Monday, April 30, 2007

Keeping an eye on conservative bloggers

Michelle Malkin is an Idiot This site follows the traditional format of Bill O'Reilly sucks and other sites that track the lies of various conservative pundits this blog tracks the lies spew by one Michelle Malkin if you don't know who she is, I cut her description short she's trying to be the Asian Ann Coulter unfortunately for Michelle she sucks at it. To show how insane Malkin is she made an appearance on Real Time couple of years ago to promote her book "In the Defense of Internment" I save you on the details basically Michelle is saying it's ok to lock up "Arabic or Muslim looking people since we don't know which of them are friendly so we can't be sure lock them all up. Alright Michelle I have two thoughts one it seems Michelle forgot Asian people were being rounded up and place in these camps after the attack on Pearl Harbor even when they proved they was American citizens and two if we're going to lock up people who look Muslim will she volunteer to go to one of these camps? After all the majority of Muslims look like her. Anyway drop by Michelle Malkin is an Idiot, it's a great site for those who want to keep track of the various characters in the right wing press.

Liberal media quite regarding Mitt's Bin Laden comment

The Top 10 Conservative Idiots - The Top 10 Conservative Idiots, No. 289 Mitt Romney I wonder what Rudy Giuliani will make of Mitt Romney's recent comments during an interview with the Associated Press? On the topic of Osama bin Laden, Romney said, "It's not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person."Talking Points Memo noted last week that the "liberal" media has remained remarkably quiet about this comment: We noted yesterday that such a quote coming from a Democrat would have been broadly covered by the big news organizations and probably would have triggered a major outcry.Curiously, though, Romney's quote has been met with near-total silence.A news search shows there hasn't been any coverage of it beyond the original AP write-up yesterday, where the comment itself was buried towards the bottom of the piece.There's been almost no mention of it whatsoever in any of the places where one would expect such a thing to provoke outrage - that is, in the conservative media and blogosphere. There are no mentions of it on Power Line Blog, Town Hall, InsaPundit, Human Events, or notably the site of Hugh Hewitt, who has written a pro-Romney book.My guess is they figure it's not worth writing about beacuse by this time next week Romney will have changed his mind. Piggy backing on this, I could tell you what would happen if any of the Dems said this, Rush will spend all three hours dragging that Dem over the coals, Dennis Prager and Laura Ingrahm with the combine audience of five people will be telling them see the terrorist want the Democrats to win, O'Reilly will be screaming at some Democratic strategist nobody ever heard of, Sean Hannity will start a 10 part miniseries on why that Dem love terrorist and Savage will scream to his socially retarded audience about why the Dems will let every two bit teorrist attack then go back talking about how gay people will unleash their plan of turning you gay.

Tenet taking heat over book

Tenet memoir draws heat from key players - Yahoo! News Tenet memoir draws heat from key players By KATHERINE SHRADER, Associated Press Writer 21 minutes ago The backlash has built up even before the official release of former CIA Director George Tenet's memoir, with criticism about his version of the run-up to the Iraq war, interrogation techniques and other events. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Sunday disputed Tenet's claim that the Bush administration, before the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003, never had a serious debate about whether Iraq posed an imminent threat or whether to tighten existing sanctions. "The president started a discussion practically on the day that he took power about how to enhance sanctions against Iraq," she said. "You may remember that in his first press conference, he said the sanctions had become Swiss cheese." Rice, who was Bush's national security adviser in his first term, said the administration reviewed the sanctions, went to the United Nations to strengthen them and tried to tighten the no-fly zone in northern Iraq to better police Saddam Hussein's forces. She also said the question about the imminence of the threat was not "if somebody is going to strike tomorrow." "It's whether you believe you're in a stronger position today to deal with the threat, or whether you're going to be in a stronger position tomorrow," she said. "And it was the president's assessment that the situation in Iraq was getting worse." A Tenet associate, who spoke on condition of anonymity before the book's release Monday, said Tenet was not talking about improving the sanctions, but rather the debate about the wisdom of going to war. The associate said those debates did not happen in the presence of Tenet or other senior CIA officials, despite their participation in numerous discussions in the White House's situation room. The memoir from the second-longest serving CIA chief covers many topics — from his attempts to help negotiate peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians during the Clinton administration, to the days surrounding Sept. 11, 2001, and to the invasion of Iraq and its aftermath. Looking ahead, he says, al-Qaida wants to change history and meet its top one goal of obtaining a nuclear device. Tenet highlights the errors of others during his tenure from July 1997 to July 2004, such as the extraordinary efforts by Vice President Cheney and others to connect Iraq and al-Qaida. Tenet also takes blame for other failures, such as the production of the botched National Intelligence Estimate in 2002 that was used to justify invading Iraq. Sen. John McCain (R-selling out)said he does not accept assertions from Tenet that the U.S. government saved lives through some of the agency's most aggressive interrogation techniques. In an often defensive interview on CBS' "60 Minutes" aired Sunday, Tenet says the intelligence gained from suspected terrorists in the CIA's covert detention program and its "enhanced interrogation techniques" was more valuable than all the other terrorism-related intelligence gathered by the FBI, the National Security Agency and his own agency. Yet McCain said the U.S. cannot torture people and maintain its moral superiority in the world. "I don't care what George Tenet says. I know what's right. I know what's morally right as far as America's behavior," the presidential candidate and former prisoner-of-war said Sunday. McCain said he does not accept Tenet's premise that the CIA's practices save lives because torture and mistreatment historically have not worked in intelligence collection. "We've gotten a huge amount of misinformation as well as other information from these techniques," McCain said. Tenet and the CIA deny using torture. But McCain's words suggest he believes the CIA's practices amounted to torture and were wrong. In his book, Tenet said McCain has engaged the country in an important moral debate "about who we are as people and what we should stand for, even when up against an enemy so full of hate they would murder thousands of our children without a thought." If elected officials believe certain interrogation actions put the country in a difficult moral position, they should be stopped, according to Tenet, once the Democratic staff director of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Critics have started picking apart the book's accuracy. In a dramatic preface, Tenet said he ran into former Pentagon adviser Richard Perle coming out of the White House on Sept. 12, 2001, and Perle told him Iraq had to pay for the attack. "They bear responsibility," Tenet recalls Perle saying. On Sunday, Perle categorically denied the exchange to the editor of the conservative Weekly Standard and noted he was out of the country until Sept. 15. Tenet's associate said the date may have been wrong, but the exchange took place. Writing in Sunday's Washington Post, the one-time head of Tenet's Osama bin Laden unit, Michael Scheuer, said Tenet should have told his story sooner. "At this late date, the Bush-bashing that Tenet's book will inevitably stir up seems designed to rehabilitate Tenet in his first home, the Democratic Party. He seems to blame the war on everyone but Bush (who gave Tenet the Medal of Freedom) and former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell (who remains the Democrats' ideal Republican)," Scheuer wrote. A half-dozen former CIA officers — including counterterrorism experts Larry Johnson and Vince Cannistraro — are urging Tenet to dedicate a significant portion of his royalties to soldiers and families of those killed or wounded in Iraq. "We agree that the war of choice in Iraq was ill-advised and wrong headed. But your lament that you are a victim in a process you helped direct is self-serving, misleading and, as head of the intelligence community, an admission of failed leadership," they wrote. Rice appeared on CNN's "Late Edition," ABC's "This Week," and "Face the Nation" on CBS. McCain was on "Fox News Sunday." ___ Associated Press Writer Scott Lindlaw in San Francisco contributed to this report. ___ I would say George Tenet for the first time in four years he's actually telling the truth, hence the reaction from Bush mouth pieces and their lame allies.

