Bill's Bites: Moonbat Madness

Sunday, 29 April 2007

2007.04.29 Decision '08 // Dem Stupidity Roundup
(And assorted other "Let's give 'em a country to run" topics)

See previous: 2007.04.28 Decision '08 Roundup

Below the fold (newest items at the top):

Can The Reagan Legacy Be Rekindled?
Ivy league Intolerance
Obama the Neocon?
Who's Afraid of Hillary Clinton?
A vote for Obama as an offset against racism?
Hillary is jeered at California convention
Anonymous Dem Politician: Netroots can be “mean and irrational”

Carl Bernstein Prepping Unauthorized Bio on Hillary Clinton

Drawing on a trove of private papers from Hillary Clinton’s best friend, the legendary Watergate journalist Carl Bernstein is going to publish a hard-hitting and intimate portrait of the 2008 presidential candidate, which will reveal a number of "discrepancies" in her official story.

Bernstein, who was played by Dustin Hoffman in the film "All the President’s Men," has spent eight years researching the unauthorized 640-page biography, "A Woman in Charge: The Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton."

“Bernstein reaches conclusions that stand in opposition to what Senator Clinton has said in the past and has written in the past,” said Paul Bogaards, a spokesman for Knopf, which publishes the book on June 19.

With the thoroughness for which he is famous, Bernstein spoke to more than 200 of Clinton’s friends, colleagues and adversaries.

*** Ed Morrissey has more here.

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

[I've moved an excerpt and some comments from here to the top of this post.]

***

So much for John McCain as a good "national security" President:

McCain & Coercive Interrogation
Andy McCarthy

Chris Wallace also asked Senator McCain about coercive interrogation in light of the contention by former CIA Director George Tenet that the interrogation methods used by the CIA on high-value al Qaeda detainees saved countless American lives. (It must be noted, Tenet insists these methods did not rise to the level of torture regardless of how cavalierly the public discussion suggests otherwise.)

Here is the McCain/Wallace exchange (from a transcript of the entire McCain interview, available at FoxNews.com):

[...]

Sure, except now here is McCain in the 2005 essay he penned for Newsweek, addressing the "ticking bomb" scenario (italics is mine):

[...]

So, confronted by the do-or-die starkness of a ticking-bomb, McCain acknowledged in 2005 that it "might well" be necessary to use "extreme measures," and that so doing might in fact "save an American city or prevent another 9/11." Was his bottom-line position that coercive interrogation doesn't work? Of course not. It was that such interrogation might very well work but that it would be a mistake to write an exception permitting it into our law because the exception would be abused.

That is a perfectly respectable position — there is a serious (though beneath-the-radar) debate about whether the best way to minimize the use of coercion is (a) to regulate it tightly and prosecute all violations, or (b) categorically ban it and assume that interrogators would know enough to ignore the ban in true emergencies. But, it is just plain bluster to argue, as McCain continues to insist, that coercion never works and he doesn't care what anyone else says. As his answer on the ticking-bomb demonstrates, even he doesn't believe that. ...

This nation owes John McCain a lot, enough that I could almost forgive him for the BCRA fiasco, but as far as I'm concerned this is a show stopper. He's letting his own unpleasant experiences as a POW interfere with his ability to think clearly about an important Long War issue. It's one thing to point out that a uniformed military pilot shot down over enemy territory has a right to humane treatment. Trying to extend that right to the jihadis is quite another matter. I'd still vote for him over a Dhimmicrat but I sincerely hope I'm not faced with that choice.

***

Ivy league Intolerance
Don Surber

A closed mind is a terrible thing to waste.

I see where a group of idiots heckled Alberto Gonzales, the U.S. attorney general, who had returned for a 25th reunion at Harvard Law School. The intolerance by these cretins shouted him down.

Once again, an Ivy League college shows no class whatsoever.

The AP story quoted this guy:
“The departure was clearly undignified,” said Thomas Becker, a second-year law student who wore the black hood and orange jumpsuit during the protest. “He looked really annoyed.”
He should be expelled for conduct unbecoming a scholar.

This is how Harvard treats guests.

Sadly, administrators at these overpriced institutions of babysitting are cowards. Consider these reports: ...

***

Obama the Neocon?
Ed Morrissey

Is Barack Obama a neocon? Robert Kagan thinks so, and he makes his case in the Washington Post today:
It’s not just international do-goodism. To Obama, everything and everyone everywhere is of strategic concern to the United States. “We cannot hope to shape a world where opportunity outweighs danger unless we ensure that every child, everywhere, is taught to build and not to destroy.” The “security of the American people is inextricably linked to the security of all people.” Realists, call your doctors. ...
Some people argued in the 2004 presidential election that the war on terror needed a Democratic president to give it non-partisan status. As it turned out, the Democrats nominated a poor candidate — but Joe Lieberman may have been attractive for that purpose. Does Obama sound like he could fill Lieberman’s shoes?

Er, no. Obama has been part of the defeat-and-retreat caucus during his entire Senatorial career … all two years of it. He has consistently voted and spoken to pull out of Iraq and to run away from the very terrorists he challenges in this speech. ...

Obama is no neocon, and I think he’d take that as a compliment. He’s also no national-security Democrat, and his idea of staying on the offense only lasts as long as no one dies as a result. War, unfortunately, means something else entirely, ...

***

Just read 'em. I'm busy with other things:

Who's Afraid of Hillary Clinton?

A vote for Obama as an offset against racism?

