Tuesday, September 16, 2008

Obama Takes Off The Long, Pink Gloves

The lefties getting angry reminds me of that scene from Blazing Saddles where the "dancers" start slapping the cowboys, limp-wristed, crying "you brute, you brute, you brute" and then falling into their arms.

So the Great and Mighty Ears is now forced to carry a teleprompter with him everywhere he goes. Seriously, he can't even give a stump speech without reading words off of a screen. Yeah, and Sarah Palin who answered every one of Charles Gibson's attempts at "gotcha" questions the first day out isn't prepared to be Vice President but Barry O'Bambi who can't deliver a stump speech after two years is ready to lead the free world. There's a laugh.

Want to see what happens when The Wizard Of Umms' teleprompter goes out on him? Go to youtube and type in "Obama teleprompter goes out" and watch as this doofus attempts to say what he means when no one is telling him what he means to say. I guess they're afraid he'll talk about his "Muslim faith" again.

So the new line of attack is to call one of America's great heroes a "liar." Yep, that's really what the "post-partisan," "new kind of politician" is down to. Playing the race card and calling names. The Anointed One has turned rapidly into The Annoying One. He's a whiner and a cry-baby and, well, just plain desperate.

Let's see, we've known John McCain for fifty years. We've seen him do the right thing under the pressure of torture, we've seen him do the right thing as a statesman, in fact, in this campaign alone he took the unpopular position of promoting the surge saying "I'd rather lose an election than see my country lose a war."

Meanwhile, we know Barack Hussein Obama for about twelve minutes. What do we know about him? We know that he's willing to belong to a church that proclaims that God should damn America and then throws his own grandmother under a bus to protect what he himself admits is his longtime mentor, Jeremiah Wright. We know that for personal and political advantage he'll work side-by-side with terrorists and then seek to cover-up their true agendas and we know that for money he will engage in quid pro quos with mobsters. I'm pretty confident the American people -- no matter how much disdain the Democrats have for them -- will see through this last desperate attack of the leftists and America will have been saved.

13 comments:

Dora said...

and Sarah Palin who answered every one of Charles Gibson's attempts at "gotcha" questions

Say what you will, but she didn't answer the Bush Doctrine question at all.

We've seen him do the right thing under the pressure of torture,

Actually, john mccain did sign one of those fake confession dealies when he was POW. Did you know what? True story.

$740 million in earmarks said...

Gee, somebody tortured a confession out of John McCain, what a traitor...

I'd like to know what Democrats do to him behind closed doors to go along with stupid bills like McCain-Feingold.

I can forgive the one, but not the other.

When was the last time Obama reached across the aisle and attempted to arrive at a compromise? Oh yeah, the bridge to nowhere... pork is pork!

dan kurt said...

As I posted way last January or February I believe it was on the fitness of McCain to be President of the USA...and later a month ago or so...

From <://dickmcdonald.blogspot.com/>
who reprinted this from To The Point.

Saturday, February 02, 2008

Jack Wheeler

The number of fellow Senators who think John McCain is psychologically unstable is large. Some will admit it publicly, like Thad Cochran who says, "The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine."

Others relate times when McCain screamed four-letter obscenities right in their faces in the Senate cloak room, like Dick Shelby, Rick Santorum, or Jim Inhofe. "The man is unhinged," one Senator told me. "He is frighteningly unfit to be Commander-in-Chief."

That John McCain is clinically nuts is scary enough. What worries a small group of GOP Senators and Congressmen even more is a deep and dark skeletal secret in McCain's glorified past to which they are privy, and which the Clintons will use to blackmail him.

They have been having discussions with a Russian whom we'll call "T" for Translator. T's father was the Soviet military intelligence officer who ran the "Hanoi Hilton" prison holding captured Americans during the Vietnam War. One of those prisoners was John McCain.

The GRU -- Glavnoje Razvedyvatel'noje Upravlenije or Main Intelligence Directorate of the Soviet (now Russian) Armed Forces - operated the entire North Vietnamese prison system holding American prisoners of war. GRU officers, all of whom were Russians, oversaw the interrogation of every American POW.

The interrogations themselves were conducted by Vietnamese who spoke some English. After each interrogation session, which could often include torturing the prisoners at the direction of the GRU officers, the Vietnamese interrogator would write a report of the session - in Vietnamese.

These reports had to be translated into Russian. T, a bright teenager living in the GRU compound in Hanoi, had become fluent in Vietnamese, and ended up translating many of the reports and interrogators' notes.

