Redstate

Posted at 10:15am on Jul. 2, 2008 Question and answer time: the Wes Clark thing.

Some Snide that Got Fed Ex'ed?

By Moe Lane

Q. OK, so what's going on?
A. Senator Obama has lost control over how his campaign will reference Senator McCain's military service.

Q. Lost control, or gave it up?
A. Hah! I have a cynical questioner this time. No, this was taken away from him; he didn't and doesn't want to go there.

Q. Why?
A. Because Senator Obama doesn't make a habit of urinating on electric fences.

Read on.

Posted in Anti-war liberals | Barack Obama | Elections | John McCain | Wes Clark — Comments (50)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 6:12pm on Jun. 28, 2008 *Mister* Delahunt responds.

Calling it an "apology" insults everyone's intelligence.

By Moe Lane

Like Ed Morrissey, we were forwarded a clip of William Delahunt's inarticulate, artless - in every sense of the term - and almost semantic-free... "response" is the best word, I suppose. "Apology" implies an acceptance of wrong-doing. At any rate, listen for yourself:

audio file here
(Via The Mark Levin Show)

Ed's covered a good deal of what I would have, but I just want to clarify something. When Erick said:

If you do not call your Congressman today and demand the House of Representatives, at the very *least*, censure Congressman Delahunt, well damn us all. We have no right to carry on our fight.

...Erick wasn't trying to suggest that our right to speak would be taken away from us if we didn't protest; he was suggesting that there are limits to how much externally-directed hate a man or woman can shrug off, and still keep his or her self-respect. In other words, there is a line - and Delahunt blasted right across it.

I had originally posted two paragraphs of what might have been somewhat self-defeating ranting here, so let me erase it all and get straight to the point: if you do not understand why we are justifiably infuriated at not just what Delahunt did, but where and why he did it, then you are part of the problem - and you do not actually understand us at all.

Moe Lane

Posted in Anti-war liberals | Bill Delahunt | Fairly Typical Behavior | Liberals — Comments (7)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 7:38pm on Jun. 26, 2008 Representative Bill Delahunt (MA-10; Obama): "I’m glad they finally have a chance to see you, Mr. Addington." [UPDATED]

"They" being al-Qaeda, you understand.

By Moe Lane

And "Mr. Addington" being the Chief of Staff for the Vice President.

I'm simultaneously sorry for, and envious of, Allahpundit: repeated exposure to this kind of filth has made him numb. I'm personally ready to punch the wall.

By the way, Representative Bill Delahunt has been an Obama super-delegate from the start.

Of course he was.

Moe Lane

[UPDATE: And now, the predictable attempt at an explanation from Mister Delahunt:

Delahunt said he was just trying to express that he was glad to see Addington. Delahunt said he recalls saying "I," not "they," during the testimony – though the video, broadcast on C-SPAN, shows he was talking about Al Qaeda.

Perhaps Mister Delahunt may want to contemplate whether his mental faculties are up to the task of representing the Tenth Congressional District of Massachusetts. Interestingly, that comment remains true whether or not he actually believes what he was saying there...]

Posted in 2008 | Anti-war liberals | Barack Obama | Bill Delahunt | Obamafiles — Comments (15)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 9:33am on Jun. 4, 2008 Beyond Caricature

By streiff

Late cartoonist Doug Marlette once opined that the most difficult character in his Kudzu strip was the televangelist the Rev. Will B. Dunn. He said it was nearly impossible to come up with things for the Rev. Dunn to do that hadn't already been done in real life by one televangelist or another.

Marlette would have been more challenged if he had included a member of the far left.

Having failed, at least for the moment, in their quest to have people, not including themselves, to invade Burma to force the junta there to allow disaster relief, they now have a new strategy. Send them panties. Seriously.

The Panties for Peace campaign plays on the regime leaders’ superstitious fear that contact with a woman’s underpants will rob them of their power. Women around the world are asked to post their panties to local Burmese embassies in a bid to strip the regime of its power and bring an end to its gross violations of human rights, especially those committed against Burma’s women.

You really can't make this stuff up. And you really can't even make up stuff that is more outrageous and addlepated than what the left comes up with daily.

Posted in Anti-war liberals | bat**** crazy | burma | Far-Left Liberals | Liberals — Comments (3)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 6:30pm on Apr. 22, 2008 House Democrats Admit Upcoming Iraq Vote All About Politics

This Dog Not Only Won’t Hunt, It’s Dead, Buried, and Decaying

By Mark I

Fresh on the heels of another wildly successful round of Congressional testimony by Iraq Commander Gen. David Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker, Democrats in Congress are going to attempt once again to bring a premature halt to the emerging victory in Iraq. Worse, this time they aren’t even going to pretend that the attempt has anything to do with the welfare troops. The chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) told The Hill newspaper that Democrats in the House are deciding whether to include withdrawal language in an upcoming supplemental funding bill.

