Fearmongering and the Wingnut Obsession With TV Shows

Let's start the morning off with something so deranged and full of the fantastic that it reads like, well, every other doomsday scenario plot line ever conceived. Playing the part of the rugged, crusty, cynical and morally supreme scientist who warns the government--but, dammit! the government won't listen because it's full of liberals!--is Dr. William Graham.

The United States “would quickly revert to an early 19th century type of country.” except that we would have 10 times as many people with ten times fewer resources, he said.

“Most of the things we depend upon would be gone, and we would literally be depending on our own assets and those we could reach by walking to them,” Graham said.

America would begin to resemble the 2002 TV series, “Jeremiah,” which depicts a world bereft of law, infrastructure, and memory.

In the TV series, an unspecified virus wipes out the entire adult population of the planet. In an EMP attack, the casualties would be caused by our almost total dependence on technology for everything from food and water, to hospital care.

Within a week or two of the attack, people would start dying, Graham says.

“People in hospitals would be dying faster than that, because they depend on power to stay alive. But then it would go to water, food, civil authority, emergency services. And we would end up with a country with many, many people not surviving the event.”

You don't say...

Asked just how many Americans would die if Iran were to launch the EMP attack it appears to be preparing, Graham gave a chilling reply.

“You have to go back into the 1800s to look at the size of population” that could survive in a nation deprived of mechanized agriculture, transportation, power, water, and communication.

“I’d have to say that 70 to 90 percent of the population would not be sustainable after this kind of attack,” he said.

America would be reduced to a core of around 30 million people — about the number that existed in the decades after America’s independence from Great Britain.

The modern electronic economy would shut down, and America would most likely revert to “an earlier economy based on barter,” the EMP commission’s report on Critical National Infrastructure concluded earlier this year.

Barter system? Jeremiah? The 1880s? My, goodness. The wingnut fantasy of the future world they wish to create is this--no one is allowed to rule but the wingnuts and the swimsuit models, and the swimsuit models have to barter sex with the wingnuts for the food that the wingnut slaves--you and me--have to grow for them. Now that's a TV show no one would watch.

In May 2007, then Undersecretary of State John Rood told Congress that the U.S. intelligence community estimates that Iran could develop an ICBM capable of hitting the continental United States by 2015.

But Iran could put a Scud missile on board a cargo ship and launch from the commercial sea lanes off America’s coasts well before then.

The only thing Iran is lacking for an effective EMP attack is a nuclear warhead, and no one knows with any certainty when that will occur. The latest U.S. intelligence estimate states that Iran could acquire the fissile material for a nuclear weapon as early as 2009, or as late as 2015, or possibly later.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld first detailed the “Scud-in-a-bucket” threat during a briefing in Huntsville, Ala., on Aug. 18, 2004.

Never mind the fact that, during the last test of missiles, Iran seemed more like a pretender than a player, but why rain on the fearmongering parade? Never mind the fact that America stood against a far deadlier enemy for decades and won without shredding the Constitution (President Reagan had a guy or two that tried, but half-assing your way through life never gets you anywhere).

The simple fact is this--these weapons have been around for a very long time, and people with the motive, the reason, the capability, and the inclination to use them against us have had them for as long as these weapons have been around. We are peeing down our legs in fear over nearly-dead mullahs and cash-poor aging revolutionaries who can't control much past a pretty good intelligence gathering network and a secret police apparatus that can't quite tamp down dissent throughout Iran as they would like. They are watching the world oil market run away from them and their crumbling oil producing infrastructure. Their only hope of having any hold on their own destiny is to pray that a handful of terrified American politicians will take them more seriously than the rest of the world does and turn them into the next Powerful, Menacing, Sworn Enemy of American Liberty. When Iran is posturing, the wingnuts take two conflicting positions: they paint Iran as a massive threat, but they downplay Iran's capability to withstand a sustained attack from Israel and the US. Which is it then? Are they a threat, or are they a joke?

I suspect that if someone had just laughed at the Iranians, none of this would be happening right now.

--WS

Wingnuts and Things That Actually Work

Darleen Click says her ass is chapped, but we really don't care about that. What we do care about is her flip, offhand dismissal of what is actually a pretty fucking good idea:

One could almost hear the audible hissing over McCain’s ad questioning O!’s unseriousness over drilling while O! continues his Great Pretender tour, yet O! turns around and continues to insult the intelligence of those not completely in his thrall:

“We could save all the oil that they’re talking about getting off drilling if everybody was just inflating their tires and getting regular tune-ups. You could save just as much.”

Oh goody. Let’s all welcome the Pressure Police.

Sorry, Darleen--hate to have to introduce you to common sense, but it actually would save a hell of a lot of gas:

A driver with severely under-inflated tires can spend $800 more per year on fuel than necessary, according to Edmunds.com, the premier online resource for automotive consumer information. With approximately 250 million vehicles on the road in the United States, the potential for saving billions of dollars and tons of fuel is remarkable. These findings were among the results of Edmunds.com's study entitled "Edmunds Employees Put to the Tire Pressure Test"

The study, carried out by Edmunds.com's "Green Committee," concluded that on average, the company's employees' tires were nearly seven percent below the manufacturers' suggested tire pressure. The 212 Edmunds' employees who participated in the project will save 5,820 gallons of gas a year and approximately $20,500 per year by properly inflating their vehicles' tires. GreenCarAdvisor.com points out that such savings will also reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 204.3 tons a year. The company has supported this effort by distributing tire pressure gauges to its employees and promising to regularly remind them to check their tire pressure.

"When our Green Committee suggested this program, the executives immediately supported it and we began communicating it to our partners and vendors, hoping it will inspire other companies to adopt a similar practice," commented Edmunds.com President and Chief Operating Officer Avi Steinlauf. "There is real potential for companies to make a difference - both economically and environmentally - through such an initiative."

Poor wingnuts. Chapped asses, no common sense, and stuck with John "Cotton Hill" McCain.

--WS

Ted Stevens Indicted!

The end is nigh for Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska (R-Crooked Old Bastard).

U.S. officials say the Justice Department has indicted Alaska Senator Ted Stevens on charges related to a long-running investigation of business dealings in Alaska.

Stevens, who has served in the U.S. Senate for 40 years, is up for re-election this year, and Democrats view his seat as one of their top pick-up opportunities.

And:

Per Republican Senate caucus rules, if a member is indicted, he or she can no longer serve as chairman or ranking member of a committee.

Stevens is a ranking member of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee.