John McCain, flying his A-4 Skyhawk, was shot down over Hanoi on October 26, 1967. Badly injured from the ejection, he was beaten and abused by his captors. In July, 1968, his father, US Navy Admiral J. S. McCain, was made CINCPAC, Commander-in-Chief, Pacific Command, commander of all US military forces in the Vietnam theatre. Upon learning this, the Vietnamese offered - according to McCain - to release him.

McCain claims he refused, because he demanded all American POWs captured before him be released as well. He thus remained a prisoner when he could have gone home, and was subjected to constant brutal beatings and torture for years: that is the source of the "war-hero" saga making McCain a greater war-hero than any other American POW.

Yet the offer of release would had to have been approved by the GRU overseers of the North Vietnamese - and T does not recall any such offer being made. T admits, however, that this took place before McCain was transferred to Hoa Loa prison, nicknamed the "Hanoi Hilton" by the POWs. T had only direct knowledge of what happened at Hoa Loa, and not the other prisons, where T's father was in charge.

McCain was kept at the Hanoi Hilton from December 1969 until his release, along with all the remaining POWs, in March of 1973. During this time, T translated all the Vietnamese interrogators' notes and reports regarding John McCain.

According to T, they reveal that McCain had made an "accommodation" with his captors, and in exchange, T's father saw that he was provided with an apartment in Hanoi and the services of two prostitutes. Upon returning to his prison cell, he would say he had been held in solitary confinement. That may be why so many of his fellow prisoners said later they saw so little of him at Hoa Loa.

The notes and reports written in Vietnamese were sent to Moscow, where T was a now a college student, for T's translation into Russian, then placed into GRU archives. That's where they stayed until 1991. Late that year, as the Soviet Union was collapsing, the CIA and the GRU made a deal for a document swap.

All of what it involved, T doesn't know. What T's father, by now retired but still with substantial contacts within the GRU, did learn (and thus T learned) was that the swap included all of T's translations.

In other words, the CIA has in its possession the notes and reports of John McCain's interrogators at the Hanoi Hilton, in both the original Vietnamese and translated Russian, showing collaboration with his Communist captors.

Allegations of this nature have been made over the years, many by Vietnam veterans. There is an even an organization, Vietnam Veterans Against McCain. But they are based on suspicions and circumstantial claims. There has never been any hard direct evidence.

What T says the CIA has is such evidence. Its release would destroy McCain. The threat of its release could force McCain to take a fall, blow the election and lose on purpose. And just who do you suppose would know what the CIA has and work with them to release it?

Someone who has been a CIA asset since he was recruited by London station chief Cord Meyer while a student at Oxford in 1968?

(Back in the 90s years after he retired, if Cord drank a little too much Scotch, he would laugh derisively at those conspiratorialists who accused Bill Clinton of being connected with the KGB.

"They all darkly point to Bill's participation in anti-war peace conferences in Stockholm and Oslo, and his trip to Leningrad, Moscow, and Prague while he was at Oxford. Who could have paid for this?', they ask. It had to be the KGB!' they claim." Cord would shake his head. "What rot - we paid for it. We recruited Bill the first week he was at Oxford. Bill's been an asset of The Three Bad Words ever since." Cord passed on in 2001.)

The small group of Senators and Congressmen who have been briefed by T have been unable to confirm with the CIA any details of its document swap with the GRU beyond an admission that such a swap "may have happened." They are very nervous about pursuing the matter any further.

The Clintons are not nervous. They are utterly ruthless, and have buddies at Langley all too happy to help them.

It has been noted many times here in To The Point that while most folks think the CIA is a right-wing outfit, it is not. The CIA has been dominated by left-wing hyper-liberals for years.

The CIA is a left-wing, liberal outfit, and its main job for some time now is not attacking America's enemies but conservatives in general and George W. Bush in particular. The story is best told by friend, Ken Timmerman in his new book Shadow Warriors.

When the time is right, the Clintons will see to the leaking of the GRU archives on McCain to the media. Bet on it, just as you can bet they'll follow it up with media disclosures of the lady lobbyists in Washington having adulterous affairs with McCain. (There are at least three of them; I know the name of one but I'm not going to put it in writing.)

