Next Target Iran.

[red states rule]

Oh, I'm sorry. Did it get gangrenous and fall off?

like his small brain - no great loss

 

[red states rule]

Libs have a nasty habit of defedning terrorists and bashing America


WashPost Hypes Pentagon Protest With Ramsey Clark, Leaves Out His Saddam Lawyering
Posted by Tim Graham on March 16, 2007 - 07:43.
The Washington Post's reverence for protests -- the leftist ones, that is -- is clearly on display on the front of Friday's Metro section, with advance publicity for a Saturday "peace" march on the Pentagon starring Ramsey Clark, fresh from his unsuccessful defense lawyering for Saddam Hussein. (That fact is never mentioned in Steve Vogel's article.) On roughly the fourth anniversary of the initial blitz on Baghdad and forty years after the violent "levitate the Pentagon" protests of 1967, the Post splashes photographs down most of the front page of Metro, of 1967 at the top and 2007 at the bottom. The story sprawled out across most of B-3, and included another story by Michael Ruane on Christian "peace witness" at the White House.

Two months ago, the Post gave the March for Life and against abortion a tiny box inside the paper on the day of the rally, complete with "pro-choice" events. That could not be defined as splashy pre-protest publicity.

Vogel's report carried the headline: "Once More to the Pentagon: Demonstrators Evoke Historic Confrontation In Planning March, Rally Opposing Iraq War." At the top of the page, a caption of a 1967 photograph read: "The Oct. 21 march marked a turning point in public sentiment toward the Vietnam War, former attorney general Ramsey Clark says." Clark emerges later in the story as well:

"The 1967 march wasn't the biggest, but in some ways it's the most historically significant because of the target," said Brian Becker, national coordinator of the ANSWER Coalition, the main sponsor of tomorrow's protest. "It represented a shift in public opinion."

In tying their protest to the Oct. 21, 1967, march, organizers say they are capitalizing on a similar climate among angry voters who believe the results of November elections have been ignored.

Ramsey Clark, who as attorney general for President Lyndon Johnson helped oversee the administration's preparations for the march, said that day shifted the ground under the government. "From that moment, I got the feeling that we'd reached a turning point in the commitment of many people to ending the war in Vietnam," Clark said in an interview this week.

Whether today's feelings match those of 40 years ago is another question. Clark will be among the speakers tomorrow. "I can't tell you that we have the depth of passion or breadth of commitment today that we had then," Clark said.

Vogel obviously did not work on this story for a day or two. It reads like a reverent history of the 1967 protest. While it does include testimony from Pentagon personnel who recount the violence and vulgarity of protesters, it elevates the protest into a historical touchstone or turning point, as Clark claimed in the caption. Vogel's second paragraph betrays his attraction to the protesters and their apparently earth-shattering activism:

The 1967 march on the Pentagon to protest the Vietnam War became a touchstone event in American history, one that pitted U.S. citizens against "the true and high church of the military-industrial complex," as marcher and author Norman Mailer put it.

Vogel promotes to Post readers how buses and vans will come from all over to protest. (The same was true of the March for Life, but Post readers weren't told that a few weeks ago):

Buses, vans and caravans from across the United States are coming, organizers say, with veterans, soldiers and military family members marching in the first rank of the demonstration. Heading across the Arlington Memorial Bridge to the Pentagon north parking lot, the demonstrators will follow literally in the steps of the earlier protesters. A counter-demonstration in support of the war is also planned for tomorrow.

Will the counter-demonstrators get their own picture in addition to that measly sentence? They certainly did at the March for Life.

Vogel uses no labels to describe Clark, Becker, the ANSWER Coalition, or any other radical leftist that's quoted. The only references to ideology were vague descriptions of historical perceptions of the 1967 march:

The 1967 march still raises emotions at both ends of the political spectrum. On the left, it is remembered as a time when peaceful marchers were confronted by bayonet-wielding soldiers and beaten. On the right, the march is recalled as a disgraceful event during which military police were subjected to terrible abuse from protesters.

History shows that both views hold elements of truth. Soldiers manning the line in front of the Pentagon Mall entrance were taunted with vicious slurs and pelted with garbage and fish. Some defenseless protesters sitting peacefully were clubbed and hauled off.

In his article on the White House "Christian peace witness," Ruane used the P-word just once:

The event is sponsored by the District-based Sojourners/Call to Renewal, a progressive religious group, along with the American Friends Service Committee, Lutheran Peace Fellowship, Sisters of Mercy of the Americas, and more than two dozen other Protestant and Catholic groups.