--WS

This is not news (really, it isn't)

Anyone surprised by this hasn't lived in America for the last ten years:

[Chris] Matthews: “Did you see FOX television as a tool when you were in the White House? As a useful avenue to get your message out?”

[Scott] McClellan: “I make a distinction between the journalists and the commentators. Certainly there were commentators and other, pundits at FOX News, that were useful to the White House.” […] That was something we at the White House, yes, were doing, getting them talkng points and making sure they knew where we were coming from.

Matthews: “So you were using these commentators as your spokespeople.”

McClellan: “Well, certainly.”

As we like to say around here, "durhey!"

I'd explain what that means, but it's Saturday and I don't think I could do it justice.

--WS

GOP *FAIRLY* Branded as Racist

Oh, wah. Do you want a little cheese to go with your whine?

It is for that reason and more that I was so disappointed with Obama’s recent comments regarding Republicans and race. At a fundraiser in Florida before a majority African-American audience, the senator said, “We know what kind of campaign [Republicans are] going to run. They’re going to make you afraid. They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. ‘He’s young and inexperienced, and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?’”

It's worth noting that Obama didn't call Douglas MacKinnon racist. And, it's worth noting that MacKinnon selected only the parts of that speech that have appeared, repeatedly, on various anti-Obama blogs and sites.

Here is an enlarged quote from that same speech, from Reuters:

"It is going to be very difficult for Republicans to run on their stewardship of the economy or their outstanding foreign policy," Obama told a fundraiser in Jacksonville, Florida. "We know what kind of campaign they're going to run. They're going to try to make you afraid.

"They're going to try to make you afraid of me. He's young and inexperienced and he's got a funny name. And did I mention he's black?"

He said he was also set for Republicans to say "he's got a feisty wife," in trying to attack his wife Michelle.

"We know the strategy because they've already shown their cards. Ultimately I think the American people recognize that old stuff hasn't moved us forward. That old stuff just divides us," he said.

But why not go to the pictures? I got this from McCainblogs:



These are just the ones I could show you:











Now, where would we get the crazy fucking idea that the Republicans could be racist? It's bad enough that a lot of this stuff probably comes from the wackos who pretend to be Democrats.

Porter Goss Named to Ethics Panel? Unbelievable

This is a terrible decision:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) on Thursday announced joint appointments to a landmark ethics review board that for the first time will allow private citizens to review allegations against members.

Still, four out of six members of the board for the newly created Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) will be former members of Congress, including former CIA Director Porter Goss (R-Fla.), who will serve as co-chairman.

It must mean that no one remembers the extremely unethical behavior of Mr. Goss, nor his association with Kyle Foggo, Brent Wilkes, and all of those hookers. What's next? Is Duke Cunningham going to be let out of prison so he can come back and be the new Inspector General for the Department of Defense? What an abysmal choice. A disgrace on a par with picking the fox to count the chickens each night inside of the henhouse with the lights off.

Speaker Pelosi, you should have fought this and you should be ashamed to have your name associated with putting such a disgraceful man on an ethics review board. Goss has no ability to judge ethics or advise any government agency on how to conduct itself.

--WS

The Sickening Mouth Breathers on the Right Will Always Attack Michelle Obama

Ramesh Ponnuru's gig as a thread-starting hate-monger for the TALK section of the washingtonpost.com's discussion area should be over after this entry.

Senator Obama says the criticism of his wife is “infuriating.” Over the weekend the Washington Post ran the 700th and 701st article deploring the existence of the critics without bothering to listen to them.

During the Democratic presidential primaries, Mrs. Obama said that her husband's so-far successful run for the presidency was the first time as an adult that she felt proud of her country. She said that America is "just downright mean." She said that her husband is "never" going to let us go back to our apathetic and ignorant lives. She complained about having to spend "$10,000 a year on piano and dance and sports supplements and so on and so forth" (she said this in a county where the median income, as of 2004, was $37,000). She said that the Obamas are asking young people not to go into corporate America.

Her defenders almost never mention those last two comments, since they don't play into the storyline they're selling: that Mrs. Obama is being criticized because she is an outspoken black woman.

Given the comments she has made, it would be remarkable if people weren't criticizing her. Her combination of bitterness, ingratitude, anti-Americanism, leftism, and, yes, elitism rubs a lot of people the wrong way. (Her hostility to men, as evidenced in this 2004 interview, is unpleasant, too.)

What's your take?

UPDATE: Following the suggestion of a colleague at the Post, I have edited the above to indicate when Mrs. Obama made these statements. This colleague also points out that the Post articles I mentioned above were directed more at The New Yorker's infamous cover than at Mrs. Obama's conservative critics. That's a fair point. But since that cover cartoon was intended as a commentary on the conservative critics, and the Post articles used it to talk about public perceptions of Mrs. Obama and black women generally, it would have been nice if actual conservatives' perspectives had been engaged.

If actual conservatives still existed, they certainly wouldn't be attacking Michelle Obama, now would they? The "actual conservatives" who were around twenty years ago had some fucking decency, at least, and some intellectual honesty.

Ponnuru's "update" was actually someone biting his head off for being a dishonest hack--he knew the smears he wanted to perpetrate through this medium and he launched them without context or shame. As parents, my wife and I have costs for daycare, dance lessons, field trips and other activities for our children. We base what we pay on what we make. If we were Senator and lawyer, we'd probably pay exactly what the Obamas pay because, umm, that's what you do. And I will guaran-fucking-tee you that neither the Obamas nor us, nor the vast majority of Americans, runs up $500,000 in a month on the American Express card.

This is how the right wing is going to mount their litany of smears and attacks on Michelle Obama--by staying just under the radar to use "forums" and "talk" and "The Corner" so that they can keep their hands clean. It's dishonest and nasty, and no one should just roll over and take it. Ponnuru is a dishonest smear merchant who will use whatever means he can grasp in order to smear Michelle Obama.

--WS

Drive them from the field and send them into the wilderness

One thing that is certain, this year is nothing like 1992. A nation mildly disinterested in a second term of George HW Bush said what the hell and handed things over to Bill Clinton. This year, a desperate nation, tired of war, poverty, torture, horrors, screaming and drowning is all but going to destroy the future of the Republican Party and deal them a defeat projected to be deafening and stunning.

Republican Senate leaders — terrified by the prospect of losing five or more seats in November — have freed their members to vote however they need to vote to get reelected, even if that means bucking the president or the party’s leadership...a GOP leadership aide says leaders have told vulnerable senators that it’s all right to “get well” with voters by siding with Democrats on anything but energy and national security.

