recently, in your old church, “Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God.” Are we fighting a holy war?
PALIN: You know, I don’t know if that was my exact quote.
GIBSON: Exact words.
PALIN: But the reference there is a repeat of Abraham Lincoln’s words when he said — first, he suggested never presume to know what God’s will is, and I would never presume to know God’s will or to speak God’s words.
But what Abraham Lincoln had said, and that’s a repeat in my comments, was let us not pray that God is on our side in a war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on God’s side.
That’s what that comment was all about, Charlie.
GIBSON: I take your point about Lincoln’s words, but you went on and said, “There is a plan and it is God’s plan.”
So, we have the context of her comment and her prayer. We know that Christians are called Biblically to pray for what is right, and what is right are the things that are right in the eyes of God not the eyes of man. We now have her even further explanation to make sure no one continues to take her obvious comments out of context. That should close the book on this issue, but it won’t…her attackers will claim that she’s making up this fictional story now to cover herself and that the Bible somehow calls Christians to proclaim war is a plan directly from the mouth of God. The facts are in, and that’s certainly not what she was saying at all.
Proof That a Large Chunk of the Electorate is Brain Dead
Jun 11th
Fred Hiatt writes in the Washington Post on Senator Rockefeller’s claims that President Bush “In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when it was unsubstantiated, contradicted or even nonexistent.”
Then he actually looks at the report itself and finds that in no way does it reach that conclusion. In fact, on nearly every point of the report, it concludes that the intelligence at the time substantiated the claims made by the administration. As much as I’ve read of the report myself (which isn’t a lot so far), this reporting matches with the facts.
Hiatt notes:
After all, it was not Bush, but Rockefeller, who said in October 2002: “There has been some debate over how ‘imminent’ a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. . . . To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can.”
Rockefeller was reminded of that statement by the committee’s vice chairman, Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.), who with three other Republican senators filed a minority dissent that includes many other such statements from Democratic senators who had access to the intelligence reports that Bush read. The dissenters assert that they were cut out of the report’s preparation, allowing for a great deal of skewing and partisanship, but that even so, “the reports essentially validate what we have been saying all along: that policymakers’ statements were substantiated by the intelligence.”
In the run up to the war, the administration repeatedly made the argument that in a post 9/11 world, we couldn’t wait for the intel to be 100% perfect. We couldn’t take the chance with rogue states that we had for so many decades before.
Now, check out the comments to the editorial.
It’s like most of these people never took the time to even read the editorial, or they took the time to read it with their eyes closed, their fingers in their ears, refusing to take in any of it. How else do you explain the partisan attacks? What Hiatt reported was accurate according to the report itself! What he reported, and what so many of these commenters attacked, were pieces of the report from Rockefeller itself! Taken directly from the report, this is what’s being attacked. Hiatt is called a Bush lawn boy basically, for merely reporting the facts as they exist in the report. What I have read of the report and the media’s (and Rockefeller’s own) conclusions doesn’t add up. It seems partisan attacks are everywhere, to hell with the facts.
The media doesn’t want you to know that things have improved in Iraq, that war deaths are down, that British intel says they’re close to defeating terrorist organizations in Iraq, that the US intel agencies are saying that AQ is nearly defeated completely in Iraq, that the intel may have been flawed, but that nobody lied or trumped up any evidence that didn’t exist. The media, along with guys like Rockefeller, will do anything to make you believe that, tho the facts don’t support the assertion, the war is a failure, we’re losing over there, and that George Bush is somehow an evil genius (tho oddly they want to claim he’s an idiot at the same time) who in some manner convinced the free world to agree with his devious (and evil) plot to take out the butcher for no just cause. Sneaky guy, that George Bush. The zombie brain-dead are out in full force. Screw the facts…attack the messenger.