Ruane also noted that activist Celeste Zappala, whose son died in Iraq, will be there, and so will Taylor Branch, a Friend of Bill (Clinton) and the author of several books on Martin Luther King Jr.

http://newsbusters.org/node/11457

 

[Vintij]

Libs have a nasty habit of defedning terrorists and bashing America


WashPost Hypes Pentagon Protest With Ramsey Clark, Leaves Out His Saddam Lawyering
Posted by Tim Graham on March 16, 2007 - 07:43.
The Washington Post's reverence for protests -- the leftist ones, that is -- is clearly on display on the front of Friday's Metro section, with advance publicity for a Saturday "peace" march on the Pentagon starring Ramsey Clark, fresh from his unsuccessful defense lawyering for Saddam Hussein. (That fact is never mentioned in Steve Vogel's article.) On roughly the fourth anniversary of the initial blitz on Baghdad and forty years after the violent "levitate the Pentagon" protests of 1967, the Post splashes photographs down most of the front page of Metro, of 1967 at the top and 2007 at the bottom. The story sprawled out across most of B-3, and included another story by Michael Ruane on Christian "peace witness" at the White House.

Two months ago, the Post gave the March for Life and against abortion a tiny box inside the paper on the day of the rally, complete with "pro-choice" events. That could not be defined as splashy pre-protest publicity.

Vogel's report carried the headline: "Once More to the Pentagon: Demonstrators Evoke Historic Confrontation In Planning March, Rally Opposing Iraq War." At the top of the page, a caption of a 1967 photograph read: "The Oct. 21 march marked a turning point in public sentiment toward the Vietnam War, former attorney general Ramsey Clark says." Clark emerges later in the story as well:

"The 1967 march wasn't the biggest, but in some ways it's the most historically significant because of the target," said Brian Becker, national coordinator of the ANSWER Coalition, the main sponsor of tomorrow's protest. "It represented a shift in public opinion."

In tying their protest to the Oct. 21, 1967, march, organizers say they are capitalizing on a similar climate among angry voters who believe the results of November elections have been ignored.

Ramsey Clark, who as attorney general for President Lyndon Johnson helped oversee the administration's preparations for the march, said that day shifted the ground under the government. "From that moment, I got the feeling that we'd reached a turning point in the commitment of many people to ending the war in Vietnam," Clark said in an interview this week.

Whether today's feelings match those of 40 years ago is another question. Clark will be among the speakers tomorrow. "I can't tell you that we have the depth of passion or breadth of commitment today that we had then," Clark said.

Vogel obviously did not work on this story for a day or two. It reads like a reverent history of the 1967 protest. While it does include testimony from Pentagon personnel who recount the violence and vulgarity of protesters, it elevates the protest into a historical touchstone or turning point, as Clark claimed in the caption. Vogel's second paragraph betrays his attraction to the protesters and their apparently earth-shattering activism:

The 1967 march on the Pentagon to protest the Vietnam War became a touchstone event in American history, one that pitted U.S. citizens against "the true and high church of the military-industrial complex," as marcher and author Norman Mailer put it.

Vogel promotes to Post readers how buses and vans will come from all over to protest. (The same was true of the March for Life, but Post readers weren't told that a few weeks ago):

Buses, vans and caravans from across the United States are coming, organizers say, with veterans, soldiers and military family members marching in the first rank of the demonstration. Heading across the Arlington Memorial Bridge to the Pentagon north parking lot, the demonstrators will follow literally in the steps of the earlier protesters. A counter-demonstration in support of the war is also planned for tomorrow.

Will the counter-demonstrators get their own picture in addition to that measly sentence? They certainly did at the March for Life.

Vogel uses no labels to describe Clark, Becker, the ANSWER Coalition, or any other radical leftist that's quoted. The only references to ideology were vague descriptions of historical perceptions of the 1967 march:

The 1967 march still raises emotions at both ends of the political spectrum. On the left, it is remembered as a time when peaceful marchers were confronted by bayonet-wielding soldiers and beaten. On the right, the march is recalled as a disgraceful event during which military police were subjected to terrible abuse from protesters.

History shows that both views hold elements of truth. Soldiers manning the line in front of the Pentagon Mall entrance were taunted with vicious slurs and pelted with garbage and fish. Some defenseless protesters sitting peacefully were clubbed and hauled off.

In his article on the White House "Christian peace witness," Ruane used the P-word just once:

The event is sponsored by the District-based Sojourners/Call to Renewal, a progressive religious group, along with the American Friends Service Committee, Lutheran Peace Fellowship, Sisters of Mercy of the Americas, and more than two dozen other Protestant and Catholic groups.

