"Love one another." How do we survive this kind of tragedy? By loving one another, coming together. Survival is through community, and not letting go of each other. The massacre at Virginia Tech is one of the most tragic reminders of how much our nation needs healing, on every level. We should be more responsible in conveying values beyond the quick satisfaction of material needs. The constant glorification of violence through the gun culture, videoames, news broadcasts showing incessant bloodhsed, hatred, torture and bullying tactics on shows like “24″… yes the gunman was deranged, but there is something deeper going on in our American Dream.
Go to PlanetBlacksburg.com and leave a prayer message on the Wall. I am also sending out a blessing and prayer to Josie, my friend in Nebraska who is going through cancer surgery today. xoxo
"No Spur Of The Moment Crime"…9 mm Handgun Purchased On March 13…Returned To Dorm Room To Re-Arm After First Shooting, Left A "Disturbing Note"…
Why don't we have a more rapid response to violence like this, whether it's terrorism or random violence. The fact that the campus didn't sound a SIREN, send out an alert and cancel classes over a loudspeaker or alarm... or text messaging! In this day and age, in light of the times, why don't we have "rapid response" and lockdown immediately in the case of a crisis like this?
Excerpted from Jane Smiley's Blog at HuffingtonPost.com:
Some years ago, I was talking to a man about guns. At the time, I didn't really know anyone with guns (still don't), but he did. He had had guns himself. He said, "I gave my gun away, because when I had it, every time something happened that made me mad, my mind would start circling around that gun, and I would be thinking about using it.
So I got rid of it and I'm glad I did." Right up front I will say that I am opposed to casual gun ownership, but I also realize that Americans will always have guns. Period. It's a national fetish. But the mental state my interlocutor was describing years ago is the price we have to pay, along with, of course, the accidental deaths of children and other unprepared and careless people who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and in proximity to the wrong gun. What I would like is for the gun-toting right wing to admit that there is a price we pay, that senseless accidental deaths and traumas are a national cost and that it's not so clear that it's worth it, but hey, we pay it anyway because so many guns are in the hands of so many people that there would never be any getting rid of them. I would like the right wing to admit that guns are not "good" and that the right to bear arms is not an absolute virtue and that the deaths in the US caused by guns are at least as problematic, philosophically, as abortion. But I'm not holding my breath...
Read more at HuffingtonPost.com
I wrote a lengthy piece at my blog, Lydia, as you know, about this tragedy.
ReplyDeleteIt's not about the gun. It's about the illusion of control. Guns don't give us control over anything. They might (falsely) empower us, and perhaps may protect us a little (I like my gun for keeping lions and tigers and bears at bay, oh my!), but to believe they protect us, full stop, is sheer lunacy.
They don't. They can't. Life doesn't work like that.
Catching up from the last thread...
ReplyDeleteTall Texan said...
Lydia said:
"Clear Channel owned over 700 stations that ONLY spewed right-wing talk to the exclusion of any other point of view for years and years."
Not true. Clear Channel had quite a few of their stations that aired Air America, but most of those stations were not commercially viable.
I'm afraid that's not completely true, Texasshole. As usual, you distort a truth to make a lie a point.
Air America, unlike Rush and his ilk, did not give its programming away, but instead, bought or leased entire stations form the get-go.
This was a bad business model, but worked successfully in some markets. Nationally, it didn't.
When they reorganized the first time, that's when they started leasing individual programs out to stations. Not gave, leased.
See, Rush doesn't make a dime off his hideous program. It's so bad, no station wanted to share revenues, so he was forced to give it to stations, gratis, in exchange for having full say in the content (which is why he endlessly humps his other products, which he makes his money from).
The stations take it because it's pure profit for them: 100% of their ad money goes into their pockets.
AAR doesn't do this. In fact, Clear Channel has been putting together it's own liberal "network" of programming because, in fact, AAR makes money once you factor out the burden of all those owned and leased stations.
I should know. ;-)
7:10 AM
Lydia Cornell said...
but ultimately I believe Imus lost his gig because the RIGHT WING wanted him off the air.
Right conclusion, wrong reasons.
The right wing wanted him off the air because he was calling attention to their racism and bigotry, and he stopped making Sumner Redstone and General Electric a lot of money.
To call Imus "liberal" is to call John McCain "a maverick".
He was never liberal and never would be. He voted for Kerry because he liked John Kerry but more because he hated George Bush, whom he viewed as a front running phony.
Imus supported Bush the Elder, despite the fact that he practically created Bill Clinton (by putting him on the program when the 1992 New York Primary was still up for grabs with Al Gore, Imus gave Bubba stroke, and the win and ultimately it carried the nomination for him).
Imus supported Bob Dole, who was a frequent guest. Imus tore Clinton a new one over the Lewinski affair, ironically claiming, straight-faced, that "If it matters in your house, it matters in the White House", conveniently forgetting his own complicity in the coarsening of American culture and spreading of hatred.
It was at this point that I realized he had morphed into the phony that ultimately got fired.
He supported Joe Lieberman for President. He supported Bush the Immature in 2000.
He was far from liberal. Very very far from it.
7:17 AM
Johnny moo moo said...
TT said
"If freedom of speech means anything, it means the freedom to express unpopular sentiments. I think a dangerous precedent has been set, and if they could do it to Imus, they could do it to any of us."
Agreed!
You're both idiots, Texasshole and GooGoo.
Imus lost a privilege. He had his baby rattle taken away and you boys are acting like your own rattles were stolen.
Big babies. Deal with it.
7:18 AM
Lydia Cornell said...
TT, I mean Volt, mentioning Don Ho dying but using Don "XX" was a funny, I have to admit you do have a Freedom-Fan-like wit. I miss FF for his wit. Has anyone seen him?
I got a telegram from hell. Satan asked if there was a return policy.
7:19 AM
Voltron said...
TT, Would you be talking about the US Attorneys that INCLUDED one in Little Rock and one in New York who were investigating charges against Clinton?
And wasn't a special prosecutor appointed? And didn't Clinton testify under oath? And unlike Bush, didn't he let the law do its job?
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm....no wonder he was the Greatest. President. Ever.
Poor Widdle Twucker...on the wosing side of anudder argument...
7:22 AM
Tall Texan said...
Mike, the President can fire any US Attorney he wants. THEY SERVE AT THE PLEASURE OF THE PRESIDENT.
Please show me one law or regulation that runs counter to that.
Article II of the Constitution was contravened in replacing them, however.
That, I'm afraid, is a felony...
But you wouldn't know that. Or care, Texasshole.
7:24 AM
Voltron said...
Well Carl, it looks like the shooter was a evangelical from a right wing CHINESE family in Shanghai. He just got here last August.
South Korean, son. And there are an awful lot of evangelical South Koreans.
...of course, to you...they all look alike, don't they?
BIG SHMILE! BIG SHMILE! BIG SHMILE!
7:26 AM
Ahhh, nothing like kicking some troll ass first thing after coffee break...
ReplyDeleteGood Morning Lydia, Carl, et al..
ReplyDeleteLydia,
Great article you wrote on my blog this morning!
Guys, did you see this yet?
The Truth
Carl said...
ReplyDeleteAhhh, nothing like kicking some troll ass first thing after coffee break...
Hi Carl!
LOLMAO
The sheeple who think that guns are protecting them from the excesses of Government are hopelessly outgunned, which they will discover if they ever actually try to use their "protection."
ReplyDeleteBut it's a good political game for the wingnuts.
Teaxasshole said...