And there it is, plain and simple. The Republicans are going to wrap themselves to the mast and blow holes in the bottom of the ship with cannon pointed at the deck and sink themselves on the twin issues of energy policy and how to get our troops out of Iraq. Sorry, but gas prices are the death of an incumbent party. And everyone now sees that Obama can walk the walk and have a policy on Iraq that isn't crazy. McCain who? John "a noun, a verb, and the Surge" McCain is irrelevant.

You know what else sucks? When you're young, pink, fat, useless, intellectually lazy, incompetent, and wedded to a discredited ideology. That's why I see stories like this and I can't help but wonder--what fucking idiot would self-identify as a Republican these days?

And John McCain? His campaign has never sent [Young Republican David] All a text message, he complains. It's the little things like that, along with poor communication on the big issues such as Iraq and the economy, that have caused the GOP brand to slip with younger Americans, even as they have grown more political.

Voters under 30 are more than twice as likely to identify themselves as Democrats, according to the most recent Washington Post-ABC News poll.

All and his friends bravely offer bromides to fight off despair:

"I think the Republican Party is staring down a very long, dark, quiet night," All says.

I think you can all eat shit and die, actually--there's a war on and not enough of you have joined up yet to support your President and your Candidate in their reckless endeavors. What kind of self-centered asshole complains about not getting a "text message" from a Presidential campaign? Does he sit around pining for SPAM from large organizations because he has no life? Who's that pathetic? Socialize with humans, much?

--WS

Attacking the Rights of Women is Par for the Course With These People

Senator Hillary Clinton points out a case of deranged wingnuttery from the Bush Administration:

The Bush administration is up to its old tricks again, quietly putting ideology before science and women's health. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is poised to put in place new barriers to accessing common forms of contraception like birth control pills, emergency contraception and IUDs by labeling them "abortion." These proposed regulations set to be released next week will allow healthcare providers to refuse to provide contraception to women who need it. We can't let them get away with this underhanded move to undermine women's health and that's why I am sounding the alarm.

These rules pose a serious threat to providers and uninsured and low-income Americans seeking care. They could prevent providers of federally-funded family planning services, like Medicaid and Title X, from guaranteeing their patients access to the full range of comprehensive family planning services. They'll also build significant barriers to counseling, education, contraception and preventive health services for those who need it most: low-income and uninsured women and men.

The regulations could even invalidate state laws that currently ensure access to contraception for many Americans. In fact, they describe New York and California's laws requiring prescription drug insurance plans to provide coverage for contraceptives as part of "the problem." These rules would even interfere with New York State law that ensures survivors of sexual assault and rape receive emergency contraception in hospital emergency rooms.

Here's the link to HillPac, and a letter you can sign protesting this outrage.

--WS

D R I F T G L A S S Absolutely Nails It

This is exactly what I was talking about:



That one visual statement represents the entire argument for me. The New Yorker cover basically handed out a free smear for the mouth breathers, and that's inexcuseable. They've had enough handouts from the frickin' media already.

No, We Don't Need Hummers

UPDATE: The link takes you to a column by Matthew DeBord at the WashingtonPost.com. If you have trouble with it, I apologize profusely and promise to do whatever it takes to rectify the problem.

You know, if you're going to do a (satirical? No, too earnest) ode to a vehicle that might disappear, you do it to an actual vehicle that is worth driving. And the Hummer isn't that vehicle. Let it go. Let it die. The commercial version is worthless and the HUMVEE used by our troops has been an awful vehicle. Too many went to war without the right armor and too many troops have been injured or killed in what I, personally feel is an underpowered lemon not worth driving anywhere but to the junkyard.

When General Motors announced that it would subject its Hummer division to what in the automotive business is known as a "review," you could hear the tree huggers, the unreconstructed hippies, the postmodern Greens, Al Gore's organic peanut gallery, every single customer at the Pasadena Whole Foods and the United Prius Owners of America shove aside their alfalfa sprouts and commence clapping.

No set of wheels since the hapless Edsel has been as persistently reviled as the Hummer. Just recall the Hummer damaged by masked eco-vigilantes in the District last year.

GM probably didn't see that coming when it purchased Hummer as a brand name from AM General Corp. in 1999. AM General developed the Hummer in the late 1970s as the High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle, for tactical military applications. On the battlefield, it has enjoyed a successful 20-year run, despite issues regarding armor that have emerged during its service in Iraq. The civilian version that AM General builds for GM is another story.

Still, it would be a mistake for GM, assisted by the raving grease-monkey CPAs of Citibank, to sell the brand to an upstart carmaker in India or China or to breed it as a hybrid, as some have suggested. GM desperately needs an obnoxious, attention-grabbing brand to keep from turning into a dreary shadow of its former self. And America needs the Hummer to remind us of what has always made our automobiles stand out, from the tailfin 1950s to the muscle car 1960s and '70s: swagger. Americans don't just drive their cars -- they proclaim something about themselves by driving them.

He goes on to say that there's something manly about driving and owning a Hummer. Well, if you're an idiot, sure. If you're insecure about your penis size, all the better. I know some people just love slapping that "sorry about your penis" decal on Hummers. But unless you've driven something that can actually go off road or something that resembles a vehicle with a working suspension, I don't know why there is this fascination for the box on wheels with the overly-high profile. It's not a toy--it's actually an awful vehicle to try to drive and ride around in.

I guess I spent too much time riding in them--that probably explains my bias. The ambulance version of the HUMVEE was, and always will be, something I will revile all of my life.

If you gave me one of these things, I wouldn't take it from you. I wouldn't.

--WS

The Ugliest Thing to Say

Since we can't ignore the firestorm surrounding the remarks of the Rev. Jesse Jackson, although I would sure like to, let's get this out of the way bright and early:

Mr. Jackson’s words, which included a vulgar reference, were recorded by a live microphone on Sunday. His apology came after Fox News said it would broadcast the remarks on “The O’Reilly Factor” on Wednesday night.

“I don’t want harm nor hurt to come to this campaign,” Mr. Jackson said in an afternoon news conference in Chicago, after his comments were referred to throughout the day on cable television. He called his words “hurtful and wrong.”

Mr. Jackson, who sought the Democratic presidential nomination in 1984 and 1988, has been a supporter of Mr. Obama. He has played no formal role in the campaign, but tensions have occasionally flared behind the scenes with Mr. Jackson, who is known for his outspokenness and his penchant for drawing attention to himself.

