This is not to suggest that she is done. However, she once had this aura of invincibility, and that aura is gone. From Donald Lambro:
Hillary Clinton’s negatives keep climbing, raising new questions about her electability and improving the prospects of her chief rivals for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination.
The New York senator’s favorability ratings took a nosedive in mid-April, dropping from 58 percent in February to 45 percent, according to latest Gallup Poll. It was her lowest favorability score since 1993.
A 52 percent majority of the voters now say they have a negative view of her candidacy. That compares to her closest rival, Sen. Barack Obama, who was rated favorably by 52 to 27 percent.
Clinton still held on to her front-runner status in most polls last week, but pollsters and political analysts tell me she is losing the support of strategic blocs in her party’s base, including women, liberals and independents, who feel she has waffled on withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq.
“The recent decline in her image appears to be broad based” among most key voter subgroups, Gallup said.
Even more troubling for her campaign, the Gallup poll of registered voters (taken April 13 to April 15) also showed Clinton losing her double-digit lead over Obama, who now trails her by a slim 5 percentage points in the survey (31 percent to 26 percent). In other polls, the two are virtually tied.
Veteran campaign pollsters, and many Democratic strategists, shocked by her weak numbers, no longer consider her the unbeatable front-runner.
“It’s still early in the campaign and it’s hard to bet against a Clinton, they’re winners. However, the inevitability factor (in her candidacy) is no longer there,” independent (sic) pollster John Zogby told me.
“Hillary isn’t wearing well. It seems as if the more people see her, the less they like her,” former Bill Clinton campaign adviser Dick Morris wrote at the Townhall Web site. (Maybe because she’s a cold, calculating, phony, aloof, Marxist bitch? – Ed.)
“Now for the first time, her low likeability levels are costing her votes, as Democratic-party voters are abandoning her to support Barack Obama,” Morris said. “She is losing her base.”
Obviously, polls at this stage are meaningless. Kerry (who is rumored to have served in Vietnam) wasn’t the frontrunner in any polls until the weekend before the Iowa caucus in 2004, while Dean was virtually considered a lock. Didn’t happen that way. So while I wouldn’t read this as a sign that Hillary’s going to lose, it certainly shows that she’s not a shoo-in at this juncture.
OK, so I’m doing back-to-back posts dealing with defeatism and Iraq. So sue me. Besides, this is important. Thanks to Kanaka Girl for alerting me to this. Full column here (please read it), excerpts follow:
If Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is right, nearly 60 percent of Americans agree with him that the war in Iraq is already lost. And if he is correct in saying that losing the war will increase Democrat majorities in future elections, then it may be fair to conclude that Americans now love losers. I’m not buying any of it — and neither are the troops who are fighting this war.
In the days since Reid announced “this war is lost,” I have heard from dozens of the soldiers, sailors, airmen, Guardsmen and Marines that I have covered in eight trips to Iraq and two to Afghanistan for FOX News. Some of those who correspond with me are there now, others are home. Some are preparing to deploy again. None of them agree with Reid’s assessment.
Now I did go to Florida State, but if my remedial math class served me well, I infer that the “dozens” who disagreed with Reid’s defeatism outnumber the seven that Vince N. purportedly heard from who agree with Reid. To quote my liberal visitor: “I’ll take their word over any statistic I see any day.”
What would losing the war in Iraq mean? It’s a picture so dark and depressing that it makes the collapse in Vietnam, 32 years ago next week, look like a Sunday school picnic. The fall of Saigon was horrific for the people of Vietnam and their neighbors in Cambodia and Laos. More than 5 million became refugees and by the most conservative estimates at least a million others perished.
For most Americans, the consequences were minimal. The vast majority of the 2.8 million of us who had fought and bled there mourned the loss of 58,253 of our comrades, swallowed the bitterness of defeat and got on with our lives. Our nation spent a few hundred million tax dollars on refugee relief and resettlement, and tried to forget what people in Reid’s party called “the long nightmare of Vietnam.”
But classified U.S. intelligence assessments, military contingency plans and staff studies evaluating the consequences of a precipitous U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, coupled with the lack of funding for political reform measures, as contained in the legislation just passed by Reid’s party, paint a far more dismal picture than anything that happened after Vietnam.
(Intel’s retreat consequences here…READ IT! – Ed.)
Reid and his cohorts in Congress who believe “this war is lost” have acted to ensure that it will be. No one asked them: “If we lost, who won?” The answer should be obvious.
It’s a simple question, folks: If we lose in Iraq, then who wins? Answer: Al Qaeda…and the Democrats. That’s a damning testament as to whose best interests the Dems are serving.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had a bright, shining moment of honesty when he said that the war in Iraq is lost.
He unburdened himself of what he and many of his colleagues have long believed about the war. Now if only Democrats saw fit to continue with their truthtelling. Then they would acknowledge that their mandate for a U.S. withdrawal beginning in October is a policy predicated on our defeat, and that they don’t think anything can or should be done about Iran and al Qaeda feasting on a prostrate Iraq and the country possibly descending into genocidal bloodletting.
This position would be unimpeachably logical. It would accept, in the words Reid has repeated a lot lately, “facts and reality,” as Democrats see them. One could strenuously disagree with this position but still see a certain honor in its frankness and internal consistency.
Democrats, of course, are doing nothing of the kind. Instead, after Reid’s “lost” comment, they retreated back into their fog of evasion, contradictions, and groan-inducing implausibilities. The party of defeat has a deep identity crisis because it can’t admit what it is, and thus lives a life of dishonesty and unconvincing denial. (Such dishonesty and deception isn’t unique to Iraq, since Dems are dishonest about their true feelings on a lot of issues they know are rejected by normal America. – Ed.)
Reid didn’t disavow his remark, but his spokesman said that in the future he will “couch it more.” Sen. Dianne Feinstein said that Reid had “more a problem of tone rather than of substance.” Democrats therefore have resolved themselves to find euphemisms for the word “lost.” Their current favorite is “there is no military solution in Iraq.”
