Denis Boyles, "Europress Review" @ National Review Online
. . . the Independent covers Obama the way Men&'s Health covers workout programs:
Barack Obama for beginners
The most lionised US politician since JFK visits Europe next week. Mass outbreaks of Obama-mania are expected. Are you prepared?
The piece snark-snipes the competitive zeal of hard-working American journalists who are outdoing each other in a race to produce the fluffiest, most inconsequential coverage of the candidate. On Wednesday, cable news breathlessly reported that Obama had spent more time in the gym than on the campaign trail as he prepared for his European tour. We also now know the contents of the candidate's iPod , which, the Indy adds wryly, is apparently Bob Dylan. He has at least 30 Bob Dylan songs on his iPod, including the entire Blood On The Tracks album. The story runs for miles.
Posted by: Mike ||
07/23/2008 12:06 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Well, it appears everybody's aware of it.
So why's it keep on happening? Or does the media not care that it's being perceived as having the ethics of a South Side crack whore?
#5
OTOH, NET Poster > opined that in the so-called OBAMESSIAH, Amers will see the worst of both CARTER + BILL CLINTON years redux. Namely:
(1) US trusting IRAN NOT to dev nuclear weapons > new CARTER-ERA SOVIET PROMISE NOT TO INVADE AFGHANISTAN; +
(2) CHANDRA LEVY MURDER as MAN-GATE [vv Barack's alleged homosexuality] > NEW MONICA-GATE???
(3) NEW US WAR IN IRAN OR PAKISTAN = CHANDRA's WAR > NEW MONICA's WAR???
(4) GLOBAL WARMING CRISES > NEW 1970's STAGFLATION + PRICE CONTROLS.
(5) Other.
BLASTS FROM THE PAST.
OUCH!
And Amer is still low on POPCORN thanx to GASAHOL!
#6
What's all the fuss? The fluffiest, most inconsequential coverage seems appropriate for the fluffiest, most inconsequential candidate. McCain should be able to take Obama down with the fact that Obama's entire foreign policy experience consists of a week of photo ops.
United States Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama has got it right - Afghanistan, and not Iraq, is "the central front in the war on terror". Al-Qaeda couldn't agree more. That is exactly where they want the war to be fought, and then extended into Pakistan.
#2
Of course that is what they want. They already got their asses kicked in Iraq and they have friendly bases and support in Pakland. They tried to make Iraq a central theater and failed.
#3
A good article - while I broadly agree wid many of its premises as per Osama's = AQ's strategy vv Pakistan, METHINKS IT IS MORE CORRECT TO SAY THAT OSAMA = RADICAL ISLAM IS ULTIM ENGAGING IN GREAT POWER "BRINKMANSHIP" AS COVER TO PROTECT ISLAMIST EFFORTS AT NUCLEARIZATION includ TECHS TRANSFERS.
IIMB the artic's "REAL FRONT" still includes IRAN and likely the former Soviet SSRs. SAVING THE JIHAD vv USA > "TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE" = RADICAL ISLAM NEEDS TECHS, RESOURCES, ETC. + WARRIORS - read, WARRIORS WHOM KNOW HOW TO USE SAME - AMAP ASAP WHICH PRAGMATICALLY THEY'RE NOT GOING TO GET IN PERENNIALLY UNDERDEV THIRD WORLD AFRICA OR THE AMERICAS. The latter certainly can provide untold numbers of brave new fighters for Islam + Islamist Jihad-Insurgency, but will only be somuch "cannon fodder" agz US-Western MilTech superiority. ANY PROTO-EMIRATE/CALIPHATE IN CENTRAL ASIA + PERIPHERIES MUST ALSO BE PROTRACTIVELY PROTECTED AND DEFENDED, NOT JUST CREATED.
#4
A a reminder, RADICAL MULLAHS > VARIOUS OIL-RESOURCES CATACYLSM(S)/CRISES [Global Warming] + GLOBAL MUTUAL DESTRUCTION-ANARCHIES, including but not limited to inducing ANTI-US ASYMMETRIC NUCLEAR-WMD WARFARE ON MUSLIM SOIL AS DEFENSE AGZ US INVASION AND OCCUPATION, IS TO THE ADVANTAGE OF ISLAM = ISLAMIST AGENDA.
THE most highly placed Australian to serve in Iraq has offered a lethal critique of the Australian way of war in its diplomatic, strategic and military dimensions, challenging the orthodoxy of the Howard and Rudd governments.
#2
Molan's vision from Iraqi headquarters was that US military leaders divided nations into "swimmers and non-swimmers": those nations whose troops fight and die, and those who attend to show the flag.
#1
There is only one real form of soft jihad, and it only happens as part of the Islamic Reformation.
It is the changing of the entire meaning of jihad from external to internal struggle, only. It must be accompanied by the ethic that the external expression of jihad represents a failure of an individual's spiritual struggle.
For a Muslim to express jihad in action shows that he has failed in his submission to Allah.
Certainly it is hypocritical, and ignores the written word, but that is the essence of reformation.
#2
Soft Jihad is rioting and otherwise intimidating the west into bending to accomidate Islam. It is done without actually killing anyone and it is happening now.
#3
Anonymoose!!!! Stop dreaming please. Soft jihad is NOT in the Koran. It is either an invention of people who were trying to curb Islam's violence or tkaiyah: lies for consumption of infidels.
What is in the Koran not one but many times ios calls to make war on infidels and make them pay the jizya. And there is no way to change Koran: it is supposed to have existed from the beginning of times, it is supposed to never having been created. God himself cannot change it.
#4
And the 2008-2012 [2016?] post-Dubya POTUS Period wins yet anuther one!
ALL THATS MISSING IS FOR WHITNEY FAN OSAMA's + MOUD's, ETC. "HIDDEN IMAM-MAHDI" TO APPEAR AND SAVE IRAQ + AFGHANISTAN = KHARTOUM, etc. FROM GORDON + KITCHENER??? HOLLYWOOD > Hopefully,
"the MAHDI" will be able to stop his Boyz from cutting off CHUCK HESTON's = GENERAL GORDON's head lest the prophecy be fulfilled that despite great victory the Mahdi's Jihad will be doomed.
D *** NGED SEXY WHITNEY, + MORIARITY, GOD'S GREAT BATTLE = ISLAMIST APOCALYPSE IS AHEAD OF US, NOT BEHIND US!
We missed the THEORETICAL AND ENGINEERING/QUANTIT
APPLICATIONS OF MTV HEADBANGERS BALL TO THE WORKS OF OMAR KHAYYAM THAT YEAR, DIDN'T WE???