Ruane also noted that activist Celeste Zappala, whose son died in Iraq, will be there, and so will Taylor Branch, a Friend of Bill (Clinton) and the author of several books on Martin Luther King Jr.

http://newsbusters.org/node/11457

Its another POV article. yawn. All this demonstrates is democracy and freedom of speach. This is america, protests are common, as well as articles like this one.

 

[Paul Revere]

Iran has been supplying our enemies in Iraq and even sending troops lately. Let's stop tip toeing around the issue and admit that they are engaged in a war against us.

Leaving Iraq will not stop war. The only way to stop the war is to defeat our enemies.

First are you saying that never leaning Iraq is going to be worth the cost of dforever fighting insurgents/resistance fighters that our presence their creates?

Second, please provide a credible source that Iran is supplying enmies in Iraq and sending troops. The only sources I ahve found have been 'unnamed' and Michael R. Gordon, the same New York Times reporter who wrote some of the key, and badly misleading, inaccurate, totally false articles about Iraqi WMDs in the run-up to the 2003 invasion.

Bush was wrong, the 'fool-me's can get fooled again!

 

[Vintij]

Sorry, I doubt congress will approve any military action on Iran despite if they are supplying weapons or not. Bush already used that excuse up and lost everyones trust on military intellegence matters. The invisible weapons one, was used on iraq.

 

[Paul Revere]

Sorry, I doubt congress will approve any military action on Iran despite if they are supplying weapons or not. Bush already used that excuse up and lost everyones trust on military intellegence matters. The invisible weapons one, was used on iraq.

Do you believe he will care whether Congress approves or not?

Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel (R) has quoted Bush as sayng,"I will not respond to what the people of this country are saying about Iraq or anything else'" and "I don't care what the Congress does, I am going to proceed." Senator Hagel is talking about possible impeachment. If he is impeached, it will be the first time an American dictator will have been impeached.

I hope that both Bush and Cheney are impeached. Then investigated, tied and punished as trators to the US and the Constitution. You plastic patriots that still back him are no better that the "good Germans" of the 1930's Germany.

 

[Emmett]

Iran may capture as many Allied soldiers as they like and feel no retribution! OK< How many soldiers will they be allowed to kidnap?

a) 15

b) 1500

c) 15,000

d) as many as they want



As I am just as sure as you lefties are that Suddam Hussein was a good, morale man of high character, and that damn president Bush should never have "dethrowned" his ass.

American soldiers are all killers, just worthless murderers, right?

Iran needs a nuclear weapon, right?

Since we have pointed out all of Mr. Bush's crimes and other shortcomings, what would YOU, should I say, what should WE do now? Impeach Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney, let's see, that would make Nancy Pelosi the President. OK, that lends new meaning to the word safety, does it not?

Don't you think we should build some nuclear plants for Hizbollah also, maybe lend them a few nukes too.

Do you lefties believe there was a holocaust?

I think we should apologize to the Japanese for defending ourselves in World War 2, don't you?

One thing is for absolute sure, we need either the Beast or Osama to be our next President. I would rather be consumed by knats!

 

[maineman]

Iran may capture as many Allied soldiers as they like and feel no retribution! OK< How many soldiers will they be allowed to kidnap?

a) 15

b) 1500

c) 15,000

d) as many as they want



As I am just as sure as you lefties are that Suddam Hussein was a good, morale man of high character, and that damn president Bush should never have "dethrowned" his ass.

American soldiers are all killers, just worthless murderers, right?

Iran needs a nuclear weapon, right?

Since we have pointed out all of Mr. Bush's crimes and other shortcomings, what would YOU, should I say, what should WE do now? Impeach Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney, let's see, that would make Nancy Pelosi the President. OK, that lends new meaning to the word safety, does it not?

Don't you think we should build some nuclear plants for Hizbollah also, maybe lend them a few nukes too.

Do you lefties believe there was a holocaust?

I think we should apologize to the Japanese for defending ourselves in World War 2, don't you?

One thing is for absolute sure, we need either the Beast or Osama to be our next President. I would rather be consumed by knats!

do you wish to be taken seriously by anyone?

 

[Vintij]

Your sarcasm does not portray the democrats position on anything. You basically made up extreme opinions of treasists, not liberals. Mainman is right, if you want to be taken seriously, you should start making sense. Because personally i have never heard any democrat agree or even insinuate one thing you just claimed.

PS. yes we should appologize to the japanese, for murdering 100,000 civlians in one single day, when they were already on the brink of surrender from the previous bombings in the weeks prior. If we are going to drop such a destructive bomb, at least drop it near enemy bases, or anywhere away from 100,000 civilians, 45&#37; of which were women and children.