***

Hillary is jeered at California convention
By Stephen Dinan

SAN DIEGO -- Over the jeers of some delegates to California Democrats' state convention yesterday who wanted her to take a tougher stand on Iraq, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said America doesn't know "half the damage" President Bush and his administration have done.

Hours later, Sen. Barack Obama, Mrs. Clinton's closest rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, had the crowd chanting in support as he promised to force an end to the war.

For the more than 2,000 delegates here in San Diego, the Iraq war remains the critical issue and a key dividing line as they size up their choices for 2008.

Mrs. Clinton, who repeatedly has blamed the president for misleading her into voting in 2002 for the resolution that authorized the war, said ["gee I wish I'd had one of my flunkies read that bill to me before we voted." -- BF]

***

Anonymous Dem Politician: Netroots can be “mean and irrational”
See-Dubya

The SF Chronic looks at the swarm of blog coverage of the California Democratic Convention, and recognizes that blogs have changed the way politics are conducted.

Depite all the money they bring in, it’s not always for the best:
But one key state Democratic strategist, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of concern for riling the netroots crowd, warns that such efforts are potentially positive and negative.

Netroots commentary can frequently be intensely personal, even “totally mean and irrational,” the strategist said, with some bloggers finding power in their ability “to assassinate political characters online.”

“It’s amplified by the anonymity, and it can be scary that it’s so irresponsible,” the insider said. “And it’s pulling the mainstream media in that direction.”
Who was it that said neither party likes their base, but the Democrats are scared of theirs? ...

Contributed by Bill Faith on April 29, 2007 at 12:08 AM in Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Moonbat Madness, Politics | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Saturday, 28 April 2007

Speaking frankly about Abu Carter -- Update 13

See all of my "Speaking Frankly About Abu Carter" posts in one place here.

Jimmy Carter, Arab Front Man
Ed Morrissey

Alan Dershowitz has often infuriated conservatives with his liberal ideology and sharp-witted speech. He drew insults by the bucketload for defending OJ Simpson in the mid-90s, when it appeared OJ would require a strong team for an appeal-- before a Los Angeles jury proved that celebrities don't need Dershowitz's services. However, Dershowitz has always remained strong in the war against radical Islam and a stalwart defender of Israel, and as such he has come increasingly into conflict with a man he once admired, Jimmy Carter.

Now Dershowitz has discovered that Carter gets his funding for his pro-Palestinian, pro-Arab positions from very suspect sources:

***

The Real Jimmy Carter
By Alan M. Dershowitz

I have known Jimmy Carter for years. I first met him in the spring of 1976 when, as a relatively unknown candidate for president, he sent me a handwritten letter asking for my help in his campaign on issues of crime and justice. I had just published an article in The New York Times Magazine on sentencing reform, and he expressed interest in my ideas and asked me to come up with additional ones for his campaign. Shortly thereafter, my former student, Stuart Eisenstadt, brought Carter to Harvard to meet with some faculty members, me among them. I immediately liked Jimmy Carter and saw him as a man of integrity and principle. I signed on to his campaign and worked very hard for his election.

When Newsweek magazine asked his campaign for the names of people on whom Carter relied for advice, my name was among those given out. I continued to work for Carter over the years, most recently I met him in Jerusalem a year ago, and we briefly discussed the Mid-East. Though I disagreed with some of his points, I continued to believe that he was making them out of a deep commitment to principle and to human rights.

Recent disclosures of Carter's extensive financial connections to Arab oil money, particularly from Saudi Arabia, had deeply shaken my belief in his integrity. When I was first told that he received a monetary reward in the name of Shiekh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahayan, and kept the money, even after Harvard returned money from the same source because of its anti-Semitic history, I simply did not believe it. How could a man of such apparent integrity enrich himself with dirty money from so dirty a source?

And let there be no mistake about how dirty the Zayed Foundation is. I know because I was involved, in a small way, in helping to persuade Harvard University to return more than $2 million that the financially strapped Divinity School received from this source. Initially, I was reluctant to put pressure on Harvard to turn back money for the Divinity School, but then a student at the Divinity School, Rachael Lea Fish showed me the facts.

They were staggering. I was amazed that in the twenty-first century there were still foundations that espoused these views. ...

***

My Problem with Jimmy Carter's Book
by Kenneth W. Stein

Jimmy Carter's engagement in foreign affairs as a former president is unprecedented in U.S. history. Because he regards the Arab-Israeli conflict as among Washington's most important foreign policy topics, he has written more than two dozen articles and commentaries about the conflict, eight in the past year alone. In these publications, Carter uses his credibility as a former president, Nobel laureate, and key player in the September 1978 Camp David accords and the Egypt-Israel peace treaty to unfold his set of truths and often to criticize U.S. policy. He relishes the role of elder statesman and believes that with his accrued wisdom and experience, he can contribute to solutions.

But Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, Carter's twenty-first book and his second to focus on the Arab-Israeli conflict, is deficient. He does what no non-fiction author should ever do: He allows ideology or opinion to get in the way of facts. While Carter says that he wrote the book to educate and provoke debate, the narrative aims its attack toward Israel, Israeli politicians, and Israel's supporters. It contains egregious errors of both commission and omission. To suit his desired ends, he manipulates information, redefines facts, and exaggerates conclusions. Falsehoods, when repeated and backed by the prestige of Carter's credentials, can comprise an erroneous baseline for shaping and reinforcing attitudes and policymaking. Rather than bring peace, they can further fuel hostilities, encourage retrenchment, and hamper peacemaking. ...