Maybe they haven’t seen that movie.

Read on…

Posted in Anti-war liberals | Democrats | House of Representatives | troop surge | War | war supplemental — Comments (4)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 1:55pm on Apr. 8, 2008 I swear, it's like Senator Obama puts out a Natsec Ignorance Field.

And none of his supporters are safe.

By Moe Lane

[Further UPDATE: Constant Reader mcg points us to Senator Rockefeller's apology for making "an inaccurate and wrong analogy."]

[UPDATE: My colleague California Yankee points out something that I missed the first time: Orson Swindle, the man who made McCain's response, was McCain's cell mate in the Hanoi Hilton. But then, Lt. Commander Swindle was tortured even though he only flew a fighter jet, so perhaps Senator Rockefeller is under the impression that being beaten by one's captors is merely an unavoidable and not particularly noteworthy side-effect of military service.]

Among other things, this field clearly makes people like Senator Jay Rockefeller - a man who really, really, should know better - say stupidities.

Rockefeller believes McCain has become insensitive to many human issues. "McCain was a fighter pilot, who dropped laser-guided missiles from 35,000 feet. He was long gone when they hit.

"What happened when they [the missiles] get to the ground? He doesn't know. You have to care about the lives of people. McCain never gets into those issues."

Let us start from the beginning: as the McCain campaign itself notes, the Senator was not using his A-4 Skyhawk to drop laser-guided missiles from 35,000 feet. The Skyhawk was a light attack aircraft generally used in close-range attacks; during bombing runs their major enemy was ground-based AA batteries, although small-arms fire and even trees were sometimes a problem. McCain's own Skyhawk was knocked down by a SA-2 at 4,500 feet. And I trust that I don't need to explain to our Democratic colleagues the most obvious reason why he wasn't using a laser-guided missile?

(pause)

Right. Paveways weren't used in Vietnam until 1968. At which point Senator McCain had already been a POW for a year - and might I add, Senator Rockefeller, that it is the action of a partisan buffoon to call someone who has been tortured for half a decade for putting on America's uniform ignorant of the consequences of his actions. Believe me, vile men with clubs made sure that McCain knew - and while I don't expect better from your chosen candidate, Senator (he's obviously made his choice), I did expect better from you.

Well. Live and learn.

Moe Lane

Posted in Anti-war liberals | Archived | Obamafiles — Comments (55)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 12:07am on Apr. 3, 2008 Will Barack Obama accept the endorsement of a woman who helped torture John McCain?

...and the fact that I have to even *ask* this should fill his supporters with shame.

By Moe Lane

Note the use of the word "should."

Via Constant Reader fatimabrown we see this link of Jane Fonda announcing her support of Senator Barack Obama in the upcoming elections. Fonda, as all people know - and all decent people admit - is an actress who used her celebrity to first voluntarily engage in propaganda attacks by the North Vietnamese against the United States of America; and then, as Snopes put it:

To add insult to injury, when American POWs finally began to return home (some of them having been held captive for up to nine years) and describe the tortures they had endured at the hands of the North Vietnamese, Jane Fonda quickly told the country that they should “not hail the POWs as heroes, because they are hypocrites and liars.” Fonda said the idea that the POWs she had met in Vietnam had been tortured was “laughable,” claiming: “These were not men who had been tortured. These were not men who had been starved. These were not men who had been brainwashed.” The POWs who said they had been tortured were “exaggerating, probably for their own self-interest,” she asserted. She told audiences that “Never in the history of the United States have POWs come home looking like football players. These football players are no more heroes than Custer was. They’re military careerists and professional killers” who are “trying to make themselves look self-righteous, but they are war criminals according to law.”

I need hardly note that among these supposed "war criminals" was future Senator and Presidential candidate John McCain. Now, I will not bother with expecting... people... like Jane Fonda to regret*, or even comprehend, the evil that they did. But I very much would like to know whether Senator Obama has the integrity to reject the support of a woman who was as much a part of John McCain's torture as the men who smashed rifle butts into John McCain's teeth. I would like to know, but somehow, I doubt that I will.

Well, formally, at least. Silence has its own message to convey.

Moe Lane

*And before you say a word: she "regrets" being photographed on that AA gun. Which means that the... woman... is only sorry that she got in trouble for it. She'll go to her grave before she admits that she was wrong.

Posted in Anti-war liberals | Liberals | Obamafiles | There is a red haze across my vision — Comments (41)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 9:51am on Mar. 27, 2008 Behold the Paladins of the antiwar movement.

This brave, brave, *brave* second generation of Winter Soldiers.