ReplyDeleteAnd bringing back the “Fairness Doctrine” is an arbitrary intrusion into right of Americans to free speech. Just think of it: some host has on a Nazi death camp survivor for two hours.
And your problem with that is...? That they'd have to air responsible spokespeople of the opposite view?
What Neo-Nazi...aside from the Republican party...is a responsible pro-Nazi spokesperson?
And you idjit, we draw a line between news and opinion
My god, how big a moron are you? Poor baby, is your widdle Wush Wimbaugh going to have to actually shut up for an hour?
Too effin' bad. Deal with it, clown.
Effin right wing idiots don't get it:
ReplyDeleteRadio waves are a freebie GIVEN away by the government for commercial use! They are a privilege, not a right and as such ought to be free of uni-partisan bullshit like these assholes have run past us for twenty years.
Grow the hell up, Texasshole. Rush can do quite nicely buying himself a station on Sirius, and making assholes like you pay for the privilege of listening to him spew his vomitous hatred.
Lydia, great post as usual. My article took a different angle, but they dove-tail.
ReplyDeleteCarl, I agree.
GM, Suzie. I have not as yet, but I will.
Johnny moo moo said...
ReplyDeleteMike said
"This fool has NO credibility, decency or integrity, he is a shameless liar, a hippocrire and a vulgar slimy troll..........."
Why, thank-you, Mike, I love you too...LOL!"
you dont actually think your going to get off that easy you lying troll do ya.......
You throw up an idiotic post claiming to oppose phony manufactured rascism like Worf and the lying Texan did then you immediately proceded to try to use the very phony manufactured rascism you "CLAIM" to oppose to get the other bloggers to attack Carl because you dont like him.
So while Worf may vehemently support free speech and phony rascism..........you and troll Tex not so much.
You used phony manufactured rascism to try to get others to attack another blogger and limit his freedom of speech while pretending to support free speech and oppose phony rasicism.
TT did the same when he called Lydia and myself Antisemetic to try to silence us and stifle our free speech from speaking out against Bush and the country of Israel's military action.
He didnt back up his assertion with any evidence and essentially admitted he was lying and smearing because he didnt like what we were saying.............TT then denies saying we were antisemetic when i could quite easily provide 10-30 examples of him doing this very thing.
Goo Goo, you called people out and asked them to respond to your idiotic post I responded and you run away like a little girl and try to deflect and derail instead of being a man and honestly debating.
ReplyDeleteAll you are is a lying troll whose sole objective is to undermine, attack and sabotage and get as much attention as possible while doing it...........but like I said your not gonna get off THAT easy little troll, i;m gonna hit you in the snout with this one EVERY time you come in here till your man enough to give a decent response!
And with you that could be a LONGGGGGGGG Time!
ReplyDeleteWhat's really funny, Mike, is that I was mocking Widdle Twucker's racism and Texasshole's racism and Freedom Fawn's BIG SHMILE Master Racism, and yet I'm called the bigot...
ReplyDeleteHey, GooGoo, did you need to borrow Widdle Twucker's "lawn nigger" for your self-esteem?
Suzie, I have never known what LOLMAO means or ROFLMAO and all those signs mean.
ReplyDeleteEveryone uses them, but I have no idea, not to sound like an idiot.
I know LOL is Lots of laughs, but is there some website that explains all of these codes?
LOL xo
Lydia:
ReplyDeleteLOLMAO= laugh out loud/laughing my ass off
ROFLMAO= rolling on the floor/laughing my ass off
Here is a site:
Acronyms
I hope that helps. (I think some people make up their own too.) ;)
Lydia Cornell said...
ReplyDeleteSuzie, I have never known what LOLMAO means or ROFLMAO and all those signs mean.
Everyone uses them, but I have no idea, not to sound like an idiot.
OMG! Lydia, you could never sound like an idiot! No way! IIRC, you're one of the brightest people I've ever met, just not IRL!
It's NBD that you don't know the nyms of the web. OTOH, you might want to familiarize yourself with them JIC you really ever need to use them. IMHO, you rock!
Thanks Suzie!
ReplyDeleteCarl - great blog today at your site.
TomCat - I'm about to read yours, then off to the gym..
Australia's PM said "it's the U.S. gun culture." He put major gun laws into effect 11 years ago after a similar shooting massacre in Australia, and it really worked.
Peace,
Lyd
Hey does anyone agree with me that the "antichrist" is actually fundamentalist thought, fear-based thinking... the eye-for-an-eye mentality?
ReplyDeleteI do not believe the antichrist is in the form of a person, but a belief system -- warring against each other, fearing each other.. the opposite of love, which is God, who teaches "love casts out fear."
Lydia Cornell said...
ReplyDeleteHey does anyone agree with me that the "antichrist" is actually fundamentalist thought, fear-based thinking... the eye-for-an-eye mentality?
Current Biblical scholarship is that John wrote Revelations as a metaphor for the defeat of the pagan Roman empire (as they were oppressing the Jews) and that to foment rebellion, he created the antiChrist figure as a way to point the finger at the then-emperor, Domitian (possibly Nero. There's some dispute as to when John was exiled to Patmos and who, precisely, he was).
To the extent that this book was written as a contemporary allegory, then you'd have to give the antiChrist an historic basis.
To the extent its meaning has been warped by the Dispensationalist wing of the Evangelical Moron Movement, then it's clearly a metaphorical thought system, and may be interpreted to mean just about any belief system, from Fundamentalism to Communism to the rise of the designated hitter in baseball.
What they should have done is pass out guns to every student at the door.
ReplyDeleteBet the asshole wouldn't have gotten 30 of them.
Just like airline security. How many planes you think would get hijacked if all the passengers were armed?
Carl, you'll love this. This is from one of my favorite websites, slacktivist.com, from Fred Clark, a minister who has been writing about the LEFT BEHIND books by LaHaye-Jenkins for years. He has been dissecting these books as a good Christ-follower:
ReplyDeleteI will post it, but it's long.
Here:
LaHaye lives in southern California and Jenkins lives in Colorado, but quite honestly they don't seem to occupy the same planet that the rest of us live on.
Excerpt from Left Behind, pg. 256 "He had carefully avoided specific talk of global disarmament. His was a message of love and peace and understanding and brotherhood, and to quit fighting seemed to go without saying. No doubt he would be back to hammer home that point, but in the meantime, Carpathia was on the charmed ride of his life."
Speaking of hammering home one's point, LaHaye-Jenkins remind their readers here, yet again, that anyone with "a message of love and peace and understanding and brotherhood" should be viewed with suspicion. That's the language of the Antichrist, after all, the language of evil. This is not a minor point in Left Behind and I suspect it's one that many of their 60 million+ readers have absorbed. (I wouldn't be at all surprised to find a close correlation between that readership and the 29 percent of Americans who believe the war in Iraq is going well.)
L&J's insistence that the Antichrist be a promoter of peace and disarmament is part of what lends an unreality to the whole narrative of Carpathia's rise to power. Post-Event the world would be in chaos, chaos that would extend even to the personal, existential level -- those left behind have just witnessed the erasing of the boundary between being and non-being. With the population traumatized, desperate for answers and direction, the situation would be ripe for dictators to seize power by declaring martial law, restoring order with an iron hand. The Post-Event rise of global dictatorship practically writes itself. But L&J instead present a scenario in which Carpathia rises to power on the basis of little more than utopian appeals for cooperation as chaos flowers into peaceful order. (I suppose, again, that if this scenario seems plausible to you, you might really think the war in Iraq is going well.)