Contributed by Bill Faith on April 28, 2007 at 12:36 AM in Abu Jimmy, Dem Dumbness, Dem Perfidy, Dhimmitude, Islamism Delenda Est, Israel, Moonbat Madness | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Wednesday, 25 April 2007

The obligatory "Rosie's leaving" post

Like I could give a beggar's damn or something. Anyway, if you care here are some links you might want to click:

Contributed by Bill Faith on April 25, 2007 at 01:38 PM in Moonbat Madness | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Sunday, 15 April 2007

Military Order of the Purple Heart and the Gathering of Eagles

The following article was written by Henry J. Cook III, Senior Vice Commander of the Military Order of the Purple Heart. It was intended for use in their organizational publication. In light of certain parties claiming that they had convinced MOPH to drop their support, Mr. Cook asked that it be posted on the GOE blog as a reaffirmation of MOPH’s support for the Gathering of Eagles. Thank you William "1stCav" Page for bringing it to my attention.

The Military Order of the Purple Heart and the Gathering of Eagles
Henry J. Cook, III

More than one year ago the international A.N.S.W.E.R. coalition began planning two major anti-war rallies in Washington, D.C. The first was held in January of 2007. From their rally point the various anti-war, anti-American groups marched on our nation’s Capitol. Upon arrival at the Capitol they proceeded to spray paint their slogans and anti-American sentiments on the Capitol steps. Apparently the Capitol police felt it was better to allow them to do their mischief and clean it up later than confront them physically to stop their actions. Some of the groups went to the U. S. Navy memorial and desecrated the Lonely Sailor memorial.

Who were these people ? A.N.S.W.E.R. , purely an arm of the communist party of the United States , joined by Code Pink, the National Council of Arab Americans, the Muslim American Society, the 9-11 Truth Movement (They claim 9-11 was a hoax.) a number of Palestinian and Lebanese support groups, pro-Castro and Che Gueverra groups, the Viet Nam Veterans against the war, at least one Anarchist group and a number of hippie-throwbacks, all receiving encouragement by Hanoi Jane Fonda, Ramsey Clark, Sean Penn, Ed Asner with Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-CA) and the newest anti-war poster child, Cindy Sheehan.

After their performance in January, A.N.S.W.E R. let it be know that their next rally and parade was to begin with a rally at the Viet Nam Wall on March 17, 2007 and would end at the Pentagon. ...

Read the whole thing.

Contributed by Bill Faith on April 15, 2007 at 08:30 PM in Caring about our troops, Gathering of Eagles, Moonbat Madness, The American Warrior, The Lunatic Left, US Air Force, US Army, US Coast Guard, US Marine Corps, US Navy, Viet Nam | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Saturday, 14 April 2007

A country gone mad?

From Media Lies:

I've been searching for two days....

....for a way to express what I'm feeling right now. I think almost half the country has gone completely mad, and if Steven [sic] is right, the Kennedy assassination is the touchstone of that insanity. In the past few days I have read some of the most insane "reasoning" you can possibly imagine.

I'll confess. For a long time I believed in the possibility that a conspiracy was behind Kennedy's assassination. For many years that thought lingered in the back of my mind, never consuming my thoughts but festering nonetheless. That all changed, however, when I watched the PBS special that aired on the 40^th anniversary of that tragic event. Once the facts were presented, there was no question in my mind that Oswald acted alone. The facts were too overwhelming to leave any doubt.

For many people, however, the Kennedy assassination (and the subsequent assassinations of Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King) shattered their faith in government forever. Now they are willing to believe any wild story that comes along. So much so that the fact that they actually watched planes fly into the World Trade Center buildings doesn't deter for one second their willingness to believe that the government blew the buildings up as a pretext for war. ...

***

SEEING THE UNSEEN, Part 2
Bill Whittle

Occam’s Razor is the idea that when confronted with competing theories that explain certain data equally well, the simplest one is usually correct. It’s called Occam’s Razor, and not Occam’s Hypothesis, or Occam’s Theorem, or Occam’s Bit of Useful Advice, because it is a razor – it cuts cleanly and with great efficiency.

And though it pains me to say so, this culture is in desperate need of a shave.

IT’S A CONSPIRACY!

I want to forgo the niceties of the hot towel and go straight for the jugular on this one. My goal here is not to bust any of these four conspiracy theories; that has all been done much more effictively elsewhere. What I am trying to do here is to build a chain of evidence to show a progressively deteriorating epidemic of world-wide insanity, of truly diseased thinking -- not just a misunderstanding or difference of opinion but real, diagnosable mental illness.

I want to get to that disease in a minute -- and the cause of it too – but first let’s examine what some people claim to believe in and the mountains of sand one has to carry in order to bury one’s head so deep. ...

9/11 and The Birth of a Notion

Of course, all of this is just the soup for the main course.

Recently, Rosie O’Donnell said on national television that she believes 9/11 was orchestrated by the US government.

Well, that’s why we went through the steps above. If you believe that the government lied about the moon landing, you can believe they lied about killing JFK. If they lied about JFK, then they can lie about chemtrails. And if they are willing to poison the entire population with aerial spraying, what are a few thousand people in four airliners and a couple of buildings?

Rosie O’ Donnell making such a claim on a major network is a national disgrace. The fact that much of the audience cheered and applauded is nothing less than a national catastrophe.

To her, and to her audience, it is taken as granted that the government is capable of such things. As if “the government” was operated by cyborgs grown in Haliburton vats, rather than by well-meaning and patriotic people that love this country.