Howard Dean Still Lying about New DNC McCain Attack Ad
Apr 29th
The RNC has demanded stations stop running the new DNC ad that distorts what John McCain truly said in regards to how long we could possibly be in Iraq. The DNC as is a complete distortion of what McCain said- there goal was to twist what he said, lying in the process, to make him look bad. I posted about this the other day and thouroughly ripped the ad apart.
Howard Dean, though, when asked about the ad said this:
Democratic Party chief Howard Dean said “there’s nothing false” about the ad.
“We deliberately used John McCain’s words. This isn’t some ominous consultant’s voice from Washington. This is John McCain’s own words. And we’ve been very upfront about everything that he’s said.”
As I clearly pointed out in my last post on this issue, Dean did NOT let McCain speak for himself…the DNC edited the context ouf of the ad without telling us the video was edited. They also stated in text on screen the exact opposite of what McCain specifically said.
Contact Howard Dean and tell him to stop lying about what McCain said. This is the only contact information I found for Mr. Dean at the DNC website…just fill out the form and ask them to live up to their promise of an honest campaign by immediately removing the dishonest McCain attack ad.
Dean claimed the DNC would run a clean, honest, and honorable campaign. He’s already broken that promise, and the general election campaign hasn’t even begun. Enough is enough Mr. Dean- pull the dishonest ad now.
PREVIOUS: DNC/Howard Dean Lying about McCain in New Attack Ad
DNC/Howard Dean Lying about McCain in New Attack Ad
Apr 27th
Howard Dean promised that the campaign this year would be honest and honorable. Funny, considering the DNC (which he runs) has a new attack ad on McCain that is so dishonest, no one should even bother taking any part of it seriosly.
The ad shows John McCain standing with a mic listening to a question from a member of a crowd in Derry, NH. The man asking the questions starts out by telling Senator McCain: “I wanna say at the outset that I’m not going to be voting for you, I’m going to be voting in the Democatic primary in order to defeat the senator from New York. Who I refer to as Joe Lieberman Democrat.” Lieberman is sitting on the stage as McCain stands and walks around, so the guy asking the question is just acting like a child to begin with to attack Lieberman by attacking Clinton and comparing the two. It’s okay to be critical, but it seemed as if his goal was just to be childish.
This pretext isn’t mentioned in the DNC ad, but it’s nice to have that background info.
The ad itself does have the question about Bush and staying in Iraq for 50 years.
The text to the left of McCain says “Senator McCain” and under it we see the text of the question being asked (we hear the question as well), the question is:
“President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years”
We then see McCain reply “maybe a hundred.” Text to the left says “100 years in Iraq.”
Then, the video freezes and the text saying 100 years in Iraq slowly starts to come toward us, getting closer and larger. The video then restarts, but there’s a noticeble edit. There is clearly some video taken out. We then see McCain say, “that’d be fine with me.” So, to watch this ad, you’d think McCain had said (50 years?) “Maybe a hundred. That’d be fine with me.”
Most Americans will see the ad and not bother to find the full video, but I’ll do it for you to show the DNC is lying and distorting what McCain truly said.
This is the video that has the full back and forth between McCain and the questioner.
What McCain actually says is this:
“Maybe a hundred. We’ve been in South Korea, we’ve been in japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That’d be fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. Then it’s fine with me, I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Queda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day”
I have put in bold the part of the reply that the DNC edited out. That section edited out clearly changes the meaning of what McCain is saying. Changing the meaning without telling us they edited his reply. In other words- Howard Dean and the DNC are lying.
Worse yet- the DNC ad follows “That’d be fine with me” with video of explosions and carnage in Iraq and the text “5 years” followed by onscreen text saying “$500 billion” and “Over 4,000 dead.” They then repeat the question asked in NH. Then the snippet of McCain simply saying “maybe a hundred.” The voiceover says:
“If all he offers is more of the same, is John McCain the right choice for America’s future?”