Friday, April 27, 2007

Dems rebuke Rudy the cross dresser comment

Dems rebuke Giuliani over attack comment - Yahoo! News Dems rebuke Giuliani over attack comment By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press WriterThu Apr 26, 1:47 AM ET Democratic presidential candidates on Wednesday rebuked Republican rival Rudy Giuliani for suggesting that the United States could face another major terrorist attack if a Democrat is elected in 2008. The former New York mayor did not back down. Illinois Sen. Barack Obama said Giuliani, who was in office on Sept. 11, 2001, should not be making the terrorist threat into "the punchline of another political attack." "Rudy Giuliani today has taken the politics of fear to a new low and I believe Americans are ready to reject those kind of politics," Obama said in a statement. Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards said Giuliani knows better than to suggest there is a "superior Republican way to fight terrorism." Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said protecting the country from terrorism "shouldn't be a political football." "It should be a solemn responsibility that all of us pledge to fulfill regardless of what party we're in," she said when asked about her fellow New Yorker's comment at a Capitol Hill news conference. Giuliani stood by his comments Wednesday, saying Democrats don't understand the threat posed by terrorists(you mean those threats Bush ignored months before 9.11? Rudy the cross dresser) "They do not seem to get the fact that there are people, terrorists in this world, really dangerous people that want to come here and kill us," Giuliani said on "The Sean Hannity Show," according to a transcript distributed by his campaign. "They want to take us back to not being as alert which to me will just extend this war much, much longer." He was defending his remark Tuesday in New Hampshire, where he echoed sentiments expressed by other Republicans in election time. The former mayor said if a Democrat is elected, "it sounds to me like we're going on defense. We're going to wave the white flag there." But, he said, if a Republican wins, "we will remain on offense" trying to anticipate what the terrorists are going to do and "trying to stop them before they do it." GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney told reporters in Salem, N.H., Wednesday night that he agrees with Giuliani. "There's no question in my mind that Republican values ... keep America safer," Romney said. In 2004, President Bush was re-elected after claiming that Democratic Sen. John Kerry would waver in the face of terrorist threats. Vice President Dick Cheney suggested a vote for Kerry would risk another terrorist attack. In the 2006 election, Bush political strategist Karl Rove accused Democrats of clinging to a pre-Sept. 11 mind-set — but Democrats came out on top in the majority of midterm races. "America's mayor should know that when it comes to 9-11 and fighting terrorists, America is united," Obama said. "We know we can win this war based on shared purpose, not the same divisive politics that question your patriotism if you dare to question failed policies that have made us less secure." Edwards, the 2004 vice presidential nominee making a second run for the White House, said it's wrong to suggest Republicans are better at fighting terror. "The current Republican administration led us into a war in Iraq that has made us less safe and undermined the fight against al-Qaida," Edwards said in a statement. "If that's the Republican way to fight terror, Giuliani should know that the American people are looking for a better plan." Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut, a Democratic presidential candidate, said Republican candidates are continuing "the smear tactics and fearmongering of the current administration." "Americans want real solutions to the many problems our nation faces, not divisive and false rhetoric," Dodd said in a statement. "We need a president who has the experience and ability to unite America, move us forward and make us safer together, and that means leading with hope, not fear." The Democratic National Committee accused Giuliani of failing to prepare for the World Trade Center attacks, among other criticisms of his record. "So far Rudy's rhetoric sounds like more of the same failed policies, incompetence and arrogance we've had to suffer for the past six years," said DNC spokeswoman Karen Finney. Another Republican presidential candidate, Arizona Sen. John McCain (R-dingbat), wouldn't say whether he agreed with Giuliani's suggestion. "I can't judge whether somebody else would cause an attack on America," McCain told reporters aboard his campaign bus in New Hampshire. New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg, who succeeded Giuliani and also is a potential presidential candidate, said he doesn't see terrorism as a partisan issue. "There are some people I think who would do a better job fighting terrorism than others, but I don't think there's any party affiliations, no partisanship in that," Bloomberg said. ___ Associated Press writers Liz Sidoti and Holly Ramer in New Hampshire and Sara Kugler in New York contributed to this report Sidebar from correspondent Lorax Luvr How does Rudy not recall that Republicans controlled Congress and the Executive Branch when 9-11 occurred, and thus, did not anticipate nor stop 9-11 in 2001!!! Is Rudy saying ' we fumbled the ball before; the terrorists scored big time; but now we know better'? It's odd to me the Republicans and their whores in the media relay the message to Americans if you elect a Democrat you're going to see another 9.11 never mind the first 9.11 attack happen on a Republican president watch. To me Rudy's comments only attract those retards that's still hanging on Bush.

Wednesday, April 25, 2007

If Imus get can for calling women hoes shouldn't Rush be fire for this?

AlterNet: Limbaugh Plays "Barack The Magic Negro" on His Show Limbaugh Plays "Barack The Magic Negro" on His Show By Storm Bear, Daily Kos. Posted April 24, 2007. by Storm Bear from Daily Kos: This is a head-shaker. Imus gets canned for calling some college women basketball players "nappy-headed hos" and yet Rush Limbaugh plays "Barack The Magic Negro" on his show and he is still on the air? How is that even possible? To hear the song yourself, watch video right ... It is a parody by Paul Shanklin impersonating Al Sharpton and based on the Peter, Paul, and Mary hit song "Puff, the Magic Dragon". I am really at a loss for words. I heard it for the first time yesterday on the radio and was sickened. Again, how is this man on the air? I knew the drug out pig boy was racist but this confirms it.

MI Dems business tax deal in sight

Detroit Free Press - - Dems: Business tax deal in sight Dems: Business tax deal in sight House plan called key piece in solving state budget crisis April 25, 2007 BY CHRIS CHRISTOFF FREE PRESS LANSING BUREAU CHIEF LANSING -- House Democrats are to unveil Thursday their plan to replace Michigan's Single Business Tax with a new tax, a move they hope will energize negotiations to solve the state's budget crisis. House Speaker Andy Dillon, D-Redford Township, said Tuesday he hopes for a business tax agreement with Republicans and Gov. Jennifer Granholm by early May. Word of the plan came as the Legislature inched forward on another front -- sending Granholm a bill that closes $315 million of a deficit for spending on public schools but leaves about $62 million unresolved. That shortfall, which translates to about $40 per student, is expected to increase next month when the state reports spring tax collections. The business tax proposal that Democrats plan to present to the House is not the first -- Granholm, business groups and Senate Republicans have offered competing plans. But the House measure is expected to nudge negotiations to resolve a remaining $350-million state deficit for the current year that threatens cities, school districts and hospitals with cuts in state payments. The deficit at its worst was about $900 million. "We may well see an SBT breakthrough before anything else," said veteran lobbyist Dennis Cawthorne, a former Republican legislator. "The two sides aren't that far apart." The difficulty of replacing the SBT, which is set to expire Dec. 31, has been a worrisome factor in reaching a budget compromise. Cawthorne said a business tax agreement could break an apparent stalemate over whether to raise taxes elsewhere or make deeper spending cuts to balance the budget. Dillon said the Democratic plan would raise the same revenue as the SBT -- about $1.9 billion a year -- but would give tax cuts to companies based in Michigan or with significant employment and facilities there. For example, he said, Michigan-based retailer Meijer would get a tax cut while Arkansas-based competitor Wal-Mart would pay more. Dillon also said the plan would "go a long way" toward eliminating personal property taxes on business machinery and other equipment. Meanwhile, the Granholm administration is firming up plans to lay off more than 15,000 nonunion employees for up to 20 days if a budget deal isn't reached by mid-May, when the state expects to run out of cash. Last week, Granholm and the Michigan Chamber of Commerce -- usually political rivals -- teamed in a joint statement urging the Legislature to agree on a replacement for the SBT by June 30. Granholm has insisted that a new business tax plan fully replace the revenues the SBT generated. The chamber and other business groups insist that the state give a net tax cut to businesses. But both Granholm and business advocates fear that the uncertainty of business taxes is scaring away businesses from investing in Michigan. A major disagreement between Granholm and Senate Republicans is whether to first solve the current deficit before tackling the 2007-08 budget. Granholm wants to resolve both simultaneously with budget cuts and new taxes. Republicans want to solve this year's deficit with budget cuts alone, then deal with next

Cover-up in Tillman case?