One year ago this week, Barack Obama promised activists with the nation's largest abortion business that the first thing he would do as president is overturn every pro-life law in all 50 states. Obama said his first action would be signing the mislabeled Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA).
The measure, if it becomes law, would codify Roe v. Wade by making the infamous Supreme Court decision allowing unlimited abortions the law of the land.
But it would go further, warns Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council.
"If FOCA were to become law it would overturn hundreds of state laws that have put limits on abortion," he explains.
Perkins points to a new research paper written by FRC Vice President of Government Affairs Tom McClusky and he said Planned Parenthood, NARAL and other pro-abortion groups agree with This assessment.
The ACLU has said, "This [FOCA] bill prohibits such restrictions as parental notification and consent, as well as the requirement that all abortions be performed in a hospital, spousal consent, waiting periods, etc."
"Recent polls show that most Americans agree there should be more restrictions on abortion and that tax dollars should not go to the life-ending procedure," Perkins says. 'However, the passage of FOCA would guarantee that more taxpayer dollars pay for abortions."
The McClusky paper points out that, while abortion advocates say they want to make abortions rarer, the state of Maryland, after it passed a law like FOCA, saw its abortion rates shoot upward.
That happened as the rest of the country experienced a general decline in the number of abortions over the last decade or more.
"Passage of FOCA would be a big payoff to the abortion industry at the deadly cost of citizens' rights," Perkins concludes. I put it in 'Opinion', because being an Obama promise, it is subject to change.
Mr. Obama in Iraq
Did he really find support for his withdrawal plan?
Wednesday, July 23, 2008; A14
THE INITIAL MEDIA coverage of Barack Obama's visit to Iraq suggested that the Democratic candidate found agreement with his plan to withdraw all U.S. combat forces on a 16-month timetable. So it seems worthwhile to point out that, by Mr. Obama's own account, neither U.S. commanders nor Iraq's principal political leaders actually support his strategy. All morning, all I've heard and read, is that all the Iraqis had agreed with Mr. Obama, as the Post calls him. Am I reading this correctly?
Gen. David H. Petraeus, the architect of the dramatic turnaround in U.S. fortunes, "does not want a timetable," Mr. Obama reported with welcome candor during a news conference yesterday. In an interview with ABC, he explained that "there are deep concerns about . . . a timetable that doesn't take into account what [American commanders] anticipate might be some sort of change in conditions."
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who has a history of tailoring his public statements for political purposes, made headlines by saying he would support a withdrawal of American forces by 2010. But an Iraqi government statement made clear that Mr. Maliki's timetable would extend at least seven months beyond Mr. Obama's. More significant, it would be "a timetable which Iraqis set" -- not the Washington-imposed schedule that Mr. Obama has in mind. It would also be conditioned on the readiness of Iraqi forces, the same linkage that Gen. Petraeus seeks. As Mr. Obama put it, Mr. Maliki "wants some flexibility in terms of how that's carried out." This is not the news that is being reported
Other Iraqi leaders were more directly critical. As Mr. Obama acknowledged, Sunni leaders in Anbar province told him that American troops are essential to maintaining the peace among Iraq's rival sects and said they were worried about a rapid drawdown.
Mr. Obama's response is that, as president, he would have to weigh Iraq's needs against those of Afghanistan and the U.S. economy. He says that because Iraq is "a distraction" from more important problems, U.S. resources devoted to it must be curtailed. Told Petraeus, he didn't have the strategic vision, that I, The One, have
Yet he also says his aim is to "succeed in leaving Iraq to a sovereign government that can take responsibility for its own future." What if Gen. Petraeus and Iraqi leaders are right that this goal is not consistent with a 16-month timetable? Will Iraq be written off because Mr. Obama does not consider it important enough -- or will the strategy be altered?
Arguably, Mr. Obama has given himself the flexibility to adopt either course. Yesterday he denied being "so rigid and stubborn that I ignore anything that happens during the course of the 16 months," though this would be more reassuring if Mr. Obama were not rigidly and stubbornly maintaining his opposition to the successful "surge" of the past 16 months. He also pointed out that he had "deliberately avoided providing a particular number" for the residual force of Americans he says would be left behind.
Yet Mr. Obama's account of his strategic vision remains eccentric. He insists that Afghanistan is "the central front" for the United States, along with the border areas of Pakistan. But there are no known al-Qaeda bases in Afghanistan, and any additional U.S. forces sent there would not be able to operate in the Pakistani territories where Osama bin Laden is headquartered. Is this really coming from the Washington Post?
While the United States has an interest in preventing the resurgence of the Afghan Taliban, the country's strategic importance pales beside that of Iraq, which lies at the geopolitical center of the Middle East and contains some of the world's largest oil reserves. If Mr. Obama's antiwar stance has blinded him to those realities, that could prove far more debilitating to him as president than any particular timetable. Yea, it is... I checked the link to be sure it is correct
#3
Jon Stuart of the Daily Show just mocked -- with photos and clips from today's news -- Candidate Obama's pretensions. Afterwards, a bit of mockery for Candidate McCain, who campaigned amongst the ordinary folks of Wilke-Barre, Pennsylvania, and called on former president George H. W. Bush, but nothing like showing Obama speechifying on a mountain top in Israel and the Temple of Hercules in Greece. The clear implication was the only thing left out of Obama's photo op collection is a miracle involving loaves and fishes or a fellow named Lazarus.
McCain is now cast as the crabby uncle who visits and shrieks there's no gin in your house. He grabs the TV remote control, turns off the cartoons and forces the kids to watch the ancient Mesopotamia special on The History Channel.
Meanwhile, the Democrat Obama is treated quite differently. He's the Mr. Tumnus of American politics, the gentle forest faun of Narnia, with throngs of reporters trembling to sit with him at tea and cakes, like the little girl in the C.S. Lewis story, as he plays the flute, chanting "We Are The Change We've Been Waiting For." And nobody laughs. You don't laugh because you can't make fun of Obama. The ground would swallow you whole.
#1
"TV anchors were all but ululating (which has nothing to do with sex) at his approach, desperate for interviews after he sank that three-point shot in front of American troops and hit nothing but net. Who needs foreign policy expertise when you're so cool, you risk a three-point shot and make it on camera?"
This guy nails it - ans skewers DailyKos leftists who want him beaten up for his criticism of Obama and the press fawning.
The more a coy Obama speaks to enthusiastic crowds and gives soundbites and photo-ops to slavish reporters, the more everyone wants more of a piece of him, especially in interviews and press conferences.
But the more he dispenses his impromptu wisdom, the more he sounds like, well, a rookie senator whose collective experience derives from the utopianism of The Harvard Law Review, the gravy-train of Chicago entitlement politics, and the world view of Trinity Church.
