This ain't Hell, but you can see it from here

Category: Liberals suck

  • Racism – just another day in the Democrat Party

    Trent Lott (former Democrat) was forced from his position as Senate Minority Leader for this comment at (former Democrat) Strom Thurmond’s retirement tribute and 100th birthday;

    “I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over all these years, either.”

    Bill Clinton, attempting to convince Ted Kennedy to back his wife for president rather than Barack Obama said;

    A few years ago, this guy [Obama] would have been getting us coffee.

    Janeane Garafalo said the teapartiers were “straight-up racists” for opposing the politics of Barack Obama. Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, in supporting Obama noticed that he is “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.”

    That’s tame compared to actually opposing Obama’s policies, huh? Garafalo also called Michael Steele “that Black guy in the Republican party” a victim of Stockholm Syndrome, that he tries to “curry favor with [his] oppressor”. But we’re the racists.

    I could drag out all of the Robert Byrd quotes and catalog his career with the KKK, but you all know about it – just like every Democrat knows it. Name one Republican in Congress, living or dead, who spent ten years in the KKK. Um, you can’t.

    Republicans get accused of using “code words” to communicate with the racists, but the Democrats use the actual words of racists without accountability.

  • The depth of Soltz’ intellect

    If ever there was someone who should be stripped of his veteran status, it’s Jon Soltz, the dork who is the public face of VoteVets, and mostly likely the guy who saddled the organization with it’s stupid name. The following is from his latest missive;

    The failed bombing of a Detroit-bound airplane by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab has raised a ton of questions – from what holes there are in airline security, to how he wasn’t picked up before on suspicion of terrorist activity. But, to me and the forces in or heading to Afghanistan, one of the most pressing questions is why we’re sending nearly every Marine and Soldier we have to Afghanistan, when Abdulmutallab and a Somali man arrested for plotting a similar attack last month apparently had no real connection to al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.

    There you have – the depth of Soltz’ intellect. Because one guy almost bombed Detroit with his underwear, we should abandon the war in Afghanistan. Makes sense to me.

    …given the ability of al-Qaeda to spread and pop up in areas around the globe where we are not present, it simply doesn’t make sense anymore to engage in a long-term counter-insurgency strategy in Afghanistan, which focuses on beating back insurgents rather than al Qaeda, and securing the country at large.

    Now, I was never a motor officer in a combat situation for over four months, so I don’t have the “big picture” skills necessary to see the war from that vantage point, but I don’t think that we should change our entire strategy against al Qaeda because of one attack. How much of a simpleton must one be to think we should? In fact, if Soltz’ presidential choice (who is not a veteran, by the way) had forced his administration to pay attention to the warning signs, the underwear bomber wouldn’t have gotten through the layers of security.

    Besides, in the grand strategy of Obama, troop deployment numbers don’t matter, because the war against terror is now fought by the Justice Department and the law enforcement agencies. Didn’t Soltz get the message?

  • More moonbat math

    The other day I wrote about the latest crapola from the Left which somehow arrived at the conclusion that more than 77,000 members of the military had died in the war against terror. Today, they’re telling us that more than one million Iraqis have been killed in that war;

    Over one million Iraqis have met violent deaths as a result of the 2003 invasion, according to a study conducted by the prestigious British polling group, Opinion Research Business (ORB). These numbers suggest that the invasion and occupation of Iraq rivals the mass killings of the last century—the human toll exceeds the 800,000 to 900,000 believed killed in the Rwandan genocide in 1994, and is approaching the number (1.7 million) who died in Cambodia’s infamous “Killing Fields” during the Khmer Rouge era of the 1970s.

    Since I’d never heard of “Opinion Research Business”, I went to their website to find out how they arrived at that number. First of all, I couldn’t find the survey, or anything about it, but this is from their “What We Do” page;

    ORB provide a full range of quantitative and qualitative research services. We have expertise in ad-hoc and continuous research in the UK and over 60 other countries.

    Perhaps unique among research agencies ORB offer an in-house messaging service. This provides research-led communication and message development consultancy, helping to ensure our clients’ research is presented in the most lucid and persuasive manner possible.

    Quantitative Research

    Telephone (CATI), Face-to-Face, Omnibus, Online, Hall Tests, Audience Response (Dials):

    In-house Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) unit with 25 stations.
    Nationwide random face-to-face surveys.
    28 regional supervisors with access to a field-force of over 300 interviewers.
    Real-time audience monitoring using a System of Testing Audience Reactions

    So, basically, they do opinion research (like their name tells us). If they did any research on casualties in Iraq, it was based on opinions and perception that are favorable to their client – the Left. So I guess that makes it more credible to anyone who thinks the war in Iraq was wrong. It’s just simply not true. But, hey, who needs truth?

  • Conspiracy theories from the floor of the Senate

    Washington Time‘s Kerry Picket reports on the vile and disgusting hyperbole that oozed from the throat of Rhode Island’s Democrat Senator Sheldon Whitehouse yesterday;

    “Voting ‘no’ and hiding from the vote [on the health care bill] are the same result. Those of us on the floor see it. It was clear the three of them who did not cast their yes votes until all 60 Senate votes had been tallied and it was clear that the result was a foregone conclusion. And why? Why all this discord and discourtesy, all this unprecedented destructive action? All to break the momentum of our new young president.

