...Folks, we're seeing the official recloseting of the Democrats in terms of gay visibility and outreach. If you had any illusions that the 2006 iteration of the Democratic party isn't ready to throw gays under the bus (but take homo cash), here's convincing evidence to chew on... That's one of the problems with not standing for anything. You end up selling out your allies and partners for minimal short term gain, until you have none left.
#1
I don't see how this can possibly help the Dems.
It's obviously a bid to win back the support of labor union, lunch-pail Reagan Democrats. "See, we really ARE mainstream, so you can vote for us again (and get your $20.00 per week that your union boss promised)."
This is no different than the noises being made by Dems like Carville about how the party really DOESN"T want strict gun control any more. Pfeh.
The problem with this approach is threefold. First of all, thanks to the 'net, enough of what these people have said in the past is widely available and can be disseminated quickly and thoroughly. Those who have always supported the radical gay agenda will be outed (as it were) quickly. This isn't 1989, when the MSM has absolute control over the information stream.
Secondly, the Dems are already demographically in trouble and to diminish their core voters even by a small amount in an attempt to attract unsure support from another source will likely result in lower overall support at the ballot box.
Thirdly, from a PR standpoint, this can only hurt them. To gays, this will seem like betrayal; they may not vote Repub, but they may not vote at all. The Reagan Democrats aren't going to be snowed, either. Nobody with intelligence greater than that of a mosquito will actually believe that most Dems have changed their mind about the radical gay agenda, any more than gun owners actually believe that Dems have somehow miraculously discovered the joys of the Second Amendment.
While many gays will reason that no matter how bad the Dems are, the Repubs are worse, may will not. A policy change like this will likely end up hurting rather than helping the Dems.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
03/05/2006 6:58 Comments ||
Top||
#2
True Believers[tm] will always drink the koolaid.
See the Dems. See the Dems run. Run Dems run.
And just who voted for the reestablishment of the Patriot Act?
[I first voted against it, before I voted for it] Kerry, who days before was on Koskiddieland for donations.
Barbara Boxer
You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.
Abraham Lincoln
which of course tells you who the full time fools are. I think the Reps have figures out the old concept that you don't have to be faster than the bear when he's chasing you. You just have to be faster than someone else [Dems] in the group.
#6
Gays consider themselves regular people now. some of 'em even vote conservative.
is that to imply that to mock my comment as somehow homophobic? Yeah, that's profound and typical. This is just one more example of the left standing for absolutely nothing. At least the conservatives are honest - even if you don't agree with them. They basically state what they think - do what you want in the privacy of your homes, - but we aren't going to approve civil unions and we don't think that the military is ready for open homosexuality.
The left has dumped the homosexuals by the side of the road and said, hey thanks, but you guys weren't as popular as we thought you were. Hope you don't mind the walk, but we still love you.
I think it's rich. It has nothing to do with a stance on homosexuality, it has to do with watching Andrew Sullivan sell his soul for acceptance. Now he doesn't even get that from the dems. He just gets a promise of, "sure I cheat on ya, honey - but at least I'll pretend to love ya in private".
#7
I didn't mean to imply that you're homophobic, 2b. I never got the sense that you were, although admittedly I tend not to notice the unsaid... and sometimes even not the slightly ambiguous.
I think there's something in the air -- lots of us (me included!) are a bit on edge lately. I hope whatever it is happens soon, or Dr. Steve is going to have to start administering calming teas wholesale, with me at the front of the line, ready to mainline the stuff. ;-)
#8
I think quite a few more conservatives like me who have strong libertarian like inclinations and are for non-government mandated "social justice" feel that discrimination against anyone is evil.
We are for equal rights not superior rights. We are not for changes in the social structure that are too socailly disruptive to society. Gay marriges are socially disruptive. Race, gender are like each other when it comes to "human rights". Sexual orientation is not completely similar. Therfore society has a say about "gay' marriages."Gays" can be given legal rights to many of the things marriage grants couples with the "marriage" part.