Yet, the more his handlers treat him like fossilized amber, the less experience he gains, guaranteeing that on almost every rare ex tempore moment he will suggest something that doesn't computethat he might be president for 10 years, or that we need a civilian version of the Pentagon with the same $500 billion annual budget, or that someone like a Centcom commander like Petraeus doesn't have his strategic comprehensive view, or that the Anbar awakening and the Surge were not, at least in part, connected (as if the signal that we were not pulling out, [as Obama advocated] or that we were changing tactics to ensure the safety of those in the neighborhoods who would help us, did not reassure tired Sunnis to join with us in expelling al Qaeda.)
For someone who has made the case that Bush in general is responsible for everything from the mortgage to energy crises, it's jarring to hear such particularism and contextualization about the surge's irrelevance.
An email from Ireland to all of their brethren in the States. A point to ponder despite your political affiliation:
We, in Ireland, can't figure out why you people are even bothering to hold an election in the United States.
On one side, you had a pants wearing female lawyer, married to another lawyer who can't seem to keep his pants on, who just lost a long and heated primary against a lawyer, who goes to the wrong church, who is married to yet another lawyer, who doesn't even like the country her husband wants to run!
Now...On the other side, you have a nice old war hero whose name starts with the appropriate 'Mc' terminology, married to a good looking younger woman who owns a beer distributorship!
What in God's name are ya lads thinking over in the colonies!!!!!
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
07/23/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Bury this turd already - its been a dead issue for a while. The only issue is whther he had dual citizenship, and if that affects eligiblity for the Presidency. I think not, since he otherwise qualifies.
#2
Yah, bury it. However, I happen to recall August 1961 very well. Why? My daily paper was putting up charts on the homerun counts of Roger Maris and Mickey Mantle. That was a great year for the Yanks, and baseball. Final HR totals: Maris: 61. Mantle: 54. Trivia: Maris didn't burst onto the scene that year: he was MVP in 1960.
#3
From the comments on that blog, one poster points out that he may have been born at sea when his mother went from Hawaii to Seattle. He suggests that were that the case, then it would not be automatic that he was given US citizenship.
So, the question I'd like to know the answer to is: Did his mother relinquish her American citizenship in Indonesia BEFORE she attempted to obtain a US birth certificate for Obama. She would not have been allowed to have dual citizenship in Indonesia. So she either had to be there on a visa or she had to relinquish her US citizenship.
Thus if she then went back to the US at a later date and tried to establish Obama's US citizenship at that time, she might not have been able to do it.
Normally, I'd have thought it all just a paperwork flaw and that Obama deserves his due, but if in fact she failed to obtain a US certificate for him at birth, moved him to another country as a child, obtained his first citizenship elsewhere and then and relinquished her own citizenship all before she attempted to obtain his US certificate... then it seems to me that he doesn't have the qualifications we look for when we demand citizenship of our ultimate leader.
But those are all if's. Once again, Obama deems himself too worthy to have to answer any questions from the serfs. And we know the media won't ask.
#4
Can a prosecutor bring suit against the democrat party for running a non-citizen for president ?
If so, then the democrats will have to prove he is a citizen, and all those questions will be answered.
#5
my speculation is that he's likely a bastard (literally as per birth by an unwed mother) and is embarrassed by the fact. This may be the reason why he's trying to keep the birth cert under wraps.
#6
I don't think renouncing your citizenship means a whole lot. Even if Obama's mom did so nobody would take it seriously unless it was on film or something. Let it die.
#9
I thought it was worth letting it die but the more you dig into it, the more perplexing it becomes. It doesn't seem to be just a matter of her being unwed. Let's face it, at this point in time, that would be a plus rather than a negative.
It seems to me that at the very least he should be able to prove he is a US citizen. If he's unwilling or unable to produce the paperwork then he is not eligible to run. The burden is on Obama to prove he is a citizen. It's just that simple. I see no reason to look the other way on such a basic issue.
#10
This is going to become a crisis. No matter who wins, Obama or McCain, if either was not born on US soil (Obama possible at sea or Kenya or in BC) and McCain in Panama - whomever loses will throw this to the courts and paralyze our country for God knows how long. This is going to create absolute havoc if the issue is not resolved to everyone's satisfaction before the election is conducted.
By WILLIAM MCGURN
David Addington and Omar Khadr are two names that will forever be linked to the war on terror.
Mr. Addington is chief of staff to Vice President Richard Cheney and a former colleague of mine. He's the son of a West Point man who earned a bronze star in World War II and went on to become a general. Before coming to the White House, David put in stints at the CIA, at a congressional intelligence committee, and at the Pentagon -- all giving him an expertise on intelligence and national security issues only a handful of others can match.
Then there's Mr. Khadr. He is the son of a man who helped found and finance al Qaeda, and who died in a 2003 gun battle with Pakistani troops near the Afghan border.
So close were the family ties that the Khadrs lived for a while in the bin Laden family compound in Jalalabad, Afghanistan; and when Mr. Khadr's sister was married, bin Laden was an honored guest. Mr. Khadr himself went through weapons training at an al Qaeda training camp, and was captured in 2002 after a battle in which he is alleged to have killed a Special Forces medic. Ultimately he was brought to Guantanamo, where he awaits trial before a military commission for war crimes.
Guess who gets the sympathy in the press?
A few days ago, Mr. Khadr's attorneys released a videotape from February 2003 of their client being questioned by visiting Canadian officials. At first he was hopeful, but he quickly became sullen and withdrawn when he realized the Canadians were not going to get him out. The tape shows the young man, then 16, crying for his mother, and complaining about treatment for the wounds he suffered while fighting alongside al Qaeda.
The response has been illuminating. The Montreal Gazette calls him "a victim," "not a villain." Closer to home, our headlines run along the lines of "Tape shows 'frightened boy,'" "Teen on video: 'Help me, help me'" or "Teenage detainee pleads for help, tells of torture on video; Rights group seeks immediate release." About the only one willing to say anything unpleasant about Mr. Khadr is the soldier who lost an eye in the same firefight in which Mr. Khadr is alleged to have thrown the grenade that killed Army Sgt. 1st Class Christopher Speer.
It would be easy to denounce the treatment of David Addington and Omar Khadr as an example of moral equivalence. But moral equivalence would be a step up for David.
While the operative for al Qaeda is humanized, the counsel for the vice president is demonized. Such is the temper of the times that Rep. William Delahunt (D., Mass.) felt free to joke during recent hearings that he was sure al Qaeda was watching -- and was "glad they finally have the chance to see you."
And so it goes. Reasonable people can disagree with David, and many did. But the aim here is not reasonable debate. The aim is to close debate by shouting accusations so often that they become accepted.