Mr. Obama’s candidacy has served as an example of a generational and stylistic shift in black political leadership in America. The remarks drew an unusually stern rebuke from Representative Jesse Jackson Jr., Democrat of Illinois, who also serves as a national co-chairman of Mr. Obama’s presidential campaign.

“Reverend Jackson is my dad, and I’ll always love him,” the congressman said Wednesday evening in a statement. He added, “I thoroughly reject and repudiate his ugly rhetoric. He should keep hope alive and any personal attacks and insults to himself.”

Jackson said "wanna cut his nuts off" because of his impression that Barack Obama has been talking down to black men.

Now, there's absolutely no place in our dialogue for that kind of thing. Jesse Jackson has effectively ended his relevance as an advocate and as a commentator--it's over, it's done. I don't want to hear from him anymore. I believe he should retire gracefully and not make any appearances for the rest of the year. It's a sad way to end a career in public life, but Jackson should simply admit that his mouth ended his career, not anything anyone has done to him.

The remarks themselves are more grudge than intention. Jackson has seen his influence diminish and his ability to stand in the spotlight reduced significantly because of his mouth and his ethical troubles. The sad thing is, the only reason he was on Fox News in the first place is because he doesn't have the appeal and the moral authority that he once had. He has been supplanted by many other talented and capable leaders, Obama being one of them but not the only one.

And one more thing--the Jackson incident is a damned good wake up call for anyone who appears on Fox News--don't do it. They recorded Jackson when he thought he was off the air and they gave that tape to Bill O'Reilly to maximize the damage and to amplify the shock. Fox News is a nasty, unprofessional operation that has nothing to do with the gathering of news and it does not operate in the public's interest. It is the partisan mouthpiece for the Republican Party, and no Democrat should legitimize it by appearing on their network.

Ignoring the Home Grown Hate Groups

I was browsing over at Orcinus, and I came across an incident that we missed back in June--the arrest of several members of a home grown terrorist hate group outside of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania:

If there is a President Obama come next Jan. 20, normal folks better brace for what the right-wing crazies have in mind. Because it's becoming clear that they are winding themselves up now for a fresh spate of violence if Obama wins.

You can find the signs in the things they're saying now, both on Internet forums and in the things they say when they think no one is listening. For instance, read some of the details emerging from that militia bust in Pennsylvania that the media have been studiously ignoring.

And he's right--what I've seen so far is enough to give me pause:

A fourth person is under arrest in what KDKA has learned was an undercover investigation into a ring of domestic terrorists.

Bradley Kahle, of Troutville, Clearfield County, is charged with firearms violations and possession of illegal explosives.

Kahle joins Marvin Hall of Rimersburg, Perry Landis of the Clarion area, Morgan Jones of Lucinda, who were arrested and charged with federal firearm and explosives violations. Until now, their intent has been a mystery.

But Kahle's indictment papers may have shed some light. In them, Kahle tells federal undercover agents of making so-called bean can grenades - empty cans hollowed out and filled with explosives and nails which he said could be used to kill police if they raided his home.

"Hey, eight or 10 good bean bombs, five or 600 rounds of ammo and some good equipment, I could be a tough take," he said according to documents.

On another occasion, Kahle tells the operatives, "If Hillary Clinton or Barrack Obama get elected, hopefully they will get assassinated. If not they will disarm the country and we will have a civil war."

And yet on another occasion, Kahle tells the agents that the shooting of judges, magistrates and chiefs of police will start the doomsday process or "words to that effect."

Whether this was just a boast or part of a real plan is unclear. But a neighbor of one of the suspects say he's harmless.

You know, no one with bombs and an AK47 is harmless, no matter what some idiot neighbor has to say.

A guy with circus balloons, Spiderman jammies, and a collection of Rick Astley records is still pretty fucking weird, but only mildly harmless. But don't worry--the Department of Homeland Security has been on the case for a while now:

Homeland Security focuses on "possible terror threats from radical environmental and animal rights activists" but omits threats posed by right-wing extremists" according to a DHS report "first disclosed" the last week in March 2005 on the website of the Congressional Quarterly.

The report states that between 2005 and 2011 DHS "expects to contend primarily with adversaries such as al Qaeda and other foreign entities affiliated with the Islamic Jihad movement, as well as domestic radical Islamist groups."

The report "does not mention domestic extremist groups" or white supremacist groups like Aryan Nations and Army of God or anti-abortion activists, "which have previously been identified by federal officials as threats."

The report lists "left-wing domestic groups, such as the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), as terrorist threats.

Experts on domestic terrorism were "surprised the department did not include right-wing groups on their list of adversaries. ... James O. Ellis III, a senior terror researcher for the National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism (MIPT), said ... that whereas left-wing groups, which have been more active recently, have focused mainly on the destruction of property, right-wing groups have a much deadlier and more violent record and should be on the list. 'The nature of the history of terrorism is that you will see acts in the name of [right-wing] causes in the future.'"

And these are the people to whom we're going to hand over the right to conduct warrantless wiretaps?

It looks like "the Michigan militia" craze is making a comeback. Invest wisely in generators, firearms, and flannel shirt manufacturers. Oh, and you'd better pray we get a Justice Department and a DHS that can actually pay attention to the real hate groups in this country who organize themselves, arm themselves, and kill people when they have the chance.

Uh, Not Exactly, Monsieur

Victor Davis Hanson is allowed to post his random musings on "The Corner" now? Sign me up for more of that insanity!

I was watching Obama complain that we don't speak European languages while Europeans speak English fluently. Fair enough—though the vast size of the US, the presence of two oceans on our borders, the ubiquity of Spanish here, the knowledge of other languages by millions of Americans, both explain a lot, and belie the notion that we are all English-only speakers, while the multitude of nations in close proximity has historically made Europeans by necessity multi-lingual.

How very "old Europe" of you, VDH! How's that working out for you? Getting paid by NRO in Euros, yet?

The problem is, any time you actually do any thinking or analysis on an issue, you run into, well, facts and figures that tell a different story--one that pretty much escapes the likes of VDH, who just wants to post on the Corner and look smarter than K-Lo.

OSU's [Oregon State University] Italian department joins a string of struggling European-language programs. The German departments at the University of Southern California and Humboldt State University are being shut down, and the College Board's Advanced Placement tests in Italian, French literature, and Latin literature are all being eliminated because of low interest, possibly as students are attracted to Arabic and Chinese programs.