Posted by: SPoD ||
03/05/2006 17:08 Comments ||
Top||
#9
tw, I think that if Bush has his choice, any necessary action won't come until after the Fall elections. But events might force his hand.
#10
Andy's tied up, all atwitter over the Oscars and how many Brokebutt Mtn will win....
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/05/2006 17:16 Comments ||
Top||
#11
If Bush wants to take any action without UN approval, he needs to put the Congresscritters' feet to the fire before the election. Otherwise nothing will get done before 2009. I wonder if we'd even respond if a plane crashed into the Sears Tower.
#12
NS - the early summer "Iran - are you with us or with them" offensive on Congress?
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/05/2006 17:27 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Yup. Make your vote and defend it in front of the voters in November. Same squeeze play as last time. Rove's biggest asset is Ahmadinnerjacket in Tehran.
#14
I knew two gay guys I have the utmost of respect for. I also think they would be welcomed guests here, except they are still OTR, and need to remain anonymous. I will give some hints, and see if you can guess what they do for a living?
Both are skinny and muscular. They do a lot of hiking in very mountainous terrain. They travel the world extensively, and to some rather atypical tourist destinations. Between them they speak seven languages. One is American, the other German, and they have work visas from Switzerland.
One is an expert photographer, the other an expert with electronics with considerable medical background. They don't seem to be troubled by local or regional instability, even in places regarded as dangeous or hostile.
Amazing how they afford all that travel, just working as day laborers in Switzerland a month or two during the winter, usually.
#15
tw - I should have been more clear, I was referring to #4, not you. I know you better than that.
I'm so tired of the liberal lies and sell outs. This is just another one. I could go on about their lies - but this is just one more. They are basically pretending to be conservatives because that is what you need to be to get elected - suddenly they are hunting, Christians, for family values, tougher on the WOT, for border controls etc. But elected they will do exactly the opposite. They've been gloating about this tactic on some of the dem blogs.
Honestly, I think their lies will pay off this year. I suspest the Republicans will get their behinds kicked because they have gotten greedy with their success in the war on terror and are trying to push other parts of the conservative agenda that they would never try to push if they're heads weren't so swollen by the circus that has become the dem party.
But most of the people don't pay attention and the WOT is something that they just wish would go away. They will be distracted by the bread and circuses, and will believe the promises that the Dems will not only not deliver - but will cause the US to go down the same road of self-destruction that Europe is facing - for the very same reasons... corruption, selling out, blame, and a belief that oh, yes, you can have it all if you just say it should be so.
#17
and one more comment - I don't care about people's sexual orientation. My original comment was specific towards Andrew Sullivan because I used to follow him way back before he came down with BDS. He sold his soul for the dem party and because the party refused to meet his timeline on political acceptance of gay issues. So he became Bush's most frantic critic. My comment was meant towards him - not towards gays in general.
#18
clarification: He sold his soul for the dem party and because the Republican party refused to meet his timeline on political acceptance of gay issues.
#21
I'm not so sanguine about Democratic Party prospects in the 2006 election ... I was listening to "Yes, yes, don't tell me," a current events quiz show on one of the local NPR stations, (I preened myself upon knowing all the answers! except about the Playboy Bunny who married that ancient Texas millionaire, and whose fight for the estate is going to the Supreme Court) and they had Peggy Noonan as their charming celebrity phone-in contestant. One of the hosts actually asked her how she would advise a party completely out of power, with no chance of returning because they don't have a message, what they should do. The host emphasized this point several times as he posed the question -- they have no message, so how can they seduce voters -- and he laughingly agreed with Ms. Noonan that they weren't likely to win any elections based on their own lack of positions.
lotp, if you're right about timing, I'm going to have to work extra hard at not being all over nerves in the meantime. And I might as well apologize upfront againgst the time when I fail -- I promise I won't mean it, so I hope I'll be forgiven.
George Clooneys new film about the oil business, Syriana, was released on Friday and is competing for two Oscars this evening best supporting actor for Clooney himself and best original screenplay. The film paints a dark picture of the global oil business through the overlapping arcs of several individuals.