The authors follow some strange twists of logic to arrive at the idea that "love and peace and unity and brotherhood" is the message of the Antichrist. The idea seems to have its roots in the biblical warnings against false Christs, passages like Matthew 24:4-5, "Watch out that no one deceives you. For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Christ,' and will deceive many." For these impostors to "deceive many," their claims must seem plausible, so they must talk like Jesus. A false Christ, in other words, would likely talk about the same things that Jesus Christ talked about -- love and peace and understanding and brotherhood. But this talk will be fraudulent, the false Christ wouldn't really mean any of it.*
Somehow L&J seem to have lost sight of the fact that the words of such frauds should not be taken at face value. (I think this is partly due to their reflexive antagonism against "works righteousness," which leads them to emphasize words over deeds.) They are not on the lookout against the deceptions of disingenuous false leaders, but rather against anyone with a message of love and peace and understanding and brotherhood. They've gotten so caught up in guarding against wolves in sheep's clothing that anything in sheep's clothing is viewed as the enemy. So all sheep must be shot on sight.
Follow the logic. Once you've decided that the Most Important Thing is to avoid the wolf in sheep's clothing, your safest course of action is to embrace the wolf in wolf's clothing.
Apply this logic to vigilance against the Antichrist. We "know" the Antichrist will come claiming to favor LPU&B. Now imagine we are faced with a choice between two leaders. The first advocates LPU&B, but the second, instead, favors the opposite -- hate, war, dissension and enmity. From LaHaye and Jenkins' perspective, we should choose the second leader, because we know he's not the Antichrist. The first one might be (or, at least, he might be an unwitting tool of the one-world government conspiracy that will eventually be led by the Antichrist).
Anyone who talks about love, peace, unity or brotherhood might be the Antichrist, so anyone who speaks of such things must be rejected.
Through books like LB and through the vast network of "Bible prophecy" seminars, newletters and radio hosts, tens of millions of Americans have been taught to think like this. Consider how you might go about energizing such voters if you thought of them as your "base" of electoral support.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
* The most extensive discussion of such false Christs is found in 1 John, which also introduces us to the term "Antichrist." (John actually speaks of "antichrists" -- plural -- and the term is not found anywhere else in the Bible, not in Revelation or any of the other apocalyptic passages favored by PMDs.)
John's first epistle is all about recognizing and avoiding what he calls "the spirit of the antichrist," and it's chock full of blunt, stark statements on the topic, such as this from Chapter 4: "If anyone says, 'I love God,' yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen." For John, in other words, actual "love and peace and unity and brotherhood" are the hallmarks of genuine faith.
Oh and Carl? I was quoting from the Chicago Sun Times. A liberal paper got the facts wrong. Go figure.
ReplyDeleteCarl, here's the link:
ReplyDeletehttp://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2007/03/lb_lpub.html
I will remove that long post after you read it, if you want.
xo
Wow! Pete McCloskey quit the Republican Party!
ReplyDeleteThis would be like Joe Biden leaving the Dems, McCloskey was that big an icon. And his family had been Republicans since the gold rush!
Voltron said...
ReplyDeleteWhat they should have done is pass out guns to every student at the door.
Bet the asshole wouldn't have gotten 30 of them.
Just like airline security. How many planes you think would get hijacked if all the passengers were armed?
The bodies aren't even in the ground, you despicable fascist. have a little respect.
And if you're stoopid enough to think guns would have prevented this tragedy from occuring, then you're stoopider than I ever gave you credit for, you subhuman piece of slime.
Lydia,
ReplyDeleteI'd read that sort of analysis of the LB series (which I absolutely admit I ripped my blog title off from), and came to that conclusion after skimming some of the books in a Barnes and Noble one rainy afternoon.
These folks are insane. We have to...persuade them.
Sorry Carl, I should have realized that the libs get first crack at politicizing it.
ReplyDeleteAnd guns may not have prevented it from starting, but they would have prevented it from going as far as it did.
From my blog today:
ReplyDelete"There is no reason to believe that if the entire college campus was armed, that there wouldn't be 32 students dead this morning. Likewise, there's no reason to believe that, if every gun in Virginia was taken away Sunday, those kids wouldn't be dead anyway.
None. Any presumption otherwise is flawed by the fact that this played out the way it played out, but in a different world based on the additional rule that either side wants to impose on this scenario, it would have played out differently. If the entire campus was armed, for example, who's to say this gunman wouldn't simply have gathered a posse of friends and together, 32 people die? Same outcome, different initial conditions."
Get it, Widdle Twucker? Guns are fine for your widdle games of Cowboys and Injuns that you and the other dogshit trolls play on your widdle bwog, but in the real world, Guns. Are. Bad. Around. People.
And more guns = more deaths.
Period. End of story.
Or, in your case, you could simply follow the herd...C'mon, Widdle Twucker, do the world a favor! Put the rest of us out of your misery!
ReplyDeleteGathered a "posse of his friends"???
ReplyDeleteSo just how many unbalanced individuals do you think there are in Virginia?
I guarantee you if he tried that ONE at least would have turned him in BEFORE that little scenario got off the ground.
Voltron said...
ReplyDeleteSorry Carl, I should have realized that the libs get first crack at politicizing it.
God, you are a filthy pig. I'm surprised anyone, and I mean man or woman, would want to spend time with you, you abhorrent little man.
CONGRATS o Charlie Savage for winning the 2007 PULITZER PRIZE for NATIONAL REPORTING
ReplyDeleteFor a distinguished example of reporting on national affairs, in print or in print and online.
Awarded to Charlie Savage of The Boston Globe for his revelations that President Bush often used "signing statements" to assert his controversial right to bypass provisions of new laws.
http://www.boston.com/news/specials/savage_signing_statements/
And from what I'm hearing about the note he left, it doesn't sound like he had many friends.
ReplyDeleteThey were probably all liberals talking about "love" and "caring" while ignoring him and talking about him behind his back.
Voltron said...
ReplyDeleteGathered a "posse of his friends"???
So just how many unbalanced individuals do you think there are in Virginia?
Enough that you can buy a gun a month.
Nuff said.
Voltron said...
ReplyDeleteI guarantee you if he tried that ONE at least would have turned him in BEFORE that little scenario got off the ground.
Oh. You mean like Timothy McVeigh in Oklahoma City, you hate-filled dirtbag?
You are without doubt the most ignert redneck I've ever seen much less heard about.
Go play with your Widdle Twucks, Widdle Twucker, and pray tonight God doesn't decide to teach you a lesson...
Carl - that is incredible about Pete McCloskey! What a great article.
ReplyDeleteDon't you think that Left Behind critique was brilliant though? The one I posted above?
I know you got your name from that book series. I wish the 60 million who bought their books would wake up to the truth. I'm sure they will in time.
Troll ass kicked?
ReplyDeleteCheck!
Oh come on Carl. Get over yourself.
ReplyDeleteRead the damned paper or watch TV, they're all pushing the liberal gun control agenda on this as we speak.
Yeah, and how many friends did ol Timmy have 2?, 3?
ReplyDeleteStill probably wouldn't have gotten near as many.
Lydia,
ReplyDeleteNo, the article is quite brilliant, and well-written. Not enough people know about the abject depraved insanity of the right wing and the theological bases of their insanity. He sums it up nicely.
Yesterday with Imus your side was rooting for abolishing the 1st amendment, Today with this shooting they're going for the 2nd.
ReplyDeleteVoltron said...
ReplyDeleteYeah, and how many friends did ol Timmy have 2?, 3?
Still probably wouldn't have gotten near as many.
Oh sure, and Jim Jones only gathered a few friends to drink some Kool Aid. And Charles Manson only had a date or two over.