"This is the first time in history that fire has ever melted steel," she said. This is a statement of such pristine and perfect idiocy that it surely must be emblazoned in stone across the entrance to the Physics Imbecile wing of the Moron Museum of Natural History. But mastery of physics and engineering requires some intelligence, some perseverance and some discipline: none of which are in evidence in this buffoon. Everything is a conspiracy to a mind this far gone. The 15 British sailors kidnapped at sea? All a plan by our evil (but incompetent!) government to get the next war it so desperately needs. “Gulf of Tonkin! Google It, people!” she said on national TV.

And I will, Rosie. I promise. As soon as I finish googling MAD COW DISEASE.

I will make the point yet again because I believe it is the crux of the issue: what kind of moral universe do you have to inhabit to be able to believe that your own people – airline personnel, demolition experts, police and security forces, faked witnesses and all the rest – are capable of such a thing? How much hate for your own society do you have to carry in order to live in such a desolate and ridiculous mental hell? What psychoses must a mind be riddled with in order to negate what was perfectly obvious and instead believe a theory of such monumental fantasy? How much pure constant hatred does that take?

What, in short, is the miserable black hole of self-loathing that drives a person like Rosie O’Donnell and millions like her?

You know who I blame for this pathetic state of affairs? I blame Leonard Nimoy. ...

[Read the whole thing.]

Contributed by Bill Faith on April 14, 2007 at 07:49 PM in Moonbat Madness, The Lunatic Left | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Thursday, 12 April 2007

"Meet the Pope of Doom Foreboding"

In the Church of Chicken Little
Where the sky falls through the floor...
Meet the Pope of Doom Foreboding...
Meet His Holiness, Al Gore.

Jolly Giant Al of GreenPeace,
Goddess Gaia's Chosen Son....
Check His Massive Carbon Footprint!
Mother Earth's Anointed One!

He's the King of Karbon Kredits,
And he's got a deal for you!
Put your faith in him....
Send money!
Then reduce your CO-2! ...

Contributed by Bill Faith on April 12, 2007 at 01:04 AM in Moonbat Madness, Poetry | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Saturday, 07 April 2007

Anti-gun zealots oppose Navy SEAL memorial statue

SEAL statue frightens parents
Greyhawk

Navy SEAL Petty Officer 2nd Class Danny Dietz Jr., fell in action in Afghanistan in 2005:
Petty Officer Dietz, 25, was awarded the Navy Cross, the service's second-highest award for valor after the Medal of Honor, for fighting off an ambush by insurgents in Afghanistan despite being mortally wounded. His actions were credited with helping a fellow Navy SEAL escape.
Littleton, Colorado, plans to honor his sacrifice with a statue:
Plans for the memorial began last summer when the city started working with Rep. Tom Tancredo, Colorado Republican, and the Dietz family. The family raised $42,000 to cover the costs, with no public funding involved.
<...>
A bronze sculpture of Petty Officer 2nd Class Danny Dietz Jr. showing him cradling his rifle across his chest is scheduled to be unveiled July 4 at Berry Park here, where he grew up and attended school. The statue was modeled after a photo of the young serviceman.
Some of the locals are, of course, protesting:...

See also: Smash - The Infiltrator

Contributed by Bill Faith on March 22, 2007 at 01:00 AM in Caring about our troops, Gathering of Eagles, Moonbat Madness, The American Warrior, The Lunatic Left, US Air Force, US Army, US Coast Guard, US Marine Corps, US Navy, Viet Nam | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Tuesday, 20 March 2007

A Gathering of Eagles
Contributed by Russ Vaughn

The commies came, the commies saw,
The commies skulked away,
A Gathering of Eagles
Just spoiled their Big Red Day.
The ANSWER Coalition,
Led by Head Red Brian Becker,
Declined to find out if these birds,
Might have a bigger pecker. ...

Contributed by Bill Faith on March 20, 2007 at 09:30 PM in Caring about our troops, Gathering of Eagles, Moonbat Madness, The American Warrior, US Air Force, US Army, US Coast Guard, US Marine Corps, US Navy, Viet Nam | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Saturday, 17 March 2007

EAGLES UP!

This post will remain at the top of the site for the remainder of the day. Please scroll down for possible newer content. Actual timestamp 2007.03.17.00:02.

"Let us make it clear, we've all come here
To defend our long-dead brothers;
And understand you ain't layin' a hand
On our Wall you leftie mothers."
(Listen to the mp3 here.)

I may not do a lot of posting on this site today. I'll be doing my best to keep up with the Gathering Of Eagles on Old War Dogs and won't be taking time to try to keep two parallel posts up to date. I know of at least three people who'll be at The Wall with my phone number programmed into their cell phones and they know I'll be anxious to know how things are going, so here's hoping.

EAGLES UP!

Contributed by Bill Faith on March 17, 2007 at 11:59 PM in Caring about our troops, Gathering of Eagles, Moonbat Madness, The American Warrior, US Air Force, US Army, US Coast Guard, US Marine Corps, US Navy, Viet Nam | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Wednesday, 14 March 2007

Gathering Storm

March At The Wall
Vietnam Vets & The New Protestors
By Thomas P. Evans. (Helmet tip: Smash)

March 13, 2007 -- MENTION Jane Fonda to any 10 Vietnam veterans, and at least seven of them will have some sort of conniption right on the spot. Spread the rumor that Hanoi Jane will be leading the anti-war protest march from the Vietnam Memorial Wall to the Pentagon on Saturday, and a battalion of 60-year-old Vietnam veterans is ready to do battle again.