Ranger alleges cover-up in Tillman case - Yahoo! News Ranger alleges cover-up in Tillman case By ERICA WERNER, Associated Press WriterWed Apr 25, 3:23 AM ET An Army Ranger who was with Pat Tillman when the former football star was cut down by friendly fire in Afghanistan said Tuesday a commanding officer had ordered him to keep quiet about what happened. The military at first portrayed Tillman's death as the result of heroic combat with the enemy. Army Spc. Bryan O'Neal told a congressional hearing that when he got the chance to talk to Tillman's brother, who had been in a nearby convoy on the fateful day, "I was ordered not to tell him what happened." "You were ordered not to tell him?" repeated Rep. Henry Waxman (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. "Roger that, sir," replied O'Neal, dressed in his Army uniform. The revelation came as committee members questioned whether, and when, top Defense officials and the White House knew that Tillman's death in eastern Afghanistan three years ago was actually a result of gunfire from fellow U.S. soldiers. The committee also heard from Jessica Lynch, the former Army private who was badly injured when her convoy was ambushed in Iraq in 2003. She was later rescued by American troops from an Iraqi hospital, but the tale of her ambush was changed into a story of heroism on her part. Still hampered by her injuries, Lynch walked slowly to the witness table, took a seat alongside Tillman's family members and said the heroism belonged to others who fought in Iraq, such as her roommate Lori Piestewa, who died in the same ambush in which Lynch was captured. "The bottom line is the American people are capable of determining their own ideals of heroes and they don't need to be told elaborate lies," Lynch said. Tillman's death received worldwide attention because he had walked away from a huge contract with the NFL's Arizona Cardinals to enlist in the Army after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. His family was initially misled by the Pentagon and did not learn the truth for more than a month. Tillman was awarded a Silver Star based on fabricated accounts — who fabricated them still isn't clear after several investigations. "We don't know what the secretary of defense knew, we don't know what the White House knew," Waxman said. "What we do know is these were not a series of accidents, these stories. They were calculatedly put out for a public relations purpose. ... Even now there seems to be a cover-up." Kevin Tillman was in a convoy behind his older brother, a former NFL star, on April 22, 2004, when Pat Tillman was mistakenly shot by other Army Rangers who had just emerged from a canyon where they'd been fired upon. Kevin Tillman didn't see what happened. O'Neal said he was ordered not to tell him by then-Lt. Col. Jeff Bailey, the battalion commander who oversaw Tillman's platoon. "He basically just said, sir, that uh, 'Do not let Kevin know, he's probably in a bad place knowing that his brother's dead,'" O'Neal testified. "He made it known that I would get in trouble, sir, if I spoke with Kevin." O'Neal said he was "quite appalled" by the order. Bailey's superior officer, then-Col. James C. Nixon, has testified to the Defense Department's inspector general that he ordered that information on the facts of Tillman's death be shared with as few people as possible so that the Tillman family would not learn those facts through news media leaks. That, in turn, shaped Bailey's guidance to his troops. The Army said initially that Tillman was killed by enemy gunfire while trying to help another group of ambushed soldiers. The family was not told what really happened until May 29, 2004, a delay the Army blamed on procedural mistakes. Kevin Tillman and Tillman's mother, Mary Tillman, also testified Tuesday but were not in the room when O'Neal spoke. After the hearing, Mary Tillman approached O'Neal, introduced herself, embraced him and sobbed. Kevin Tillman, in his testimony, accused the military of "intentional falsehoods" and "deliberate and careful misrepresentations" in the portrayal of his brother's death. "Revealing that Pat's death was a fratricide would have been yet another political disaster in a month of political disasters ... so the truth needed to be suppressed," the brother said. "Our family will never be satisfied. We'll never have Pat back," Mary Tillman testified. "Something really awful happened. It's your job to find out what happened to him. That's really important." Last month the military concluded in a pair of reports that nine high-ranking Army officers, including four generals, made critical errors in reporting Tillman's death but that there was no criminal wrongdoing in his shooting — a conclusion the family has disputed. The Army is reviewing the actions of the officers. In questioning what the White House knew about Tillman, Rep. Elijah Cummings (news, bio, voting record), D-Md., cited a memo written by a top general seven days after Tillman's death warning it was "highly possible" the Army Ranger was killed by friendly fire and making clear his warning should be conveyed to the president. President Bush made no reference to the way Tillman died in a speech delivered two days after the memo was written. A White House spokesman has said there's no indication Bush received the warning in the memo written April 29, 2004, by then-Maj. Gen. Stanley McChrystal to Gen. John Abizaid, head of Central Command. Questioned by Waxman, Defense Department Acting Inspector General Thomas F. Gimble said he did not believe the memo ever went to the White House. Gimble said that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld sent him a letter around the time Rumsfeld left office last December saying he hadn't known Tillman's death was from friendly fire until around May 20, 2004. Abizaid told Gimble he was traveling in the war theater and didn't see the memo saying Tillman's death was possibly friendly fire until after Tillman's memorial service. Mary Tillman dismissed the suggestion Abizaid hadn't seen the memo as "ridiculous," and said she believed Rumsfeld must have known. "The fact that he would have died by friendly fire and no one told Rumsfeld is ludicrous," she said. The committee had wanted to hear from retired Lt. Gen. Philip Kensinger, who was in charge of Army special operations and came under the heaviest criticism from military investigators for misleading information about Tillman's death. Kensinger's attorney sent Waxman a letter last week saying that if Kensinger were called to testify he would refuse to answer questions, citing his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. ___ Associated Press writer Scott Lindlaw contributed to this report from San Francisco

Help support Dennis Kucinich call for impeachment

Source: Fox Noise via Democratic Underground Congressman Kucinich Introduces Impeachment Articles Against Dick Cheney Congressman Kucinich Introduces Impeachment Articles Against Dick Cheney Tuesday , April 24, 2007 WASHINGTON — Rep. Dennis Kucinich introduced three articles of impeachment against Dick Cheney on Tuesday, saying the vice president lied to America to get into a war in Iraq.Kucinich, a 2008 presidential candidate, said Cheney misled the nation about Iraq's having weapons of mass destruction; he had been deceitful about a nexus between Iraq and Al Qaeda and was being aggressive toward Iran "absent any real threat" from the Islamic Republic.Cheney "purposely altered intelligence gathering to justify the use of the Armed Forces in Iraq in a manner damaging to national security," the first article reads. The vice president also is accused of using the "intelligence process to deceive citizens and Congress about the tie between Iraq and Al Qaeda in a manner damaging to the United States."The Ohio Democrat said he hadn't discussed his articles of impeachment with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi or other Democratic leaders but "has the support of millions of Americans."* * * Read more:,2933,268201,00.html To help Dennis Kucinich call for impeachment here's who to contract Membership and United States Senate, Committee on the Judiciary

Tuesday, April 24, 2007

MSNBC to simucast right wing hack in place of Imus

Media Matters - Radio host Michael Smerconish to be simulcast on MSNBC in place of Imus Radio host Michael Smerconish to be simulcast on MSNBC in place of Imus According to an April 20 Philadelphia Daily News* article on, "The Big Talker 1210 AM morning show of Daily News columnist Michael Smerconish is to be simulcast Monday through Wednesday on MSNBC." The article noted that Smerconish will fill the slot previously held by Imus in the Morning. MSNBC announced on April 11 that it would no longer broadcast Imus in the wake of comments made by host Don Imus on the April 4 edition of that show, during which he referred to the Rutgers University women's basketball team as "nappy-headed hos." In addition to hosting his own radio talk show, Smerconish has been a guest host for MSNBC's Scarborough Country and Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly, and has opined on a number of issues, including alleged detainee abuse, immigrants, and Muslims. On the June 20, 2006, edition of Scarborough Country, Smerconish trivialized reports of detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, referring to the alleged abuse as "naked pyramid pictures." He also referred to alleged mistreatment at the Pentagon detention facility at Guantánamo Bay as "play[ing] Christina Aguilera music a bit too loud." On the April 10, 2006, edition of Scarborough Country, Smerconish suggested that "maybe law enforcement ought to step in" at pro-immigration demonstrations and consider "gathering ... up" illegal immigrants. Smerconish wondered why there was "zero discussion" of "gathering them up" at the demonstrations, when "[a]ll I keep hearing is how would we ever find them?" He then suggested that law enforcement officials are being hypocritical by refusing to "gather[] ... up" illegal immigrants because they would "step in and do something about" a rally of "pot smokers," who "wanted decriminalization" of marijuana, or "scofflaws" with unpaid parking tickets. Substituting for host Bill O'Reilly on the April 4, 2006, broadcast of The Radio Factor, Smerconish repeatedly discussed "the sissification of America," claiming that political correctness has made the United States "a nation of sissies." Smerconish also claimed, several times, that this "sissification" and "limp-wristedness" is "compromising our ability to win the war on terror." On the November 23, 2005, broadcast of The Radio Factor, while guest-hosting, Smerconish took issue with a decision by the New Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority to provide a designated prayer area at Giants Stadium. The decision was in response to a September 19 incident involving the FBI's detention and questioning of five Muslim men who were observed praying near the stadium's main air duct during a New York Giants football game. Smerconish stated: "I just think that's [the men's public praying] wrong. I just think they're playing a game of, you know, mind blank with the audience. And that they should know better four years removed from September 11." Smerconish defended the comments in an April 15 column, stating: "When five Muslim men in attendance at the Meadowlands in September 2005 for a Giants-Saints game that was also a Hurricane Katrina fund-raiser, with George H.W. Bush in attendance, saw fit to pray in an area near food preparation and air duct work, I think it was a case of mind blank. That's a form of terrorism in itself." On the November 23, 2005, edition of The Radio Factor, Smerconish interviewed Soo Kim Abboud, author of Top of the Class: How Asian Parents Raise High Achievers -- and How You Can Too (Penguin, 2005). Smerconish asserted that "if everyone follows Dr. Abboud's prescription ... you're going to have women who will leave the home and now get a great-paying job, because you will have gotten them well educated." He continued, "But then they're not going to be around to instill these lessons in their kids. In other words, it occurs to me that perhaps you've provided a prescription to bring this great success to an end." Smerconish has also been a frequent guest on MSNBC's Hardball, where he has appeared on at least four occasions in March and April of 2007, including March 1, March 8, March 21, and April 5. Hardball host Chris Matthews declared on the March 8, 2006, edition of the program that "You talk to a huge audience on the East Coast, Michael. I've listened to you, all my family listens to you." As Media Matters also noted, Smerconish reportedly moderated a January 17, 2006, political event in Pennsylvania, sponsored by the Philadelphia Young Republicans and attended by Matthews' brother, who was then the Republican candidate for lieutenant governor in Pennsylvania. GOP gubernatorial candidate Lynn Swann and Jim Matthews were defeated by Democrats Ed Rendell and Catherine Baker Knoll. —R.C. *Correction: This item originally attributed the article to The Philadelphia Inquirer., which bills itself as "The Region's Home Page," provides online versions of both Inquirer and Daily News articles. Media Matters regrets the error. [back to item]