Who's not being realistic, shithead?
Voltron said...
ReplyDeleteYesterday with Imus your side was rooting for abolishing the 1st amendment, Today with this shooting they're going for the 2nd.
I didn't realize your head was so far up the corporatist's ass that you believe a simple firing from a commercial radio program was stifling Imus' free speech.
He can still call them nappy headed ho's to his heart's content, you nappy head HoHo.
Just not get paid to do it.
My god, you're stoopid!
Voltron said...
ReplyDeleteOh come on Carl. Get over yourself.
Read the damned paper or watch TV, they're all pushing the liberal gun control agenda on this as we speak.
Gee...all I'm seeing and reading is news stories about dead college kids, and the aftermath and how could the college let two hours pass before even warning anyone.
Where are you reading differently? Intaputzit? The guy who advocated, hours after the last shot rang out, that more guns would have saved lives?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Lydia,
ReplyDeleteLike I said yesterday about something else, it's too late for them to wake up.
We have to work hard to make sure the next generation, your kids and mine, don't make the same mistake and don't let their friends make the same mistakes.
Something like how seat belts became accepted once schools started teaching about their safety. Or how drunk driving has become less of a problem now. Or smoking. Or drugs.
Maybe "Friends don't let friends vote Republican".
Carl, Imus comments were made almost a WEEK before all the sudden outrage.
ReplyDeleteIt was started by an email campaign from "Media Matters" and erupted when Al Sharpton finally got told about it.
Almost NOBODY had heard it, or heard ABOUT it, or was "offended" and "scarred for life" until YOUR side blew it all out of proportion.
(as usual I might add)
ReplyDeleteVoltron said...
ReplyDeleteCarl, Imus comments were made almost a WEEK before all the sudden outrage.
Yer f*cking nuts. We were talking about Imus the day it happened. You can go look here yourself, moron.
In fact, your buttbuddy, TallTexan, was the first to allude to it, the day it happened!
ReplyDeleteBWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Wrong again, Widdle Twucker...maybe you need a new pair of PullUps?
Yes, the outrage clearly came from the left...
ReplyDeleteLydia Cornell said...
ReplyDeleteHey does anyone agree with me that the "antichrist" is actually fundamentalist thought, fear-based thinking... the eye-for-an-eye mentality?
I do not believe the antichrist is in the form of a person, but a belief system -- warring against each other, fearing each other.. the opposite of love, which is God, who teaches "love casts out fear." "
Yes I most certainly do........look at all the evil that is done in the name of fear and/or organized religion.
Look at how the Bush administration used fear and anger of and at terrorists to gut the Constitution, lie us into a war that had ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with terrorism as well as justify torture, deny AMERICAN citizens Habeous Corpus and fair trials spy on Americans etc........
This irrational fear and hatred is all the Neo Cons have because they fear facts and truth like a vampire fears sunlight!
Mike,
ReplyDeleteEvangelical Christians are taught from an early age that the Antichrist is real and is living.
He's identified as the then-extant Pope. And in truth, this interpretation is forced to fit the definition given in the Dispensationalist interpretation of the Bible.
Personally, I'm waiting for when Catholics who sold out to the Falwellians wake up and realize this...
And where the hell do you get off saying libs are against free speech or gun control for that matter................show me where the majority of us IN THIS BLOG come down on the side AGAINST free speech?
ReplyDeleteyou cant just say "you libs" like the fool which means an imaginary set of people known ONLY to you and then just assign us a set of beliefs that just happens to fit YOUR position and preconceived stereotypes.
If you dont like this BS done to you Volt then dont do it to me either.
And of course, Widdle Twucker, in truth, our side WOULD complain loudest about it.
ReplyDeleteAfter all, we're not bigots. Unlike you, we don't own "lawn niggers"...
Mike said...
ReplyDeleteAnd where the hell do you get off saying libs are against free speech or gun control for that matter................show me where the majority of us IN THIS BLOG come down on the side AGAINST free speech?
Oh, Mike, he would never say anything like that, riiiiiiiiiiiight? Remember, he and Texasshole and GooGoo, they don't get into insults!
*wink wink*
BIG SHMILE, Widdle Twucker! BIG SHMILE!
And for the record Volt, I along with Worf support our 2 Amendment...................however to say that if everyone were carrying guns this wouldnt have happened is riddiculous.......if everyone in our society carried a gun we would have far MORE shootings from road rage and simple heat of the moment aguements.
ReplyDeleteThats a crqazy insane position many of the people in our society are not fit or sane enough and are too unstable to have guns......take goo goo for example, his own wife doesnt trust him with a gun.
Mike said...
ReplyDeletetake goo goo for example, his own wife doesnt trust him with a gun.
I'm surprised she trusts him with his dick, considering how hard he tried to cheat on her in front of his daughter.
Or with his daughter.
I'd have sliced that puppy off and stuck it in a jar on a shelf already.
And Goo Goo, why is it you changed the subject instead of responding to what I said afraid of the truth Goo Goo..........what i'm saying wont go away Goo Goo, and your cowardly "libs are mean and hateful BS" aint gonna make it go away..........your gonnsa get slapped in the snout with your own ignorant lies and hippocrissy EVERY time you show your face here till you man up little troll.
ReplyDeleteDo they make jars that small?
ReplyDeleteMike said...
ReplyDeleteAnd Goo Goo, why is it you changed the subject instead of responding to what I said
Short attention span. Remember, he's Republican.
Whats really interesting though Carl is the News that Gonzalez is set to testify under oath, and that Bush lied and scemed to pin the troop extensions on the Democrats and Lied about his knowledge and role in firing Iglesias and all trolls want to talk about is Imus and the shooting?
ReplyDeleteMike said...
ReplyDeleteDo they make jars that small?
Actually, I'd probably just flush it, since if I was his wife, I wouldn't want him touching me, either. He won't need it. He sure as damn well won't miss it.
Yea, I saw taht about Bush and the troop extensions.
ReplyDeleteDumbya thinks the troops are like the l'il soldiers that Widdle Twucker pways, I mean, plays with, all plastic and unbreakable, but he'll get all bent out of shape anytime someone tries to treat them like human beings.
"MINE! MINE!," he'll cry, and then grab them back.
and TT how bout you accept my $50,000 wager or shut your hippocritical piehole.
ReplyDeleteyou claim to despise phony manufactured rascism and support freedom of speech yet YOU YOURSELF used phony manufactured rasism to try and silence and deny Lydia her freedom of speech because YOU didnt like what she had to say and the truth scares you and your masters.
you are just a slimy pathetic little man that will say and do anything to benefit yourself and your party..........yours is a culture of corruption.
Mike,
ReplyDeleteWas that when he accused Lydia of antisemitism?
My god, do the Jews who run Hollywood know that? :-D I guess she'll never work in that town again!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
See carl Bush wanted to veto the dems spending bill BEFORE the troop extension story broke so he could blame it on them........the troop extension story broke BEFORE his veto ......so Bush lied and denied any knowledge of the extension.
ReplyDeleteIsnt that interest a self professed "WAR PRESIDENT" who has staked his whole presidency on this war claims he doesnt even know what the hell is going on with the Military in Iraq"
he's either lying or incompetent..........my position is ALL OF THE ABOVE!
Oh? I didn't know that about the timing of the bill and the veto and the extension, Mike.
ReplyDeleteSheesh. What an idiot. No wonder these trolls love him so...
Carl said...
ReplyDeleteMike,
Was that when he accused Lydia of antisemitism?