 

[Emmett]

Your sarcasm does not portray the democrats position on anything. You basically made up extreme opinions of treasists, not liberals. Mainman is right, if you want to be taken seriously, you should start making sense. Because personally i have never heard any democrat agree or even insinuate one thing you just claimed.

PS. yes we should appologize to the japanese, for murdering 100,000 civlians in one single day, when they were already on the brink of surrender from the previous bombings in the weeks prior. If we are going to drop such a destructive bomb, at least drop it near enemy bases, or anywhere away from 100,000 civilians, 45% of which were women and children.

First you say not one democrat agree or even insinuate one thing I claimed. Then you turn right around and say we should apologize for dropping the bomb, which is exactly what I said! So, at least one democrat DOES think we should apologize, YOU!

Now, for your information. The Japanese were never on the brink of surrender. The brink of surrender did not apply to a race of folks who commit suicide to fight a war. When they surrender, they surrender. After, not before, after they were bombed, they surrendered.

Oh, by the way, there were innocent woman and children at Pearl Harbor also pal. Lots of them! You might also want to check your map, there were innocent woman and children in Los Angeles, San Francisco and Seattle. I'll let you figure out the rest of it.

 

[Vintij]

First you say not one democrat agree or even insinuate one thing I claimed. Then you turn right around and say we should apologize for dropping the bomb, which is exactly what I said! So, at least one democrat DOES think we should apologize, YOU!

Now, for your information. The Japanese were never on the brink of surrender. The brink of surrender did not apply to a race of folks who commit suicide to fight a war. When they surrender, they surrender. After, not before, after they were bombed, they surrendered.

Oh, by the way, there were innocent woman and children at Pearl Harbor also pal. Lots of them! You might also want to check your map, there were innocent woman and children in Los Angeles, San Francisco and Seattle. I'll let you figure out the rest of it.

First you say not one democrat agree or even insinuate one thing I claimed. Then you turn right around and say we should apologize for dropping the bomb, which is exactly what I said! So, at least one democrat DOES think we should apologize, YOU!

Now, for your information. The Japanese were never on the brink of surrender. The brink of surrender did not apply to a race of folks who commit suicide to fight a war. When they surrender, they surrender. After, not before, after they were bombed, they surrendered.

Oh, by the way, there were innocent woman and children at Pearl Harbor also pal. Lots of them! You might also want to check your map, there were innocent woman and children in Los Angeles, San Francisco and Seattle. I'll let you figure out the rest of it.

What are you talking about, im not a democrat for starters, That was an assumption. Not suprised.

What does LA, SF, and seatle have to do with this? Japan attacked pearl habor, thats it. Most of the war was faught in the philipines and in japan. Nobody attacked Those citys. Are you in never land or something? And yes, japan was nearly burned to the ground before the atom bomb was dropped. Focus man, just focus.

 

[red states rule]

Cafferty Claims Bush Would Use Detaining of British Soldiers as Pretext to Invade Iran
Posted by Scott Whitlock on March 27, 2007 - 17:00.
According to CNN’s Jack Cafferty, President Bush would jump at the opportunity to use the kidnapping of 15 British soldiers as a pretext to invade Iran. On the Monday edition of "Situation Room," Cafferty asserted that he hoped U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair doesn’t ask George W. Bush to join a coalition of the willing whose goal it is to free the captives.

Jack Cafferty: "Let’s hope British Prime Minister Tony Blair doesn’t ask the United States to join a coalition of the willing to invade Iran and get its hostages back. My feeling is President Bush would be on that like a bird on a worm."

The CNN host also saw scary implications in the fact that the U.S. Navy is just off the coast of Iran:

Jack Cafferty: "Meanwhile, and this is scary, the U.S. Navy has begun large scale military exercises in the Persian Gulf today, one of the biggest shows of force since the invasion of Iraq, with some U.S. Navy warships just miles off the coast of Iran. Here’s the question: ‘How should Britain go about trying to win the release of its captured sailors and Marines from Iran?...It’s a little frightening what’s going on over there right now, Wolf."

Perhaps Mr. Cafferty joins Rosie O’Donnell in theorizing that this whole incident is the second coming of the Gulf of Tonkin incident?