Dems back date to get the hell out of Iraq

Democrats Back Date for Start of Iraq Pullout - New York Times April 24, 2007 Democrats Back Date for Start of Iraq Pullout By CARL HULSE WASHINGTON, April 23 — Congressional Democrats agreed Monday to ignore President Bush’s veto threat and send him a $124 billion war spending bill that orders the administration to begin pulling troops out of Iraq by Oct. 1. “On Iraq, the American people want a new direction, and we are providing it,” said Senator Patty Murray, Democrat of Washington, a leader of the Congressional negotiators who came to terms on the legislation that has become a test of wills between Mr. Bush and the Democratic majority on Capitol Hill. The House and Senate are to vote on the agreement and send it to the White House by the end of the week, and Democrats expressed confidence that they could secure narrow approval. But even as they ironed out differences between House and Senate approaches to Iraq policy and cut some spending that has drawn Republican scorn, Democrats acknowledged that the bill would be rejected by the president. Mr. Bush made it clear again on Monday that he would use the second veto of his tenure to kill the legislation, which would set a goal of having most American combat forces out of Iraq within six months of Oct. 1. “An artificial timetable of withdrawal would say to an enemy, ‘Just wait them out,’ ” he said. “It would say to the Iraqis, ‘Don’t do hard things necessary to achieve our objectives,’ and it would be discouraging for our troops.” Despite their opposition, Congressional Republicans chose not to challenge the timeline in the legislation, saying they preferred to get the veto showdown over with so Congress could quickly focus on drafting an acceptable measure that would deliver the money sought for the Pentagon. “We all know this bill is going nowhere fast,” said Representative Jerry Lewis of California, the senior Republican on the House Appropriations Committee. Under the compromise approved Monday, the Iraqi government would be subjected to benchmarks that would gauge its progress in developing its own security forces, disarming sectarian militias, allowing pursuit of extremists, reconciling Sunni and Shiite factions, and deciding on distribution of oil revenues. Under the legislation, if Mr. Bush determined that progress was being made, he would be directed to begin withdrawing troops by Oct. 1, with a goal of most forces being removed within 180 days, except for those protecting American facilities, those engaged in counterterrorism and those training and equipping Iraqi forces. The legislative proposal would also block spending on American forces unless they were judged “fully mission capable” by military standards, and would prohibit military tours in Iraq of more than one year. The president could waive those requirements. While the legislation incorporates the troop readiness standards of the House, it sets the full withdrawal of forces as a goal more in line with the Senate bill, considering that the House had earlier required that most forces be out by fall 2008. But the Oct. 1 deadline for beginning a withdrawal is quicker than any envisioned by the House and could help sell the plan to ardent war critics. In a tough attack on Mr. Bush in which he accused the president of being in denial on conditions in Iraq, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, said the legislation would provide “a way forward,” combining the withdrawal timetable with benchmarks to measure the progress of the Iraqi government. “No more will Congress turn a blind eye to the Bush administration’s incompetence and dishonesty,” Mr. Reid said in a speech at the Woodrow Wilson Center here. Republicans accused Democrats of overstepping their constitutional authority and micromanaging the war. And they noted that the legislation would require a pullout whether or not the Iraqis were making progress in stabilizing their country. “This latest proposal mandates that, no matter how well the Iraqi government meets its benchmarks and no matter how well our troops succeed in Iraq, the surrender must begin no later than Oct. 1,” said Senator Mitch McConnell (R-half wit of Kentucky), the Republican leader. But Democrats urged the president to sign the legislation, saying the pullout was a reasonable goal and that the president’s strategy was not working. “This war has dragged on too long, and I think we should remind ourselves that we’ve been in this war longer than we were in World War II, and we thought that was an eternity,” said Senator Daniel K. Inouye, Democrat of Hawaii. He and others noted that the legislation would pump needed money into military health care in the wake of disclosures of poor conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. In all, the measure includes $1.8 billion for veterans’ health care that was not in the White House request. The bill provides $95.5 billion for operations, mainly in Iraq and Afghanistan — $4 billion more than sought by the president. The legislation also includes $6.9 billion for recovery along the Gulf Coast, compared to $3.4 billion sought by the White House. It allocates $650 million on children’s health programs, $400 million on home heating aid and $500 million on wildfire control. The measure would also provide $3.5 billion to the nation’s farmers, but the Democratic negotiators dropped other farm aid in the wake of accusations from Mr. Bush and Republicans that the bill had been larded with special interest provisions to attract enough votes for passage. Among the spending eliminated was money for spinach growers, Christmas tree farmers, shrimp fisherman and sugar cane growers. Representative Jack Kingston, Republican of Georgia, said the extra spending was still excessive, causing Representative David R. Obey, Democrat of Wisconsin and chairman of the Appropriations Committee, to bristle. “I’m willing to stand by every single item in this bill,” he said. Aware that the votes do not exist to override the veto, lawmakers said they expect that Congress and Mr. Bush would eventually agree on a spending measure without the specific timetable, but with benchmarks for the Iraqi government. Mr. Reid, the majority leader, said the measure was just one aspect of the Democratic push to force Mr. Bush to reconsider his Iraq policy. He acknowledged that the approach might not satisfy war opponents who supported Democrats in the past election in order to end the conflict, but said it was nearly impossible to do more without Republican support, given the tight margins in Congress. “I understand the restlessness that some feel,” said Mr. Reid, who last week drew criticism for suggesting the war was already lost. “Many who voted for change in November anticipated dramatic and immediate results in January. But like it or not, George W. Bush is still the commander in chief, and this is his war.”

Progress being made: Car bomb kills 9 U.S. troops in Iraq

Car bomb kills 9 U.S. troops in Iraq - Yahoo! News Car bomb kills 9 U.S. troops in Iraq By HAMID AHMED, Associated Press Writer 47 minutes ago An al-Qaida-linked group posted a Web statement Tuesday claiming responsibility for a suicide car bombing that killed nine U.S. paratroopers and wounded 20 in the worst attack on American ground forces in Iraq in more than a year. The Islamic State of Iraq, an umbrella group of Sunni militants that includes al-Qaida in Iraq, said it was behind Monday's attack on a U.S. patrol base in Diyala province northeast of Baghdad — an area that has seen a spike in violence since American troops surged into the capital to halt violence there. The victims were all members of the Army's 82nd Airborne Division, said a spokesman for the Fort Bragg, N.C.-based unit. It was the highest number of casualties for the division since the war began, Maj. Tom Earnhardt said. Meanwhile, police in the same area said gunmen disguised as Iraqi soldiers killed six Iraqis and burned five homes Tuesday in an unrelated attack. South of the capital, a family of seven was killed en masse — shot to death in their beds at dawn by masked gunmen, neighbors and police said. British forces transferred another military base to Iraqi troops in the country's south, ahead of the planned withdrawal this summer of about half of Britain's contribution to the U.S.-led coalition here. And in Baghdad, two bombs went off outside the Iranian Embassy on Tuesday for the second consecutive day. Six civilians were injured, police said. Tension has risen over allegations by the U.S. and some Sunni politicians in Iraq about alleged Iranian interference in the country. A suicide car bomber rammed into an American patrol base in Diyala on Monday, killing nine soldiers and wounding 20, the military said. All were members of the 82nd Airborne's 5th Squadron, 73rd Cavalry Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, the military said. Fifteen of the 20 were treated and later returned to duty, while five others and an Iraqi civilian were evacuated to a medical facility, it said. In its Web posting Tuesday, the Islamic State of Iraq put the number of Americans killed at 30. "Almighty God has guided the soldiers of the Islamic State of Iraq to new methods of explosions," it said without elaborating. The message appeared on a Web site that frequently airs communications from militants, but its authenticity could not be independently confirmed. It was single deadliest attack on ground forces since Dec. 1, 2005, when a roadside bomb killed 10 Marines and wounded 11 on a foot patrol near Fallujah. Twelve soldiers died when a Black Hawk helicopter crashed in Diyala on Jan. 20. The military said it might have been shot down but the investigation is still ongoing. In other devastating attacks, 14 Marines were killed when a roadside bomb struck an amphibious assault vehicle near the western town of Haditha on Aug. 3, 2005. And a suicide bomber struck a mess tent in a base near Mosul on Dec. 21, 2004, killing 22 people, including 14 U.S. soldiers and three American contractors. It was the second bold attack against a U.S. base north of Baghdad in just over two months and was notable for its use of a suicide car bomber. Militants have mostly used hit-and-run ambushes, roadside bombs or mortars on U.S. troops and stayed away from direct assaults on fortified military compounds to avoid U.S. firepower. On Feb. 19, insurgents struck a U.S. combat post in Tarmiyah, about 30 miles north of Baghdad, killing two soldiers and wounding 17 in what the military called a "coordinated attack." It began with a suicide car bombing followed by gunfire on soldiers pinned down in a former Iraqi police station where fuel storage tanks were set ablaze by the blast. American troops are facing increasing danger as they step up their presence in outposts and police stations in Baghdad and areas surrounding the city, as part of the security crackdown to which President Bush has committed an extra 30,000 troops. Sunni militants are believed to have withdrawn to surrounding areas such as Diyala where they have safe haven. The U.S. command also deployed an extra 700 soldiers to the province last month. Another U.S. soldier was also killed Monday in a roadside bombing in Diyala, the military said — bringing the daily American death toll to 10. A British soldier was also shot to death while on patrol in the southern city of Basra, officials said. The deaths raised to 85 the number of U.S. service members who died have in Iraq in April, making it the deadliest month for American troops since December, when 112 died. On Tuesday, gunmen stormed a house south of Baghdad at dawn, going room to room and killing seven relatives while they were still in their beds, police and neighbors said. Neighbors said they could not recognize the assailants, who wore masks and drove into town in three pickup trucks. The whole incident lasted just a few minutes, police said, with the gunmen methodically moving room to room and pumping bullets into the residents while they slept. All seven victims were from the same family: a mother and father, their son and four teenage grandchildren, police said. The attack occurred in the mostly Shiite village of Jaara, less than 25 miles south of Baghdad. Hours later, gunmen disguised as Iraqi soldiers raided a remote village near the city of Baqouba, killing six people, wounding 15, and burning five homes, police said. The attack by about 70 gunmen riding in Iraqi army Humvees took place in the same province where the nine U.S. troops died a day earlier. A brief transfer ceremony was held in Basra on Tuesday at the Shaibah logistics base, once the main center of British military operations in Iraq. Iraq's national army planned to use the facility for training. Two other British bases — al-Saie and Shatt al-Arab — were turned over to Iraqi forces in Basra, Iraq's second-largest city, in the past month. The bulk of Britain's about 7,500 soldiers in the city will now operate from a base at Basra's main airport. Two car bombs exploded within minutes of each other Tuesday in a public parking lot about 150 yards from the front of the Iranian Embassy, wounding six civilians but causing no damage to the building, a police officer said on condition of anonymity out of concern for his own security. On Monday, two parked car bombs exploded outside the embassy. One bomb exploded near the same public parking lot, killing one civilian and wounding another; the other parked car bomb exploded close to a police patrol near the embassy, killing one civilian and wounding two officers, police said. On its Web site, the prominent Iraqi Sunni insurgent group Islamic Ansar al-Sunnah claimed responsibility for Monday's bombing near the parking lot. Also Tuesday: • Four bullet-riddled bodies were delivered to the morgue in Kut, 100 miles southeast of Baghdad, said morgue official Mamoun Ajeel al-Rubaie. Three had been decapitated, he said. • A bomb hidden in a bag exploded on a minibus in eastern Baghdad, killing four passengers and wounding eight, police said. • U.S. forces captured 10 suspected insurgents and seized a cache of weapons in raids across central Iraq, the military said.