Clooney is Bob Barnes, a CIA agent hunting terrorists in the Middle East. A black attorney, Jeffrey Wright, taking on his first private-sector job at a well-connected Washington law firm, investigates whether the questionable business practices of two large Texan oil companies will scupper their proposed merger.
Matt Damon plays an expatriate American financial adviser and confidant of the reforming heir- apparent of an oil-rich Gulf emirate. Meanwhile, at the bottom of the industry, an unemployed young Pakistani immigrant in the same country is drawn into Islamic radicalism and terrorism.
The film, and Clooneys character in particular, is based on See No Evil, the memoirs of a dedicated and daring CIA veteran, Bob Baer. His odyssey saw him hunt the terrorists who kidnapped Americas citizens in Lebanon, destroyed its Beirut embassy, killed its soldiers in bomb attacks and blew a Pan Am airliner out of the sky over Lockerbie.
He went on to work in both Turkmenistan and with the Iraqi exiles and the Kurds who sought to overthrow Saddam Hussein from northern Iraq. Yet the final chapters of See No Evil, which see a frustrated Baer return to Washington, describe how weak leadership, bureaucratic infighting and corruption left the terrorists to go unpunished and blinded America to the rising threat of Al-Qaeda.
The movies slogan, Everything is connected, belies the films main failing: that it is not at all reflective of the contents of Baers book, which describes how he saw the Clinton White House put out the welcome mat for the very dirtiest people in the oil business in return for campaign donations and fat payments to the presidents cronies.
Roger Tamraz, then a fugitive from an outstanding Interpol arrest warrant for fraud, got to pitch his plan for an oil pipeline face-to-face with Bill Clinton over coffee in the Oval Office. He began his career, Baer tells us, by working to channel millions of dollars in kickbacks from an oil pipeline deal to Kamal Adham, the long-time head of Saudi intelligence, and went on to partner everyone from the Sicilian mafia to Colonel Gadaffi of Libya.
Another notorious businessman benefiting from Clintons interventions was the commodity broker Marc Rich, who spent over a decade on the run from American justice before Clinton pardoned him just before leaving office.
Instead of depicting this history, we get a political fairytale pushing the anti-business agenda of Clooney and Stephen Gaghan, Syrianas writer and director ....
In a sense Gaghan and Clooney are correct everything is connected. The international energy markets, the war on terror, the spread of democracy and liberalism in the Middle East are all complex, interwoven issues, and no film can fully represent their interplay. But the films creators misconceive the true nature of corruption.
In the Middle East it is borne of dictatorship and it is political. With free markets in oil shut down in favour of grasping state monopolies, corruption is inevitable, facilitated by the secretive middlemen operating outside the regulations that govern American and European companies.
Neither, as the example of Osama Bin Laden and the well- educated middle-class pilots who led the 9/11 hijackings should show, does poverty directly drive terrorism. On the contrary, judging from Clooneys example, if you want to drive a man to become a radical opponent of his government, just give him millions of dollars and a house in the Hollywood hills.
#1
Clooney, etc should know that a consensus is brewing on the issue of the authenticity of modern Muslim terrorism, as clones of original Islam. America didn't cause Islamoterrorism; Muhammad did. Academics who believe otherwise - Karen Armstrong/John Esposito and their kind - either work for Saudi funded entities, or make a lot of money from whore-conferencing.
Clooney could win because his Murrow (Hollywood) v McCarthy movie was well received. Personally, Senator McCarthy was guilty of rhetorical over-extension at best. His book, "America's Retreat From Victory" - based on an inspired 100,000 word speech that he gave, mostly off the cuff - is a incisive critique of the "Marshall Plan," that caused General M to retract much of his moronic red carpet subsidy.
Recently I wrote about a newly released study from the West Point Combating Terrorism Center. The CTC just released documents associated with a study on al-Qaeda. One of them was a letter described here.
As I read the letter, I couldnt help but remember the comments bemoaning President Bush and his war on terror from the likes of Richard Clarke,
I think hes done a terrible job on the war against terrorism.