Clearly, this ad is a lie and a disgusting attack on McCain by taking his words, editing them, leaving out the context in order to make him say something he never said and doesn’t truly believe. Furthermore, the voiceover at the end is complete dishonesty, as it comes directly after the video of carnage in Iraq and the text saying 4.000 dead. McCain is NOT more of the same in Iraq, and he’s definitely not saying that in this video clip. He specifically said “That’d be fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed”
No two ways about it- Howard Dean and the DNC are lying once again about John McCain. Will Obama denounce this ad as he denounced the NC GOP ad with videos of Rev Wrights (video clips, I might add, were NOT edited in any manner to distort what he was truly saying as this DNC ad does with McCain). Or can we expect politics as usual from Obama, tho he claims to repudiate the usual tactics?
I will end by mentioning the NY Times covering this ad. They were dishonest themselves, as their online blog post about this reads (in part):
“In the commercial, Mr. McCain’s words speak for themselves, not misstated as they have been on the campaign trail as though he called for 100 years of war. In the initial exchange with voter Dave Tiffany, and in subsequent interviews, Mr. McCain made it clear he was not talking about extended combat, but about the fact that he wouldn’t mind maintaining a presence in Iraq to assist with stability. (He likened it to the continuing presence of troops in South Korea or Bosnia.)”
How Times writer Kate Phillips can say that with a straight face is beyond what I can comprehend. She’s being dishonest when she says McCain’s words speak for themselves. There’s not a bit of truthfulness to that claim. A major clarifying statement was edited out of his reply, AND the video and text are in opposition with what he said about there not being Americans harmed, injured, killed, etc. And when you leave the clarification on South Korea, Japan, Bosnia, etc. out you’re completely distorting what McCain said. Leave it to the Times to claim that a dishonest attack ad twisting McCain’s words allowed McCain’s words to speak for themselves.
Dishonesty from Dean and the DNC…dishonesty from the Democratic Party’s biggest cheerleader, the NY Times. What a winning combination for America.
Obama STILL Being Completely Dishonest about McCain’s “100 years” Comment
Mar 31st
Barack Obama once again distorted…no, I’m sorry, Obama told a blatant and bald faced lie about John Mccain’s comment that we could be in Iraq for 100 years.
Speaking at a gas station in PA, Obama claimed that McCain said he would support the troop levels we have now at the cost we have now and in a war situation. The messiah will rescue us, thank the lord! Except, he was lying on all counts. McCain, when he made the comment in question, SPECIFICALLY stated that he would be okay with troops there for 50 years or maybe 100 years IF it was a situaion with little violence, like the situation where we have troops in Germany, Japan, and South Korea to this day! Of course, a non-violent troop level for a sustained period of time would also mean a much lower cost than what we have today with actual violence on the ground, which means Obama lied about the cost aspect.
Obama foolishly thought he’d look innocent on this massive lie by asking the reporter who originally asked the question if he had mischaracterized McCain’s comment. Of course, the report, as we knew he would, feigned ignorance on McCain’s comment and the context it was spoken in. Obama, the wonderful orator who isn’t all that great an orator then pressed harder with nonsense about troop levels and costs as they exist today when it was clear that McCain meant nothing of the sort. I guess you sometimes have to be a creepy liar when you’re playing to the surrender America far left crowd who despises this nation and thinks it can do no right.
Obama has this absurd line that he would keep a small “strike force” in Iraq, yet he completely refuses to tell anyone of us what the hell a small strike force would mean. He looked really odd here in this clip when he compared his idea of a strike force to the number of soldiers we have at the US Embassy in France! So Obama wants to immediately pull out troops but leave a highly trained team of 4 men?!! I have to say- for someone who is praised as a gifted orator, Barack is utter shit when he has no script.
Obama shows his true colors when he attacks like this. He constantly claims to be about change, to not be about politics as usual, but the truth is, and most sensible people should realize this- he’s the very same guy he claims to hate. He’s a rich, smarmy clown who has no idea what the average American thinks or feels, and like many he will do anything to grab a bit of power…to hell with honesty and integrity.