Asked about his “lost” comment on CNN, Reid said, “I agree with Gen. Petraeus,” because Petraeus has said only part of the war is military. Saying that the war is multifaceted, however, bears no relation to the proposition that it is lost. Pressed on as to what message it sends to the troops to tell them the war is unwinnable, Reid said, “Gen. Petraeus has told them that.” Really? Reid apparently inhabits an alternate reality created by his need to weasel his way out of his own convictions on the war.
Reid doesn’t want to hear it if Petraeus has anything positive to say about the war. “I don’t believe him,” Reid said of Petraeus’s reports of progress. This is not surprising. Like many Democrats, Reid has a faith in defeat that is impervious to all contrary evidence. Acknowledging any fluidity in conditions in Iraq — say, how our position has improved in Anbar province in recent months — is to tacitly admit the folly of making final statements about defeat or victory. So Reid fixates on exactly the indicator that al Qaeda in Iraq wants him to — the spectacular suicide bombings meant to undermine our will.
To compensate for giving up on this war, Democrats conjure an imaginary Iraq War to which they will be utterly committed and which we will fight until glorious victory. That is the war we supposedly will fight against al Qaeda in Iraq — after, of course, we withdraw our troops and hand over the Anbar and Diyala provinces to it. Sen. Chuck Schumer, in Reid cleanup mode, says then we’ll be wondrously positioned to go “after an al-Qaida camp that might arise in Iraq.” Might? We already are engaged in a fight with al Qaeda in Iraq now — to keep it from stoking a full-scale sectarian war and from taking over swathes of Iraq — but the Democrats think that we’ve lost it.
“No one wants us to succeed in Iraq more than the Democrats,” Reid maintains. What a pathetic canard. As if believing a war is lost has no effect on your will to succeed in it. Reid might have been right if he had said the past tense, “wanted.”
Democrats are under no obligation to think the war can be won. But they should feel obliged to their consciences and voters to be forthright about what they believe. Waiting for them to do that seems the real lost cause.
Notice that when Reid thinks he hears Gen. Petraeus say the war is lost, he believes him…but when the same Gen. Petraeus says there is progress in Iraq, Reid doesn’t believe him. Why, if I didn’t know any better, I’d swear that Reid is believing only what he wants to hear! I know, I know…that’s just crazy talk.
The left is just too heavily invested in defeat to concede progress or acknowledge victories that occur along the way. They’re like compulsive gamblers who keep pumping their coins into the same slot machine because they just know it’s going to pay off any minute now.
Excellent column by George Will illustrating how totalitarian and condescending the left truly is. Excerpts follow (though read the whole thing, as it’s not long but is very informative):
Some illiberal liberals are trying to restore the luridly misnamed Fairness Doctrine, which until 1987 required broadcasters to devote a reasonable amount of time to presenting fairly each side of a controversial issue. The government was empowered to decide how many sides there were, how much time was reasonable and what was fair.
By trying to again empower the government to regulate broadcasting, illiberals reveal their lack of confidence in their ability to compete in the marketplace of ideas, and their disdain for consumer sovereignty—and hence for the public.
The illiberals’ transparent, and often proclaimed, objective is to silence talk radio. Liberals strenuously and unsuccessfully attempted to compete in that medium—witness the anemia of their Air America. Talk radio barely existed in 1980, when there were fewer than 100 talk shows nationwide. The Fairness Doctrine was scrapped in 1987, and today more than 1,400 stations are entirely devoted to talk formats. Conservatives dominate talk radio—although no more thoroughly than liberals dominate Hollywood, academia and much of the mainstream media.
(Examples of historical abuse of the Fairness Doctrine here.)…
Bill Ruder, a member of Kennedy’s subcabinet, said: “Our massive strategy was to use the Fairness Doctrine to challenge and harass right-wing broadcasters in the hope that the challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue.” The Nixon administration frequently threatened the three networks and individual stations with expensive license challenges under the Fairness Doctrine. (See? Bipartisan abuse. – Ed.)
Adam Thierer, writing in the City Journal, notes that today’s “media cornucopia” has made America “as information-rich as any society in history.” In addition to the Internet’s uncountable sources of information, there are 14,000 radio stations—twice as many as in 1970—and satellite radio has nearly 14 million subscribers. Eighty-seven percent of households have either cable or satellite television with more than 500 channels to choose from. There are more than 19,000 magazines (up more than 5,000 since 1993). Thierer says, consider a black lesbian feminist who hunts and likes country music:
“Would the ‘mainstream media’ of 25 years ago represented any of her interests? Unlikely. Today, though, this woman can program her TiVo to record her favorite shows on Black Entertainment Television, Logo (a gay/lesbian-oriented cable channel), Oxygen (female-targeted programming), the Outdoor Life Network and Country Music Television.”
Some of today’s illiberals say that media abundance, not scarcity, justifies the Fairness Doctrine: Americans, the poor dears, are bewildered by too many choices. And the plenitude of information sources disperses “the national campfire,” the cozy communitarian experience of the good old days (for liberals), when everyone gathered around—and was dependent on—ABC, NBC and CBS.
“I believe we need to re-regulate the media,” says Howard Dean. Such illiberals argue that the paucity of liberal successes in today’s radio competition—and the success of Fox News—somehow represent “market failure.” That is the regularly recurring, all-purpose rationale for government intervention in markets. Market failure is defined as consumers’ not buying what liberals are selling.
Then again, markets aren’t exactly the left’s cup of tea. That whole “supply and demand” thingy elicits a deer-in-headlights look from the vast majority of leftards.
As I’ve asserted and demonstrated on many occasions, liberals think that you are too stupid to run your own lives and that you need their brilliance (which, of course, you’re too stupid to recognize or appreciate) to get you through your menial lives.
Failure to compromise is a “high crime and misdemeanor”? I learn something new everyday, and from a moonbat no less! From Hot Air:
Video clip here
Rep. John Murtha suggested the possibility of impeachment to “influence” the President to “compromise” over funding for Iraq. Is it just me or does John Murtha sound like Vito Corleone? Does Murtha not know he is talking about impeaching the President of the United States because he is not compromising with the will of the far-left of Congress? That’s neither a high crime nor even a misdemeanor, which are the behaviors that are supposed to trigger impeachment. Murtha’s suggestion is outside the bounds of what Congress is supposed to do to influence the behavior of a sitting president, to say the least.