By Moe Lane

Ready to to Speak Truth to Power, rip back the curtain of lies woven by this illegal criminal administration, stand fearlessly in the way of the tank of Amerikkkan oppression, do whatever that it takes to bring justice and peace back to this weary land...

...except sign an affidavit.

(Via Hot Air)

I probably shouldn't laugh quite so hard at the antiwar movement over this: they're probably quite tired of masturbating to forty year old activist pornography. I mean, look at the hair in those old videos...

Posted in Anti-war liberals | Courage to the Sticking Point | Liberals — Comments (2)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 11:06am on Mar. 25, 2008 Lets Pretend the Movie Isn't About the War? That Might Work?

By Michelle Oddis

A few months ago I blogged about “Stop Loss” an anti war/anti military film that focuses on the militaries involuntary stop loss recruitment Stop-Loss policy. Stop Loss will be out in theaters this Friday. “You Fought for America, You Gave Everything...They Want More,” boasts the trailer for the film promoted by MTV Films.

Posted in 2008 | Anti-war liberals | Hollywood | Movies | Stop Loss — Comments (59) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 1:00am on Mar. 24, 2008 Oh, look. Illinois Progressives.

Engaging in a religious dialogue, no less.

By Moe Lane

(Tribune photo by Stacey Wescott / March 23, 2008)

Chicago Police Arrest Six Iraq War Protesters for Squirting Fake Blood on Easter Churchgoers

CHICAGO — Six Iraq war protesters disrupted an Easter Mass on Sunday, shouting and squirting fake blood on themselves and parishioners in a packed auditorium.

Three men and three women startled the crowd during Cardinal Francis George's homily, yelling "Even the Pope calls for peace" as they were removed from the Mass by security guards and ushers.

One Mass attendee, Mike Wainscott of Chicago, yelled at the anti-war protesters.

"Are you happy with yourselves?" he said. "There were kids in there. You scared little kids with your selfish act. Are you happy now?"

(Via Gateway Pundit)

Allow me to answer your question for him, Mr. Wainscott: of course he is. You have to understand that people like you are not precisely real to the antiwar movement; you're sort of... animated icons whose only purpose is to move around entertainingly in the background of whatever is this week's Message. They care no more about your feelings as they would care about those of the AI NPCs in their favorite first-person shooter. Less, really: you're unlikely to come out of nowhere and cause them to lose 25 life points.

So don't take it personally; it's not like they see you as one anyway.

Moe Lane

PS: Please note, by the way, that it's a reasonably safe guess that none of these fools - or anyone else in the Illinois Coalition for Peace & Justice - will be voting for Senator John McCain in November.

Posted in Anti-war liberals | Fairly Typical Behavior | Liberals | Progressives — Comments (39)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 9:26am on Mar. 19, 2008 The anti-war movement, summed up in one picture.

This explains it all.

By Moe Lane

Everything, really.

(Picture via the indispensable Zombietime.)

I'd post more commentary, but really: what can I say that these... people... haven't already shouted to the rooftops with their every action?

Posted in Anti-war liberals | Barking Moonbats | Pass the Popcorn | The Best Democratic Primary EVER | War — Comments (23)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 9:49pm on Mar. 18, 2008 John McCain is Right: Iran *has* been aiding al Qaeda in Iraq

But why ruin a good, black-and-white talking point?

By Jeff Emanuel

Update: The Weekly Standard has a good write-up on this, as well.

Pundits have been coming out of the woodwork today to claim that John McCain "misspoke" when he said that al Qaeda has been receiving funding, training, and equipment from Iran during the last year-plus of the Iraq War. The "gotcha" quote -- taken here (sans link) from ThinkProgress -- is that he "conflated" Sunni and Shi'a organizations, which clearly "represent opposing sides in the Iraqi civil war[sic]."

Here is the truth: al Qaeda has been receiving funding, training, and equipment from Iran during the last year-plus of the Iraq War, and denial of that fact belies a willful ignorance -- and a desire to remain ignorant -- of the truth, at very least. People who look at the sectarian differences -- Iran being Shi'a and AQ being Sunni -- and who write off any relationship between the two on those grounds are fooling themselves into inane ignorance.

Read on.

Posted in Anti-war liberals | National Security | War — Comments (30)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 1:58am on Feb. 23, 2008 Barack Obama is either stupid, ignorant, or an absolutely pathetic liar (or all three)

By Jeff Emanuel

CY did a great job with this story here. I have just the following to add:

Barack Obama is, quite simply, doing at least one of three things here (and, with credit to Lileks, I fully expect the Left to shut up and reverently honor my acting out of the highest form of patriotism with regard to Mr. Obama and dissenting against him):

(1) He is lying his ArmaniGucci pants off, on purpose.