Thus memos that are mostly about a commander-in-chief's legal authority are now routinely described as "torture memos." Thus the drumbeat for hearings on "war crimes." And thus the Washington Post column on David's congressional testimony, where he is described "hunched" and said to have "barked," "growled" and "snarled" -- language you would use to describe an animal.
For these purposes, David makes a convenient villain. For one thing, outside the Beltway he is relatively unknown, which feeds the aura of conspiracy; one documentary presented his photo as though it were a rare shot of the Yeti.
More to the point, David does not leak to the press, in sharp contrast to many of his adversaries. I am thinking in particular of the "former high-ranking administration lawyer" who figures so prominently (and so anonymously) in the New Yorker profile that did so much to cast David as some sort of cartoon.
In his own book, Jack Goldsmith -- former head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel and perhaps David's greatest critic -- put it this way: "Our sharp disagreement over the requirements of national security law and the meaning of the imponderable phrases of the U.S. Constitution was not a fight between one who loves the Constitution and one who wants to shred it." Mr. Goldsmith went on to say that "whether and how aggressively to check the terrorist threat, and whether and how far to push the law in so doing, are rarely obvious" -- and that for all their fights, David is a man is who acted "in good faith" to serve his country.
It's a tribute to our society that even amid a terrible war we are capable of seeing the humanity of an enemy raised and trained to hate and kill us. Some of us are still waiting for that same presumption of humanity to be extended to the good men and women doing their imperfect best to keep us safe.
Posted by: Fred ||
07/23/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Khadr is being peddled as a clone of Africa's "child soldiers." The factual narrative of the murder by Khadr is as follows: 1. US troops entered an al-Qaeda compound, and acted to secure same; there wasn't a major firefight. 2. A Medic would normally only enter a "clear" zone, however, that might not always be the case. When the Medic entered, Khadr - who understood every word of English - hid behind a wall and waited for an opportunity to make a kill with the grenade that he held in hand. 3. given every opportunity to surrender and accept US custody, he tossed a grenade with knowledge that doing so would cause the death of a US soldier. 4. without further arms for aggression, he was seized and taken into custody. 5. every al-Qaeda terrorist took a blood oath (bayat) to Osama bin Laden and Mullah Umar, under text that put the testator under obligation to make jihad to the death. Clearly, Khadr understood the oath and both gave same with the same knowledge of an adult, and carried it out as would an adult.
Is the above narrative true or false? I have little doubt, given incontravertible facts. There are several witnesses for the prosecution. Put the little terrorist on trial as an adult. It is foolish to let this issue float.
The Canadian tape was released by judges who wanted an international audience to hear American soldiers accused of "torture." That is BS. The "Standard Operating Procedures" used at Delta Camp, Gitmo are on the internet. Frankly, I find them inept at best, and worthy of the terrorist derision that they received, at worst. Further, I have seen a UK production, "Road to Guantanamo Bay" which featured 4 UK muslims who were captured with Taliban and sent to Gitmo; none claimed to have been tortured. Captured al-Qaeda documents disclose standing orders that bind captives to make claims of torture, in order to engage the dhimmi-equivocators.
In an extraordinary TV interview, the third senior-most leader of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, Mustafa Abu Yazid alias Sheikh Saeed, has said something that should stop Pakistan's numberless and mindless "conspiracy" theorists from spreading the word that 9/11 was done by the Jews. Speaking to a Pakistani TV channel, Sheikh Saeed stated that the 9/11 attack on the US was carried out by 19 men of Al Qaeda and that Pakistan did a dastardly thing by handing over the "courageous" Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, and many others, to America. He also said that suicide-bombing was allowed under Islam and declared those clerics who outlawed it as "lackeys of the government".
Sheikh Saeed, who heads Al Qaeda's operations in Afghanistan, is Egyptian in origin and spent three years in jail along with the second senior-most man of Al Qaeda, Ayman Al Zawahiri. The Pakistani journalist taken from Karachi to visit his stronghold was spotted by a Palestinian "studying" in Karachi but in fact devoted to jihad. The journalist was told that he was taken to the province of Khost in Afghanistan where he met the Al Qaeda operational chief. Curiously enough, the Pakistani reporter did not ask him about the assassination of Ms Benazir Bhutto, a "job" admitted by an Al Qaeda spokesman immediately after the killing.
Sheikh Saeed was aggressive about the validity of suicide-bombing but balked at accepting the attempt at the life of the ex-interior minister, Mr Aftab Ahmad Khan Sherpao, inside a mosque. He denied that Al Qaeda had tried to kill Mr Sherpao. Again, curiously enough, the reporter did not ask if it was involved in the second attempt that did not take place inside the mosque. Possibly because he doesn't want to incur Al Qaeda's wrath again, Mr Sherpao himself says the culprits behind those attacks were the intelligence agencies of India and the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan.
Continued on Page 49
This article starring:
Khost
Aftab Ahmad Khan Sherpao
AIMAN AL ZAWAHIRI
al-Qaeda
Benazir Bhutto
KHALID SHEIKH MUHAMAD
al-Qaeda in Afghanistan
Maulana Rafi Usmani
MUSTAFA ABU YAZID
al-Qaeda in Afghanistan
SHEIKH SAID
al-Qaeda in Afghanistan
Posted by: Fred ||
07/23/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under: al-Qaeda
#1
"fact is that those who got killed on 9/11 belonged also to the party that did not elect President Bush."
Even more important, large numbers of the people in the World Trade Center were immigrants, including ~200 from Pakistan. Those people had NO say in the 2000 election.
Another point that must be made is Al Qaeda killed hundreds of Muslims at the World Trade Center. So, from the very beginning, AQ was showing as much (or more) interest in killing fellow Muslims than unbelievers.
Posted by: Frozen Al ||
07/23/2008 13:05 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Sheikh Saeed set apart the Arab component when he said that the suicide-bombing of the Denmark embassy in Islamabad was carried out by an Arab from Saudi Arabia
Our friends from Saudi strike again!!!!
Posted by: Paul ||
07/23/2008 13:23 Comments ||
Top||
There is some irony in the fact that Democrats, after years of deriding Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki as a hopeless bungler and conniving Shiite sectarian, are now treating as sacrosanct his suggestion that Iraq will be ready to assume responsibility for its own security by 2010. Naturally this is because his position seems to support that of Barack Obama.
A little skepticism is in order here. The prime minister has political motives for what he's saying -- whatever that is. An anonymous Iraqi official told the state-owned Al-Sabah newspaper, "Maliki thinks that Obama is most likely to win in the presidential election" and that "he's got to take preemptive steps before Obama gets to the White House." By smoothing Obama's maiden voyage abroad as the Democratic nominee, Maliki may figure that he will collect chits that he can call in later.