But then again, Jack “Abscam” Murtha has never been one to hold the law in high regard.
Earlier this month, Bryan wrote about Murtha receiving calls from his constituents telling him to impeach President Bush.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Are you seriously talking about contemplating an impeachment of this President?
MURTHA: What I’m saying is there are four ways to influence a President.
SCHIEFFER: — and that’s one of them?
MURTHA: [unintelligible] and the fourth one is –
SCHIEFFER: — that’s an option that’s on the table?
MURTHA: I’m just saying that’s one way to influence the President.
Sure, that will influence the prez: “Sir, go along with us or we’ll impeach you!” That would go over like a fart in church, I imagine.
We don’t have nearly enough conspiracy theories, do we? From the NY Post:
The following are facts. Make of them what you choose.
On Sunday night, April 15th, 12 hours before Cho Seung-Hui began his killing spree on the Virginia Tech campus, “Dateline NBC” devoted its entire show to telling the story of psychotic murderer Robert Hyde.
Hyde was a bright young man from Albuquerque who began to suffer a steady mental deterioration until, one day, in 2005, at different locations, he shot and killed five people.
Beyond the murders, the NBC show stressed that Hyde was a time bomb who was released from police custody and hospital care despite frightening episodes and warnings from many, including his family, that eventually there would be hell to pay, that eventually he would kill.
Hyde’s story, it turned out, was roughly the same as Cho’s life story, except for the killing part. Cho hadn’t killed anyone, not yet.
The morning after NBC’s show aired, Cho, described by schoolmates as an all-night TV watcher, shot and killed two people.
He then returned to his dormitory to mail a parcel to NBC. It included a note from Cho that began, “You forced me into a corner.”
Then he traveled to a different section of the Virginia Tech campus, where he shot and murdered 30 more people.
Surely, Cho’s diseased mind was prepped and primed to commit mass murder, at some point. But did NBC’s show, the night before, serve as his prompt? In his afflicted state, did that “Dateline” installment push him over the edge? It’s unlikely that we’ll ever know.
Yet, the numerous similarities between the Hyde and Cho stories are inescapable. So is the timing. Cho’s rampage began fewer than 12 hours after NBC’s episode about Hyde ended. And Cho interrupted his rampage only to send NBC a you-pushed-me-to-do-this missive.
But even if it’s all just a matter of bizarre, chilling coincidences, those coincidences seem too great to ignore or dismiss. (Oh yeah? Watch me. – Ed.) They’re worthy of your attention.
No, they’re not “worthy of your attention”, Mushnik. The guy was a psycho, and he plotted the whole thing out and executed his plan…nothing more, nothing less.
Curt Schilling’s take on the media:
If you haven’t figured it out by now, working in the media is a pretty nice gig. Barring outright plagiarism or committing a crime, you don’t have to be accountable if you don’t want to. You can say what you want when you want and you don’t really have to answer to anyone.
Spot on, sir. As his post headline states, “Ignorance has its privileges”, and the MSM is maxing out their Ignorance platinum card on said privileges.
The nutroots don’t have as much clout as they’d like to think, at least with normal America. From NRO:
Some interesting polling results in recent days. For example:
According to a recent USA Today/Gallup poll, 61% of Americans oppose “denying the funding needed to send any additional U.S. troops to Iraq,” and opposition is up from 58% in February. (3/23-25, 2007). A Bloomberg poll reveals 61% of Americans believe withholding funding for the war is a bad idea, while only 28% believe it is a good idea (3/3-11, 2007). (28% hardly seems like a mandate, Kostards. And by “mandate”, I don’t mean Barney Frank’s plans for the weekend. – Ed.) A recent Public Opinion Strategies (POS) poll found that 56% of registered voters favor fully funding the war in Iraq, with more voters strongly favoring funding (40%) than totally opposing it (38%); (3/25-27, 2007). POS found also that a majority of voters (54%) oppose the Democrats imposing a reduction in troops below the level military commanders requested (3/25-27, 2007). A separate POS poll finds 57% of voters support staying in Iraq until the job is finished and “the Iraqi government can maintain control and provide security for its people.” And 59% of voters say pulling out of Iraq immediately would do more to harm America’s reputation in the world than staying until order is restored (35%); (2/5-7, 2007). A Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll show 69% of American voters trust military commanders more than members of Congress (18%) to decide when United States troops should leave Iraq. This includes 52% of Democrats, 69% of Independents and 88% of Republicans (3/27-28, 2007). According to a recent Pew Research survey, only 17% of Americans want an immediate withdrawal of troops (4/18-22, 2007). That same poll found a plurality of adults (45%) believe a terrorist attack against the United States is more likely if we withdraw our troops from Iraq while the “country remains unstable” Should a date for withdrawal be set, 70% of American believe it is likely that “insurgents will increase their attacks in Iraq” starting on that day. This is supported by 85% of Republicans, 71% of Independents and 60% of Democrats. (FOX News/Opinion Dynamics, 4/17-18, 2007). An LA Times/Bloomberg polls reveals that 50% of Americans say setting a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq “hurts” the troops, while only 27% believe it “helps” the troops (4/5-9, 2007). (But hey, Vince N. knows seven guys who want out now, so this stat MUST be wrong! – Ed.)
Americans want a change in strategy in Iraq, but they don’t want to cut-and-run before the military (and NOT Congress) says that job is done…and that includes surrender, er “withdrawal”, deadlines.
And you leftards accuse Bush of wanting a police state? Excerpt from the Toledo Blade:
Now, how would one disarm the American population? First of all, federal or state laws would need to make it a crime punishable by a $1,000 fine and one year in prison per weapon to possess a firearm. The population would then be given three months to turn in their guns, without penalty.
Hunters would be able to deposit their hunting weapons in a centrally located arsenal, heavily guarded, from which they would be able to withdraw them each hunting season upon presentation of a valid hunting license. The weapons would be required to be redeposited at the end of the season on pain of arrest. When hunters submit a request for their weapons, federal, state, and local checks would be made to establish that they had not been convicted of a violent crime since the last time they withdrew their weapons. In the process, arsenal staff would take at least a quick look at each hunter to try to affirm that he was not obviously unhinged.