Rumors are flying over the Internet.

The Vietnam Wall is sacred ground, how dare they stage their march in front of it? Didn't anti-war protestors recently spray-paint graffiti on the Capitol steps? We'll form a human wall in front of the Wall to protect it.

Cops should body-search every protestor, looking for spray-paint cans and chisels. Have the bail bondsmen ready.

We might be white-heads and chrome domes with bellies bigger than B-52 thousand pound bombs, but we know how to deal with people who protest policies set forth by our duly elected government officials.

And who's going to guard the Korean War and World War II Memorials? Our brothers from those wars are too old to do it. We have to organize like this is a military operation.

And on and on, the e-mails go.

St. Patrick's Day marks the fourth anniversary of the start of the Iraq War, and the 40th anniversary of the massive Vietnam era anti-war march on the Pentagon. Where were we on March 17, 1967? ...

We tend to remember only dates that were significant to us - the battles, the first impressions, the funny moments. All the other dates blend together. So it's hard to say exactly where we were or what my platoon was doing on March 17, 1967. Perhaps we were out on patrol in a rice paddy or a jungle - "beating the bush," as we called it. Perhaps we were on one of the firebases near the DMZ, a respite from the constant patrols - cleaning gear, getting a hot meal or a haircut or writing a letter home.

Not many Vietnam veterans were around for that march on the Pentagon 40 years ago. We were in a different world, a world few anti-war protesters could even imagine. Maybe because we missed all that four decades ago, we want to be there this time. ...

EAGLES UP!

Click here to see the entire Old War Dogs Gathering Of Eagles series in one place.

***

Re: Gathering Storm
By Greyhawk

Smash, that quote from the Vietnam vets preparing to make a stand reminds me of Philip Caputo's account of an Iwo Jima veteran's "visit" to Northwestern University in the wake of the Kent State shootings:
The scene could have been lifted from a Delacroix painting of the French revolution. A young man stood atop a barricade of furniture and cars and saw-horses, his long hair tousled by the Lake Michigan wind, one hand grasping a pole flying a red flag and an upside-down American flag (a distress signal) as he exhorted some twenty-five hundred students massed behind him to "Strike! Strike!"

Suddenly, he was interrupted by a burly, black-haired, middle-age man dressed in a workingman's khaki trousers and a flannel shirt. Mounting the barricade, he tried to wrest the flag pole from the student. "That's my flag!" he yelled. "I fought for it. You have no right to it." ...

Contributed by Bill Faith on March 14, 2007 at 11:32 PM in Caring about our troops, Gathering of Eagles, Hanoi Jane, Iraq, Islamism Delenda Est, Moonbat Madness, The American Warrior, US Air Force, US Army, US Coast Guard, US Marine Corps, US Navy, Viet Nam | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Stretching the Truth

From The Telegraph: Scientists threatened for 'climate denial'.
Scientists who questioned mankind's impact on climate change have received death threats and claim to have been shunned by the scientific community.

They say the debate on global warming has been "hijacked" by a powerful alliance of politicians, scientists and environmentalists who have stifled all questioning about the true environmental impact of carbon dioxide emissions.

Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, has received five deaths threats by email since raising concerns about the degree to which man was affecting climate change.

One of the emails warned that, if he continued to speak out, he would not live to see further global warming.

"Western governments have pumped billions of dollars into careers and institutes and they feel threatened," said the professor. ...
"The Great Global Warming Swindle" is an excellent, must-see British documentary that shows how global warming is treated as a religious orthodoxy that cannot be questioned. Little Green Footballs has posted the Flash version of the one-hour-plus film. YouTube has a version in eight parts for easier viewing starting here. (LGF also noted an article about an oceanographer who says his views were misrepresented in the film). ...

***

You've Just Gotta Believe!
James Taranto

Back in 1988, Time magazine named "Endangered Earth" its "Planet of the Year." In a letter to readers, then-publisher Robert L. Miller explained that Time had concluded it was time to give up on old-fashioned objective journalism:
By August Time knew it was no longer enough just to describe familiar problems one more time. "The new journalistic challenge," says managing editor Henry Muller, "was to help find solutions, and that by definition meant international solutions." So we invited a distinguished group of scientists, administrators and political leaders from five continents to a Time conference charged with producing a tough but realistic action program.
The issue excerpted a speech delivered at the conference by then-Sen. Al Gore of Tennessee, who dismissed all dissent:
There are areas of uncertainty about the greenhouse effect and the dire nature of the ecological crisis we face, which are seized upon as excuses for inaction. This is a psychological problem common to all humanity. If strong responses are needed and yet there is some residual uncertainty about whether you are going to have to make those responses, the natural psychological tendency is to magnify the uncertainty and say, "Well, maybe we won't really have to face up to it."

But the fact that we face an ecological crisis without any precedent in historic times is no longer a matter of any dispute worthy of recognition. And those who, for the purpose of maintaining balance in debate, take the contrarian view that there is significant uncertainty about whether it's real are hurting our ability to respond.
Gore, of course, went on to serve eight years as vice president and lose the 2000 presidential election before retiring from politics to make a full-time career in the "global warming" business. This year his alarmist movie, "An Inconvenient Truth," won an Oscar for Best Documentary.

Now, more than 18 years after Time decided to abjure objectivity, the New York Times has decided to practice it. "From a Rapt Audience, a Call to Cool the Hype" reads the front-page headline in today's Times science section:
Part of [Gore's] scientific audience is uneasy. In talks, articles and blog entries that have appeared since his film and accompanying book came out last year, these scientists argue that some of Mr. Gore's central points are exaggerated and erroneous. They are alarmed, some say, at what they call his alarmism.