Michael Scheuer wrote an entire book called Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror. Hillary Clinton derided the President at Berkeley last month, making a joke about missing the tallest guy in Afghanistan, and attacking his management of the war on terror.
To his credit, Paul Pillar gets it right:
Al Qaeda, although still a danger, has been badly damaged by the measures taken over the past two and a half years.
Although as Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard points out in his article Paul Pillar Speaks, Again, Mr. Pillar seems to be completely against the possibility of state sponsored terrorism.
So what was it about the letter that made me think of this esteemed crowd? Here is the description of the letter dated June 13th, 2002:
Synopsis: Abd-al-Halim Adl vigoroulsy challenges the leadership of Osama Bin Laden and accuses him of being close-minded and oblivious to the great harm suffered by Al-Qaida in recent months. He writes to Mukhtar both to confront him for his complicity in these ill-conceived plans and to change Mukhtars thinking.
Key Themes: Abd-al-Halim Adl writes a letter to his dear friend Mukhtar to challenge him for his role in the defeats that have befallen al-Qaida in the last six months, and to encourage him in his challenge to the management of Osama Bin Laden. The recent time period is one in which the movement has gone from misfortune to disaster with serious setbacks encountered in East Asia, Europe, America, the Horn of Africa, Yemen, the Gulf, and Morocco.
Excerpts from the letter:
consider all the fatal and successive disasters that have afflicted us during a period of no more than six months.
but today we are experiencing one setback after another and have gone from misfortune to disaster
My beloved brother, stop all foreign actions, stop sending people to captivity, stop devising new operations, regardless of whether orders come or do not come from Abu-Abdallah (translator notes this is Bin Laden). Our adherents have lost confidence in us
And my personal favorite:
we only lost what we built in years
No, this is not Michael Moore talking about the United States. It is apparently a senior member of al-Qaeda telling another that Bin Laden has ruined them.
Read it and thank the great Americans who are making this happen. Now to be clear, I dont think this means the threat has gone away, but to say that President Bushs war on terror has failed overlooks the facts at a fundamental level. The United States has had major successes in the disruption, destruction, and denial of al-Qaeda operations and this letter proves it. Clarke, Scheuer, and Senator Clinton are wrong.
Posted by: Ray Robison ||
03/05/2006 13:44 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
STRATEGYPAGE.com and other Blog posters are arguing that AL QAEDA [AS AN ORGANZ] NO LONGER EXISTS, and that many of those orgs claiming to be part of AQ are actually unassociated or independ groups of young men-boys looking for their 15 minutes of fame/glory, at least for now.
The latter proclaim to attack US-Allied interests in the ME but typically end up killing mostly innocent Muslims and themselves without putting a dent in US efforts at local democracy- or nation-building. Most agree that Osama, Zawi, and Zarq-ey, and a few other notables, however, are still out there bent on inducing as much anarchy and mayhem as possible.
I'm trying. I've been trying all week. The other day, I drove another 30 miles or so on the streets and alleys of Baghdad. I'm looking for the civil war that The New York Times declared. And I just can't find it.
Maybe actually being on the ground in Iraq prevents me from seeing it. Perhaps the view's clearer from Manhattan. It could be that my background as an intelligence officer didn't give me the right skills.
Ouch!
And riding around with the U.S. Army, looking at things first-hand, is certainly a technique to which The New York Times wouldn't stoop in such an hour of crisis.
Double ouch!
Let me tell you what I saw anyway. Rolling with the "instant Infantry" gunners of the 1st Platoon of Bravo Battery, 4-320 Field Artillery, I saw children and teenagers in a Shia slum jumping up and down and cheering our troops as they drove by. Cheering our troops.
All day - and it was a long day - we drove through Shia and Sunni neighborhoods. Everywhere, the reception was warm. No violence. None.
And no hostility toward our troops. Iraqis went out of their way to tell us we were welcome.
Instead of a civil war, something very different happened because of the bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra. The fanatic attempt to stir up Sunni-vs.-Shia strife, and the subsequent spate of violent attacks, caused popular support for the U.S. presence to spike upward.