Maybe McCain will try to fight back by confirming Hillary's well-known bisexuality and her lesbian affair with her beautiful assistant, Huma Abedin. Google "Hillary" and "Huma Abedin" and you'll get almost 6,000 hits. Turns out Huma is a Moslem who grew up in Saudi Arabia and is strongly suspected of working for Saudi intelligence.

Or maybe he'll capitulate to Clinton blackmail. You never can tell what a psychologically unstable guy will do.

And that last point is why - be prepared for this, folks - I would not in any circumstances vote for John McCain, not if either Hillary or Obama were the alternative. Evil is safer than crazy. Leftie amateur inexperience is safer than crazy. So I agree with Ann Coulter who says:

"I'd rather deal with President Hillary than with President McCain. With Hillary, we'll get the same ruinous liberal policies with none of the responsibility."

How in the world can the Republican Party get saddled with a nutcase whack-job who knows nothing about economics, is so anti-capitalist he uses "profit" as a term of derision, has never run a business or had any job outside of government, will raise taxes, is so stupid that he believes "stopping global warming" is worth destroying the American economy, won't drill ANWR, won't appoint strict constructionist justices, won't protect marriage, will give amnesty to 20 million illegal aliens, is beloved by the New York Times, and lives in a delusionary world of vanity and rage?

Rush is right. A McCain presidency will be the destruction of the Republican Party. It needs to be rebuilt, not wiped out with the field clear for the fascists of the left to consolidate power and eliminate freedom.

twatbuster said...

hahahaha...is this silly, little twat from the chickenhawk party trying to pose as a tough guy?


Yeah, all those LEFTISTS -- like Fat Karl and Fox News -- calling McCrock a liar...the pussy just can't bring herself to acknowledge that FACT, can she?

white privilege said...

This is Your Nation on White Privilege

By Tim Wise

For those who still can’t grasp the concept of white privilege, or who are constantly looking for some easy-to-understand examples of it, perhaps this list will help.

White privilege is when you can get pregnant at seventeen like Bristol Palin and everyone is quick to insist that your life and that of your family is a personal matter, and that no one has a right to judge you or your parents, because “every family has challenges,” even as black and Latino families with similar “challenges” are regularly typified as irresponsible, pathological and arbiters of social decay.

White privilege is when you can call yourself a “fuckin’ redneck,” like Bristol Palin’s boyfriend does, and talk about how if anyone messes with you, you'll “kick their fuckin' ass,” and talk about how you like to “shoot shit” for fun, and still be viewed as a responsible, all-American boy (and a great son-in-law to be) rather than a thug.

White privilege is when you can attend four different colleges in six years like Sarah Palin did (one of which you basically failed out of, then returned to after making up some coursework at a community college), and no one questions your intelligence or commitment to achievement, whereas a person of color who did this would be viewed as unfit for college, and probably someone who only got in in the first place because of affirmative action.

White privilege is when you can claim that being mayor of a town smaller than most medium-sized colleges, and then Governor of a state with about the same number of people as the lower fifth of the island of Manhattan, makes you ready to potentially be president, and people don’t all piss on themselves with laughter, while being a black U.S. Senator, two-term state Senator, and constitutional law scholar, means you’re “untested.”


White privilege is being able to say that you support the words “under God” in the pledge of allegiance because “if it was good enough for the founding fathers, it’s good enough for me,” and not be immediately disqualified from holding office--since, after all, the pledge was written in the late 1800s and the “under God” part wasn’t added until the 1950s--while believing that reading accused criminals and terrorists their rights (because, ya know, the Constitution, which you used to teach at a prestigious law school requires it), is a dangerous and silly idea only supported by mushy liberals.


White privilege is being able to be a gun enthusiast and not make people immediately scared of you.


White privilege is being able to have a husband who was a member of an extremist political party that wants your state to secede from the Union, and whose motto was “Alaska first,” and no one questions your patriotism or that of your family, while if you're black and your spouse merely fails to come to a 9/11 memorial so she can be home with her kids on the first day of school, people immediately think she’s being disrespectful.


White privilege is being able to make fun of community organizers and the work they do--like, among other things, fight for the right of women to vote, or for civil rights, or the 8-hour workday, or an end to child labor--and people think you’re being pithy and tough, but if you merely question the experience of a small town mayor and 18-month governor with no foreign policy expertise beyond a class she took in college--you’re somehow being mean, or even sexist.


White privilege is being able to convince white women who don’t even agree with you on any substantive issue to vote for you and your running mate anyway, because all of a sudden your presence on the ticket has inspired confidence in these same white women, and made them give your party a “second look.”