    They are desperate to break this president. They have ardent supporters who are nearly hysterical at the very election of President Barack Obama. The birthers, the fanatics, the people running around in right-wing militia and Aryan support groups, it is unbearable to them that President Barack Obama should exist. That is one powerful reason. It is not the only one.”

    Um, “the momentum of our new young president”? Really? What momentum? I must’ve missed it.

    “The birthers, the fanatics, the people running around in right-wing militia and Aryan support groups…”…are all of these types in the Senate? I suppose it’d be easy to spot them in their 20-year-old BDUs and their crooked green berets.

    Aryans have support groups? Well, I suppose that’s true if it’s “unbearable” for them that Obama was born. They probably need to talk that out among themselves.

    I don’t want to “break” this president. I just want him to bring his politics in line with mine. I don’t care who runs the government, just so long as they run it the way I want them to run it.

    How shallow is an ideology that depends on fear-mongering and name-calling to convince people to vote for it?

    Picket interviewed Whitehouse after his speech;

    Mr. Whitehouse said he stood by his speech, but would not admit that he was accusing anyone who was against the health care bill as racist. He did reiterate that birthers are part of the group that is against the bill and are attacking president However, when I asked the Senator from Rhode Island what he meant by describing those who do not support the bill as “aryan,” he responded “No, I didn’t say that….again, pay attention to the speech.”

    Communists are part of the group that support the health care bill, so I guess that makes Whitehouse a communist.

  • Two stories of GI Resistance

    The IVAW is running an article on their website about two brave GI Resisters. Here’s the screen shot about Ryan Jackson and Marc Hall;

    jackson-hall

    We’re already familiar with Ryan Jackson, since he spent a lot of my bandwidth trying to rehabilitate his image on another post a week or so ago. Basically, Jackson got popped on a urinalysis test and then went AWOL and James Branum got him locked up. Of course, Ryan’s story is that he became a peace activist and pissed hot on purpose, however the sequence of the events leading up to his trial aren’t in his favor.

    Now, Marc Hall, on the other hand, is new to us. Just judging by what the folks at IVAW wrote on this little story, he doesn’t have a leg to stand on. He’d done a tour of Iraq with the 3rd ID, came back, was getting ready to ETS and they stop-lossed him. I’ll admit that sucks and he has a right to be angry, but he didn’t stop there.

    Hall claims he is a musician and song writer, but that’s all a matter of taste. When he got stop-lossed, he wrote a song called “Stop Loss” (figures, right?). Now he claims it’s his 1st Amendment right to write whatever he wants – but his unit put him in jail for his little ditty. Why? I listened to his song, even though I’m not a big rap fan, and in it, he sings (is that the right word?) that he’s going to lock and load a thirty-round magazine and kill all of the E-7s and above – less than a month after another soldier shot scores of his fellow soldiers at Fort Hood. Can you really blame his chain of command for locking him up for Hall’s and the Army’s protection?

    Well, all of the usual suspects are calling for Hall’s immediate release. Seriously. The IVAW, Courage to Resist and Labor Against the War all posted the phone number to “the jail” so the hippies can all feel good about themselves by calling Hall’s jailers and demanding his release (yeah, that’ll work overnight). They also posted his company commander’s name and his unit address (although according to AKO, Hall is assigned to a Forward Support Battalion and the address they posted is to an infantry company).

    I guess the Army can’t do anything right as far as the IVAW and their cohorts are concerned. Too bad Branum isn’t defending Hall.

  • The ACLU on “Gitmo North”

    Mathew Alexander the interrogator emeritus of Vote Vets explains “Why Transferring Detainees to Illinois Keeps Us Safe” over there today.

    I support the President’s decision to transfer detainees to Guantanamo Bay. It’s time to shut down the Guantanamo Bay prison and undercut one of Al Qaida’s main recruiting tools. In Iraq in 2006, while overseeing interrogations of Al Qaida foreign fighters, I listened time and time again to their reasons for coming to Iraq to fight — the torture and abuse of detainees at Guantanamo bay and Abu Ghraib.

    Yes, we know, Mathew, that tale is posted all over Washington DC’s subway platforms sponsored by a George Soros-funded organization. It really doesn’t matter what the al Qaeda foreign fighters said to you – they lie, that’s why they’re being interrogated. If they didn’t lie, they’d be leading special forces teams against al-Qaeda.

    But irrespective of Alexander’s absurd pronouncements, he’s currently working for the American Civil Liberties Union, and they aren’t as impressed with the Obama Administration’s actions today, calling Thomson, IL Gitmo, Illinios;

    Reports indicate that Thomson will be the new home for detainees the government has no intention of releasing or bringing to trial. It’s the return of that “fifth category” of detainees President Obama described in his national security speech last May, those “who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, in some cases because evidence may be tainted, but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States.” The Obama administration—like the Bush administration—has maintained that it has the right to hold detainees without charge or trial under the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

    It is estimated that as many as 75 detainees could potentially be part of this fifth category.