My god, do the Jews who run Hollywood know that? :-D I guess she'll never work in that town again!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH"
yep!!!!!!!
The liar denied ever having said that now...............just like he denied making a wager that the repugs would retain both houses of Congress.............This fool has been dead WRONG about EVERYTHING he has said yet he claims to know what is best for this country still.............it boggles the mind!
Mike,
ReplyDelete*shaking head*
What is wrong with these sub-people...
Hey, what's wrong with Tasers instead of guns? If you really are in fear and need to protect yourself, then have a taser handy.
ReplyDeleteBut regarding gun laws: Americans should have to pass eye tests, firearms classes, and psychological testing (and see if they're on medications for depression or psychotropic drugs) and be licensed BEFORE they can buy a gun.
For God's sake and for our children's sake, there have only been 24 justified shootings in America - versus THOUSANDS of "accidental" and rampage shootings, as a result of our lax gun laws.
In every other country where they have strict gun control, crime is down.
Don't label this a liberal agenda; it's simply a smart, sane idea.
No laymen, except the VERY INSECURE weaklings, need a gun that can kill people. Tasers stun the criminal and stop him in his tracks. Then you can take him to court and find out why he's doing what he's doing.
WE need to disarm all the criminals. In this day and age, with the stress of our society, the traffic, the job insecurity, the machines we're plugged into, the fear-mongering, the pharmaceutical drugs people are popping -- NOW MORE THAN EVER I DO NOT WANT NERVOUS PEOPLE TO HAVE GUNS IN THEIR HANDS.
The ENLIGHTENED, HARMONIOUS, long view is to work together to heal the ills of our society, tone down the desperation, the attraction to violence, and help us understand each other's tragedy. Truly damaged people should not be able to buy guns.
This kid was a ticking time bomb; his English teacher knew it. Why didn't someone put out an alert via his Driver's license, warning gun shop owners not to sell this kid GUNS!!
I am so sick of the NRA.
People should prove why they need a gun; hunting licenses aside, they should be tested thoroughly before owning a weapon that can kill a human being.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThat is a very impressive number. Speaker Nancy Pelosi is at 53% approval in the WaPo/ABC poll. That's even a decent number for a president. But the Speakership is an inherently partisan position -- a post far easier to villify than to mobilize around. By way of contrast, Newt Gingrich maxed out at 41% approval and spent most of his time in the thirties.
ReplyDelete-- Josh Marshall
*********************************
Too bad Georgie can't barely break 30%
Bhawahwhawhwhwhwahawhwahawhawhawhawhaaaa..
Carl said "See, Rush doesn't make a dime off his hideous program. It's so bad, no station wanted to share revenues, so he was forced to give it to stations, gratis, in exchange for having full say in the content (which is why he endlessly humps his other products, which he makes his money from).
ReplyDeleteThe stations take it because it's pure profit for them: 100% of their ad money goes into their pockets.
AAR doesn't do this. In fact, Clear Channel has been putting together it's own liberal "network" of programming because, in fact, AAR makes money once you factor out the burden of all those owned and leased stations.
I should know. ;-)"
=========
Rush make tens of millions per year. If the top minds in Liberalism can't get a good business plan together other than robbing kids' charities, then they shouldn't managing anything of greater consequence.
Carl, what's this "I should know" business? Are you implying that you are as big of a radio star as you are a movie star. What I see is a lot of posturing. Keep flapping your lips.
Carl's right, get over yourself. Everywhere you go on the Net, you claim that you are being stalked. Don't flatter yourself.
Gee Carl, you think if you repeat that LIE often enough somebody will believe it?
ReplyDeleteLike I said before, either post the comment you CLAIM I made or a link to it.
Or just admit you're a LIAR.
You are easily, hands down the most bigoted racist here.
That should have read "Volt's right," not "Carl's right."
ReplyDelete"Rush doesn't make a dime off his hideous program. It's so bad, no station wanted to share revenues, so he was forced to give it to stations, gratis, in exchange for having full say in the content...
ReplyDelete...The stations take it because it's pure profit for them: 100% of their ad money goes into their pockets."
-Carl the LIAR
Excuse me Carl, but IF it's so bad then surely he doesn't have enough listeners to support much ad revenue?
Carl said: "See, Rush doesn't make a dime off his hideous program."
ReplyDeleteNow that's a tall one. $20-$40 million per year is FAR more than a dime.
Volt, do you notice that sometimes we make very similar comments at almost the same time, on occasion.
ReplyDeleteYou know TT, attributing a racist comment to another person falsely is libel isn't it? Defamation at the very least.
ReplyDeleteI'll have to check with my attorney.
I have TT, great minds you know.
ReplyDeleteVolt, it's defamation to be sure. Generally libel applies to the written word and slander to the spoken word.
ReplyDeleteIf the false attribution is part of an obvious parody, there may be a defense to it, but I don't see a elements of parody in Carl's words.
I can't even count the times that Carl has likened us to Nazis. Over and over and over again.
ReplyDeletePardon the typos, I've had a long day. I don't want to sleep now because I'll mess up my circadian rhythm.
ReplyDeleteNo problem TT, yes the nazi thing is bad enough, but he's claiming I've made some comment regarding "Lawn N*****s".
ReplyDeleteI know I haven't.
And about this claim that I called Lydia an anti-Semite: I recall the general subject matter being brought up as part of a general discussion in the wake of Mel Gibson's comments, but I don't recall saying that about Lydia. I don't think it's something I would do, despite the onslaught of Teutonic and Nazi epithets hurled our way.
ReplyDeleteLydia is NOT an anti-Semite, and if I ever said that, I apologize.
That said, I think it would be very big of Lydia to call out those who compare many of us to Nazis, or the "Reichwing."
TT - what do you mean, "Carl's right, get over yourself... you mention being stalked.
ReplyDeleteWho are you talking to here?
Volt, if you have the energy, you might consider challenging his assertion at every opportunity, and if he can't supply proof, an apology from him would be in order. But I'm not optimistic; he's too caught up in his own world and too proud to admit a wrong.
ReplyDeleteLydia, I meant to say "Volt's right." I was addressing Carl and his constant whining about being stalked.
ReplyDeleteLydia, it's not that I'm unsympathetic to genuine stalking victims (and I believe you when you say you got death threats, etc). But the minute Carl is called on his BS, he claims he's a stalking victim. It never ends with him.
ReplyDelete"In fact, your buttbuddy, TallTexan, was the first to allude to it, the day it happened!"
ReplyDelete-Carl the LIAR
Actually Carl, Imus made his remarks on the 4th of April.
The first mention of it on this blog is in Lydia's thread of the 11th, by Clif I might add.
(I know it was made AFTER the 11th too, but since there isn't a date stamp on the post...)
" Clif said...
MSNBC has just announced they will stop carrying the Don Imus radio show in the morning....
3:40 PM"
Like I said earlier:
"Carl, Imus comments were made almost a WEEK before all the sudden outrage.
It was started by an email campaign from "Media Matters" and erupted when Al Sharpton finally got told about it.
Almost NOBODY had heard it, or heard ABOUT it, or was "offended" and "scarred for life" until YOUR side blew it all out of proportion."
So basically you're STILL a LIAR.
Lydia, I hope this doesn't sound sexist, but genuine stalking is far more dangerous when a female is a victim. As a male, I had an ex girlfried follow me for about a week. At the time, the word "stalking" didn't enter my mind, but I found it uncomfortable. I didn't feel threatened. I was more annoyed.
ReplyDeleteBut if you Google Carl, he's suddenly a horrible victim of stalking, or so he claims. Hence Volt's comment to "Get over yourself."