File this under Conservatives say the dumbest thing

Media Matters - KSFO's Morgan: Media Matters like Virginia Tech gunman Summary: In an April 20 column for, Melanie Morgan, co-host of San Francisco radio station KSFO's Lee Rodgers & Melanie Morgan Program, compared Media Matters for America to the Virginia Tech gunman who killed 32 people before shooting himself to death. Morgan wrote: "Like that mentally unbalanced and angry gunman at Virginia Tech, they'll methodically march through the domiciles of the conservative movement, targeting the movement's leaders for career elimination -- until and unless we stand up and fight back against their campaign of mayhem against conservative leaders and causes." Morgan also attacked Media Matters as "left-wing free speech Nazis." Morgan wrote: "I have lived on the other side of the gun barrel pointed by Media Matters for America for the better part of three years, and I know what it feels like when a bunch of crackpots with keyboards pull the trigger, backed by millions upon millions of dollars in funding from George Soros." She added: "The transcripts and audio files of my comments have been excerpted, misrepresented and reconfigured to take statements out of context, reprinted with lies and distortions, and then disseminated to other liberal media outlets with fierce resolve." Morgan offered no evidence to support these accusations. Moreover, Media Matters has never received money from progressive philanthropist George Soros. Morgan has smeared Soros in the past, agreeing with co-host Lee Rodgers' assertion that Soros "apparently very cheerfully and willingly went to work for the Nazis" as a young boy, and adding that Soros did so to "further his own career." KSFO's program director announced in a subsequent show that Rodgers' and Morgan's comments about Soros "are not accurate, and KSFO regrets that they were broadcast." Morgan also has announced that "[w]e've got a bull's-eye painted on [House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's] big, wide laughing eyes." From Morgan's April 20 column: Media Matters was founded with the support and funding from key Democrat operatives, including John Podesta, former chief of staff to President Bill Clinton. The group has documented ties to far-left organizations such as and the Center for American Progress -- both of which have been funded by far-left billionaire George Soros. I have lived on the other side of the gun barrel pointed by Media Matters for America for the better part of three years, and I know what it feels like when a bunch of crackpots with keyboards pull the trigger, backed by millions upon millions of dollars in funding from George Soros. I co-host "The Lee Rodgers & Melanie Morgan Show," a conservative news/talk program on KSFO 560 AM in San Francisco, every weekday morning for four hours. Liberals are disgusted that our conservative program is one of the most-listened to radio programs in the notoriously liberal San Francisco Bay Area. We've endured several vicious campaigns waged against us by liberal activists with the backing of Media Matters for America, as they worked ruthlessly to have us silenced. Several times these left-wing free speech Nazis have almost succeeded. The transcripts and audio files of my comments have been excerpted, misrepresented and reconfigured to take statements out of context, reprinted with lies and distortions, and then disseminated to other liberal media outlets with fierce resolve. The Democratic Party wants to silence us, and they use Media Matters of America to wage a war against us replete with character assassination, personal threats, lawsuits and efforts to have us fired or suspended. I can live with being targeted by these "vile, despicable ankle-biters," as Bill O'Reilly calls Media Matters. In an odd way, the attacks against me have energized me to fight even harder for the conservative causes I believe in. One of those causes includes the right to bear arms, a right that had been denied to the students and professors at Virginia Tech University [sic] who were unable to defend themselves from a deranged murderer who took no notice of the school's status as a "Gun Free Zone." But make no mistake -- the campaign by Media Matters of America [sic] against Don Imus is part of their way to send a message to conservatives on the airwaves and in print: "We're comin' to get you. We got Imus. And we'll get you, too." It is a chilling threat to our free speech rights in this country. Now, with their current crusade in support of the gun control lobby, Media Matters is targeting our Second Amendment rights as well. Like that mentally unbalanced and angry gunman at Virginia Tech, they'll methodically march through the domiciles of the conservative movement, targeting the movement's leaders for career elimination -- until and unless we stand up and fight back against their campaign of mayhem against conservative leaders and causes.

Can conservative bloggers tell the truth?