But demand for Italian has always been high at OSU, says Guy Wood, interim chairman of the foreign languages and literatures department. "Our enrollments in those classes are as good as any," he says. The courses were dropped because of budget problems. OSU's foreign languages department faces a projected $250,000 deficit for the 2009 fiscal year, prompting cuts for some introductory Spanish and literature sections, as well. Wood says something had to go. Italian was the easiest language to eliminate because it was the youngest program, and its only professor was not tenured.

This seems to be a trend--language programs are being cut because of budget concerns, not a lack of interest. But why let the facts get in the way when you can take a cheap shot at Obama on the issue of multiculturalism, right?

--WS

Violence at a Small Town Parade

When was the last time you thought about how ridiculous the immigration debate could get? Well, in small town America, it got really ridiculous over the weekend in Albert Lea, Minnesota:

An entry in the Third of July Parade stirred controversy, and now the parade’s committee plans to review whether it would allow it next year.

The entry came from Minnesota Coalition for Immigration Reduction. It had a large yellow sign with moveable letters, and it was pulled by a Hummer. The sign’s message on both sides said: “Illegal immigrants cost jobs, hospitals and courts.”

Near the corner of Bridge Avenue and Fountain Street on the parade route, children threw rocks at the sign, and one rock missed, hitting a woman in the face. She was taken by ambulance to Albert Lea Medical Center. The Freeborn County Attorney’s Office will review the police report and decide whether to file charges.

The result of all of this was a debate, touched off in Albert Lea, as to whether they should have allowed the float to participate in the parade (they should NOT have) and whether or not anyone will take responsibility for allowing it (of course not) and whether it constituted a message of intolerance and hate (oh, it certainly did.)

No one should condone rock throwing and whoever did that should be punished. But you can see the emotion that was stirred up. Well, that's what hate groups do, don't they?

Now, I don't know if this is news to anyone, but there are a lot of people of Hispanic heritage who live and work in Minnesota. Many of them are legal residents. Many are not. But, in case anyone hasn't bothered to look lately, this "issue" isn't really a serious one. In fact, I'll draw you a map:



Notice anything? There's a bit of what we call "distance" between Mexico and Minnesota. If there are illegal immigrants who have the skills or the fortitude to get all of the way to Minnesota, chances are, those are the ones who WANT to work and who we should welcome into this country. I mean to tell you, Iowa sure is tempting.

The "hate group" in question is something or other called "Minnesotans Seeking Immigration Reform" and this is their mission statement:

We are Minnesotans Seeking Immigration Reform. Come take a look around and join us in our worthy cause. We believe in strengthening our borders, We believe in SENSIBLE Legal immigration that benefits the USA only and oppose all illegal immigration, We believe in tough oversight concerning issues of temporary and enforced timed visas, government financial assistance only for United States citizens and in supporting our culture and language - English is the language of the land.

It's sad to see home-grown hate groups put their float in hometown parades. I'll bet that if people looked at the association of Minnesota Coalition for Immigration Reduction to, for example, the Chuck Baldwin for President campaign (he's first on their list and first in their hearts!) they'd find a Baptist preacher who rails against the New World Order and thinks 9/11 was an inside job. Or their affiliation to Minnesota Majority, an unhinged hate group that has its fingers in a lot of pies, especially the pies everyone likes to eat, like gay marriage and living a moral, decent life.

Much of the statistical information that feeds these hate groups was supplied by a blatantly dishonest piece of partisan hackery produced for the administration of Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, who is, you guessed it, a Republican under consideration to be McCain's running mate.

The report these groups are relying on is ginned up with phony statistics from the likes of The Washington Times and anti-immigration zealot Steven Camarota.

Camarota, in turn, made the brilliant observation that since three (3!) of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 (remember, the inside job?) were illegal immigrants that we, all of a sudden, had a massive immigration problem. No, we have a massive problem with people from Saudi Arabia coming here to kill Americans, but that's a whole other can of worms.

The folks at the hysterical hate groups point to a figure that appears on a billboard they put up in Minnesota that featured the sign popular in the San Diego, California area--of the father, mother, and child running across a freeway:



Like I said--if those three individuals have run all the way from Mexico to Albert Lea, don't STOP them from immigrating. Give them a free house to live in and something to drink for having such tremendous stamina.

And the phony outrage they're trying to gin up is based on a ridiculous assertion--that "illegal immigrants" cost money. Their estimate? That's right--$118 million dollars. (According to the bullshit report by the Pawlenty administration.) Well, that's a lot of money. Unless you factor in the size of Minnesota's economy.

Which, in 2005, was a gross domestic product of $234 Billion dollars. Less than one percent of the population in Minnesota is employed in agriculture, and that would, presumably, include a number of the people these hate groups rail against. In 2006, the agricultural sector produced over $11 billion dollars, more than enough to offset a paltry $118 million, no matter how you slice it.

We're not talking about dollars, we're talking about people. Poor people looking for work. Poor people are never the problem--no matter what the media, the rich, the hate groups or the politicians try to tell you. They're just people. People who, incidentally, help Minnesotans enjoy a pretty high standard of living compared with most states. People who, by the way, pump money INTO the economy by paying rent, buying goods, and living their lives honorably and decently.

Unlike the idiots who form hate groups and march in parades.

Debunking Some Serious Concern Trolling

UPDATED, 8:52AM, to correct some errors:

With thanks to commenter GHFarber, let me correct some aspects of this post and make it a little clearer.

I am criticizing the tone and the subject of a "forum" post by William Arkin, who, according to some research I did this morning, has actually done some good work that I agree with. I just take exception to what I feel is concern trolling or giving stupid advice to Barack Obama with the way he kicked off this forum. His work on this forum likely is not under the control of any editor at the Washington Post but is likely managed by an online editor at the washingtonpost.com.

My original statement: The unhinged and misinformed crowd at the Washington Post finally gets a new editor soon--hopefully one that actually understands the world. I've had enough of the Len Downie era. I've had more than my fair share of Fred Hiatt. And in checking their ridiculous "forums" section, I find this:

...was wrong--Downie was, and Hiatt is currently, part of a chain that answers to management, but they are likely considered co-equals or near co-equals because the Washington Post keeps OpEd separate from News. I have high hopes that the tenor and tone of the content at the Washington Post will improve, but my high hopes, like this post, are probably going to crash by noon today.