It would have to be the case that the term “hunting weapon” did not include anti-tank ordnance, assault weapons, rocket-propelled grenade launchers, or other weapons of war.
All antique or interesting non-hunting weapons would be required to be delivered to a local or regional museum, also to be under strict 24-hour-a-day guard. There they would be on display, if the owner desired, as part of an interesting exhibit of antique American weapons, as family heirlooms from proud wars past or as part of collections.
Gun dealers could continue their work, selling hunting and antique firearms. They would be required to maintain very tight inventories. Any gun sold would be delivered immediately by the dealer to the nearest arsenal or the museum, not to the buyer.
The disarmament process would begin after the initial three-month amnesty. Special squads of police would be formed and trained to carry out the work. Then, on a random basis to permit no advance warning, city blocks and stretches of suburban and rural areas would be cordoned off and searches carried out in every business, dwelling, and empty building. All firearms would be seized. The owners of weapons found in the searches would be prosecuted: $1,000 and one year in prison for each firearm.
Clearly, since such sweeps could not take place all across the country at the same time. But fairly quickly there would begin to be gun-swept, gun-free areas where there should be no firearms. If there were, those carrying them would be subject to quick confiscation and prosecution. On the streets it would be a question of stop-and-search of anyone, even grandma with her walker, with the same penalties for “carrying.”
Yep, nothing jerks a tear from the ol’ eye like such naked displays of pursuit of freedom: forming special police squads who invade every American home to search for guns; police stop-and-frisk people at random (so long as we’re not profiling, I guess), incarcerate people for exercising their Second Amendment rights.
You’ve heard the expression that “if you ban guns, only criminals will have them”? Well, under this #sshat’s scenario, otherwise innocent Americans who don’t submit to his police state will become instant criminals. Only in the backwards and logically-starved world of diplomacy would this moonbatty idea make any sense.
Un-freakin’-believable. From KUTV:
If you really want to blame someone for trying to destroy the United States, point the finger at… Satan?
The devil, Lucifer… whatever you want to call it, one Utah Republican says it is he who is trying to bring the USA down.
And Satan’s apparent weapon of choice: Allowing illegal immigrants to cross the border.
According to The Salt Lake Tribune, Utah County District 65 Chairman Don Larsen has submitted a formal resolution to oppose the devil’s plan to destroy the country — to be discussed this weekend at the Utah County Republican Convention.
“In order for Satan to establish his ‘New World Order’ and destroy the freedom of all people as predicted in the scriptures, he must first destroy the U.S.,” Larsen’s resolution states. “[It is] insidious for its stealth and innocuousness.”
Larsen’s proposal to defeat Satan? Close the borders to illegal immigrants to “prevent the destruction of the U.S. by stealth invasion.”
Dude, I’m with you on the illegal immigration and stealth invasion stuff, but you lost me on how that’s Satan’s fault. The Prince of Darkness isn’t going to bring down America by war or pestilence or famine or anything like that. No, Beelzebub’s weapon of choice is…illegal immigration.
Van Helsing at Moonbattery nails this one out of the park.
It is common knowledge that beans cause the dreadful phenomenon known as flatulence, a major contributor to the global warming that will soon embroil us all in a sweaty apocalypse. Nonetheless, beans are readily available to anyone who wants to purchase them, despite the absence of explicit Constitutional protection as we have for firearms. So far as I know, beans are not even regulated.
Now we see the consequences:
The picture is of movie star Hugh Grant, assaulting a photographer with a tub of baked beans. Grant was subsequently arrested.
It’s time for us to ask ourselves: would this incident have occurred if beans were subject to prudent federal regulation?
They can have my black beans when they pry the can from my cold, dead fingers! 😀
You know, sources “too good to check”? The post at the American Thinker gives the relevant excerpts and timelines, and I encourage you to read it. Here’s the summary:
Jessica Lynch was on Capitol Hill to talk about her experience in Iraq as a POW and subsequently as a media darling. This article from the Charleston Daily Mail typifies the coverage given to this topic by the media for years now. It portrays Lynch as a victim of military propaganda that pushed her forward as a hero.
The recent hearing was to cover Lynch’s 2003 kidnapping and rescue in Iraq, which the Department of Defense painted as a story of heroism, despite a differing account from Lynch.
There are two facts that get left out of this type of reporting:
a) Jessica Lynch is a hero just by serving her country whether she fired a shot or was knocked out immediately during the ambush that injured her severely and
b) the story of her shoot-out with Iraqi forces was not a product of the US military but of the US media.
The US media created this recounting of her exploits from vague, unofficial statements by “undisclosed officials” and having been revealed as rumor mongers started looking for someone to blame. Who else would they pin it on but the US military?
We all know it is hard to prove a negative, in this case that the US military did not create the shoot-out scenario reported by the media. So we have to instead ask questions. If the US military did so, who specifically did it? Do we have a name in all this media hype about the misleading Pentagon reporting? Where was the claim first made? Who was the source?
(Proof that the Washington Post was the source here)
So let’s get this straight, The Washington Post single-sourced this story from one official that they couldn’t even identify. Ask yourself why they couldn’t identify a military official praising a soldier. Is that really a secret? This isn’t a whistle blower or Bush Administration insider. It would more than likely be an officer or NCO at the tactical operations center if this person existed.
So why couldn’t The Washington Post name the source? The answer is obvious; because the reporters don’t even know who it was, or if the incident even occurred. It sounds very much like one person’s ruminations in passing, chatting about rumors from unofficial sources. Then The Washington Post ran with the information despite army officials warning them about the veracity of such rumors. And this is the military’s fault? Are you kidding me?
Isn’t the media supposed to be superior to citizen journalists because of all the editorial safeguards and fact checking? But yet in this reporting, one unidentified source who may indeed be a fiction – a literary device to whom to attribute overheard conversation – trumped the military spokesperson. I challenge The Washington Post to identify this source so that this person can be questioned in the current proceedings.