Media Matters - Part II: Can conservative bloggers tell the truth? Part II: Can conservative bloggers tell the truth? by Eric Boehlert I don't mean to be judge and jury, but I must say my challenge last week to conservative blogger John Hinderaker over at Power Line, who recently claimed that most of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth allegations from 2004 have never disputed and that the Swift Boat vets have not been discredited, was a resounding success for the home team. How else to describe the fact that in his rebuttal to my very specific laundry list detailing precisely how the Swift Boat accusers had been discredited, Hinderaker never challenged a single fact I published? No joke. He didn't take issue with one factual assertion. Similarly, Power Line colleague Scott Johnson wrote that my Swift Boat work was built around a "barrage of little lies." Johnson then promptly failed to unmask a single lie that I told. In fact, he didn't even try. I'm not surprised. The revisionist claim that the Swift Boat accusers were somehow vindicated by the facts -- that "most of what the Vets said in their ads has never been disputed, let alone discredited," as Hinderaker put it -- remains a pipe dream that only partisan GOP bloggers still cling to. Note that Hinderaker also claimed it "was certainly true" that during the 2004 election, "[Sen. John] Kerry's [D-MA] purported heroism in Vietnam was being grossly over-sold." [Emphasis added.] Unlike Kerry, Baby Boomer Hinderaker didn't volunteer for Vietnam, yet he's comfortable today casually demeaning Kerry's military service, including the senator's Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts. That's a pretty good indication of the editorial and ethical standards Power Line regularly employs. In his name-calling response to my challenge that he defend his ill-advised claim that "most of what the Vets said in their ads has never been disputed, let alone discredited," Hinderaker stressed that he was referring to the later Swift Boat attack ads, not the first, most controversial one. (Hinderaker claims the allegations from the first attack ad were "relatively minor.") Oh, you mean that ad. The one that premiered on August 4, 2004, and launched the entire Swift Boat media frenzy and kept the story on cable television for weeks on end and generated thousands of newspaper and magazine articles and columns. Without that first ad accusing Kerry of lying about his medals, there would have been no Swift Boat controversy. Period. The later ads, which dealt with Kerry's 1971 anti-war testimony and the claim he'd crossed over the Cambodian border while serving, didn't air for weeks and had far less impact, according to Glenn Kessler, whose firm, HCD Research, monitored voter reaction to the Swift Boat ads. Appearing on Fox News on August 23, 2004, Kessler reported that 42 percent of viewers were leaning toward voting for Kerry before seeing the first ad, but just 29 percent were leaning toward Kerry immediately after seeing it. As for the second ad, Kessler said viewers had little or no reaction, and that his firm even detected a backlash against Bush among some independent viewers. Again, the entire Swift Boat firestorm was ignited by the first ad, which was laced with disputed allegations and discredited accusers. Yet Hinderaker makes sweeping statements about how most of the Swift Boat allegations were never disputed except, for y'know, maybe in the first ad. Right, and other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play? In his response to my column last week, Hinderaker actually backtracked a bit, conceding there were "significant factual dispute[s]" in the first Swift Boat ad. I'll chalk that up as progress. (Hinderaker also claimed that I had deliberately deceived readers because I did not quote extensively from his original defense of the Swift Boat Vets. I suppose the fact that I linked to his post, which offered readers a chance to examine his defense in full, counted as part of my master plan of deception.) Meanwhile, if Power Line bloggers want to think the Swift Boat Vets damaged Kerry's campaign not by making shocking (and false) accusations about his fraudulent war medals, but by raising doubts about whether Kerry crossed over into Cambodian waters 38 years ago, they're free to do so. Then again, Power Line bloggers are convinced the surge is working in Iraq, that the press won't report all the good news from Baghdad, and that the administration's recent purge of U.S. attorneys is a "non-story." In other words, they're Bush era dead-enders, struggling as they watch their beloved administration fall deeper into permanent disrepair. Honestly, I wasn't expecting any sort of Swift Boat correction or even a heartfelt acknowledgement of error from Power Line, which can't even muster the courage to do that when it's caught dead to rights, the way Greg Sargent did earlier this year by refuting Power Line's phony claim that U.S. troops had snubbed Kerry during his recent visit to Iraq (i.e. The Great Kerry Photo Caper). Instead, when confronted with proof its story line was false, the Power Line brain trust danced around the facts, insisting its original accusation against Kerry was "light in tone," that Power Line readers didn't really care that much about the story, and then told Sargent to "get a life." (How dare somebody document Power Line's serial mendacity?) I still think blogger Ezra Klein put it best, back in 2005, after Power Line was unmasked for hyping yet another one of its fruitless conspiracy theories: Powerline, we must begin to understand, has no fucking idea what they're talking about at any given moment. [...] They get nothing right. Their fact-checking skills are atrocious. They neither report nor call experts, it's just whatever they invented twenty seconds ago. [...] Arguments are created on the fly, accuracy is unimportant so long as the product accuses the "MSM" or Democrats of some cardinal sin that'll leave Powerline's sycophantic readers moaning with the exquisite pleasure that comes only from having one's biases expertly stroked. [Emphasis original.] If nothing else, this Swift Boat exercise has been instructive in that nobody at Power Line was willing, or able, to defend any of the Swift Boat accusations from the first, most famous attack ad. That's why Hinderaker wouldn't touch my laundry list of Swift Boat deceptions. Conservative bloggers claim the Swift Boat Vets have never been discredited, yet when confronted with my 2,500-word examination of their blatant contradictions and hollow claims, the GOP bloggers at Power Line simply look away, refusing to engage in the facts. It's telling, especially since the bloggers at Power Line are attorneys. Honestly, if even they won't try to defend the Swift Boat accusers, who will? Still, what about Hinderaker's assertion that the second and third Swift Boats ads were never disputed, let alone discredited? Turns out that's also a bogus claim. (Beyond the third ad, the Swift Boat claims became factually inconsequential.) The second ad, which premiered August 20, 2004, featured highlights from Kerry's famous 1971 testimony before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, in which he detailed grim war crimes conducted in Vietnam. Last week, Hinderaker asked, "Has that ad been refuted or discredited in any way? It's hard to see how it could be; I suppose Kerry could imitate the professional athlete who claimed he was misquoted in his own autobiography, but here we have Kerry on tape." It's telling that three years after the fact Hinderaker still knows so little about the Swift Boat controversy that he suggests perhaps Kerry claimed he was misquoted in the ad. Anyone who followed the story in real time knows Kerry made no such claim, but Hinderaker, prancing around as a Swift Boat expert, still doesn't have the slightest clue about the facts. More important, was that second ad ever refuted? Of course it was. It was well-documented in 2004 that the ad clearly, and purposefully, misled viewers via dubious editing. The ad suggested Kerry had personally accused Vietnam vets of grisly war crimes. A Swift Boat Veterans' accuser in the second ad stated, "The accusations that John Kerry made against the veterans who served in Vietnam was just devastating." (Hinderaker made a similarly blatant misstatement, claiming that when he returned from Vietnam, Kerry "falsely accused his fellow servicemen of being war criminals." Again, Hinderaker appears to be clueless as to the facts, or a very committed fabricator.) In truth, during his 1971 testimony, Kerry was simply relaying -- summarizing -- the crimes that more than 100 Vietnam vets had publicly claimed they had personally committed. Kerry was not accusing anyone. Also, keep in mind that Kerry's testimony came less than one month after Army Lt. William Calley had been convicted for his role in the My Lai massacre, where nearly 350 unarmed Vietnamese civilians -- mostly women and children -- were executed by U.S. soldiers. Given the abominable crimes documented at My Lai, Kerry's comments about atrocities were hardly the rantings of a radical, as the Swift Boat Veterans insinuated. In the third ad, the Swift Boat accusers asserted that Kerry lied when he once claimed during a speech on the floor of the U.S. Senate that he had spent Christmas Eve 1968 on a Swift Boat in neutral waters in Cambodia. The truth is Kerry did have to back away from his statements about being in Cambodia that day. Of course, what Hinderaker doesn't want to discuss is the fact that head Swift Boat accuser John O'Neill was also forced to backtrack from his 1971 statement that he had crossed over into Cambodian territory during a Swift Boat mission. Meaning, in the ad that contained a relatively undisputed fact, the incompetent Swift Boat Vets still managed to stumble over their inconsistencies. The accusers claimed Kerry being in Cambodia was impossible because nobody aboard a U.S. Swift Boat ever crossed over into Cambodia. Nobody. In fact, Kerry would have been court-martialed if he'd ventured into Cambodian territory, the Swift Boat veterans told reporters. Except that O'Neill told President Nixon he had done just that. Here's a discussion recorded during O'Neill's White House visit in 1971: O'NEILL: I was in Cambodia, sir. I worked along the border on the water. NIXON: In a Swift boat? O'NEILL: Yes, sir. When the Oval Office tape surfaced in 2004, the Associated Press quizzed O'Neill about the apparent discrepancies. O'Neill never blinked. "In an interview Wednesday with The Associated Press, O'Neill did not dispute what he said to Nixon on June 16, 1971, but he insisted he was never actually in Cambodia." In other words, O'Neill did not dispute that he told Nixon he "was in Cambodia," O'Neill simply disputed the fact that he was ever in Cambodia. Priceless. If you really want to get down into the Swift Boat minutia, and I realize Power Line bloggers don't want to since they have enough trouble grasping even the simplest facts of the saga, O'Neill was actually caught in a double lie regarding Cambodia. Here's how: He claimed he wasn't in Cambodia, even though he's on tape telling Nixon he was in Cambodia. OK, fine. O'Neill was simply being a braggart trying to impress Nixon. O'Neill's fallback position in 2004 when the Nixon tape surfaced was that he was merely "along the border" of Cambodia. Yet in making the original allegation against Kerry and his "made-up story" about Cambodia, O'Neill, in the Swift Boat Veterans' attack book, Unfit For Command, declared that no Swift Boat got closer than 55 miles to the Cambodian border because the U.S. military was so vigilant about not letting them cross or even get too close. [Pages 47-48] Indeed, in 2004, Swift Boat accuser Stephen Gardner told reporters it was "physically impossible" for Swift Boats to even approach the Cambodian border because of a U.S. naval blockade. So why did O'Neill tell Nixon that he was "along the border" of Cambodia, despite the fact the Kerry accusers claimed that no Swift Boaters were allowed within 55 miles of the border? Even O'Neill's lies didn't add up. Given Hinderaker's weak-kneed rebuttal last week, I don't suspect he's yet willing, or able, to argue the facts of the Swift Boat smear campaign. But I'm sure he'll continue to insist that the Swift Boat Vets haven't been discredited. That's because Power Line rarely lets the facts get in the way of a good story. Can conservative bloggers tell the truth? I say no

Monday, April 23, 2007

The Wisdom of Rush Limbaugh

Faux News video taking Rush comment about Cho being a liberal.

Kucinich to introduce articles of impeachment against Dick Cheney

Kucinich Goes for Impeachment Against Cheney Source: ABC NewsABC News' Jennifer Duck Reports: Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) plans to hold a noon ET press conference on Tuesday to introduce articles of impeachment against Vice President Dick Cheney.The noon presser is scheduled to be held in the Cannon Terrace of the Cannon House Office Building in Washington, DC.

Ex aide to plead guilty in ethics probe

Ex-aide to plead guilty in ethics probe - Yahoo! News Ex-aide to plead guilty in ethics probe 36 minutes ago The Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal has ensnared a former congressional staffer who is expected to admit accepting $40,000 worth of money and tickets to sporting events and concerts in exchange for assisting Abramoff. The Justice Department filed a felony information charging Mark Zachares with conspiracy. Zachares' lawyer, Edward MacMahon, said his client will enter a guilty plea Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Washington. Abramoff and his lobbying team supplied Zachares with tickets on more than 40 occasions from August 2002 to February 2004, says a 10-page document filed in the case. Zachares also received, according to the court papers, $10,000 in wire transfers from Abramoff in January and February 2002 through a nonprofit foundation the lobbyist controlled. Zachares worked for the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee, providing Abramoff contact information for prospective businesses that would be affected by the creation of the Homeland Security Department, the court papers stated. In addition, Zachares went on an August 2003 golfing trip to Scotland with Abramoff and six others including Rep. Tom Feeney (news, bio, voting record), R-Fla. The cost of the trip was more than $160,000 for private jet service, luxury hotel accommodations, twice-daily golf at St. Andrews and other famous courses, meals, drinks and local transportation, states the document that federal prosecutors filed in court.