BTW, If your interested TT, here's the story of how they brought down Imus.
ReplyDeleteAnd, for the record, I say that Ann Coulter was flat out wrong in publishing your private contact info, and I would tell that to her face. No one deserves that.
ReplyDeleteA real man would stick up for any woman who is being harrassed or threatened. If Ann's response to you is to publish private info, then she is way, way out of line. I know I've said this before, but it bears repeating.
I don't care who it happens to, it's still worng. Michelle Malkin makes a habit of publishing death threats to her on her blog. If I could advise her, I would suggest that she discontinue that practice as it may only invite more hate letters.
If she did that TT, I would also say the same.
ReplyDeleteAll I saw was the info of Lydia's husbands company, and I assumed the info was corporate in nature.
Anyways, I need to get some sleep tonight. Catch ya tomorrow.
ReplyDeleteGood article, Volt. Get some sleep.
ReplyDeleteMy goodness. Everyone else thinks they're kooks, so they go into overdrive trying to fill the comments up with self-congratulatory b******s to each other.
ReplyDeleteHow sad this is. Perhaps the Slow Texan and Tonka Boy should joint blog somewhere-the laughs alone will keep me reading it.
BTW Worf,
ReplyDeleteEmpty your mailbox.
Personally I am sick already about hearing about the shooting. Not because it is not an important story. It is.
ReplyDeleteBut because since the moment it happened it has been the ONLY story the news will talk about. Even Keith Olberman is guilty of pandering to this national obsession with the morbid and with death.
It was a horrible tragedy to be sure but there is plenty of horror and tragedy going on around the world, particularly in Iraq. And there are important stories to discuss. You'd never know the Attorney General of the United States is about to testify before Congress tomorrow in a high stakes hearing. You'd never know we were at war.
Because for 24 hours a day, every day, all the news talks about is every possible insignificant detail about everyone involved and everyone who knew someone who may have been involved. We don't need to see baby pictures of the killer or know what type of salad dressing one of the victims preferred. Its insane.
Anyone ever bother to think at the very least this causes great grief to the families and loved ones of the victims. Imagine days after this horrible shooting, you're tyring to drown out your pain and you flip on the TV, only to be greeted by Kyra Phillips showing the trajectory the bullet that went through one of the victims heads took on a color coded diagram.
Does any of the media every really think of the familes? Other than that is, to bombard them with requests for exclusive interviews?
But theres even a darker side effect I believe of these 24 hour news saturation debacles.
I think they motivate more killing. After all, people see these killers faces and names up in lights as it were, and they think, "hey, people are afraid of that guy, and he's got his picture everywhere, I'll do it too, and become famous".
I know this stuff never used to happen this much, but since we started this 24 hour day in day out media circus and obsession with marketing crime, it suddenly happens all the time.
I think Lydia's prayers to the family are good, but I don't think that piece of shit deserves his face up on the front of the blog.
I say stop glorifying them and let em die in obscurity.
The Imus Lynch Party
ReplyDeleteBy Pat Buchanan
Saturday, April 14, 2007
WASHINGTON
In the end, it was not about Imus. It was about us.
Are we really a better country because, after he was publicly whipped for 10 days as the worst kind of racist, with whom no decent person could associate, he was thrown off the air? (On Thursday CBS fired Don Imus from his radio program.)
Cards on the table. This writer works for MSNBC, has been on the Imus show scores of times, watched Imus every morning, and liked the show, the music and the guys: the I-Man, Bernie, Charles and Tom Bowman.
And Imus is among the best interviewers in our business. Not only does he read and follow the news closely, he listens and probes as well as any interviewer in America. Because he is a comic, people mistake how good a questioner he is.
Was "Imus in the Morning" outrageous? Over the top at times? Yeah. But outrageousness was part of the show, whether the skits are of "Teddy Kennedy," "Reverend Falwell," "Mayor Nagin" or "The Cardinal."
And when Imus called the Rutgers women's basketball team "tattooed ... nappy-headed hos," he went over the top. The women deserved an apology. There was no cause, no call to use those terms.
But Imus did apologize, again and again and again.
And lest we forget, these are athletes in their prime, the same age as young women in Iraq. They are not 5-year-old girls, and they are capable of brushing off an ignorant comment by a talk-show host who does not know them or anything about them.
Who, after all, believed the slur was true? No one.
Compare, if you will, what was done to them -- a single nasty insult -- to the savage slanders for weeks on end of the Duke lacrosse team and the three players accused by a lying stripper of having gang-raped her at a frat party.
Duke faculty and talking heads took that occasion to vent their venom toward all white "jocks" on college campuses. Where are the demands for apologies from the talk-show hosts, guests, Duke faculty members and smear artists, all of whom bought into the lies about those Duke kids -- because the lies comported with their hateful view of America?
And hate is what this is all about.
While the remarks of Imus and Bernie about the Rutgers women were indefensible, they were more unthinking and stupid than vicious and malicious.
The hypocrisy here was too thick to cut with a chainsaw.
What was the term the I-Man used? It was "hos," slang for whores, a term employed ad infinitum et ad nauseam by rap and hip-hop "artists."
If the word "hos" is a filthy insult to decent black women, and it is, why are hip-hop artists and rap singers who use it incessantly not pariahs in the black community?
Answer: The issue here is not the word Imus used. The issue is who Imus is -- a white man who used a term about black women only black folks are permitted to use with impunity and immunity.
Whatever Imus' sins, no one deserves to have Al Sharpton -- hero of the Tawana Brawley hoax, resolute defender of the fake rape charge against half a dozen innocent guys, which ruined lives -- sit in moral judgment.
Who is next? And why do we take it?
I did a bad thing, but I am not a bad person, says Imus. Indeed, whoever used his microphone to do more good for more people -- be they the cancer kids of the Imus Ranch, the families of Iraq war dead now more justly compensated because of the I-Man or the cause of a cure for autism?
Imus threw himself on the mercy of the court of elite opinion -- and that court, pandering to the mob, lynched him. Yet, for all his sins, he was a better man than the lot of them rejoicing at the foot of the cottonwood tree.
Pat Buchanan edits The American Conservative magazine.
Voltron said...
ReplyDeleteBTW Worf,
Empty your mailbox.
What the hell are you talking about now?
I WORFEUS said...
ReplyDeletePersonally I am sick already about hearing about the shooting. Not because it is not an important story. It is.
But because since the moment it happened it has been the ONLY story the news will talk about. Even Keith Olberman is guilty of pandering to this national obsession with the morbid and with death.
It was a horrible tragedy to be sure but there is plenty of horror and tragedy going on around the world, particularly in Iraq. And there are important stories to discuss. You'd never know the Attorney General of the United States is about to testify before Congress tomorrow in a high stakes hearing. You'd never know we were at war.
Because for 24 hours a day, every day, all the news talks about is every possible insignificant detail about everyone involved and everyone who knew someone who may have been involved. We don't need to see baby pictures of the killer or know what type of salad dressing one of the victims preferred. Its insane.
Anyone ever bother to think at the very least this causes great grief to the families and loved ones of the victims. Imagine days after this horrible shooting, you're tyring to drown out your pain and you flip on the TV, only to be greeted by Kyra Phillips showing the trajectory the bullet that went through one of the victims heads took on a color coded diagram.
Does any of the media every really think of the familes? Other than that is, to bombard them with requests for exclusive interviews?
But theres even a darker side effect I believe of these 24 hour news saturation debacles.