Newsnight’s Jeremy Paxman is an Ignorant Tosser
Mar 8th
BBC America, which is quickly going downhill (they used to air interesting British comedies and dramas…now it’s turned into the sci-fi british channel that, for some reason only God knows, airs Dancing With the Stars (it was utter crap on ABC, why air it on BBC America?!) is now airing the terrible news program, Newsnight. Jeremy Paxman is the host from what I can tell, and he seems to be a British version of the joke that is Krazy Keith Olbermann. He’s out of his mind crazy, makes utterly no sense, and can’t tell a complete truth to save his life.
I found his interview with John Bolton on youtube, and it gives you a great idea of what a wanker this guy is.
I just want to cover a few items from the interview.
He is clearly anti-war when it comes to Iraq. His idea of a better world would be one where Saddam Hussein (the butcher of Baghdad) was still a thriving despotic regime, murdering his own people at will.
No other explanation makes sense, as he complains to Bolton:
Paxman starts out with a short intro/biographical piece on Bolton where he narrates and says “he had no time for mulinational negotiations” in regards to Iraq. This is crap with a capital C. The Gulf War ended in 1991. Forces invaded again in 2003. That’s 12 years. 12 years spent at the UN Security Council passing a dozen resolutions…a dozen resolutions that were almost completely ignored by the Iraqi regime. The no-fly zones were put into place, and they were violated on a nearly daily basis. Anyone who claims there were no mutli-national negotiations on Iraq and the Hussein regime is either crazy, dishonest, or completely ignorant of all truth. I doubt Paxman is either crazy or ignorant of ALL truth, so we’re left with dishonest.
So, there were negotiations, and the US and allied nations agreed that we couldn’t wait for the UN to hold another 12 years of meetings or issue another dozen resolutions on the situation. There had to come a time to stop pussyfooting around and finally act.
Paxman then states his opinion that Iraq is in terrible shape (worse than with Hussein the murderous dictator) and then claims there was an “absence of planning” following the invasion. Now, this is common anti-Bush, anti-war nonsense. No one who has being serious and is sane is going to claim there was no post-invasion planning. You can argue the planning wasn’t very well thought out maybe- that would be a reasonable argument, but to argue there was no planning is just silly and should be embarassing to anyone making such a claim. It would take a fool to think the Bush admin, the US armed forces commander’s, the advisors, etc. said “let’s invade and oust the regime. What comes after that, we’ve no idea, and who cares? No planning is necessary.”
So, there was clearly a lot of planning, and Bolton said the problem with the plan was not to rely more on the Iraqis. You can argue that was a mistake, as Bolton does, but to say there was no planning is BS.
Paxman complains that Bolton says we don’t have an ultimate responsibility to ensure the Iraqi government succeeds. Our national interests lie in making sure it’s not a haven for terrorist groups who take over the entire country in an effort to use the nation and its resources and protections offered as being a soverign nation to launch attacks against the US. Point is- we can’t be in charge of everyone and make sure everyone on earth is happy and in peace. Paxman confuses here, as he’s clearly against the Iraq war, yet he has no problem demanding Bolton support the notion of ensuring a civil, peaceful, happy Iraq. It’s sort of the common liberal idea of late- don’t go into Iraq and remove a murderous despot, but you damned better make sure the Iraqi people live in peace now. What on earth do these people think the original point was? The regime posed a threat not only to the US and her allies, but to the entire world to some degree. Despots tend to pose threats in a broad general sense and cause trouble in a broad manner.
Paxman then complains:
“What do you say to those people who turn to you and say- ‘okay, Saddam Hussein was a dictator, but Iraq was not then a failed state, and it was not a haven for terrorists, and that’s precisely what you’ve created in Iraq.”
This question is absurd. A hypothetical question from a lunatic? I would say, no questions from crazies, next question!