"I don't want to pick on Al Gore," Don J. Easterbrook, an emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, told hundreds of experts at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America. "But there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data." . . .

Criticisms of Mr. Gore have come not only from conservative groups and prominent skeptics of catastrophic warming, but also from rank-and-file scientists like Dr. Easterbook, who told his peers that he had no political ax to grind. A few see natural variation as more central to global warming than heat-trapping gases. Many appear to occupy a middle ground in the climate debate, seeing human activity as a serious threat but challenging what they call the extremism of both skeptics and zealots.
"In an e-mail message, Mr. Gore defended his work as fundamentally accurate," the Times reports. Shades of "fake but accurate"?

What's clear from the Times piece is that, far from the "consensus" the media usually describe on global warming, there is a broad range of views among scientists. Almost two decades after Gore flatly claimed that "we face an ecological crisis without any precedent in historic times," we don't know if that is really true. Kudos to the Times for introducing some perspective. ...

***

Video: Edwards says global warming will “make world war look like heaven”
Allahpundit

Speaking to a crowd at Bennett College in Greensboro, North Carolina, Democratic presidential contender John Edwards attempted to explain why he cut and ran from the Fox-sponsored Dem debate. He said he saw “absolutely no reason to give Fox a special platform especially given their history on how they treat Democrats and Democrat Presidential candidates.”

What history is that? He didn’t say.

But that’s not the dumbest thing the Silky Pony said. He also said that global warming will “make world war look like heaven.” Drink the Kool-Aid, Silky. Drink deep.

Update (AP): Papa Bear promises the Pony that his “day of reckoning” is coming, oh yes.

***

'An Over-Representation of Factual Presentations'
James Taranto

After our item yesterday on scientists critical of Al Gore's "global warming" alarmism, a reader called our attention to an interview with Gore that appeared last May in a publication called Grist:
Q: There's a lot of debate right now over the best way to communicate about global warming and get people motivated. Do you scare people or give them hope? What's the right mix?

Gore: I think the answer to that depends on where your audience's head is. In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.
"An over-representation of factual presentations of how dangerous it is." Isn't that what people accused President Bush of offering vis-à-vis the erstwhile Iraqi regime? Didn't this lead a certain former vice president to thunder, "He betrayed this country! He played on our fears!"?

And it's not as if Gore's "over-representations" don't have harmful effects. They've caused a lot of people to get really sad and stressed out. Consider this report from BusinessWeek:
In recent years, the TED conference has gained a reputation for blissfully big ideas buoyed by unrelenting optimism. So few conference goers were prepared for venture capitalist John Doerr to choke up with emotion as he kicked off the second day of talks on Mar. 9.

"I'm scared," he told the audience, looking down at his 15-year-old daughter in the front row. "I don't think we're going to make it."

Doerr issued a passionate call to action for everyone to make environmental concerns their "next big thing."
And this one from the Post-Chronicle, about someone called Jennifer Garner:
Jennifer has also confessed she cries more now she is a mother. The actress believes the experience has made her more caring.

She said: "Since I became a mother, I cry more because I care about things more.

"I can't watch a movie where something happens to a child. And I've always cared about global warming and breast cancer, but now there seems to be an urgency about them."
GORE LIED, PEOPLE CRIED!!!!

Contributed by Bill Faith on March 14, 2007 at 05:59 PM in Moonbat Madness | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Tuesday, 13 March 2007

2007.03.13 Surrenderpolitik update

There is something profoundly right about Joe Lieberman
Paul Mirengoff

Here's part of what Sen. Lieberman said in his speech yesterday to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee:
There is something profoundly wrong when opposition to the war in Iraq seems to inspire greater passion than opposition to Islamist extremism. There is something profoundly wrong when there is so much distrust of our intelligence community that some Americans doubt the plain and ominous facts about the threat to us posed by Iran. And there is something profoundly wrong when, in the face of attacks by radical Islam, we think we can find safety and stability by pulling back, by talking to and accommodating our enemies, and abandoning our friends and allies. Some of this wrong-headed thinking about the world is happening because we're in a political climate where, for many people, when George Bush says "yes," their reflex reaction is to say "no." That is unacceptable.
Lieberman concluded his speech with the following words: ...

See previous: 2007.03.12 Surrenderpolitik update; Updated, bumped: ...

***

Et tu, al-WaPo? Then die, Slow Bleed:

WaPo: Pelosi Plan A Murtha Trick
Ed Morrissey

The Washington Post excoriates the Democratic leadership for exploiting the appropriations process on war funding to pander for votes in a scorching editorial this morning. Calling Cut and Run/Slow Bleed 3.0 nothing more than a "trick" meant to impose an impossible timeline on a troop withdrawal, the Post blasts the Democrats for thinking about nothing more than their electoral prospects in 2008:
The Democratic proposal doesn't attempt to answer the question of why August 2008 is the right moment for the Iraqi government to lose all support from U.S. combat units. It doesn't hint at what might happen if American forces were to leave at the end of this year -- a development that would be triggered by the Iraqi government's weakness. It doesn't explain how continued U.S. interests in Iraq, which holds the world's second-largest oil reserves and a substantial cadre of al-Qaeda militants, would be protected after 2008; in fact, it may prohibit U.S. forces from returning once they leave.