Right Wing Spotlight: Amy Proctor

I have a rule about talking about female conservative/right wing pundits(Ann Coulter is a dude so shehim is open to me to ridicule) outside Ann Coulter most female conservative or right wing pundits are like rabbits cute to look at and harmless most don't reach the hateful level of Ann Coulter some try but they're quickly duck in their shells when challenge with any facts that brings down their argument. But again I break the rule because I found this blog created by one Amy Proctor, who's Amy Proctor you might ask, well here's Amy bio: Amy is a proud Christian and Republican woman born and raised in northeastern USA. Married to her husband since 1988, they have 4 wonderful children. She left her job as a paralegal with the Virginia State Bar to raise her children and focus on family life. The Proctors have been an Army family since 1993 and Amy's husband Johnny has served with 4th ID, 101st ABN DIV, 2nd ID and the 82nd ABN DIV. He has been deployed to Haiti, Korea and Iraq in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Amy and her family are devout Catholics. They are very involved in ministry in the Church and also support the Christian Churches in Iraq. Amy & Johnny have raised over $15,000 for the Church in Iraq through designated offerings at Ft. Bragg, NC and Ft. Campbell, KY and other means. They also assist the Church in Iraq through charitable giving from private donors. Amy's achievements include citations from both the 101st Airborne Division, 187th Infantry as Family Readiness Group leader & 82nd Airborne Division, 325th Infantry Regiment for outstanding support to military families. She also received the Dr. Mary E. Walker Award (11/01) while at Ft. Bragg, NC, the highest award going to a military spouse for supporting & improving the quality of life for soldiers and their families. She has also received recognition from Ft. Jackson for support of soldiers. Over the past 2 years, Amy counterprotested weekly at anti-war vigils and events, supported the war on terror and stood against the anti-war movement. She, along with other Army wives, counterprotested so-called Peace Groups and Cindy Sheehan events, outside of Veterans Hospitals and military posts. Amy has written editorials in numerous newspapers throughout the country and is currently a contracted writer for A Greater Freedom and is a contributor for California Conservative. Sorry folks I had to throw up after reading this... So let me get this right she's holding counter protest to protest people who wants to save the lives of the people she claims to support that makes sense to me. After all those soldiers did sign up to get killed for a lie and it's up to Amy Proctor to make sure of it. But if Amy believes in Iraq so much hell make it a couple thing and sign up Amy I bet hubby got ya back when you kick in doors of poor Iraqis or making sure that box on the side of the road isn't a bomb and when you come home Amy either with a missing limb or just crazy you know you can always rehab at Walter Reed you just have to fight the cockroaches for your dinner. So folks if you want to see more right wing propaganda masked as a call of supporting the troops swing by Amy's blog Amy Proctor - Blog And I invite Amy's five readers to debate me on this one.

Reid: Congress will endorse Iraq pullout

Reid: Congress will endorse Iraq pullout - Yahoo! News Reid: Congress will endorse Iraq pullout By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent 58 minutes ago Defying a fresh veto threat, the Democratic-controlled Congress will pass legislation within days requiring the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq beginning Oct. 1, with a goal of completing the pullout six months later, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-finally understanding no one likes the shrub) said Monday. Reid said the legislation "immediately transitions the U.S. military away from policing a civil war." He said that troops that remain in Iraq after next April 1 could only train Iraqi security units, protect U.S forces and conduct "targeted counter-terror operations." The Nevada Democrat outlined the elements of the legislation in a speech a few hours after Bush said he will reject any legislation along the lines of what Democrats intend to pass. "I will strongly reject an artificial timetable (for) withdrawal and/or Washington politicians trying to tell those who wear the uniform how to do their job," the president said. Bush made his comments to reporters in the Oval Office as he met with senior military leaders, including his top commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus. Taken together, Reid's speech and Bush's comments inaugurated a week of extraordinary confrontation between the president and the new Democratic-controlled Congress over a war that has taken the lives of more than 3,200 U.S. troops. Negotiators for the House and Senate arranged a late-afternoon meeting to ratify the timetable that Reid laid out. The demand for a change in course will be attached to a funding bill that is needed to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Under an agreement by Democratic leaders, the final bill could trigger the withdrawal of U.S. troops as early as July 1 if Bush cannot certify that the Iraqi government is making progress in disarming militias, reducing sectarian violence and forging political compromises. The bill also would withhold foreign aid money if the Iraqi government does not meet certain benchmarks. As part of the same measure, congressional negotiators also tentatively agreed on about $25 billion not requested by Bush for medical care for troops and veterans, aid to the victims of Hurricane Katrina, farm disaster relief and other programs. The add-ons have provoked a separate veto threat from Bush. Negotiators dropped provisions ridiculed by the president such as aid to peanut farmers and spinach producers. Reid said Bush was in "a state of denial" over the war, and likened him to another commander in chief four decades ago. "I remember when President Johnson, trying to save his political legacy, initiated the first of many surges into Vietnam in 1965," he said. Reid said thousands more U.S. troops died in Vietnam in the years that followed. Now, he said, Bush "is the only person who fails to face this war's reality - and that failure is devastating not just for Iraq's future, but for ours." Reid had made similar comments at a White House meeting last week among Bush and top lawmakers, and this time, the president's spokeswoman fired back. She said it was Reid who was ignoring reality, not the president. Reid is in denial about the vicious nature of the enemy and about the U.S.-led plan to provide more security in Iraq, said deputy press secretary Dana Perino(R-Current White House liar). "He's also in denial that a surrender date — he thinks it is a good idea. It is not a good idea. It is defeat. It is a death sentence for the millions of Iraqis who voted for a constitution, who voted for a government, who voted for a free and Democratic society." In a question and answer session after his speech, Reid was asked what the U.S. should do if U.S. troops leave and Iraq collapses into chaos. "We know this is an intractable civil war going on now," he responded. Reid drew criticism from Bush and others last week when he said the war in Iraq had been lost. The Nevada Democrat did not repeat the assertion in his prepared speech, saying that "The military mission has long since been accomplished. The failure has been political. It has been policy. It has been presidential." Reid said that in addition to the timetable, the legislation will establish standards for the Iraqi government to meet in terms of "making progress on security, political reconciliation and improving the lives of ordinary Iraqis who have suffered so much." The measure also would launch diplomatic, economic and political policy changes, the Nevada Democrat said. Reid also challenged Bush to present an alternative if, as expected, he vetoes the Democratic legislation. The president said that Petraeus will go to Capitol Hill to tell lawmakers what's going right in Iraq — and what's not. "It's a tough time, as the general will tell Congress," Bush said. Still, the president insisted, progress is being made in Iraq as more U.S. troops head into the country to provide security. There is no doubt that Republicans in Congress have the votes to sustain Bush's threatened veto. That would require Congress to approve a second funding bill quickly to avoid significant disruptions in military operations. Reid's speech blended an attack on Bush, an appeal for patience to the anti-war voters who last fall gave Democrats control, and an attempt to shape the post-veto debate. "I understand the restlessness that some feel. Many who voted for change in November anticipated dramatic and immediate results in January," he said. "But like it or not, George W. Bush is still the commander in chief — and this is his war," Reid said. Reid said Democrats have sought Republican support for their attempts to force Bush to change course. "Only the president is the odd man out, and he is making the task even harder by demanding absolute fidelity from his party." Looking beyond Bush's expected veto, he said, "If the president disagrees, let him come to us with an alternative. Instead of sending us back to square one with a veto, some tough talk and nothing more, let him come to the table in the spirit of bipartisanship that Americans demand and deserve."

Thursday, April 12, 2007

Right wing radio spotlight: Sean Hannity

I have to thank Comm Guru over at the kick ass blog The Conservative Media for this idea, its high time to fight back against right wing radio.. So I'm going to start the right wing spot light with Rush Limbaugh's parrot Sean Hannity.
Media Matters Bio: Sean Hannity is the co-host of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes and the host of The Sean Hannity Show, syndicated by ABC Radio Networks. Hannity's radio show, airing on more than 400 stations, has a weekly audience of approximately 13 million listeners, second only to Rush Limbaugh. Hannity is a reliable outlet for conservative talking points, regularly repeating them to his audiences both on cable and on the radio. He narrated the Republican Party's welcome video for its 2004 national convention in New York City. While Hannity & Colmes is ostensibly a give-and-take debate program, with co-host Alan Colmes serving as progressive balance, it is Hannity who dominates the program's themes and lines of questioning.
Things Hannity has said:
Note to the Picture:
Sean likes to scream about the left has no morals or ethics get a nice look at the picture, Sean is hamming it up at the Bunny Ranch the same Bunny Ranch made famous by the HBO series Cathouse the series about a place where single and MARRIED men go to pay for sex.