Bolton’s answer is quite reasonable- you’d rather live under a brutal dictator as opposed to a failed state, that’s your choice, but it’s not what I’d want. And really- who would?! We know, we know Iraq was a peaceful heaven under Saddam before the big bad Americans and allies came in and destroyed that peace.
Bolton elaborates that Hussein used WMD against Iran and the war against them, he used them against the Kurds in his own nation, and he kept thousands of top nuclear scientists around to one day try to start up his nuclear program. All fair points- a man who does such a thing surely constitutes a threat to all people.
Paxman interrupts to say there were no WMD. Which is beside the point. The point was- all intel from numerous nations said there were WMD and the idea was, in a global age of terrorism, it’s better to be safe than sorry. By looking at the history of the regime, you knew he had at least twice before used deadly weapons, threatened his neighbors, the US and allies, and others…kept a system of terrorism alive in Iraq itself, trained and harbored terrorists within Iraq, etc. The idea was- put an end to it before he has even a chance to start it all up again…end it before we find out too late that he does, indeed, have deadly stockpiles. No doubt, he spent 12 years refusing to cooperate with hundreds of UN inspectors…refusal to cooperate usually means something, and it’s usually something very bad.
Bolton goes on to attempt to explain that Hussein had the intent, he had the scientists with the knowledge, the raw materials, and more..and that was where the danger lied.
Paxman then claims “But this claim turned out to be a lie, Mr. Bolton, didn’t it?”
This is the most common anti-war bit of nonsense. There is absolutely no evidence anyone, and I mean ANYONE, lied about Iraq and WMD. WMD was NEVER the sole reason for ousting the regime, and ultimately, looking at the big picture, it wasn’t the biggest reason…so, this is complete nonsense to even make such a claim. There was no lie, there is no evidence of a lie, and it’s garbage to make a claim that any such lie ever existed.
In the end Paxman comes off looking not only silly but downright deceptive. One has got to wonder if this is a common British problem (or just one suffered by Paxman only)- looking at the evidence, not looking at the evidence, looking past the evidence and projecting your own anti-Bush, anti-American bias to every issue.
I’d certainly have a hard time taking anything he says seriously after this mess of the facts in his interview with Bolton. I haven’t seen enough of his interviews to say what sort of jounralist he is in full, but with a shoddy performance like this, you can’t help but question anything he says. If I can get the facts straight, yet he can’t with what I assume is a staff of fact-checkers and journalists, then there’s a big problem.
I found this interview with Paxman and George Galloway and Paxman actually looks like the bigger fool here. (amazing, as Galloway is one of the craziest politicians on earth. I honestly believe Galloway actually suffers from some form of mental retardation.) Paxman comes off as Jerry Springer, whose only goal is to try to make others look foolish. I sure hope this isn’t the state of British journalism…
Moron In Vermont Petitions to Arrest Bush and Cheney, Claims Bogus 600,000 Lancet Figure
Jan 28th
This is Kurt Daims. (Nice hat.) He’s bat-shit crazy.
Daims, resident of Brattleboro Vermont started a petition, gathering signatures from citizens in Brattleboro to arrest President Bush and Vice President Cheney for “war crimes, perjury or obstruction of justice” if either ever came to the city. (Vermont is the only state President Bush has never visited).
Here’s a bit from the article I found:
Kurt Daims, 54, of Brattleboro, the organizer of the petition drive, said Friday the debate to get the issue on the ballot was a good one. Opposition to the vote focused on whether the town had any power to endorse the matter.
“It is an advisory thing,” said Daims, a retired prototype machinist and stay-at-home dad of three daughters.
So far, Vermont is the only state Bush hasn’t visited since he became president in 2001.
Daims said the most grievous crime committed by Bush and Cheney was perjury — lying to Congress and U.S. citizens about the basis of a war in Iraq.