I think they motivate more killing. After all, people see these killers faces and names up in lights as it were, and they think, "hey, people are afraid of that guy, and he's got his picture everywhere, I'll do it too, and become famous".
I know this stuff never used to happen this much, but since we started this 24 hour day in day out media circus and obsession with marketing crime, it suddenly happens all the time.
I think Lydia's prayers to the family are good, but I don't think that piece of shit deserves his face up on the front of the blog.
I say stop glorifying them and let em die in obscurity."
DITTO!!!!!!!
Its a tragedy, my heart goes out to the victims and their families.........but enough allready i'm sick o hearing about it 24/7 on EVERY sINGLE CHANNEL.
I want to hear news about OTHER pertinent events and watch shows i regularly watch......i dont want to be subjected to the MSM's current obsession 24/7 to the exclusion of all else, what the hell do we have news shows for if they interupt EVERY SHOW 24/7 when anything they can ram down our throats and try to make trendy pops up........its despicable, they are sensationalizing a tragedy and encouraging other wacco's who crave the attention to do similar things........thats why i rarely watch the news because they are a joke.
Its mordbid Mike.
ReplyDeleteAnd its profiteering of the worst kind.
Voltron still has me confused with Lydia's hosting company I think.
ReplyDeleteHopefully he will pester them enough so they sue him or something.
He probably calls them up everyday and says, "hey, is Worfeus there?" lol.
Hey Volt. Enough already.
I've offered several times to "exchange" contact information with you, so you will know who I am and I will know who you are.
But you declined.
If you want to exchange contact information my offer still stands. Lydia can mediate it.
But quit with the Maxwell Smart impersonation. Its getting old.
War with Iran?
ReplyDeleteDEPARTMENT Washington Babylon
BY Ken Silverstein
PUBLISHED February 14, 2007
Is war with Iran on the way? Yesterday we heard from independent analysts, today we'll hear from four former CIA officials, and tomorrow we'll hear from people at major think tanks.
Milt Bearden
Milt Bearden is an author and film consultant. A former senior CIA officer, he served as station chief in Pakistan from 1986 until the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan in 1989.
As insane as the prospect for war might seem to those of us who have spent parts of our lives in the shadow of a mosque, it is impossible to ignore the drumbeats for war with Iran. Yes, I think Americans should be prepared to wake up one morning and find themselves at war with Iran.
I am seeing constant trumpeting by the administration of “evidence” of Iranian weapons, equipment, or technology, linked with American casualties in Iraq. I don't know why anyone would be surprised by Iranian gambling in our Iraqi casino—especially as there are time-honored rules, at least a half-century old, for proxy wars. The Soviets and Chinese armed our adversaries in the Korean and Vietnam conflicts, where we suffered about 100,000 killed in action. Nevertheless, successive American administrations never gave serious thought to attacking either China or the U.S.S.R. in response to their arming of our enemies. And I personally funneled much of the ordnance to the Afghan resistance fighters that killed 15,000 Soviet troops in Afghanistan. Here again, the U.S.S.R. never seriously considered striking at the source of their torment in Afghanistan.
If the administration uses Iran's involvement in the Iraq misadventure as a casus belli, the American people should at least know the historical realities before we're piped off to yet another folly. Going to war with Iran will have no good outcome for anyone except Iran. We have neither the forces nor the money for such a war, and those who think they can get by with “shock and awe” need to be shouted down now.
It is entirely possible that we've already lost the Iraq enterprise; it is also possible that as we turn up the heat in Afghanistan—there is much talk about an American “Spring offensive”—we will create a generalized resistance to our occupation and lose that war as well. Our planned tactics for the new “fighting season” in Afghanistan are hauntingly reminiscent of the failed tactics of the U.S.S.R. in their Afghan misadventure. I watched with amazement as the U.S.S.R. did everything wrong in Afghanistan, finally pulled out, and ended up losing their “empire.” Take note.
Anonymous Former CIA Official #1
A former CIA official, who asked to remain unnamed. He was stationed in the Persian Gulf during the first Gulf War and served in Iraq after the 2003 invasion.
I don't think the administration is about to carry out military action. The military does not want to do this. We will lose planes if there is a massive air strike over Iran, we'll have pilots killed and captured. Iran has a lot of ways to hurt us. If they decide to come after uniformed personnel in Iraq, or more easily, civilians and contractors, things could quickly get out of hand. You could have kidnappings or a mass casualty attack—they drove us out of Lebanon in the 1980s; a mass casualty attack like the Marine barracks bombing would likely be the end in Iraq.
But the administration's actions are increasing the chances for an accidental confrontation. People don't realize how small and narrow the Gulf is, especially as you approach the Straits of Hormuz. The tanker/container and related commerce traffic is incredible and it goes on twenty-four hours a day. We've already got one carrier battle group there and now we're going to put in another one, which will add a huge footprint. When you have, on both sides, nineteen-year-olds manning weapons, it's a formula for an accident that could spin out of control.
Here's an example: Every night, members of the Revolutionary Guard pack up their speed boats with rugs and crafts, really pricey stuff. They weave their way through all the traffic on the Gulf and sell the stuff on remote areas of beach just north of Sharjah, Ajman, and Umm al Qaywayn. They off-load and sell their goods and then load up with Jack Daniels, porn, CDs, electronics, satellite receivers, and computers, and weave their way back through traffic to Iran. At 3 a.m. on a moonless night, one of those boats speeding across the Gulf could easily cross the defensive radar signature of a U.S. frigate, and it's going to get shot up. So you have a situation that is essentially an accident, and all of a sudden you have a crisis.
Military action is not the best option. This is not like Iraq's Osirak reactor, which Israel destroyed in 1981. In that case, there was a single target. Iran's nuclear program is dispersed and our intelligence picture is thin because we don't have enough well-placed spies. It would take a massive air strike package with consecutive strikes to hit all the targets. You could hurt them and complicate their activities, but I don't think you could turn off their program.
The way to pressure the Iranian government is through pressure inside Iran and inside Iraq. There's a thirst for information in Iran and we should be bombarding them with accurate information via conventional and unconventional means. We could be using TV and radio broadcasts, the Internet, Wi-Fi networks in Iraq, and underground newspapers to reach Iranians. There are about 60,000 Iranians in the Los Angeles area, many with daily contact with family and colleagues in Iran. Los Angeles is the headquarters for the American media/movie/television apparatus—and yet we're not broadcasting into Iran. Turn them loose! They can produce soap operas, talk shows, news programs, entertainment shows, all in Farsi.
Propagandizing is part of the CIA's mission charter, but the current leadership has decided against it. (They've also decided against covert action, direct action, covert influence, and other active measures.) The agency did it for years in Eastern Europe, Africa, Central and South America, and other parts of the world during the Cold War, with huge impact. With advances in technology, it's so much easier to do now.
When I started in this business, there was only TV, radio, and print, and it was very hard to influence what was shown on TV. Now you can plant a story on the Internet in a couple of minutes. You want to make Ahmadinejad react to stories—create the perception of a rift between him and the religious leadership and cast it as a problem in the country. The rumor mill works overtime in that part of the world. You'd want nuggets of truth in these stories, aimed at Iranian youth. We should be emphasizing the huge unemployment in Iran, the staleness of the revolution, the age of the mullahs, and how they live very well—their pious lifestyle is all baloney. But doing it requires too much effort, and careers could be risked.
Frank Anderson
Frank Anderson worked for the CIA from 1968 until 1995. He served three tours of duty in the Middle East as an agency station chief, headed the Afghan Task Force (1987-1989), and was chief of the Near East Division. He now runs a consulting practice that focuses on the Middle East.