The intended goal of the Washington Post company is to more closely meld their online edition with the print edition and trim costs; that's why they are cutting staff, getting rid of Downie, and trying to update their business model. Their coverage during the primary and over the last few months has been dismal in my estimation and has always been rather awful when it comes to the war in Iraq or issues like the outing of CIA employee Valerie Plame. I was making a clumsy effort to criticize that history when I should have been more specific. I apologize for the generalities when specifics would have been better.

---back to original post:
Arkin starts the discussion with:

Is Barack Obama already shooting himself in the foot as commander-in-chief?…

That's how moderator William Arkin proposes to kick off a discussion about Obama's sit-down interview with the Military Times group of newspapers. By engaging in some serious wankery and concern trolling.

Let's go point by ridiculous point:

In a long interview by the Military Times newspapers, the candidate shows a deference to the uniformed military, a humility that he associates with his lack of service in uniform but one that could also backfire as Clintonian weakness – Bill Clinton that is.

Blatant wankery, that statement. Get this--Barack Obama is being criticized for showing "deference" to the uniformed military. Can you imagine a similar criticism of President Bush? Of President Reagan? Of the first President Bush? Men who deferred to their military advisors on a daily basis. Can you imagine a first President Bush calling out Colin Powell and saying "he's wrong, and I'm not deferring to him--we're going to do this MY way." Can you imagine Ronald Reagan standing up in the Rose Garden and saying "the Joint Chiefs are idiots--I say, we bomb the Soviets tomorrow!" I can't imagine President Bush the younger saying anything at all--I've blocked out the nightmare of the syntax. You get the drift.

And how did Clinton's record turn out? How many fucking quagmires did he lead us into?

“I have always said that as commander in chief, I would seek the advice and counsel of our generals,” Obama said in the interview. “Great. The inmates will be running the asylum,” an insider tells me.

How denigrating. Someone, anonymously, says that the senior leadership of the US military are "inmates" running an "asylum." If that's the case, why isn't anyone doing anything about it? Why is there not panic? Could it be that those "inmates" rightly rebelled against Don Rumsfeld--a man not known for showing deference or humility to people who demonstrated they knew better--got in line behind Bob Gates and stopped a foolish war with Iran? Could it be that the "inmates" saved America without anyone realizing it? Tune in 25 years from now to find out.

Talk about concern trolling--asking Obama to not be deferential to the uniformed military is asinine. Well, if he isn't deferential, then the next thing you'll say is that he's a loose cannon who is ignoring the experts and conducting unilateral military operations without benefit of their wise counsel. Which is it then? Defer or seek counsel? How about--shut the fuck up?

Withdrawal from Iraq, his own surge in Afghanistan, dealing with the Bush legacy on Iran and Pakistan, missile defenses in Europe, increasing the size of the Army and Marine Corps despite his Iraq withdrawal pledge, a bloated and voracious defense budget, the outsourcing of defense, the intelligence mess, China and Russia:

Funny--where's the criticism of THIS administration? Where's the criticism of John McCain and his inability to tell the players apart from one another? Where's the criticism of his "tell people to knock this shit off" clown-cowboy approach to problem solving? Where's the realization that these weren't issues in 2000. You know. When Clinton was President? I mean, if Clinton was such a bad Commander in Chief, how the fuck did he have none of those issues on his plate, peace in the Balkans, a framework for dealing with North Korea, Saddam contained, Iran as a non-issue, Israel and the Palestinians talking, China talking to Taiwan, Russia in a coffin militarily and impotent, Europe ready to meet its NATO obligations, and Osama Bin Laden running like crazy from Sudan to Afghanistan, trying to evade capture? Today, we have Russia and China surging, no diplomacy in the Middle East, Bush's campaign promise in 2000 to get us out of the Balkans unfulfilled, North Korea contained solely because of Christopher Hill's efforts to undo the damage of the Bush Administration, Pakistan providing safe haven for Bin Laden and the Taliban, and 140,000 US troops trapped in Iraq while Afghanistan spins out of control?

When Clinton left office, we still had a military. When Bush leaves office, we won't have but a hollow shell of what once was, with hundreds of thousands of men and women needing medical and mental care that no one bothered to provide for. Which was the Commander in Chief and which was the idiot savant, minus the savant part?

What does the candidate tell us that is his new innovation? He says he wants to allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military. Yeah, let’s spend the first year of a new administration fighting about this again

It's about time--hey, the military needs all the men and women it can get. Obama has a plan to increase the number of men and women who can serve their country. McCain has a plan to put them in Iraq for a hundred fucking years. Who's more qualified to be Commander in Chief? Especially since fat, pink, young Republican males simply haven't stepped up and asked to join the military.

Concern trolling and wankery. Hopefully, the Washington Post can eliminate some of that, and soon.

Debunking the myth of "Left Wing NGOs" and insurgencies

So many misconceptions and lies, so little time. Mary Anastasia O'Grady carries water for the pro-Uribe contingent found in the conservative movement by trying to paint organizations--Non-Governmental Organizations or "NGOs"--that operate in war zones as "ultra-left" and "sympathetic to terrorists." She writes about the recent rescue of three American contractors and Ingrid Betancourt (and a handful of other unnamed souls) and opines that since the trickery involved convincing the FARC rebels that an aid organization was coming to help them, then it is proof that the FARC is in cahoots with the aid organizations.

This warrants attention because it adds to the already robust evidence that left-wing NGOs and other so-called human rights defenders, including Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez and Colombian Sen. Piedad Cordoba, are nothing more than propagandists for terrorists.

When passions over kidnap victim Ingrid Betancourt and the other hostages were running high, these actors pressed Mr. Uribe to grant FARC demands. Now it is clear that the pressure was geared more toward strengthening the rebels' hand than freeing the captives.

Left-wing NGOs have made undermining the Colombian government's credibility a priority for many years. A 2003 internal report from the U.S. Embassy in Bogotá titled "A Closer Look at Human Rights Statistics" confirmed as much. It found that NGO analyses – for example by the Jesuit-founded Center for Popular Research and Education known as Cinep – of the human-rights environment contained a heavy bias against the government while granting a wide berth to guerrillas.

This is sheer wingnuttery in action--always blame the people in the war zone who aren't carrying guns.

The success of the raid is not proof of anything, other than the fact that the FARC is in decline and has a significantly reduced cadre. A ruse that never would have worked three or four years ago worked because of incompetence on the part of the FARC rebels, not on the brilliance of the plan itself. Why did all of those past attempts at rescue fail? Because the FARC reacted and moved accordingly. Why did that fail this time around? Because they didn't react and move--there was no experienced leader to see through the ruse--so they got complacent and tired, and that is deadly for a popular insurgency. The FARC has long been in decline--too many old members and not enough new blood. So much for their power.