Giving the Iraqi prime minister an added motive to posture about troop withdrawals, even while he explicitly eschews binding timelines, is that he is engaged in contentious status-of-forces negotiations with the United States. He may figure that threatening to boot us out gives him more leverage over our troops. Beyond the negotiations, there is the imperative of Iraq's provincial elections, supposed to take place this year. Maliki no doubt expects that his Dawa party will reap political benefits from appearing to stand up to the Americans.
This is part of a pattern for Maliki, who, though he won office and has stayed alive (literally and politically) with American support, has hardly been an unwavering friend of the United States -- at least in public. Although he was an opponent of the Saddam Hussein regime, he was not a proponent of the U.S.-led invasion. Having spent long years of exile in Syria and Iran, he has had to overcome deeply ingrained suspicions of the United States.
Keep in mind also that Maliki has no military experience and that he has been trapped in the Green Zone, relatively isolated from day-to-day life. For these reasons, he has been a consistent font of misguided predictions about how quickly U.S. forces could leave.
In May 2006, shortly after becoming prime minister, he claimed, "Our forces are capable of taking over the security in all Iraqi provinces within a year and a half."
In October 2006, when violence was spinning out of control, Maliki declared that it would be "only a matter of months" before his security forces could "take over the security portfolio entirely and keep some multinational forces only in a supporting role."
President Bush wisely ignored Maliki. Instead of withdrawing U.S. troops, he sent more. The prime minister wasn't happy. On Dec. 15, 2006, the Wall Street Journal reported, "Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has flatly told Gen. George Casey, the top American military commander in Iraq, that he doesn't want more U.S. personnel deployed to the country, according to U.S. military officials." When the surge went ahead anyway, Maliki gave it an endorsement described in news accounts as "lukewarm."
In January 2007, with the surge just starting, Maliki predicted "that within three to six months our need for the American troops will dramatically go down." In April 2007, when most of Baghdad was still out of control, the prime minister said that Iraqi forces would assume control of security in every province by the end of the year.
Even now, when the success of the surge is undeniable, Maliki won't give U.S. troops their due. In the famous interview with Der Spiegel last weekend, he was asked why Iraq has become more peaceful. He mentioned "many factors," including "the political rapprochement we have managed to achieve," "the progress being made by our security forces," "the deep sense of abhorrence with which the population has reacted to the atrocities of al-Qaida and the militias," and "the economic recovery." No mention of the surge.
To his credit, although he has postured as a fierce nationalist in public, Maliki has often accommodated American concerns in private. And, despite saying that Iraq doesn't need many U.S. troops, he has acquiesced to their presence.
But Maliki's public utterances do not provide a reliable guide as to when it will be safe to pull out U.S. troops. Better to listen to the military professionals. The Post recently quoted Brig. Gen. Bilal al-Dayni, commander of Iraqi troops in Basra, as saying of the Americans, "We hope they will stay until 2020." That is similar to the expectation of Iraq's defense minister, Abdul Qadir, who says his forces cannot assume full responsibility for internal security until 2012 and for external security until 2018.
What would happen if we were to pull out much faster, on a 16-month timetable? Maj. Gen. Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, says that would be "very dangerous" -- the same words used by Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Of course, if the Iraqi government tells us to leave, we will have to leave. But, the prime minister's ambiguous comments notwithstanding, the Iraqi government is saying no such thing, because most Iraqis realize that the gains of the surge are fragile and could be undone by a too-rapid departure of U.S. forces.
#1
There is an interesting piece of graffiti on a bridge near Basra. A fleeing militiaman has scrawled We'll be back; underneath an Iraqi soldier has scribbled in reply And we'll be waiting for you.
There have been a dozen prisoner exchanges between Hezbollah and Israel since the early 1990s, but Samir Kuntar was always a case apart. In 1979 Kuntar and his companions killed a policeman, kidnapped a young father, Danny Haran, and killed him in front of his 4-year-old daughter. Then Kuntar turned to the child and crushed her skull against a rock with the butt of his rifle. In the mayhem, Danny Haran's wife, Smadar, hiding in her home, accidentally smothered to death the couple's 2-year-old daughter. Now Hezbollah's leader, Hassan Nasrallah, has finally got his way. Last week, Israel handed over Kuntar in return for Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev, captured by Hezbollah in the summer of 2006. They returned to Israel in black coffins.
This prisoner swap will serve Hezbollah's purposes in the interminable struggles within Lebanon. Trumpets and drums greeted Kuntar's release. Breathless pollsters now tell us that Nasrallah, a turbaned Shiite and a child of poverty, is the most admired hero of the "Arab street." This is so, we are told, even in Sunni Arab lands otherwise given to animus toward Shiites. But Nasrallah had been here before. Two summers ago, he triggered a terrible war across the Lebanon-Israel frontier, with a toll of 1,200 Lebanese deaths (160 Israelis also perished in that senseless summer) and no less than $5 billion in damages to Lebanon's economy. That war was sold to the gullible as a "divine victory" -- the first Arab victory against Israel's might.
Some expected that Hezbollah would lay down its arms and that the Lebanese, free of Syrian captivity, would return their country to a modicum of order and normalcy. Those hopes were in vain. In the last two years, Hezbollah brought the political life of Lebanon to a standstill. Its formidable militia made a mockery of the incumbent government. Nasrallah sent his followers into Beirut's commercial center, and for seven long months he thwarted the attempts to elect a new president. The "Cedar Revolution" of 2005, so full of promise, was no match for Nasrallah's "soldiers of virtue." A proxy struggle played out in Lebanon, with the United States, France and Saudi Arabia on the side of the incumbent government, and Syria, Iran and Hezbollah, on the other. There was no escaping the sectarianism: A determined Sunni-Shiite struggle had come to Lebanon.
In its heady days, the Cedar Revolution movement was "hip" and seemed like a fight between the "beautiful people" and the Shiite hicks. The Shiites had a cruel, rural past and they still had self-doubt -- believing that the Sunni merchant classes of West Beirut continued to see them as squatters in the city. The clerics and laymen who dominate Hezbollah were quite skilled at exploiting this Shiite sense of unease. There was a built-in flaw in the Cedar Revolution that Hezbollah preyed upon. Intended or not, that broad, spontaneous eruption following the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri had come to rest on an alliance of the Druse, the Sunni Muslims and the bulk of the country's Christian population. The vast Shiite community, the country's largest, had stood uncertain amid the tumult that followed Syria's withdrawal. The Shiites had an uneasy alliance with the Syrian occupiers, and the Shiite mainstream was enthusiastic about Lebanese liberty. Hezbollah had the guns and the money. It had as well the status of a "liberation movement," and few in Lebanon dared question this claim.