A transcript of the segment, which aired at 4:07pm on March 27, follows:

Jack Cafferty: "Let’s hope British Prime Minister Tony Blair doesn’t ask the United States to join a coalition of the willing to invade Iran and get its hostages back. My feeling is President Bush would be on that like a bird on a worm. To borrow a phrase from the British, the seizing of 15 sailors and Marines last week in the Persian Gulf presents a bit of a sticky wicket for the Prime Minister. And today, Mr. Blair warned Iran that negotiations to get the Brits back will, quote, ‘move into a different phase,’ if diplomacy fails. Iran won’t say where its holding the captors, won’t allow British diplomats to see them. Some hardliners in Iran want to charge them with espionage. The dispute all goes back to whether or not these 15 soldiers and Marines were in, or sailors and Marines, were in Iranian territorial waters or Iraqi territorial waters. When it comes to holding hostages, Iran is a country with a PHD. Remember the ‘70s? Iran held Americans hostage for 444 days. Now, the U.N. voted this last weekend to lay some heavy duty sanctions on Iran because it refuses to stop enriching uranium. So, the holding of these British sailors and Marines could represent an international game of tit-for-tat. Meanwhile, and this is scary, the U.S. Navy has begun large scale military exercises in the Persian Gulf today, one of the biggest shows of force since the invasion of Iraq, with some U.S. Navy warships just miles off the coast of Iran. Here’s the question: ‘How should Britain go about trying to win the release of its captured sailors and marines from Iran? E-mail your thoughts to [email protected] or go to CNN.com/Caffertyfile. It’s a little frightening what’s going on over there right now, Wolf."

http://newsbusters.org/node/11668

 

[Paul Revere]

Bush is looking for a "Gulf of Tonkin Incident", but this is not a good one. To many people in this country and throughout the world know that the British were not were they should have been and were not doing what they were supposed to be doing.

To seize this as his excuse to attack Iran will backfire. Not even Bush is that stupid....never mind.... we are talking about Bush....all cards are up his sleeve.

 

[red states rule]

Bush is looking for a "Gulf of Tonkin Incident", but this is not a good one. To many people in this country and throughout the world know that the British were not were they should have been and were not doing what they were supposed to be doing.

To seize this as his excuse to attack Iran will backfire. Not even Bush is that stupid....never mind.... we are talking about Bush....all cards are up his sleeve.

but smart enough to take the fight to the terrorists unlike Clinton who did nothing and allowed Atta and Co to move around unchecked for over a year

 

[maineman]

but smart enough to take the fight to the terrorists unlike Clinton who did nothing and allowed Atta and Co to move around unchecked for over a year

and Bush allowed them to move around unchecked for nearly nine months..and let them learn how to fly jet liners into buildings while he cut brush and grilled steaks and didn't care about reports that they were preparing to attack us.

 

[red states rule]

and Bush allowed them to move around unchecked for nearly nine months..and let them learn how to fly jet liners into buildings while he cut brush and grilled steaks and didn't care about reports that they were preparing to attack us.

and the Clinton administration built the wall where intel agencies could NOT share information

 

[maineman]

and the Clinton administration built the wall where intel agencies could NOT share information

the FBI agent in Oklahoma wrote HIS superiors that he was concerned about arabs learning to fly jets and not caring about learning how to land.... that report languished in that agency - it had nothing to do with SHARING with anyone...it had to do with the Bush DOJ not giving a shit about terrorism and being more concerned with pornography.

 

[red states rule]

the FBI agent in Oklahoma wrote HIS superiors that he was concerned about arabs learning to fly jets and not caring about learning how to land.... that report languished in that agency - it had nothing to do with SHARING with anyone...it had to do with the Bush DOJ not giving a shit about terrorism and being more concerned with pornography.

Since when did Bush care about Clinton and his legacy?

and Bill did nothing after five attacks and running away from a fight and the bodies of troops dragged thru the streets

 

[maineman]

Since when did Bush care about Clinton and his legacy?

and Bill did nothing after five attacks and running away from a fight and the bodies of troops dragged thru the streets

I say again: "the FBI agent in Oklahoma wrote HIS superiors that he was concerned about arabs learning to fly jets and not caring about learning how to land.... that report languished in that agency - it had nothing to do with SHARING with anyone...it had to do with the Bush DOJ not giving a shit about terrorism and being more concerned with pornography."

That is not the Clinton legacy..that is wrong focus on the part of Team Bush.... getting pornographers was more important than getting terrorists for them.

 

[red states rule]

I say again: "the FBI agent in Oklahoma wrote HIS superiors that he was concerned about arabs learning to fly jets and not caring about learning how to land.... that report languished in that agency - it had nothing to do with SHARING with anyone...it had to do with the Bush DOJ not giving a shit about terrorism and being more concerned with pornography."

That is not the Clinton legacy..that is wrong focus on the part of Team Bush.... getting pornographers was more important than getting terrorists for them.

and Clinton had several chances to get OBL and he did not. He had more pressing "affairs" that had his attention