In short, the Democratic proposal to be taken up this week is an attempt to impose detailed management on a war without regard for the war itself. Will Iraq collapse into unrestrained civil conflict with "massive civilian casualties," as the U.S. intelligence community predicts in the event of a rapid withdrawal? Will al-Qaeda establish a powerful new base for launching attacks on the United States and its allies? Will there be a regional war that sucks in Iraqi neighbors such as Saudi Arabia or Turkey? The House legislation is indifferent: Whether or not any of those events happened, U.S. forces would be gone. ...
The Democrats have tied themselves in knots attempting to appease the anti-war wing of their party, which demands an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. They have tried to compare Iraq with Viet Nam for the last four years, but the Democratic leadership has started to see that one Viet Nam comparison appears true -- that the Democrats want to force a surrender and defeat through domestic politics without regard to the consequences of such a collapse. Even Ted Koppel has started to talk openly about the catastrophe that would follow an American withdrawal.

Do the Democrats have a plan if this catastrophe comes to pass? Viet Nam may have had strategic significance only in a Cold War world, but the Middle East has tremendous economic and political significance for the US. If Iraq collapses and starts a regional war between Sunnis and Shi'ites, oil shipments will likely stop and millions of people in Southwest Asia could get killed. Egypt and Saudi Arabia have already stated that they will likely enter Iraq to protect the Sunnis if we withdraw, which would bring Iran in to protect the Shi'ites, with Syria joining as Iran's military ally. ...

***

Pelosi War Plan Guards Against Risk of Victory
Scott Ott

(2007-03-13) — The Democrat timeline for pulling U.S. troops from Iraq is designed to protect the United States against what House Speaker Nancy Pelosi calls “the threat and consequences of victory.”

The California lawmaker told reporters today that while Republicans focus on how the Democrat proposal undermines the troops and leads inevitably to defeat, “few have paused to consider the risk of victory.”

“A major triumph in the war on terror in Iraq would cause immeasurable political upheaval in the United States,” said Rep. Pelosi. “Unemployment would increase, especially among career politicians who opposed the president’s strategy. Countless millions of dollars would be wasted on doomed political campaigns.”

The Speaker noted that Democrats would be hardest hit by “the unfair distribution of misery” in the wake of a victory in Iraq ...

***

Anti-War UnPlan
Jules Crittenden

UPDATE: Support the troops! What happened last time a war got unfunded.

WaPo edit bd nails it … or oak stakes it, in you prefer:

The Pelosi Plan for Iraq: It makes perfect sense, if your goal is winning votes in the United States.

I’d modify that to “in Congress,” because I think the American people are going to lose patience with this.

[...]

Bad timing, when you think about it. They should have gone for January 2009 as their exit date, or March. Don’t want the shit coming out of the bag on the home stretch. Americans might wise up and vote for the other guy.

[...]

A fundamental flaw with this abandonment thing. The more likely Iraq is to fail, the faster we bail. Flashing neon billboard to the world: Who needs enemies when you can have allies like us? Memo to self: Don’t worry, be happy! ...

***

The Plan
By Greyhawk

Washington Post editors are decidedly unimpressed with the Democrats' latest plan for Iraq. They put their bottom line up front: "It makes perfect sense, if the goal is winning votes in the United States."

Says the Post:
In order to bring together the party's leftist and centrist wings... there are plenty of enticements on the side: more money for wounded veterans, for children's health, for post-Hurricane Katrina reconstruction.
Which sounds fine, I suppose. But the full list of non-military "enticements" crammed into the bill to fund operations in Iraq and Afghanistan wouldn't fit in a brief editorial. Dollar-wise, the total (as of last weekend) cost of add-ons was 20 billion:
All told, farmers would get $4.3 billion in disaster aid, aimed chiefly at the drought-stricken Great Plains and California farmers hurt by a hard freeze earlier this year.

The drought disaster aid package has been scaled back, in part to make room for $74 million for a peanut storage program that pays storage and handling fees as farmers market their crop. And Rep. Sam Farr, D-Calif., is pressing for $25 million for spinach farmers who pulled produce from market shelves after last year's E. coli outbreak.

Meanwhile, House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, D-Wis., isn't waiting on the upcoming farm bill to extend income subsidies aimed at small dairy farms. Obey's 13-month extension would cost $283 million. ...
All of which certainly makes an interesting "Iraq Plan".

Now back to the Washington Post for what's not in the plan: ...

***

Chickens Come Home to Roost
By Smash

I doubt that Nancy Pelosi ever expected this:
Using a tactic usually trained on the home turf of President Bush, a group of protesters from Code Pink, a women’s antiwar group, have camped in front of the home of Speaker Nancy Pelosi here, bringing their message — and mattresses — to the doorstep of the nation’s highest-ranking Democrat.
I don't approve -- at all -- of protesting outside a private residence. Indeed, in many municipalities, this practice has been outlawed (usually in response to activists staking out the homes of abortion doctors).

But this tactic has become de riguer amongst the radical left in recent years. A recent example of such a protest (and amusing counter-protest) occured last May outside the home of then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Kristinn Taylor of Free Republic tells the story:

[...]

So I do feel a little bit sorry for Speaker Pelosi. But my sympathy for her is tempered by the knowledge that she brought this upon herself by aligning with the radical wing of her party, and then abandoning them when they became politically inconvenient. ... Lie down with dogs, and wake up with fleas.