Think Abu Musab al-Zarqawi intended that?
In place of the civil war that elements in our media declared, I saw full streets, open shops, traffic jams, donkey carts, Muslim holiday flags - and children everywhere, waving as our Humvees passed. Even the clouds of dust we stirred up didn't deter them. And the presence of children in the streets is the best possible indicator of a low threat level.
Southeast Baghdad, at least, was happy to see our troops. . . .
Posted by: Mike ||
03/05/2006 13:02 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
Summary: For four decades, relations among the major nuclear powers have been shaped by their common vulnerability, a condition known as mutual assured destruction. But with the U.S. arsenal growing rapidly while Russia's decays and China's stays small, the era of MAD is ending -- and the era of U.S. nuclear primacy has begun.
Posted by: john ||
03/05/2006 10:56 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Hush John. It's bad manners to talk about painless first strikes.
#3
Yup. Buck Turgidson is at the controls of the US of A ready to coerce the rest of the world with its nuclear superiority. One section is even entitled "Stop Worrying and Love the Bonb?" The conclusion is:
The United States is now seeking to maintain its global preeminence, which the Bush administration defines as the ability to stave off the emergence of a peer competitor and prevent weaker countries from being able to challenge the United States in critical regions such as the Persian Gulf. If Washington continues to believe such preeminence is necessary for its security, then the benefits of nuclear primacy might exceed the risks. But if the United States adopts a more restrained foreign policy -- for example, one premised on greater skepticism of the wisdom of forcibly exporting democracy, launching military strikes to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and aggressively checking rising challengers -- then the benefits of nuclear primacy will be trumped by the dangers.
If any body takes this seriously I'd be happy to discuss. Otherwise it seems to be a waste of time to state the obvious.
#4
I think that the era of MAD may indeed be ending, but for a very different reason: the era of the ballistic missile may be ending.
It's called the "wet blanket", in this case a term coined by a science fiction writer who postulated that there might be some method, some new technology, by which ballistic missiles would no longer work. His idea was simple: if such a thing is invented, then what do we do?
He continued by pointing out that we had become over-reliant on nuclear missiles. What if we had to go back to war the old-fashioned WWII way?
Or more likely, the Korean Conflict way?
Few people know that the American-led UN forces in Korea had been in extreme danger of being overwhelmed by the sheer number of enemy, and were saved *only* by an outbreak of hemorrhagic smallpox among the Chinese army, that decimated their ranks.
Even with today's advances in technology, we are sill vulnerable to attacks with vast, overwhelming numbers of enemy, even with very low technology. If nuclear weapons are not available, do we even have enough high explosive available to do the job?
#5
What if we had to go back to war the old-fashioned WWII way? Or more likely, the Korean Conflict way?
There are other alternatives than those.
Even with today's advances in technology, we are sill vulnerable to attacks with vast, overwhelming numbers of enemy, even with very low technology. If nuclear weapons are not available, do we even have enough high explosive available to do the job?
First, if we are really in danger, nukes may not be off the table.
And second, it really only depends on public support for all-out slaughter.
More likely is a nibble-at-the-edges approach that tries to replicate Vietnam and Mogadishu, staying under the level of intensity that would provoke an all-out response. Depends a whole lot who is in office and what has come before, what our response would be.
#9
"Sheer numbers of the enemy" - yes, iff you LOCAL danger as to unit integrity; no, iff you mean the UN forces were in danger of being kicked off the Korean Peninsula as in the early days of the NK offensive vv Pusan. The gist is, coupled wid non-combat casualties induced by operations in the normal NK climate, espec winter, the US-led UN Command were killing, wounding, and capturing so many Chicoms Mao and his generals were concerned over the ability of the Party vv the Party-controlled Army to both maintain the anti-US-UN effort in Korea plus Party-led Commie domestic control back in mainland China. We were destroying or rendering ineffective many the best mil formations the Chinese had, includ those they relied upon to protect mainland China.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