Popular insurgencies are made up of the people--therefore, the NGO is usually in a difficult position of helping the people and inadvertently helping--you guessed it--the popular insurgency. That's not "so-called humanitarianism" as O'Grady snarls--it's basic humanitarianism. You know--taking care of people? Isn't that the job of the Colombian government? And isn't the Colombian governments' answer to helping the people to look the other way when narco-terrorists disguised as right-wing pro-government militia come barreling into town? Who would you prefer that they assist--the right wing death squads that shoot up villages or the insurgents themselves? The mission of the NGO is to help whoever needs help. I don't think they have time to ask for membership cards and ID. There aren't many good guys, but there sure are a lot of poor people who need help. It's unrealistic to think that an organization that isn't carrying guns in the war zone and is trying to help people wouldn't inadvertently help a few guerrillas. I'd be shocked if they didn't, but I'm an adult who lives in the real world.

Now, simply accepting a document from the US Embassy in Bogota is difficult--not that there is anything wrong with having a bias, but failing to accept that the bias could exist is almost enough to debunk the claim itself. If the embassy in the country that we give billions to is led by a political appointee of an administration that enthusiastically promises more billions in aid to that same country, then how is there any way to verify that the analysis made by that embassy is independent and verifiable? When was the last time the Bush Administration said anything substantive or critical about Colombia?

Where does that mentality come from? The likes of NGO Watch:

In May 2003, USAID Administrator Andrew Natsios delivered his now-infamous speech to NGOs at a conference organised by the US umbrella grouping InterAction. In it, he roundly scolded NGOs for not clearly and consistently identifying their aid activities in Afghanistan as funded by the US government, and admonished them that they needed to demonstrate measurable results if they wanted to continue to receive USAID funding in the future. Shortly after the speech (in a coincidence noted in press reports) a new website, ‘NGO Watch’, was launched by the conservative think-tanks the American Enterprise Institute and the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies.

The website project, kicked off by a conference entitled ‘NGOs: The Growing Power of an Unelected Few’, contends that the largely left-wing NGO sector wields undue influence over US foreign policy and US corporations. The venture has prompted a more than usual degree of concern among humanitarian practitioners, not least because several senior administration officials come from the two think-tanks involved.

The site’s founders declare that, ‘without prejudice’, they intend to ‘compile factual data about non-governmental organizations’, and much of what is on NGO Watch is no different from the information posted on any number of websites and consortia rosters. Yet some in the US NGO community suspect that the NGO Watch project was designed as a tool for the administration to bully non-compliant NGOs, so that those who insist on openly criticising the US government’s actions in Iraq and elsewhere will be held up for public lambasting on the site.

The tone of the language about NGOs (‘What are their agendas? Who runs these groups? Who funds them? And to whom are they accountable?’); its corporate sponsorship; and its underlying ideology indicate a heightened level of anti-NGO sentiment, uncomfortably close to official government circles. How real is the threat to NGOs and humanitarian action? Insiders at USAID and others in the US humanitarian community dismiss fears as conspiracy theory-mongering – an over-reaction fuelled by Euro-humanitarian indignation.

Yes, there are communication problems with the military, but USAID is a longstanding partner and protector of NGOs and fully understands the importance of their independence and the principle of neutrality, despite some surprising rhetoric from officials (Secretary of State Colin Powell’s talk of NGOs as ‘force multipliers’, for example). Natsios comes from an NGO background himself, and was known not to mince words with the US government.

I broke that up into paragraphs so that it can read better, and I hope I did not do disservice to the material. Abby Stoddard has been writing tirelessly about this subject, and she all but predicts the kind of backlash we are seeing in the wake of the rescue of the hostages in Colombia. If you think that the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society are looking out for mom, Apple pie, the truth, the American Way, and free and open exchanges of ideas, you're kidding yourself. They are the perpetuation of wingnuttery and neoconservative thought, plain and simple.

See the coincidence? In the same year that the US Embassy is claiming that NGOs are undermining the right wing government of Alvaro Uribe, the NGO Watch organization is created in order to further the bullying.

And that's the basis of O'Grady's criticism? More like the continuation of neoconservative goals and right wing intimidation of the people who, as I said, go into the war zone without guns and try to help the people. Undermining the contributions of NGOs allows the neoconservatives to operate in countries without any check on their power--with no one to document the atrocities from either side, the atrocities don't exist. I am not accusing the US government of atrocity--I'm saying that it is easier to bomb villages from a mile up by accident or by virtue of a bad piece of intelligence and write it off as "collateral damage" if there's no one helping the victims. Maybe I am accusing it of an atrocity. Instead of getting caught up in that, let's just acknowledge that horrible mistakes happen in war zones, and if there aren't busybodies running around taking notes, it is easier for a defense establishment to perpetuate the notion that they're saving the people from themselves and bringing them Democracy. I think we could use less of that.

Demonizing the NGOs is easier than dealing with the human rights nightmare that is the Uribe government:

Colombia’s right-wing paramilitary groups are immeasurably powerful. Through drug trafficking and other illegal businesses, they have amassed enormous wealth. They have taken over vast expanses of the country’s territory to use for coca cultivation or as strategic corridors through which they can move drugs and weapons. In recent years, they have succeeded in expelling left-wing guerrillas and strengthening their own control of many parts of the country. And thanks to this power, they now exert a very high degree of political influence, both locally and nationally.

Paramilitaries accrued their power and influence by force. “It is stipulated that there are borders and you have to win people’s respect, and so we had to kill people to show that you could not come in or go out of certain areas,” a demobilized paramilitary told Human Rights Watch. “It was not a fight for Colombia. It was a drug trafficking war,” said a former squad commander, discussing his experience as a paramilitary.

Considered terrorist organizations by the United States and Europe, over the last two decades paramilitaries have killed thousands of civilians; tortured, kidnapped, and stolen from tens of thousands more; and threatened and otherwise disrupted the lives of literally hundreds of thousands of Colombians, with almost no consequences for the perpetrators. To the contrary, paramilitaries have historically enjoyed the collaboration, support, and toleration of units of the Colombian security forces, a fact that has led many to refer to the paramilitaries as a “sixth division” of the army. Today, paramilitaries have made major gains in consolidating this impunity, along with their economic and political power, with the collusion of the Colombian government.