Allahpundit quips that an alternate headline could be “Media outraged at military for not doing more to prevent media’s awful journalism.”
It is becoming increasingly more difficult for me to sympathize with Mrs. Silky Pony for her cancer when she continues to foment the cancer of racism in America. From Hot Air:
Elizabeth Edwards, playing the race card, says the President went to the Virginia Tech campus sooner than he went to see the devastation left by Hurricane Katrina because of race and the “prettier picture” (that’s a euphemism for white people).
This is BDS at its finest. These people complain President Bush waited too long to go to Katrina and now they’re complaining he went to Virginia Tech too soon. And they make race part of the issue both times, even though he’s appointed two black Secretaries of State and held on to Norm Mineta far too long past his sell-by date.
If the electorate can’t tell what a fake Elizabeth Edwards and her husband are by now, there is something seriously wrong.
It’s hard for me to image why someone with a terminal disease like Liz Edwards has would want to spend her last days on Earth being a hateful, crazy #ss race-hustling moonbat.
You lefties can spin this all you like, but the inescapable conclusion is that Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader of the United States, has emboldened Al Qaeda, who is the greatest enemy to America today (and yes, moonbats, they are more of an enemy than George Bush!).
From Weasel Zippers:
Islamic State Of Iraq: The Cross Worshippers And Their Henchmen Plans Have Collapsed Apr 25, 2007 By Ubaidah Al-Saif, Jihad Unspun Arabic Source: Al-Fajr Media As usual, this was followed by a swift visit by the new (American) Defense Minister “Gates” who said, “The American support to the Maliki government is not unlimited”, insinuating that the American administration is impatient with the Maliki government that is incapable of handling the strikes of the Mujahideen. This comes on the heels of an important statement by House Majority Leader (sic) Harry Reid who previously said, “The Iraqi war is hopeless and the situation in Iraq is same as it was in Vietnam.”
Will someone explain to me how Reid’s actions don’t meet the Constitution’s definition of “treason”?
Joe wastes his time by using facts. Excerpt from NRO:
My colleague from Nevada (Reid – Ed.), in other words, is suggesting that the insurgency is being provoked by the very presence of American troops. By diminishing that presence, then, he believes the insurgency will diminish.
But I ask my colleagues—where is the evidence to support this theory? Since 2003, and before General Petraeus took command, U.S. forces were ordered on several occasions to pull back from Iraqi cities and regions, including Mosul and Fallujah and Tel’Afar and Baghdad. And what happened in these places? Did they stabilize when American troops left? Did the insurgency go away?
On the contrary—in each of these places where U.S. forces pulled back, Al Qaeda rushed in. Rather than becoming islands of peace, they became safe havens for terrorists, islands of fear and violence.
So I ask advocates of withdrawal: on what evidence, on what data, have you concluded that pulling U.S. troops out will weaken the insurgency, when every single experience we have had since 2003 suggests that this legislation will strengthen it?
Joe, you’ve been a Democrat long enough to know that your guys don’t ever need evidence to support anything. Evidence gets in the way of feelings.
A flock of small jets took flight from Washington Thursday, each carrying a Democratic presidential candidate to South Carolina for the first debate of the political season.
For Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama, Chris Dodd and Joe Biden, it was wheels up shortly after they voted in favor of legislation requiring that U.S. troops begin returning home from Iraq in the fall.
No one jet pooled, no one took commercial flights to save money, fuel or emissions.
They rake Bush and skeptics who haven’t swigged their Chicken Little Kool-Aid over the coals for his not doing enough to combat global “warming”, yet they hypocritically contribute to the (perceived) problem themselves.
Also, about that “culture of corruption” thingy:
Democrat John Edwards, for example, regularly uses a jet owned by Dallas trial lawyer Fred Baron, who is also the finance chairman of his presidential campaign. His campaign pays first-class rate for those flights. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney also flies on corporate jets and pays first-class rates.
Under FEC reimbursement regulations, a candidate flying in a corporate or union jet must pay the first-class rate unless the flight’s destination does not have scheduled commercial service. In that case, the candidate must pay the cost of chartering the plane.
For candidates who are now eschewing corporate jets, the cost difference can be significant.
For example, a one-way first class ticket on United Airlines with four days advance notice is $694 per person. A typical one-way charter flight on a small Lear jet seating six people would cost about $9,000.
Critics of corporate jet flights for politicians say the difference in cost makes a private jet an extraordinary special benefit and can give corporate executives or union leaders unusual access to a candidate.
But remember: a special interest isn’t really a special interest if it’s a Democrat interest.
Not that the left’s hypocrisy is astounding to me, but I must point it out nonetheless.
From Gateway Pundit:
“He pulled the rifle from the trunk of his Mercedes, removed the Bush & Cheney pictures from the office, and promised to be back if Bush vetoed the emergency war spending bill!” -Nevada Republican Party Executive Director Zachary Moyle.
A large cache of weapons were discovered inside of his vehicle — including three swords, a flare gun with .12-gauge shotgun shells and a .12 gauge shotgun. Las Vegas police did not reveal the particular bill that outraged Kramer, but said he told his victim he would kill everyone at the Republican offices when he returned… He originally asked an official there how he could join the party.
Matthew Hunter Kramer, 31, did not resist officers who arrested him on a warrant issued after the April 3 confrontation at state Republican Party offices in Las Vegas.
Zachary Moyle, executive director of the state GOP, told The Associated Press on Tuesday that Kramer invited him to look at something in the trunk of his Mercedes before pulling out a rifle, pointing it at his face and warning that he would be back if President Bush vetoed an emergency war spending bill being considered by Congress.
…Kramer also removed photos of Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney from the wall of the office and threatened to harm staff members, Moyle said. Kramer left his cell phone number with office staff before leaving, police said.
He is charged with criminal syndicalism, assault with a deadly weapon and aiming a firearm at a person, police Officer Martin Wright said.
Criminal syndicalism makes it a crime to advocate sabotage, violence or terrorism to accomplish industrial or political reform, said Ron Bloxham, a Clark County prosecutor. It carries a maximum sentence of six years in prison.