The impasse between a sovereign Beirut government and an armed militia doing the bidding of the Iranian theocrats could not last. A small war broke out last May when the government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora wanted to dismantle an illegal fiber-optic network that Hezbollah had installed, a vast communication system that stretched for more than 200 miles and reached to the Syrian border. In retaliation, Hezbollah struck into the Sunni neighborhoods of West Beirut and the Druse stronghold in the Shouf Mountains. The Sunnis were easily overwhelmed. The Druse had put up a measure of resistance, but they, too, could not stand up to Hezbollah. It's no small irony that Kuntar, a man of the Druse Mountains, is now returned home courtesy of Hezbollah. But the deep antagonism between the Druse and Hezbollah can't be wished away by Kuntar's release.
More than ever, Hezbollah is a Shiite party, shorn of its exalted status as a national resistance movement. Behind Hezbollah's deeds is the fine hand of Iran. Nasrallah had tried to obscure the difference between Lebanon's needs and those of his paymasters in Iran. In a widely scrutinized speech the cleric gave in late May, on the eighth anniversary of Israel's withdrawal from southern Lebanon, Nasrallah claimed that he was at once a devoted believer in Ayatollah Khomeini's revolution and a son of Lebanon who believed in its "specificity" and pluralism. There would be distinct roles for the Lebanese state and for his "resistance movement." The first would assume the burden of order and governing, while his movement would carry the banner of the armed struggle against Israel. This kind of contradiction can't be papered over. Nasrallah and his lieutenants must fully grasp their precarious position: They feed off mayhem and strife, while the country yearns for a break from its feuds.
It is doubtful that the Shiites will always follow Nasrallah to the barricades, and those who do so will expect material sustenance from Hezbollah. There are estimates that Hezbollah provides employment for 40,000 of its wards and schooling for 100,000 children. This is no small burden, even for a movement sustained by Iranian subsidies. Nor is it the case that the majority of the Shiites want the strictures and the rigor of Qom and Tehran dominating their world. True, the underclass and the newly urbanized in the Shiite suburbs may have taken to the dress codes and style and religious ritual of the Iranian theocracy. But the majority must wish a break from all that.
Hezbollah will not be able to run away with Lebanon. Already the Sunnis have been stirred up by Hezbollah's power. Sunni jihadists have made their presence felt in the northern town of Tripoli, and in the dozen or so Palestinian refugee camps on the outskirts of the principal cities. It would be reasonable to assume that the weight of Sunni sentiment would shift toward the jihadists, were they to conclude that the mild-mannered Sunni politicians can't win a test of wills, and arms, against Hezbollah. Nor do the Christians want Hezbollah's utopia. The Christians have been weakened by emigration, but they, too, will fight for their place in the country if forced to do so. Furthermore, should there be any accommodation between America and Iran, the Persian power is sure to cast Hezbollah adrift.
"We lived in a world where we believed that our enemy was exactly like us," Ofer Regev said in a eulogy for his fallen brother. "We thought we could speak to people who also wanted to raise a child, grow a flower, love a girl, exactly like us. But the enemy proved that it is not exactly like us. And still, we will not stop trying." Across the Lebanon border, Israelis may have once found a culture not so distant from their own, with mercy, decorum and "rules of engagement" even in times of conflict. The Lebanese will have to retrieve that older world if they are to find their way out of the grip of bigotry and terror. A decent country would be under no moral or political obligation to celebrate a murderer as a heroic son returning from a long captivity.
#1
forced diversity is bullshit. I am so sick of hearing about how "this minority needs or wants this" or "we are trying to target this minority for recruitment". MLK is rolling in his grave, unless Content of character means something else I've missed.
Speaking from a USMC perspective - blacks make up 12.8% of the U.S. population - if they make up 17% of the mil then they are represented well. Officer candidates need to have a 4 yr degree, last I checked - only about 6% of eligible black males for service had this first requirement - when they do have a 4 yr degree they are sought out very hard by corporate America & offered lucrative employment in the private sector - logically many of them would rather make high $$$ in corporations vice making less cash as a 2ndLt/Ensign - I know, I talk to these kids on at least on a monthly basis. Second, their own major influencers (parents, teachers, pastors & the idiot forces in pop culture) in their communities tell them that joining the mil after they already have a degree -even as an officer is basically a dumb idea - why not go out into the private sector and make twice as much? The radicals tell me - why would I want to fight in George W's war?? Another factor about blacks in the Corps not making general officer - the majority of our generals are from the Infantry community. For whatever reason the majority of blacks that enter our branch choose to work in support areas. I love how the national black caucus tries to punch us in the chest over the lack of black generals then these same folks tell their college educated youngsters not to join up.
Lastly, my $.02 - if you can't do your job as well or think you need a mentor of the same race or you have an issue w/the pigmentation of the skin of your senior officers then you need to search your own soul. Racism comes in many forms and guises - bullets don't discriminate.
#4
For whatever reason the majority of blacks that enter our branch choose to work in support areas.
Spike Lee kicked up a fuss over the fact that Clint Eastwood's Iwo Jima movie did not feature blacks, who were primarily restricted to support roles during the entire war. Sixty years later, blacks are voluntarily enlisting mainly for support roles.
#6
"Blacks make up about 17 percent of the total force, yet just 9 percent of all officers".
Blacks are about 12% of the US population. And the percentage of black NCOs is *higher* than 12%. This means that blacks prefer the enlisted ranks, *not* that they are being excluded from the officer ranks.
#7
This is an absolute outrage. After more than 25 years of basketball scholarships, race and gendor preference quotas, affirmative action to include 'special' guidance to promotion boards, and post-board summary reviews, board members still cannot get it right. Board members, simply vote the photograph and disregard Professional Development and Education (PDE), Assignment histories, Fitness Reports (FITREPS) and Officer Evaluations (OER's)as the bias pieces of racist hate and prejudice that they are. If DoD must, secret voting ballots can be done away with and the board president and recorder CAN to be issued pistols! Or better yet, selected officers can be appointed to field grade at commissioning. Now, get back in there and do it right!
#8
In the Navy, I worked for three black officers. Two post major command captains and a Lieutenant Commander. Using the terms of the time, all three were head and shoulders above their peers.