He said the latest count showed a total of 600,000 people have died in the war.
Daims also said he believed Bush and Cheney were also guilty of espionage for spying on American people and obstruction of justice, for the politically generated firings of U.S. attorneys.
Let’s ride this idiot into town.
First- let’s dispense with the bogus 600, 000 people killed in Iraq figure. This is nonsense.
Let’s go thru some facts associated with the lancet numbers:
The survey is tainted from the word “go”, as it was funded by uber-liberal foaming-at-the-mouth Bush hater, George Soros. (1)(2) He funded nearly half of the $100, 000 to do the survey/study. Does the fact that your study is funded by someone who is VERY wildly anti-war taint it? Come on. Of course it does. Anti-war groups used the number 600, 000 to claim Bush had blood on his hands. They hailed it as proof they were somehow right on the issue. They were completely wrong.
The Iraq Body Count project only lists less than 90, 000 deaths due to violence, tho they claim they undercount. The Iraq Body County project throws any credibility it has out the window from the front page of their very site. Wikipedia’s article on the project puts it well:
The project quotes the top US general in Iraq, Tommy Franks, as saying “We don’t do body counts [1]“. The quotation was from a discussion of the Operation Anaconda in Afghanistan and was referring to counts of enemy soldiers killed, in the context of using enemy body counts as a measure of military success. The website, which omits the context of the quote, could be said to conflate the meaning of “enemy body count” with “civilian deaths caused” and to imply that the US is not interested in the number of civilian deaths its military operations cause. (emphasis added)
If you’re going to be blatantly dishonest on your website’s front page- you lose all credibility. I’ve no idea who runs the project or what their motives are, but it seems to be anti-war, so you have to wonder about how reliable their numbers are. Let’s be fair, and say being anti-war doesn’t necessarily mean they’re trying to pull one over on us…well, the deceptive quote on their site shows the project’s overall character, no?
So, we toss aside Iraqi Body Count for the most part. But, even if we leave them in- they show far less than 600, 000 (they currently show under 100, 000). This guy in VT using the lancet survey claims numbers that are 3 times higher!
The Iraqi Health Ministry did their own survey and list less than 300, 000 deaths.
The United Nations Development Programme Iraq Living Conditions Survey showed far fewer deaths than the lancet as well. They covered far many more households in their survey (over 20, 000 compared to the lancets study of less than 1, 000). You can google for more information, but the numbers were far lower…to be fair, their concentration was on living conditions and not on civilian deaths.
Let’s end the lancet stuff with a few items- Times Online UK claims fraud in the lancet study…National Journal collected the numbers from various sources and always find the lancet study to be completely flawed (or worse).
So, we can safely say- there is no way on earth that anywhere near 600, 000 people have died in Iraq due to the violence related to the war or during the war.
Little need to do this, but let’s quickly dispatch the other nonsense from the petition. Bush and Cheney lied to congress to get us to go war? How is that possible. Members of congress are privy to the same intel the president had on the situation. No stockpiles of WMD were found, but every intelligence agency that matters said the same thing- CIA, MI6, Russian intel, France, Germany, etc- they all said the same thing. Saddam had stockpiles of WMD. There was NO argument over whether or not he had WMD. The argument was over HOW that specific problem should be dealt with. To oust Hussein for this fact or not. The bad intel makes no difference in the end, as there were numerous reasons given by the administration to remove the brutal dictator, including 11 years of flippant refusal to abide by 16 UN resolutions dealing with the regime’s behavior.
The political firings of attorneys. Well, as has been discussed- these attorneys serve at the whim of the president, and the appointments themselves are political. So, no one is going to argue against that, but no one is going to argue it’s illegal or even uncommon- it’s the rule not the exception.
In the end, Daims is an utter loon, and sadly the city of Brattleboro becomes a laughing stock in the process. He’s helping waste tax payer money and time. He’s making himself, his family, and the city look foolish.
Recent Comments