Man, someone please protect us normal Americans from the “peace” nuts! They’re so freakin’ violent!
According to these moonbats, confronting terrorists while brandishing weapons is horrible, but confronting Republicans while brandishing weapons is cool. Got it. Thanks for the clarification.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid should be recalled by voters over his “un-American” remarks about the Iraq war, Sen. James Inhofe declared.
Speaking with NewsMax pundit Steve Malzberg on “Bill Bennett’s Morning in America” radio program Wednesday morning, Inhofe, an Oklahoma Republican, expressed outrage over Reid’s criticism of the Bush administration’s Iraq policy, his call for a timetable for withdrawal and his assertion that the Iraq war is “lost.”
Asked if the Nevada Democrat should resign from his leadership position because of his comments, Inhofe said: “I think it’s more serious than that. I think there should be a recall . . . for saying something as un-American as that.”
He also said: “But it would have to emanate from the people who elected him.
“I can’t imagine that something isn’t going to happen.”
I can. Reid was just re-elected in ’04, in a state that Bush carried the same night. The senile old coot may be an embarrassment, but the good people of Nevada keep sending him back.
At least, it’s tough if you’re Tim Russert. From Media Bistro:
Russert Spells “I-R-A-K”
Wednesday on NBC Nightly News, Brian Williams and Tim Russert were discussing the latest NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll, specifically the very bad right track/wrong track (22/66) numbers, when Williams asked: “And Tim, among the issues that would drive a number like that, that severe, what’s the leading candidate?”
Watch what Russert said:
(Video clip here)
Memo to Dan Quayle: If you have not yet done so, you may now officially get over the “potatoe” gaffe. At least Quayle’s word was more than four letters long.
Next time you hear some leftard or the MSM (pardon the redundancy) spout the trying-to-shout-down-the-opposition argument-ending “scientific consensus” crap about global “warming”, ask yourself this simple question:
With 17,100 scientists (and growing) rejecting the Chicken Little man-made global “warming” junk science, doesn’t that, by definition, destroy the “scientific consensus” nonsense?
Companies and individuals rushing to go green have been spending millions on “carbon credit” projects that yield few if any environmental benefits.
A Financial Times investigation has uncovered widespread failings in the new markets for greenhouse gases, suggesting some organisations are paying for emissions reductions that do not take place.
Others are meanwhile making big profits from carbon trading for very small expenditure and in some cases for clean-ups that they would have made anyway.
The growing political salience of environmental politics has sparked a “green gold rush”, which has seen a dramatic expansion in the number of businesses offering both companies and individuals the chance to go “carbon neutral”, offsetting their own energy use by buying carbon credits that cancel out their contribution to global warming.
The FT investigation found:
■ Widespread instances of people and organisations buying worthless credits that do not yield any reductions in carbon emissions.
■ Industrial companies profiting from doing very little – or from gaining carbon credits on the basis of efficiency gains from which they have already benefited substantially.
■ Brokers providing services of questionable or no value.
■ A shortage of verification, making it difficult for buyers to assess the true value of carbon credits.
■ Companies and individuals being charged over the odds for the private purchase of European Union carbon permits that have plummeted in value because they do not result in emissions cuts.
Francis Sullivan, environment adviser at HSBC, the UK’s biggest bank that went carbon-neutral in 2005, said he found “serious credibility concerns” in the offsetting market after evaluating it for several months.
“The police, the fraud squad and trading standards need to be looking into this. Otherwise people will lose faith in it,” he said.
You can’t lose faith in something in which you never had faith to begin with, sir. Carbon offsets are a fraud, pure and simple, no other way around it.
By the way, ask yourself this: if Big Oil, Big Pharmaceutical, or Big (insert bogeyman industry here) were doing any of the bulletpoints above, do you think the MSM would be as quiet about it as they are about the greenie fraudsters? Me neither.
Nice work by Citizens Journal on the Photoshop
Those brilliant minds at The Nose On Your Face have done it again!
Senate majority leader Harry Reid is calling for the United States to leave the United States by October 31st 2007, saying that country has inflicted “incalculable amounts of suffering” upon not only the rest of the world, but also it’s own people.
“The evidence is clear,” said Reid. “Since America has been at the route of the rest of the world’s problems, doesn’t it naturally follow that we are the cause of our own ills as well? I think we need to get our own house in order and the best way to do that is to separate us from ourselves in a timely manner.”
Democrats were vague as to where the more than 300 million Americans would be relocated to, but some sources expected that 2/3 would likely return to their native Mexico to “wait and see if the new northern occupants are open to diversity.”
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi offered a unique proposal for the remaining U.S. citizens.
“Some will go to the poles to repair the ice shelves,” said Pelosi. “Others will be fitted with leaves, bark, and howler monkeys and be sent to the rainforests of South America to replace the trees that have been so callously destroyed by the U.S.’s ravenous appetite for paper products. And finally, the remaining citizens will be sent to France and the Palestinian territory to receive immersion training in enculturation and tolerance.”
Plans for the former United States are still unclear, but Reid said that they will likely involve “a right of return for Native Americans and mastodons.”
Well, considering that leftards do blame America for the world’s ills, one has to wonder just how far from reality such satire truly is.
TMZ has now confirmed the buzz that we exclusively reported last night: Rosie O’Donnell will announce on today’s show that she is leaving “The View.” And TMZ has confirmed that “View” honchos are already searching for her replacement.
I’m going to miss her moonbattery, her ignorance, and her rants. For those of you on the left, the prior sentence was sarcasm.
Sure, they believe the war is lost. But they’re not completely stupid. They don’t want to be portrayed (accurately, I might add) as being anti-troop, and Marines like Pat Dollard calling out Reid certainly doesn’t bolster the left’s facade of “supporting the troops”. From Politico:
Several leading Democrats said this week that they did not agree with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s recent statement that “the war is lost” in Iraq, even while they support his broader message.
But they did agree that Reid’s wording was clumsy and potentially damaging. Even the Nevada Democrat himself appeared to be backing away from his remark.