Odd as it seems, the only thing that tweaks my pique these days is Garrison Keillors horrible syndicated column. Having written many simplistic columns in my own time, I should be sympathetic, but I just cant bring myself to measure out the requisite nine yards of slack. Obligatory disclaimer: Keillor is a tremendously talented writer, but his newspaper columns are usually devoid of logic, wit, argument, surprise, or, commas, and generally sound like a prematurely elderly fellow seething over the fact that someone dared run against FDR in 40. The only reason to read the column is to see what reminded him this week how much he doesnt like George Bush. Because he doesnt like Bush. And its very important that people know this. There are hundreds of thousands of people across the country wondering whether Keillors grudging admiration of a slightly lumpy tapioca pudding in a Maine coffee shop has led him to moderate his hatred of George Bush. Be assured: no. The man is steadfast and true.
This week hes in Pasadena, sitting on a porch with other fellow American optimists. A curious definition of optimism, this:
We grew up with cheapo gasoline and our children wont and anything you hear about rolling back prices at the pump is just election-year blather.
Im convinced right there, but he presses the point home with inexorable logic:
Supply is not rising to meet demand, what with China and India booming, and that drives the price up: you learned about this in the seventh grade.
We also learned that Pluto was a planet, but nevermind. Yes, that supply and demand thing is part of the problem, now that he mentions it, and I think I speak for many readers who put down the paper at that point, called over the spouse, and said look here. That Keillor fellow really spelled it out. But the two sentences share only their interminability; they dont constitute an argument. If supply is not rising to meet demand, perhaps we should endeavor to increase the supply? Nope: dont bother:
So our kids will have to deal with new realities, which they can manage better than we can, and when gas goes to seven and eight and 10 dollars a gallon, theyll roll with it.
Yes, in rickshaws. The effect of 10-dollar-a-gallon gas on the economy, even years hence, is blithely dismissed by the American Optimist, because the kids will deal with a new reality, and they will be better at it. So forget about puncturing the speculative bubble, or increasing the supply so increased demand from China and India doesnt give us ten-dollar gas before our wise, nimble children figure out how best to ride bikes in the winter, or leasing new lands for shale-oil exploration.
(That last one is particularly important and high on the list of things WE CANNOT AND SHOULD NOT AND MUST NOT DO. Oh, this 07/22/08 Dept. of the Interior press release says the Bureau of Land Management published proposed regulations to establish a commercial oil shale program that could result in the addition of up to 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil from lands in the western United States. You think: Thats quite a bit of oil. That would give us a nice cushion while we invent and perfect all the alternatives, no?
No. It's empty theatrics and a favor for the oil companies. Also, a key legislator opposes the idea. As he writes in the Post: Since the 19th century, we in the West have been trying to extract oil from the vast oil shale riches that lie under our feet. It is no easy task, and past efforts have failed miserably. Well, then, never mind. Stop doing those things! People failed in the past! If that doesn't keep us from trying again, what will?
Really, it's as if we learn nothing from history.
Having informed the reading public that this particular millionaire is nonchalant about expensive gas, he moves on to bygone foreign policy in Guatemala (bad), the New Yorker Obama cover (dumb), McCain talking about Viagra (funny! Hes old), the rescue of Freddie Mac and Freddie Mae. The usual saints and villains are trotted out. (Keillor makes a Manichean look like an agnostic Unitarian.) It all leads nowhere, but usually the fifth paragraph is where Keillor blames Bush for the aforementioned items, be they dandelions or black holes or the heartbreak of psoriasis, and here it is, re: Freddie Mac:
A whiner might wonder where was the Current Occupant? Does the gentleman still come to the office on a regular basis? Does anybody tell him whats going on or is he still looking at picture books?
If youre done slapping your knee red, you might wonder how this is topped, and if youre a regular reader of the Old Scout, you know how: the rote condemnation of the Current Occupant is now followed up with Obama Hosannas. Keillor, adept and deft at burnishing his moderate credentials, takes the hard left to school, and its snap-city:
Same with the growling and grumbling on the left about Barack tacking to the center, adjusting positions, giving tough-love speeches to African-American audiences what some people decry as cynical politics some of us welcome as a sign of seriousness.
Hes welcome to think that, of course, but this suggests that the previous non-centrist positions were evidence of intellectual frivolity. Or pandering. Not that these would be unique in a politician, of course, and as we all know, its what candidates do after theyve sewn it up. We have come to expect the gavotte, and some think it reveals the bones of a man to show how well he swaps one suit for another. This isnt always bad - aside from a few standard-issue banalities he used to identify his ideological self-conception, President Clinton had few core principles beyond his own ego, and was thus able to adopt centrist positions with admirable, nimble skill. Whether its the same for Obama, I cant say yet I have my suspicions - but Clinton was a far better extemporaneous speaker, and wonkier at internalizing the issues and manipulating the rhetoric of the debate. Bill Clinton seemed to relish combat, and loved not just debate but winning one on points; Obama seems to prefer limiting the terms of the debate before it begins, and seems uncomfortable with details both ancillary and specific.
In any case, seriousness can be a facile attribute; I had a serious turtle as a kid.
Anyway. Here are the serious positions of which the Old Scout approves:
Barack making overtures to evangelicals? Its about time! Barack expressing his support of the Second Amendment? Bravo.
When Obama says it, its good, I guess. When the other guys do it well, lets not forget Keilors famous characterization of his ideological opponents in 2004:
hairy-backed swamp developers, corporate shills, Christians of convenience, freelance racists, hobby cops, misanthropic frat boys, lizardskin cigar monkeys, jerktown romeos, ninja dittoheads. In 1994 he called them dim figures emerged from the mist; lo and behold, the same old gang of frat boys, geezers in golf pants, cheese merchants, cat stranglers, corporate shills, Bible beaters, swamp developers.
Youre so entranced by his fascination with frat-boy swamp developers that you forget the swipe at the cheese merchants. I never quite understood what he meant by that. The fellow who gets your cheese at the Lunds deli counter is a young Polish immigrant, and I dont think he strangles cats. Its almost as if the word processor was set on automatic. Enabling Keillor mode:
Fat shapes emerged from the fog; hail and fare-thee-well, the same ancient mob of sorority sisters, Masons of the moment, backwater frog-heads, spumoni disciples, swamp-cheese franchise experts, Cartesians in LaCrosse socks, ferret-ticklers, and Rosicrutian tract-whappers.
Id be opposed to those people too. Whoever the hell they are.
Anyway, thats just something to keep in mind when the Scout starts praising a candidate who tries to appeal to evangelicals and gun-right advocates. At least its good to know he approves of evangelicals and gun-rights advocates now. If Obama made a speech praising ANWAR drilling, you suspect it would be seen as a frank pragmatic assertion that our children need help rolling with the future. Keillor continues:
Bravo. I want to see my man excited by the prospect of victory and not shrink from it as so many Democrats do. Theyve read too many books about heroic dissenters and it makes them nervous about being in too big a crowd.