White privilege is being able to fire people who didn’t support your political campaigns and not be accused of abusing your power or being a typical politician who engages in favoritism, while being black and merely knowing some folks from the old-line political machines in Chicago means you must be corrupt.


White privilege is being able to attend churches over the years whose pastors say that people who voted for John Kerry or merely criticize George W. Bush are going to hell, and that the U.S. is an explicitly Christian nation and the job of Christians is to bring Christian theological principles into government, and who bring in speakers who say the conflict in the Middle East is God’s punishment on Jews for rejecting Jesus, and everyone can still think you’re just a good church-going Christian, but if you’re black and friends with a black pastor who has noted (as have Colin Powell and the U.S. Department of Defense) that terrorist attacks are often the result of U.S. foreign policy and who talks about the history of racism and its effect on black people, you’re an extremist who probably hates America.


White privilege is not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is when asked by a reporter, and then people get angry at the reporter for asking you such a “trick question,” while being black and merely refusing to give one-word answers to the queries of Bill O’Reilly means you’re dodging the question, or trying to seem overly intellectual and nuanced.


White privilege is being able to claim your experience as a POW has anything at all to do with your fitness for president, while being black and experiencing racism is, as Sarah Palin has referred to it a “light” burden.


And finally, white privilege is the only thing that could possibly allow someone to become president when he has voted with George W. Bush 90 percent of the time, even as unemployment is skyrocketing, people are losing their homes, inflation is rising, and the U.S. is increasingly isolated from world opinion, just because white voters aren’t sure about that whole “change” thing. Ya know, it’s just too vague and ill-defined, unlike, say, four more years of the same, which is very concrete and certain…


White privilege is, in short, the problem.

Anonymous said...

That You Tube video reminded me of the SC beauty queen answering the question with the same incoherance.

Dan Kurt said...

re: "dora said...
and Sarah Palin who answered every one of Charles Gibson's attempts at "gotcha" questions

Say what you will, but she didn't answer the Bush Doctrine question at all."

Read the following on the Bush Doctrine:

[www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457_pf.html]
Washington Post
Charlie Gibson's Gaffe
By Charles Krauthammer
Saturday, September 13, 2008; A17

"At times visibly nervous . . . Ms. Palin most visibly stumbled when she was asked by Mr. Gibson if she agreed with the Bush doctrine. Ms. Palin did not seem to know what he was talking about. Mr. Gibson, sounding like an impatient teacher, informed her that it meant the right of 'anticipatory self-defense.' "

-- New York Times, Sept. 12

Informed her? Rubbish.

The New York Times got it wrong. And Charlie Gibson got it wrong.

There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration -- and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different.

He asked Palin, "Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?"

She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, "In what respect, Charlie?"

Sensing his "gotcha" moment, Gibson refused to tell her. After making her fish for the answer, Gibson grudgingly explained to the moose-hunting rube that the Bush doctrine "is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense."

Wrong.

I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush doctrine notes, I was the first to use the term. In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of the Weekly Standard entitled, "The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism," I suggested that the Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol, together with others, amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called the Bush doctrine.

Then came 9/11, and that notion was immediately superseded by the advent of the war on terror. In his address to the joint session of Congress nine days after 9/11, President Bush declared: "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." This "with us or against us" policy regarding terror -- first deployed against Pakistan when Secretary of State Colin Powell gave President Musharraf that seven-point ultimatum to end support for the Taliban and support our attack on Afghanistan -- became the essence of the Bush doctrine.

Until Iraq. A year later, when the Iraq war was looming, Bush offered his major justification by enunciating a doctrine of preemptive war. This is the one Charlie Gibson thinks is the Bush doctrine.

It's not. It's the third in a series and was superseded by the fourth and current definition of the Bush doctrine, the most sweeping formulation of the Bush approach to foreign policy and the one that most clearly and distinctively defines the Bush years: the idea that the fundamental mission of American foreign policy is to spread democracy throughout the world. It was most dramatically enunciated in Bush's second inaugural address: "The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world."

This declaration of a sweeping, universal American freedom agenda was consciously meant to echo John Kennedy's pledge in his inaugural address that the United States "shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty." It draws also from the Truman doctrine of March 1947 and from Wilson's 14 points.

If I were in any public foreign policy debate today, and my adversary were to raise the Bush doctrine, both I and the audience would assume -- unless my interlocutor annotated the reference otherwise -- that he was speaking about the grandly proclaimed (and widely attacked) freedom agenda of the Bush administration.