I think that the Bush Administration has certainly ordered up contingency plans that give them military options for dealing with three possible Iran-related objectives. In decreasing order of importance, possible triggers for war are:
Reaction to Iranian support for attacks on U.S. troops;
Destruction or delay of Iranian nuclear capability; and/or
Regime change (the guys who brought us the Iraq war are still in charge).
Any administration would so prepare. This administration has, at least, a significant minority of officials who are determined to take on Iran, with the goals of destroying nuclear capabilities and/or regime change, before they leave office. Couple that with an abundant supply of provocations from an Iranian President whose political core is radically and almost recklessly anti-American. Thus, I think we're “locked and loaded” for an attack.
That said, the barriers to action are formidable. The President's party has lost control of the legislature and is in trouble over war in the Middle East. Interestingly, the last Iranian elections showed that the Iranian President is also in trouble, mostly over botched economic performance, but his opponents have linked the troubled economy to Ahmadinejad's confrontational foreign and nuclear policies. So, no matter how much the national executive on both sides might want a fight, they are both constrained. Moreover, it's difficult to come up with a “target deck” that, if struck, would make a strategic difference worth the political price. Of course, even the Administration's biggest war fans have to deal with the condition of our overall military capabilities and our weakened diplomatic position.
We should be trying to cope with Iran, rather than trying to take them out. Were I still taking a government paycheck, I would be pushing for coping mechanisms but also looking hard for intelligence on which to base strikes that could take out targets clearly tied to Iranian misdeeds in Iraq, like I.E.D. engineering and supply. I'd also look for, but doubt I could find, some set of critical targets whose destruction could seriously impact the prospects for an Iranian nuclear weapon.
My bottom-line guess is that we don't have the intelligence or military capability that would justify an attack on Iran that would be worth the significant cost. With the President politically constrained, that makes me bet against it, but the spread isn't big.
Anonymous Former CIA Official #2
A former senior CIA official, who preferred to remain unidentified, but who has broad experience in the Middle East.
The Bush Administration's combative rhetoric—its accusations about Iran's nuclear program, involvement in Iraq, and support for Hezbollah and Hamas—looks like a prelude to military action. It's eerily reminiscent of the fall 2002/winter 2003 rhetoric on Iraq, when the administration was talking about WMDs and Saddam Hussein's meddling in the region. It's back to the future. The administration is unlikely to embark upon military action immediately, but it's trying to squeeze Iran, to egg on the government, and hoping that Iran commits some sort of military action that the Bush Administration can use as justification for a strike. The administration was hurt by the accusation that it conducted a war of choice against Iraq, so it's trying to create a situation where it can say this is a war of necessity against Iran. But its actions are essentially the same thing as planning to go to war.
I see four types of evidence that the administration is planning military action. First, it is escalating its anti-Iran rhetoric. Second, it is parading evidence about Iranian involvement in Iraq, citing intelligence reports, serial numbers of weapons, and so on. Third, the United States is building up its military presence in the Gulf. Fourth, pro-United States regimes in the region, with encouragement, clearly, by the Bush Administration, are issuing statements denouncing Iran's threatening posture towards them, and its alleged efforts to pressure for the “Shiite-ification” of Sunni communities.
Despite differences between Shiites and Sunnis, a U.S. attack on Iran would be viewed in the region as the fifth in a series of American wars against Islam—after Afghanistan, Iraq, Hamas, and Hezbollah. Iran and its supporters will seek to respond, including through attacks on Israel. An American strike poses a huge threat to Israel, which I'm not sure the administration has thought through. It will also destabilize pro-American regimes in the region, solidify the jihadists in Iraq, and unify Iranians around their government.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTwo things will happen if this country attacks Iran.
ReplyDelete(1.) The US will go into default in short order, as we have nothing to trade with anyone anymore and an attack on Iran will piss the Chinese off enough to dump their dollars on the world currency markets.
(2.) As a result of that default, the Federal Government will not be able to assert its authority in the States any longer. States will begin to break off, perhaps as groups, with maybe one or two bigger ones going it totally solo.
And another one bites the dust;
ReplyDeleteSenate Ethics Confirms Domenici Probe Over U.S. Attorney Firing
The Senate, thanks a resolution it just adopted, has confirmed that Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) is the subject of "preliminary inquiry" over his involvement in the firing of former U.S. Attorney David Iglesias.
The Senate just adopted a resolution (S. Res. 153) stating that "for matters before the Select Committee on Ethics involving the preliminary inquiry arising in connection with alleged communications by persons within the committee's jurisdiction with and concerning David C. Iglesias, then United States Attorney for the District of New Mexico, and the subsequent action by the committee with respect to that matter, if any, the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Salazar) shall be replaced by the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Brown)."
The passage of the resolution confirms that Domenici is being scrutinized by the Ethics Committee over a phone call he made to Iglesias, prior to the November election, inquiring whether Iglesias was going to indict some New Mexico Democrats. Up until this point, the Ethics Committee has refused to state whether it is actually investigating Domenici.
Domenici has denied any wrongdoing in the matter, but he complained personally to President Bush about Iglesias, and Iglesias was removed from his post on Dec. 7. Iglesias told congressional investigators that he received calls on the issue from both Domenici and Rep. Heather Wilson (R-N.M.).
It is unclear why Salazar asked to be recused from the Ethics Committee probe into Domenici. A call to Salazar's office was not returned by press time.
Chris Gallegos, a Domenici spokesman, said Domenici "would not comment on this at all because of the preliminary inquiry" by the Ethics panel, including whether the New Mexico Republican has met with or been interviewed by the committee. Domenici has retained attorney Lee Blalack to represent him during the probe.
* Update: AP Is reporting the Salazar is recusing himself from this case because of his close personal relationship with Patricia Madrid, Wilson's Democratic opponent last cycle.
**********************************
Hopefully the old foole will accept he did a NO NO, resign, then Gov Richardson could appoint his democratic replacement, another re-pubies bites the dust, don't cha love it.
If Dumenici is gone the senate goes to 50 48 2, and Lierman is totally irrelevant, so the democrats can then kick his sorry ass to the curb, and strip him of his chairmanship so something actually gets done on that committee.
Totally Accurate
ReplyDeleteCheck out the new thread; it's up.
ReplyDeletethank you!
Tall Texan said...
ReplyDeleteThe Imus Lynch Party
By Pat Buchanan
Saturday, April 14, 2007
WASHINGTON
In the end, it was not about Imus. It was about us.
Hey! A Conservative who "gets it"! Hatred has no place in this nation anymore!
Awright!
Voltron said...
ReplyDelete"In fact, your buttbuddy, TallTexan, was the first to allude to it, the day it happened!"
-Carl the LIAR
Actually Carl, Imus made his remarks on the 4th of April.
Right, and Texasshole made note of it April 5th.
So you were lying, I mean, saying????
Tall Texan said...
ReplyDeleteLydia, it's not that I'm unsympathetic to genuine stalking victims (and I believe you when you say you got death threats, etc). But the minute Carl is called on his BS, he claims he's a stalking victim. It never ends with him.
Do you deny that you looked up and posted my personal information on this blog, Texasshole, yes or no?
Just like Ann Coulter posted Lydia's home address?
BY DEFINITION, that is cyberstalking and YOU are a criminal...
Voltron said...
ReplyDeleteYou know TT, attributing a racist comment to another person falsely is libel isn't it? Defamation at the very least.
Yes, but you're sub-human, so....
BIG SHMILE, you Nazi, BIG SHMILE!