I have no idea what hes talking about. Seriously. Perhaps in Pasedena theres some alternate-universe Barnes and Noble where the shelves are stacked high with books praising the administration and shouting the myriad & infinite glories of America the Perfect, but I was at B&L today and there was a table six feet long heaped with books about how were screwed and broke and lied to and misled and all the other merry sentiments that abound in the land these days. I dont think any of the authors are worried about selling too many books, and ending up in too big a crowd. If hes saying that the Modern Brave Soul automatically questions his principles if theyre accepted by the masses the loutish, stupid, cat-strangling masses then he seems to have missed that portion of the internet that practices Heroic Dissent on a daily basis. Or maybe he spends all day reading the Daily Kos and wonders why these people are so timid and gunshy.
Lets keep going with that crowd idea:
The huge crowds that Barack draws are stunned by the fact that someone like him, with that interesting name, is hang on now a mainstream candidate for President of the United States, and that he is, on close examination, One of Us.
Thats the line that pinged out at me, and made me file away the column for future fiskery. One of us. Never mind the gabba-gabba-hey connotations, or the mainstream line Id love to hear a Woebegon ep in which Rev. Wright brings his race-based rhetoric to a small Lutheran church. ("Think twice about who you put your arm around, Senator McCain," the Scout cautioned in another column, back in the olden times when associations were relevant..) No, by one of us Keillor, I suspect, means the us of the smart set, the people who read the New Yorker even if one out 52 covers offends, the people who went to college for real instead of floating by with frat-boy grins, the people who protested the war instead of fighting it, the people who grapple, you know, with issues, seriously, and express a certain soulful anguish at the complexity of it all, and file away the details about zoning disputes with neighbors to be worked into a novel six years hence, when the whole incident has ripened into a metaphor.
I might be wrong, but I dont think a fellow who works at a gas station in the Midwest whose wife works as a nurse and commutes 27 miles a day and complains more about the cost of gas than the cost of dance lessons regards Obama as One of Us. They may like his views on this issue or that, and they may well vote for him in the name of Change or a serious belief in Obamas positions, but if you grew up in a community that was already pretty well organized on its own, you might look at a Harvard grad community organizer who had the time and luxury to write an autobiography before he was 50 as something other than One of Us in the "second-shift / Costco" sense. You want to be one of us, come down here and do something that requires five minutes of Gojo scrubbing come five PM.
Keillor concludes that Obama is much more One of Us than the Current Occupant - although I suspect that if Obama was deeply religious and a reformed alcoholic this would be a sign of his ability to understand how human nature can be both transcendent and imperfect. Obamas National Guard service would also be terribly illustrative, and old photos of the fellow in a flight suit would be regarded as proof of an essential, indelible, illustrative bond with the men and women who serve today. (In the absence of such photos, or the service that would have produced such photos, such experience is irrelevant.) Keillor ends by noting that Obama is more One of Us than Rush Limbaugh, whose Florida home has cherubs painted on the ceiling just like Versailles and has a life-sized portrait of himself on the premises.
True that may be, but I suspect Mr. Limbaugh paid for the portrait himself. And Mr. Limbaugh works in the private sector, which is where Most of Us work. The city of St. Paul helped pay for the renovation of the Fitzgerald Theater, the lovely palace from which Mr. Keillor broadcasts. I imagine there will be a portrait of the theaters most famous resident some day, and if the St. Paul city council decides to use tax money to pay for it, who could complain? Hes one of us. And if people cant afford to drive downtown for the unveiling ceremony because gas is 10 dollars a gallon? Well, their children should have figured that out.
If they didnt, they must be cheese merchants.
Posted by: Mike ||
07/23/2008 06:28 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Fat shapes emerged from the fog; hail and fare-thee-well, the same ancient mob of sorority sisters, Masons of the moment, backwater frog-heads, spumoni disciples, swamp-cheese franchise experts, Cartesians in LaCrosse socks, ferret-ticklers, and Rosicrutian tract-whappers. hairy-backed swamp developers, corporate shills, Christians of convenience, freelance racists, hobby cops, misanthropic frat boys, lizardskin cigar monkeys, jerktown romeos, ninja dittoheads. In 1994 he called them dim figures emerged from the mist; lo and behold, the same old gang of frat boys, geezers in golf pants, cheese merchants, cat stranglers, corporate shills, Bible beaters, swamp developers.
#2
Honestly, Keillor has gone so far around the twist that I can hardly bear listening to PHC these days. The great clouds of liberal smug eminating from my radio whenever it is on is so dense it chokes everything else.
And he used to be funny, too. I have noticed that he only ever mentioned 9/11 directly on PHC once or twice, in the weeks immediatly after it happened. In a real Lake Woebegon, working class blue-collar sort of town there would have been reservists activated, and sons and daughters who would have been in the military and gone to Iraq or Afghanistan... but not in Mr. Keillor's fairy-tale town.
#6
If bigjim had trouble distinguishing Lileks' parody from genuine Keillor dementia, I think that says something for Lileks' skill as a mimic . . . and maybe something about the full extent of Keillor's delusion.
Besides, I like cat merchants, cheese developers, and swamp stranglers as much as the next guy. Why, some of my best clients are backwater tract-whappers, Cartesian frog-heads, and ferret-tickling Rosicrutians in LaCrosse socks!
Posted by: Mike ||
07/23/2008 12:05 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Besides, I like cat merchants, cheese developers, and swamp stranglers as much as the next guy. Why, some of my best clients are backwater tract-whappers, Cartesian frog-heads, and ferret-tickling Rosicrutians in LaCrosse socks!
#9
Lileks: what a gem. Now only does he deconstruct Keillor to a quivering mass of protoplasm, he's orders of magnitude funnier than Keillor ever was - even before he went 'round the bend.
#14
I was beginning to think this guy was dangerously insane.
Don't worry, you were on the right track. Here's an authentic quote:
"Rich ironies abound! Lies pop up like toadstools in the forest! Wild swine crowd round the public trough! Outrageous gerrymandering! Pocket lining on a massive scale! Paid lobbyists sit in committee rooms and write legislation to alleviate the suffering of billionaires! Hypocrisies shine like cat turds in the moonlight! O Mark Twain, where art thou at this hour? Arise and behold the Gilded Age reincarnated gaudier than ever, upholding great wealth as the sure sign of Divine Grace."
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.
has said something that should stop Pakistan's numberless and mindless "conspiracy" theorists from spreading the word that 9/11 was done by the Jews. Speaking to a Pakistani TV channel, Sheikh Saeed stated that the 9/11 attack on the US was carried out by 19 men of Al Qaeda and that Pakistan did a dastardly thing by handing over the "courageous" 