Jim Manley, Reid’s spokesman, said earlier that the “war is lost” comment was not in Reid’s prepared text for the news conference last Thursday. But from now on, Manley said, the senator will “couch it more”: The mission in Iraq is not working and must be changed.
Must have been a Kerryesque “botched joke” (which, coincidentally, also maligned the troops), right? Continuing:
Democrats have long tried to shed their image of being soft on national defense. Recent polls suggest they are making strides, showing that more voters trust congressional Democrats than they do the president to handle the situation in Iraq.
But statements such as Reid’s — while delighting those who have turned against the war — provided Republicans an opportunity to shift focus from the merits of President Bush’s Iraq war strategy to the level of support from Democrats for the troops.
If the Democrats would spend a fraction of the time coming up with a non-defeatist strategy of their own, instead of poormouthing our fine soldiers, then such efforts by the GOP to portray them (accurately, I might add) as being soft on defense would fail worse than Ted Kennedy at sobriety. Continuing:
None of almost a dozen Democrats contacted by The Politico said they agreed with Reid’s statement. Instead, they support what they believed was his overall theme: The war cannot be won militarily, and the president must adjust his strategy. They just wouldn’t have said it as Reid did.
Some launched into Clintonesque explanations.
“I think it depends entirely on what your definition of ‘lost’ means. That sounded familiar, didn’t it?” former senator John Edwards, a Democratic presidential candidate, said to laughter on Ed Schultz’s radio talk show Monday. “What I mean is, I don’t think there is winning or losing in Iraq. There is certainly no military victory if it’s used in that regard. The only way there can be security and peace on the ground in Iraq is for there to be a political solution.”
We can always rely on the left to complicate simple terms like “sex”, “is”, and “lost”, can’t we? Nicely done, Silky Pony.
Finally, this nugget:
Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) deflected the question, saying that the war was never defined and that his 2002 vote should not have been construed as a green light to invade Iraq.
Right. You voted to authorize the president to go to war, then you have the nerve to tell us that your vote shouldn’t have been construed as a vote to go to war. Bubba and Silky Pony might be able to get away with such creative word-mangling, but you can’t, Harkin.
Former President George Bush told CNN’s Larry King Monday that the electorate may be experiencing “Bush fatigue.”
Ya think?? Continuing:
And it may be the reason his son, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, is sitting out the 2008 presidential election, the 41st president said.
“There’s something to that — there might be a little Bush fatigue now,” former President Bush told CNN’s Larry King when asked if he agreed with a recent assessment from GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney that Jeb Bush would currently be a frontrunner for the Republican party’s presidential nomination if his last name wasn’t Bush.
But the former president predicted his youngest son may enter politics again in the future.
“I hope that Jeb, who left office looking good, is not through with politics,” the elder Bush said. ” I think he’s a good man, most other people think that, a man of principle. And I think he’s got a future.”
I agree. Jeb left office with high approval ratings, but he knows full well that running as a Bush in 2008 would be a huge liability. Jeb might have been better served had he challenged Bill Nelson last year for FL’s Senate seat, since he would have kept a high political profile. Laying low until 2012 or 2016 probably doesn’t help him.
If the left purports to “support the troops”, they aren’t very good at showing it. This Marine seems to, shall we say, vehemently disagree with “douche” Harry Reid’s assessment that the war in Iraq is “lost”. From Pat Dollard:
yeah and i got a qoute for that douche harry reid. these families need us here. obviously he has never been in iraq. or atleast the area worth seeing. the parts where insurgency is rampant and the buildings are blown to pieces. we need to stay here and help rebuild. if iraq didnt want us here then why do we have IP’s voluntering everyday to rebuild their cities. and working directly with us too. same with the IA’s. it sucks that iraqi’s have more patriotism for a country that has turned to complete shit more than the people in america who drink starbucks everyday. we could leave this place and say we are sorry to the terrorists. and then we could wait for 3,000 more american civilians to die before we say “hey thats not nice” again. and the sad thing is after we WIN this war. people like him will say he was there for us the whole time.
Semper Fi, sir. Please be aware that most of us do not share Senator Douche’s anti-soldier defeatist sentiments.
But…but…they “support the troops”! From Bryan at Hot Air:
Sen. Harry Reid says that the war is lost, then backtracks.
Rep. Nancy Pelosi declares that the road to peace is through Damascus, and offers to meet with Iran’s apocalyptic pirate president but declines to meet with the President of the United States.
Together, these two and their allies are doing all that they can to de-fund the war in Iraq through the Jack Murtha “slow bleed” strategy.
Call all of that what you want, but it doesn’t amount to supporting the troops. It amounts to supporting the enemy.
Ignoring briefings on the war by Gen. David Petraeus, the commander whom Congress recently approved and whose strategy is now governing ground action in Iraq, doesn’t amount to supporting the troops either. But that’s just what the Democrats are doing:
The commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, returns to Washington this week, but last week Pelosi’s office said “scheduling conflicts” prevented him from briefing House members. Two days later, the members-only meeting was scheduled, but the episode brings to mind the fact that Pelosi and other top House Democrats skipped a Pentagon videoconference with Petraeus on March 8.
The Democrats did the same thing on April 9: Only one Democrat Senator attended a video conference with Gen. Petraeus which was an update and progress report on the war.
What can be a higher priority than hearing from Gen. Petraeus? Can’t they make Petraeus’ briefings a priority, just for show? Apparently they would rather meet with Code Pink than Gen. Petraeus.
The Democrats wanted power but didn’t want any responsibility (when do liberals EVER want responsibility for anything? – Ed.), but in winning power they have also earned responsibility. This war is being fought on their watch now, too. If they support the troops as they always say that they do, the least that they could do is treat the war as a priority worth studying and understanding, and worth hearing about from the man most responsible for its execution. They shouldn’t rely on media reports or groups like Iraq Body Count, but that’s apparently just what they’re doing.