Two years ago, paramilitary commanders initiated demobilization negotiations with the administration of President Álvaro Uribe in the hope that they could obtain a deal that would allow them to avoid extradition and potentially lengthy prison terms in the United States for drug trafficking. Since the start of negotiations, thousands of paramilitaries have started to turn in weapons and enter government reintegration programs. This trend accelerated towards the end of 2004, when five paramilitary blocks entered the demobilization process by turning in weapons. The process is poised to accelerate much more rapidly: on June 21, 2005, the Colombian Congress approved a demobilization law that gives paramilitaries almost everything they want.

Why isn't there any accountability for this? Oh, that's right--lip service is paid to a phony war on drugs we never had any intention of fighting. Whatever keeps Uribe in power as a bulwark against Venezuela is the rule of the day. Why this country insists on opposing and pissing off people who have scads of oil is beyond me.

I should clarify something--in general, the NGOs operate without being armed. There are some instances where this is simply not possible. Stoddard has written about what the NGOs have to do to protect themselves. It's not widespread and it's not common practice, however. And that's what I was alluding to.

What can agencies do to defend themselves?

Some agencies have taken to hiring armed guards, but that's a very sensitive topic. No one knows who's doing it or where, and even within organizations themselves it's not discussed, because it's antithetical to the whole humanitarian stance.

When humanitarians try to fashion their own security approach, it's fashioned on what's called the "acceptance" side of the security triangle - blending in, reaching out to local populations, becoming known and trusted entities within the community, and making sure you're constantly projecting a neutral and impartial face. That works really well in some places, and has no effect in others. Certainly you can't base your security in Iraq or Afghanistan on acceptance at this point. So agencies have either gone completely to the deterrence side, traveling with military convoys, or they've gone completely in new and strange means of protective approaches. We've seen clandestine approaches, in which they take all marking off themselves, their cars, their aid, and deliver under the table, as it were, so that the beneficiaries themselves don't know where this aid is coming from.

And, yes, that means that the efforts of the NGO can and sometimes do end up supporting a popular insurgency within a population. Well, sometimes government aid ends up supporting things we don't agree with as well--like right wing death squads. Which is worse?

Freeper Ignorance of the American Flag

Found this by accident. I wanted to find some really cool colors and pictures to post for this weekend, but when I found THIS, well, it became a much better post by throwing what I had planned out the window.

Some idiot Freeper started saying "ding ding ding!" and started jumping up and down because he THOUGHT he spotted an unpatriotic display of the American Flag at a protest in Berkley, California last spring:


CAPTION from FreeRepublic.com:

Flag in distress? Vietnam beads & a rat tail!

Hope I don't know him!

Semper Fi

First of all, dumbfuck--your "Semper Fi" is a little out of place for someone who is obviously a non-Marine. Anyone with any brains at all--any brains at all--will tell you that the flag sewn on the leather jacket of the gentleman in the picture is NOT an American flag in distress. An American flag in distress is displayed upside down. The American flag pictured here is stars to the front, as in, what a warrior would carry into battle.



See? See how the flag on this soldier's uniform looks?



What a great object lesson for this holiday weekend--there is no shortage of denigrating wingnuts and fuckheads who know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER about this country who will spout off at the drop of a hat against another American without even bothering to actually fucking know what they're talking about.

Is this still America? Sometimes, I just sit here and shake my head.

--WS

Wingnut Monica Crowley Plagiarizing Again

She's one of the worst out there, blatantly dishonest and never, ever entertaining. I mean, if you're going to be a wingnut, at least be funny, right? I've seen some of the stuff at "23/6" and I think it's pedestrian garbage. I don't think it's any good at all, but that's only on the times I've seen their content and none of it has ever interested me. How bad is it when Monica Crowley get's caught stealing your stuff, though?

A few weeks ago, the site 23/6 made a parody of the “You Can’t Have Alex” MoveOn.org ad. The parody featured Laurie Kilmartin, who explained today, “We called it ‘John McCain, Meet William,’ with me as the mom and my son as ‘William.’” But on right-wing radio host Monica Crowley’s June 21 radio show, Crowley took credit for Kilmartin’s parody ad, claiming she made the ad to make fun of MoveOn.org:

She began tearing apart the MoveOn ad and she played our parody ad as she went to commercial, without crediting us. … When Monica came back from commercial, she played our parody again but this time she claimed she created it. “We put together a little spoof there of that MoveOn.org where the woman holds up her baby…”

Slate fills us in on her previous thievery...

h/t to the Mighty Think Progress...--WS

Refuting the Idiotic Assertions of K-Lo

It's super-bonus wingnut-debunking time--and why not go with a slam-dunk and take some K-Lo (Kathryn Jean Lopez) out for a good debunking?

Today, she gets some valuable exposure from the folks at CBS News.com:

George Bush may have gone to war for Halliburton and or his daddy but at least he wasn’t getting us attacked in New York and Washington again. During the 2004 campaign, Clark explained that President Bush “was focused single-mindedly on missile defense, the centerpiece of his foreign policy.” And so: “George Bush was sworn in in January 2001- a full nine months before the attacks. That day he took the oath that every commander-in-chief of our nation has taken: to defend our nation and to protect the lives of the American people. But for nine months he did not live up to that oath.”

As always, the facts surface and K-Lo is left holding her plentiful sack of lies...

According to Clark: “They [the administration] disregarded the warnings of the intelligence community and the Clinton administration on what the greatest threat to America was. They marched to their own drumbeat and they got caught out of step and it cost 3,000 people their lives in this country.”

Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S

It does beg the question of what exactly the Democrats who were in the White House before Bush did to prevent 9/11. But that would suggest Clark should be held accountable for his words, something the U.S. media hasn’t bothered to do. If we did, Clark would not be an Obama foreign-policy adviser, he would have never been on "Face the Nation" as an Obama surrogate, he would have never been a Hillary adviser ridiculously arguing that Clinton’s experience exceeds McCain’s.

He did a hell of a lot more than Bush ever did.

Conservatives should not let this Clark moment pass. Barack Obama should distance himself from efforts to dishonor McCain’s military service. Obama should be disappointed and saddened. This is not the Wesley Clark he knew. And he should drop Wesley Clark as an adviser. That would be general progress away from the paranoid style of American politics.

Right after McCain drops all of the Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth (like Bud Day), the lobbyists who think that if terrorists strike the US that it would be good for McCain (like Charlie Black), and anyone else who is incapable of understanding that Wes Clark isn't the bad guy here--the bad guy is the guy who forgot to hide what was in McCain's military records.

--WS