(2) He is blowing smoke out his fourth point of contact just to be able to appease his base more

(3) He is so mind-blowingly ignorant of the military and its status in the GWOT that he either heard this story and believed it, or thought that nobody less mind-numbingly vacuous and stupid than him would see through it.

Though these options are not mutually exclusive, the two parts of option (3) are the least exclusive of all.

The spinning after the fact makes all the difference in the world to this story, too.

Obama originally said:

They were actually capturing Taliban weapons, because it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief.

Now, in the AP factcheck (never thought I'd be stringing those two words together without a "that never happened" tacked onto the end), the story says:

The captain said, however, that the unit did not go after the Taliban for the purpose of getting their weapons, but sometimes used those weapons when some were captured.

The former -- Obama's original, so-stupid-and-false-that-it's-almost-impossible-to-respond-to story -- is absolutely ridiculous, and is (in keeping with the options listed above) either a bold-faced lie, a made-up story that the teller didn't expected to be called on (and, given that the Left's knowledge of the different types and uses of cannabis typically tends to be vastly superior to its knowledge of anything military or warfare-related, why would he ever expect to be questioned or caught?), or (and this likely goes along with the above two options) a sign of a frightening level of military ignorance on the part of a common citizen -- LET ALONE on the part of a SITTING UNITED STATES SENATOR.

The second version? Believable, for some obvious reasons. See this picture? That's me -- as a journalist, not as an operator -- firing an AK-47 on the shooting range at Patrol Base Olson in Samarra, Iraq. The AK-47 is one of several in the Company Arms Room there. They are not taken out on missions (or, if they ever are, it is because a replacement part is needed in a pinch, and a resupply convoy might not be scheduled to come until later that day or perhaps the next), but are novelty/"cool-guy" weapons taken as the spoils of battle, which are cleaned and taken care of by the Company's soldiers and are fired, for fun, familiarity, and proficiency -- on the Patrol Base firing range. This is a normal activity for combat units.

Now, can anybody here spot the difference between the Obama debate story and the revised, AP-written one? That's right -- the absolute-crap, made-up-to-get-attention, show-of-unbelivable-ignorance Obamariginal story tells of those events in the context of President Bush and SecDef Gates so underequipping soldiers that they have to go capture enemy weapons to fight (no word on how they would do that if they aren't able to be armed themselves due to a lack of supplies -- guess we really do have a force of Rambos in the conventional Army); the AP story makes clear that what this really was was units taking "war trophies" they had earned in combat, and using them for various purposes outside of their official duties, which they performed while using standard-issue, in-stock, plentifully-supplied American weapons, and occasionally using them as spot-replacements for broken gear (imagine that, gear getting broken in war!) while awaiting a regularly-scheduled resupply.

The lying has gotten beyond ridiculous here. It's time for Obama the Messiah-in-Waiting to stop breaking the 9th Commandment, or to officially declare that in the religion for which he serves as Godhead, we can all disregard fact and truth in the name of spinning a good yarn.

After all, it's "for the greater good" -- and it's all about compromise.

Posted in Anti-war liberals | Barack Obama | Democrats | Lying liberals | War — Comments (114)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 11:36am on Feb. 2, 2008 To answer Bob (and Glenn's) question...

And it's a heck of a thing that it even has to be asked.

By Moe Lane

...the question being, "Will the media ask Senators Obama and Clinton about Berkeley's insult to the United States Marine Corps:" the answer almost certainly will be "no." (Background info here) [UPDATE: They probably won't ask if either Senator supports Senator DeMint's proposal, either.] [UPDATE: And more here. Quite the collection of petulant man-children these Obamaniacs are turning out to be, huh?] [UPDATE]: And, in the credit-where-it's-due category, both have already indicated that they'll be enforcing the Solomon Amendment. So they've got no reason not to condemn this outrageous attack on our military, yes?]

This is more of an indictment of the media than it is of the Senators in question, who would probably respond that they aren't in the habit of volunteering to throw rocks at hornet nests. Still, it's a pity that Senator Clinton won't address this particular insult; she has less of an excuse than Senator Obama, who after all just scored an endorsement from a group whose hardcore members default to hating Marines.

Those wishing to dispute that point are welcome to provide me with a formal statement by MoveOn.org forcefully condemning the actions of Code Pink against the Marine recruiting office in Berkeley, CA. I will put that statement on the front page. I will gleefully put that statement on the front page, with as many eye-catching HTML bells and whistles that I can figure out. I will even alert about ten or so of the other top right-wing bloggers, who will probably also just as gleefully put that statement on their front pages as well.

You may wish to contemplate the implications of that.

Posted in Anti-war liberals | Courage to the Sticking Point | Democrats | Marines — Comments (21)/ Email this page » / Read More »