Contributed by Bill Faith on March 13, 2007 at 03:16 PM in Dem Dumbness, Dem Perfidy, Iran, Iraq, Islamism Delenda Est, Joementum, Moonbat Madness | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

GATHERING OF EAGLES RALLY - PERMIT UPDATE

GATHERING OF EAGLES RALLY - PERMIT UPDATE
(Hat tip: Michelle)

The National Park Service has issued a permit for the Gathering of Eagles demonstration and rally on March 17 in Washington, D.C. as illustrated on the Eagle web site “Maps” link under “Sections”.

BOTTOM LINE: AS UNACCEPTABLE AS THE PERMIT GRANTED IS, WE WILL BE ABLE TO PROTECT THE VIETNAM MEMORIAL WALL

We view the permit decision unacceptable and will be taking immediate steps to appeal what we believe is an unworkable decision. If the National Park Service is unfavorable to our appeal, our legal arm will pursue immediate court action to acquire an equitable, realistic solution.

The good news is the Park Service is granting the Eagles large amounts of territory adjacent to the Vietnam Memorial as well as along the march route of the antiwar protesters. We are being given the use of the western side of Constitution Gardens, which is contiguous to the Vietnam Memorial, thus giving us controlling ground. That permit is for an estimated 10,000 people. If things stand as they are, we will use that as a staging area for our people to cycle along the pathways, visiting statues and the Vietnam Memorial which comprise the Memorial area. (The maps are included below for convenience and are also available under “Sections” on the Eagle web site - click on the “Maps” tab and look at maps 1 and 2 for illustrations of areas permitted for each group)

Bad news is the Park Service decided to grant the other half of Constitution Gardens to the so-called antiwar group ANSWER, with a no man’s land in between. This is unacceptable and will be challenged in our appeal. ...

Read the entire Old War Dogs Gathering Of Eagles series here.

On a closely related note:

Meet Ben
By Smash

Hi, I'm Ben, a 25-year-old white guy from rural Virginia. I used to be a directory assistance operator, but now I work at the Wal Mart in Waynesboro. I still live with my parents.

Sometimes, I like to go it the big city and play in the streets. My favorite game is to dress up in black, and run around town with my friends. We block traffic, yell at shoppers, and call the cops "pigs." They don't seem to like it very much, but they're powerless to stop us, because we're protected by the First Amendment! [image]

Oh, did I mention that I'm a Black Bloc Anarchist? [image]

Hey, let's go charge up the Capitol steps! The pigs can't stop us! It's our Capitol, too! [image]

Aw, shucks. Looks like we can't go any further. Hey, does anyone have spray paint?

"All Cops are Pigs!" That's brilliant! But don't worry, it'll wash right off... Let’s get out of here! [image]

Hey, now what should we do? I know, ...

BE THERE PEOPLE!

Contributed by Bill Faith on March 13, 2007 at 02:09 PM in Caring about our troops, Gathering of Eagles, Moonbat Madness, The American Warrior, US Air Force, US Army, US Coast Guard, US Marine Corps, US Navy, Viet Nam | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Hillary: VRWC is alive and well

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean we can't really be out to get you, does it? Bwuu-ha-ha-ha-ha!

Hillary And Her Conspiracy Theory
Ed Morrissey

Hillary Clinton has returned to her "vast right-wing conspiracy" theme, a development that will keep Beth blogging for at least another four years. She used her favorite bogeyman on the campaign trail this morning while speaking with municipal officials in New York City:
Presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton told Democrats Tuesday the "vast, right-wing conspiracy" is back, using a phrase she once coined to describe partisan criticism.

Speaking to Democratic municipal officials, the New York senator used the term to hammer Republicans on election irregularities. ...
... Well, I'm sure that will sell with the nuts in her party already inclined to believe in conspiracy theories. There was a time when honorable politicians refused to pander to that crowd, leaving them for Lyndon LaRouche and other fringe demagogues. Hillary may have a harder time selling it after she had her VRWC fantasies blow up in her face in the form of a stained blue dress, and an admission from her husband that he'd played her for a fool while she defended his honor on national television. ...

One might think that a candidate for national office would avoid recalling such an example of paranoia and gullibility. Apparently, Hillary's desperation has reached a level where she needs to tap into the neuroses of her base. If it keeps Beth plugging away for the next few years, though, it will be well worth it.

***

Hillary: VRWC is alive and well
Allahpundit

Only the Glacier could think dusting off this dilapidated meme is a good idea. It wins her no points with the left, who hate her for Iraq; it portends a return to Clinton-era rancor, which would be distasteful even if it didn’t follow eight years of Bush-era rancor; and it sharpens the contrast with Obama’s image as a fresh face who’s above the fray of partisan politics. He’s talking about a new day in Washington and she’s working off a script that’s literally ten years old.

Plus, now she’s gone and alienated the three or four conservatives in America who were planning on voting for her.

[...]

It’s funnier if you imagine her saying it in a New England accent. Which she probably did?

Exit question: ...

Contributed by Bill Faith on March 13, 2007 at 01:34 PM in Dem Dumbness, Hillary Clinton, Moonbat Madness | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Monday, 12 March 2007

Iraq/Vietnam/Antiwar Movement

R J Del Vecchio emails:

This lady was kind enough to say that she got some ideas for this column (which I think is just GREAT) from reading Whitewash/Blackwash. Now that makes me happy!

Continue reading "Iraq/Vietnam/Antiwar Movement"

Contributed by Bill Faith on March 12, 2007 at 05:34 AM in Dem Dumbness, Dem Perfidy, Iran, Iraq, Islamism Delenda Est, Moonbat Madness, Viet Nam |