    But as we pointed out last year, a policy of indefinite detention is unnecessary and unwise, and would give the president carte blanche to break the law—something we’ve all seen enough of from the past administration.

    So, what the ACLU has advocated is the release of dangerous detainees. They compound this idiocy in a press release entitled “Creating a ‘Gitmo North’ an Alarming Step“;

    “The creation of a ‘Gitmo North’ in Illinois is hardly a meaningful step forward. Shutting down Guantánamo will be nothing more than a symbolic gesture if we continue its lawless policies onshore.

    “Alarmingly, all indications are that the administration plans to continue its predecessor’s policy of indefinite detention without charge or trial for some detainees, with only a change of location. Such a policy is completely at odds with our democratic commitment to due process and human rights whether it’s occurring in Cuba or in Illinois. In fact, while the Obama administration inherited the Guantánamo debacle, this current move is its own affirmative adoption of those policies.

    So, there you have it. The Left and the ACLU want nothing less than the immediate and unsupervised release of at least 75 dangerous terrorists, prisoners from the battlefields of our nation’s war. Regardless of the chance that they’ll kill more innocent people again, the ACLU chooses the rights of criminals over the rights of their prospective victims.

    Nothing can placate the ACLU short of releasing terrorists into our midst, nothing will placate those al Qaeda foreign fighters that Alexander believes joined because of Guantanamo short of returning their soldiers to the ranks of al Qaeda. So why are we doing it? To make ourselves feel better? To make the “civilized world” feel better about us?

    To lead our people to slaughter?

  • Look, if you’re not serious, just forget it, OK?

    So Admiral Mullen tells the media that he expects that “most” of the 30,000 troops will be in Afghanistan a year after General McCrystal asked for them.

    The top U.S. military officer said Tuesday that he’s confident that most of the 30,000 additional troops that are being sent to Afghanistan will be there by August.

    Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters traveling with him in Afghanistan that the first 16,000 troops who already have orders will be in on schedule.

    So. What? Last August, they said they had plenty of time to decide what to do about McChrystal’s request because the season for fighting was almost over and they could get ready for next year. If you fucksticks are just playing at looking like you’re at war, just fucking forget the whole thing.

    For future reference, THIS IS WHAT FUCKING WITH TROOPS LIVES LOOKS LIKE!

    Too bad I’ve actually been to Iraq so I don’t qualify for membership because I feel like joining IVAW at this point.

  • Surge news

    So, happily, we can put behind us the tragedy of a rich golfer crashing his Cadillac into a fire hydrant and the deep mystery of how two attention whores sneaked into the White House when no Republicans cuoould get an invitation. Can we please discuss our national security? Please?

    How about we talk about General…er..Senator Barbara Boxer who thinks that the sides are too lop sided against the Taliban according to an AP report in the Miami Herald;

    “I support the President’s mission and exit strategy for Afghanistan, but I do not support adding more troops because there are now 200,000 American, NATO and Afghan forces fighting roughly 20,000 Taliban and less than 100 al Qaida,” Boxer said.

    Yeah, she’d like to be more like a Mexican standoff, I suppose.

    Much of the President’s plan includes additional forces from our allies – however the shine seems to have worn off of Obama’s overseas image according to the Washington Times;

    Conspicuously absent from recent pledges have been Germany and France, whose governments’ domestic political challenges complicate any war decisions. Still, diplomats said, both countries could boost their military presence after an international conference on Afghanistan in London in late January.

    How about giving another speech to moon-eyed Germans – it worked once.

    Biden and the Washington Post try to make the case that the president is using the plan that Biden presented earlier in the year;

    Biden sought, and ultimately got, a narrowed mission that shifted the focus of U.S. efforts away from aims such as extending the reach of the Afghan government to more remote regions of the country and fostering representative democracy. Now the focus is on reversing the Taliban’s momentum and transferring responsibility for security to Afghan forces as quickly as possible.

    Funny, but I didn’t hear the President mention ninja robots. It’s not like no one except Biden realized that the focus had to be in areas occupied the actual enemy – that’s kinda not new strategy, Joe.

    The Washington Post took the time ask a couple of hippies in Evanston, IL what they thought of the President’s decision;

    “When the speech was over, I turned to John and said, ‘What a terrible speech.’ Nothing in it made me happy,” Scarry said. “I asked myself: ‘He is a brilliant man — what is he thinking?’ ”

    But as Scarry pondered, he spotted a method in Obama’s strategy of sending more troops while setting a date to begin a U.S. withdrawal. The president grounded his policy in a collegial and moral approach to the world, he thought, and that struck him as sensible.

    “The initial reaction was, ‘We’re right, and he’s wrong.’ But feeling right is beside the point,” said Scarry, a Harvard graduate. “He had to find a position that people can unify around. I asked myself, ‘Can I endorse this position to unify us?’ My answer is yes.”

    What else would you expect from the “I love me some Obama” crowd?