AJ Strata calls the Democrat’s lack of attention to Petraeus’ briefings “criminal.” He’s right but it’s even worse than that. We’re seeing a complete abdication by the party in power on the seminal issue of our time. They’re running toward defeat now and running on defeat for 2008. We’re seeing a gradual abandonment of the Iraqi people, of American troops in the field, and ultimately of America’s place in the world. The Democrats are making a monumental error that will change the world for the worse. Defeat in Iraq, which is how the Democrats are casting the effort even while they dodge reports from the architect of the American strategy there, will echo for decades to come.
Why bother attending the briefings when you already have locked yourself into the defeatist mentality? If you have not yet done so, please afford yourself the opportunity now to officially question their patriotism.
Audition for the Darwin Awards. Hilarity ensues. From FNC:
A crocodile shot to death in south China during a search for a missing 9-year-old student was found to contain the child’s remains, the official Xinhua News Agency said.
The crocodile was shot Saturday in a park in Beihai, a city in the Guangxi region, by investigators looking for the missing child. Investigators confirmed that human remains found in the reptile were that of the student, the report said.
The child, surnamed Liu, disappeared Friday after Liu and three other children climbed over the fence around a pool in the park that had been used to stage crocodile shows, Xinhua said.
“The children shot the animals with catapults and beat them with wooden sticks,” the agency said. “One of the irritated crocodiles bit Liu’s clothes and dragged him into water, where he was eaten by a swarm of crocodiles.”
Dumbass. The kids climbed a fence, antagonized some crocodiles, so just what in the hell did they think was going to happen?
Having learned nothing from the ridicule she endured the first time she tried her faux Southern charm (since she has the charm of a rattlesnake with herpes), Her Highness decided to give it another whirl. Video clip here.
BEVERAGE WARNING! Put down your Coke, coffee, water, adult beverage, or whatever. You’re not gonna believe this shizit:
“We have to reform our government,” she said. “The abuses that have gone on in the last six years — I don’t think we know the half of it yet. You know, when I walk into the Oval Office in January of 2009, I’m afraid I’m going to lift up the rug and I’m going to see so much stuff under there.”
…”You know, what is it about us always having to clean up after people?” she asked. “But this is not just going to be picking up socks off the floor. …
Presumably, it won’t involve a stained blue dress or shredded billing records, either. And she wants to talk about cleaning things up? As Ian observes: “If you’re actually coming back to the White House, it might be best if you brought back all that stuff you stole when you left last time.
MEMO TO HILLARY: When your name is “Clinton”, and you attack the ethics of the Bush administration…DO NOT MENTION THE OVAL OFFICE CARPET. Cripes. No wonder Gore’s thinking about getting in on this action.”
Stones and glass houses are coming to mind, as are pots and kettles.
One wonders if the leftist teacher’s union will come to this guy’s aid. From Breitbart/AP:
An adjunct professor was fired after leading a classroom discussion about the Virginia Tech shootings in which he pointed a marker at some students and said “pow.”
The five-minute demonstration at Emmanuel College on Wednesday, two days after a student killed 32 people on the Virginia Tech campus, included a discussion of gun control, whether to respond to violence with violence, and the public’s “celebration of victimhood,” said the professor, Nicholas Winset.
During the demonstration, Winset pretended to shoot some students. Then one student pretended to shoot Winset to illustrate his point that the gunman might have been stopped had another student or faculty member been armed.
“A classroom is supposed to be a place for academic exploration,” Winset, who taught financial accounting, told the Boston Herald.
He said administrators had asked the faculty to engage students on the issue. But on Friday, he got a letter saying he was fired and ordering him to stay off campus.
Winset, 37, argued that the Catholic liberal arts school was stifling free discussion by firing him, and he said the move would have a “chilling effect” on open debate. He posted an 18-minute video on the online site YouTube defending his action.
The college issued a statement saying: “Emmanuel College has clear standards of classroom and campus conduct, and does not in any way condone the use of discriminatory or obscene language.”
Student Junny Lee, 19, told The Boston Globe that most students didn’t appear to find Winset’s demonstration offensive.
I’m guessing that had he pretended to shoot Bush, Cheney, or Rumsfeld, the man would have been granted immediate and irrevocable tenure, or possibly would have been nominated for an Oscar.
Keep this incident in mind whenever some pointy-headed pseudo-intellectual educrat claims that colleges encourage open and free discussion.
- "hate crimes"
- 9/11 Commission
- affirmative action
- Air America
- al franken
- Al Sharpton
- ambulance chasers
- Andrew Sullivan
- animal rights wackos
- Ann Coulter
- Anthony Weiner
- Arizona shooting
- Arlen Specter
- Barney Frank
- big government
- Bill Clinton
- Bill Richardson
- Blog Talk Radio
- Bobby Jindal
- capital punishment
- Caroline Kennedy
- Charlie Crist
- Chris Christie
- Chuck Schumer
- Dan Rather
- Debbie Wasserman Schultz
- Duke lacrosse
- economic ignorance
- eminent domain
- Eric Cantor
- Fair Tax
- Fairness Doctrine
- Fort Dix Six
- Fox News
- freaky deaky
- Fred Thompson
- Ft. Hood
- global warming
- Godwin's Law
- gun rights
- health care
- Herman Cain
- Howard Dean
- Hugo Chavez
- illegal immigration
- Janet Napolitano
- Jesse Jackson
- John Boehner
- John Edwards
- Jose Padilla
- Larry Craig
- Lindsey Graham
- Marco Rubio
- Mark Sanford
- media bias
- Mel Martinez
- Michael Moore
- Michael Steele
- Michelle Bachmann
- minimum wage
- New Jersey
- New York
- news bytes
- Newt Gingrich
- Night and Day
- Ninth Circus Court
- North Korea
- Occupy Wall Street
- Operation Fast and Furious
- Osama bin Laden
- Paul Ryan
- political correctness
- property rights
- public education
- public service announcement
- quote of the day
- religion of peace
- Rick Perry
- Rick Santorum
- Rick Scott
- Robert Byrd
- Roman Polanski
- Ron Paul
- San Francisco
- separated at birth
- Social Security
- Supreme Court
- swine flu
- Tea Party
- The Memphis Posse
- Tim Geithner
- Tim Pawlenty
- United Nations
- vote fraud
- Wall Street
- Ward Churchill
- Warren Buffett