Not the Gibson doctrine of preemption.

Not the "with us or against us" no-neutrality-is-permitted policy of the immediate post-9/11 days.

Not the unilateralism that characterized the pre-9/11 first year of the Bush administration.

Presidential doctrines are inherently malleable and difficult to define. The only fixed "doctrines" in American history are the Monroe and the Truman doctrines which come out of single presidential statements during administrations where there were few other contradictory or conflicting foreign policy crosscurrents.

Such is not the case with the Bush doctrine.

Yes, Sarah Palin didn't know what it is. But neither does Charlie Gibson. And at least she didn't pretend to know -- while he looked down his nose and over his glasses with weary disdain, sighing and "sounding like an impatient teacher," as the Times noted. In doing so, he captured perfectly the establishment snobbery and intellectual condescension that has characterized the chattering classes' reaction to the mother of five who presumes to play on their stage.

letters@charleskrauthammer.com

Anonymous said...

John McCain did not get his injuries from torture; he got them when his plane crashed...after killing VN civiilians from five miles up.

He preempted the torture by agreeing almost immediately to sign anti-American propaganda statements.

I certainly don't blame him, but he is anything but a hero. In fact, earlier generations with higher standards would have called him a coward and a traitor.

In any case, he did absolutely nothing to serve this country or further its interests in any way imaginable.

Anonymous said...

Krauthammer??!!

The man is one of the most repellent, morbid, twisted monkeys on the planet.

As is anyone who would consider him an authority on anything but moral perversity and human malformation.

Dora said...

Krauthammer??!!

The man is one of the most repellent, morbid, twisted monkeys on the planet.

As is anyone who would consider him an authority on anything but moral perversity and human malformation.


Yup, and now he's trying to claim the Bush Doctrine for himself? lolerz.

His little article didn't get much traction because he's such a douche.

If someone asked me about the Bush Doctrine, I would have vaguely known that it's about preemtive strikes on countries that allegedly pose a threat, and I'm not running for VP.

John said...

Behold the evil of Leftism.

Charles Krauthammer--a role-model for the physically disabled who overcame his own disabilities to become a respected and accomplished political writer and analyst-- lays out a rational argument that authoritatively defends, and justifies, Palin's hesitation in answering the question, and is answered thusly:

"Krauthammer??!! The man is one of the most repellent, morbid, twisted monkeys on the planet."

Classic shoot-the-messenger, ad hominem attack of personal ridicule to assassinate his character so as to discredit anything he says, and a warning shot across the bow of anyone who might listen:

"As is anyone who would consider him an authority on anything but moral perversity and human malformation."

These are the ideological heirs of liars, censors, and murderers.

Yet Dora follows suit:

"Yup, and now he's trying to claim the Bush Doctrine for himself? lolerz."

He backed up his claim that he coined the term, and offered proof.

Note the "hahaha" ("lolerz")ridiculing response--which is nothing but a knee-jerk defense mechanism.

"His little article didn't get much traction because he's such a douche."

Note that a strong and structured argument which has been widely-circulated, discussed, and has self-evidently turned-the-tables on the "Palin Is Clueless" tactic (pointing out that it is Palin's character assassins who are, in fact, clueless to the evolving history of "The Bush Doctrine"--which, again, Krauthammer himself coined) is shrunken down to a "little article that didn't get much traction."

And why not? Because Krauthammer is demonstrably wrong on this or that point?

No, because he's a "douche" and so should be ignored.

John said...

I said:

"An argument...pointing out that it is Palin's character assassins who are, in fact, clueless to the evolving history of "The Bush Doctrine").

Dora herself unwittingly confirms it's uncertain, yet-to-be crystalized definition:

"If someone asked me about the Bush Doctrine, I would have vaguely known that it's about preemtive (sic) strikes."

Yes, and the reason for the vagueness is explained by Krauthammer.

Dora said...

Krauthammer is not motivated by intellectual honesty, but by a desire to defend Palin and shore up support for her, so he bends and twists the facts to try to make a silk purse out of you-know-what. Thankfully, most people see through it.

You wanna talk about being qualified? Go look up the bio of Tzipi Livni, Israel's new Prime Minister lady. There's a woman who's qualified to run the country. While she was practicing commercial law prior to being elected to the Knesset, Sarah Palin was sportscasting.