Progress being made: bombing kill 2 in Green Zone

Explosion hits Iraqi parliament; 2 dead - Yahoo! News Explosion hits Iraqi parliament; 2 dead By QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA, Associated Press Writer 32 minutes ago A bomb exploded in the Iraqi parliament's cafeteria in a stunning assault in the heart of the heavily fortified, U.S.-protected Green Zone Thursday, killing at least two lawmakers and wounding 10 other people. The blast in the parliament building came hours after a suicide truck bomb blew up a major bridge in Baghdad, collapsing the steel structure and sending cars tumbling into the Tigris River, police and witnesses said. At least 10 people were killed. The bomb in parliament went off in a cafeteria while several lawmakers were eating lunch, media reports said. In addition to the two dead, state television said at least 10 people were wounded. After the blast, security guards sealed the building and no one — including lawmakers — was allowed to enter or leave. A spokesman for the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad said no Americans were hurt in the blast. The bombing came amid the two-month-old security crackdown in Baghdad, which has sought to restore stability in the capital so that the government of Iraq can take key political steps by June 30 or face a withdrawal of American support. One of the dead lawmakers was Mohammed Awad, a member of the Sunni National Dialogue Front, said Saleh al-Mutlaq, the leader of the party, which holds 11 seats in Iraq's legislature. A female Sunni lawmaker from the same list was wounded, he said. A security official at the building said a second lawmaker, a Shiite member, also was killed. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media. But Mukhlis al-Zamili of the Shiite Fadhila party said the second dead lawmaker was a Kurd, adding that six of those wounded were members of the radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's bloc. Al-Zamili also said he believed a suicide bomber wearing an explosive vest was behind the attack. Another member of the National Dialogue Front, Mohammed al-Dayni, also suggested a suicide bomber was behind it. "I am standing now at the site of the explosion and looking at the severed legs of the person who carried out the operation. If this tells us anything, it tells us that security is lax," al-Dayni told Iraq's Sharqiya television. Earlier in the day, security officials used dogs to check people entering the building in a rare precaution — apparently concerned that an attack might take place. The brazen bombing was the clearest evidence yet that militants can penetrate even the most secure locations. Masses of U.S. and Iraqi soldiers are on the streets in the ninth week of a security crackdown in the capital and security measures inside the Green Zone have been significantly hardened. The U.S. military reported April 1 that two suicide vests were found in the heavily fortified region that also houses the U.S. Embassy and offices of the Iraqi government. A militant rocket attack last month killed two Americans, a soldier and a contractor. A few days earlier, a rocket landed within 100 yards of a building where U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon was holding a news conference. No one was hurt. Khalaf al-Ilyan, one of the three leaders of the Iraqi Accordance Front, which holds 44 seats, said the attack was "aimed at everyone — all parties — our parliament in general being a symbol and a representative of all segments of Iraqi society." Al-Ilyan, who is in Jordan recovering from knee surgery, said the blast also "underlines the failure of the government's security plan." "The plan is 100 percent a failure. It's a complete flop. The explosion means that instability and lack of security has reached the Green Zone, which the government boasts is heavily fortified," he said. U.S. Embassy spokesman Lou Fintor said its officials were "investigating the nature and source of the explosion. No embassy employees or U.S. citizens were affected." Hadi al-Amiri, head of the parliament's security and defense committee, said the explosion shook the building just after legislators ended their main meeting, and broke into smaller committees. "A few brothers (fellow lawmakers) happened to be in the cafeteria at the time of the explosion," al-Amiri told Al-Arabiya television. "But had they been able to place this bomb inside the meeting hall, it would have been a catastrophe." Al-Amiri added Iraqi forces are in charge of security in the building, and that explosives could have been smuggled in amid restaurant supplies. A television camera and videotape belonging to a Western TV crew was confiscated by security guards moments after the attack. Attacks in the Green Zone are rare. The worst known attack inside the enclave occurred Oct. 14, 2004, when insurgents detonated explosives at a market and a popular cafe, killing six people. That was the first bombing in the sprawling region. On Nov. 25, 2004, a mortar attack inside the zone killed four employees of a British security firm and wounded at least 12. On Jan. 29, 2005, insurgents hit the U.S. Embassy compound with a rocket, killing two Americans — a civilian and a Navy sailor — on the eve of landmark elections. Four other Americans were wounded. In addition to killing 10 people, Thursday's bombing of the al-Sarafiya bridge wounded 26, hospital officials said, and police were trying to rescue as many as 20 people whose cars plummeted off the span. Waves lapped against twisted girders as patrol boats searched for survivors and U.S. helicopters flew overhead. Scuba divers donned flippers and waded in from the riverbanks. Farhan al-Sudani, a 34-year-old Shiite businessman who lives near the bridge, said the blast woke him at dawn. "A huge explosion shook our house and I thought it would demolish our house. Me and my wife jumped immediately from our bed, grabbed our three kids and took them outside," he said. The al-Sarafiya bridge connected two northern Baghdad neighborhoods — Waziriyah, a mostly Sunni enclave, and Utafiyah, a Shiite area. Police blamed the attack on a suicide truck bomber, but AP Television News video showed the bridge broken in two places — perhaps the result of two blasts. Cement pilings that support the steel structure were left crumbling. At the base of one lay a charred vehicle engine, believed to be that of the truck bomb. "We were astonished more when we saw the extent of damage," said Ahmed Abdul-Karim, 45, who also lives near the bridge. "I was standing in my garden and I saw the smoke and flying debris." The al-Sarafiya bridge is believed to be at least 75 years old, built by the British in the early part of the 20th century. "It is one of Baghdad's monuments. This is really damaging for Iraq. We are losing a lot of our history every day," Abdul-Karim said. The al-Sarafiya bridge has a duplicate in Fallujah that was built later and made infamous in March 2004 when angry mobs hung the charred bodies of U.S. contractors from its girders. "This bridge is linked to Baghdad's modern history — it is one of our famous monuments," said Haider Ghazala, a 52-year-old Iraqi architect. "Attacking this bridge affects the morale of Iraqis and especially Baghdad residents who feel proud of this bridge. They (insurgents) want to demolish everything that connects the people with this land," he said. Before the al-Sarafiya bridge was destroyed, nine spans across the Tigris linked western and eastern Baghdad. The river now serves as a de facto dividing line between the mostly Shiite east and the largely Sunni west of the city, a reality of more than a year of sectarian fighting that has forced Sunnis to flee neighborhoods where they were a minority and likewise for Shiites. Baghdad's neighborhoods had been very mixed before the war but hundreds of thousands of people have been displaced since then as militants from both Muslim sects have sought to cleanse their neighborhoods of rivals. There have been unconfirmed reports for months that Sunni insurgents and al-Qaida in Iraq were planning a campaign to blow up the city's bridges. U.S. military headquarters near the Baghdad airport and the Green Zone, site of the U.S. Embassy and Iraqi parliament and government, are both on the west side of the river. Also Thursday, the U.S. military said its troops killed two suspected insurgents and captured 17 in raids across the country. ___

Wednesday, April 11, 2007

Kathy's point out Iaccoca double speak

Here's a really cool post from Kathy's blog STONE SOUP MUSINGS she points out ole Lee has a new book coming out which Lee has some choice words for the Decider but what makes the part funny is that Lee Iaccoca supported guys like Reagan, backed Bush in 2000 and even cut ads for George W. Bush's clone Dick "Amway" DeVos during last year's election.. Enough with me here's Kathy post. Lee Iaccoca asks a question Iaccoca has a new book coming out that rips the Bush administration up one side and down the other and asks a question many of us have been echoing for years now: Where Have All the Leaders Gone?What makes this so interesting is the fact that Iaccoca is a Republican who was friends with Reagan, endorsed Bush in 2000, and even endorsed Dick DeVos in his failed gubernatorial campaign last year. Here's an excerpt: Am I the only guy in this country who’s fed up with what’s happening? Where the hell is our outrage? We should be screaming bloody murder. We’ve got a gang of clueless bozos steering our ship of state right over a cliff, we’ve got corporate gangsters stealing us blind, and we can’t even clean up after a hurricane much less build a hybrid car. But instead of getting mad, everyone sits around and nods their heads when the politicians say, “Stay the course.”Stay the course? You’ve got to be kidding. This is America, not the damned Titanic. I’ll give you a sound bite: Throw the bums out!You might think I’m getting senile, that I’ve gone off my rocker, and maybe I have. But someone has to speak up. I hardly recognize this country anymore. The President of the United States is given a free pass to ignore the Constitution, tap our phones, and lead us to war on a pack of lies. Congress responds to record deficits by passing a huge tax cut for the wealthy (thanks, but I don’t need it). The most famous business leaders are not the innovators but the guys in handcuffs. While we’re fiddling in Iraq, the Middle East is burning and nobody seems to know what to do. And the press is waving pom-poms instead of asking hard questions. That’s not the promise of America my parents and yours traveled across the ocean for. I’ve had enough. How about you?I’ll go a step further. You can’t call yourself a patriot if you’re not outraged…. Why are we in this mess? How did we end up with this crowd in Washington? Well, we voted for them — or at least some of us did. But I’ll tell you what we didn’t do. We didn’t agree to suspend the Constitution. We didn’t agree to stop asking questions or demanding answers. Some of us are sick and tired of people who call free speech treason. Where I come from that’s a dictatorship, not a democracy.Iaccoca goes on to say he's never been Commander in Chief, but he's been a CEO and he understands a few things about leadership. In fact, he's calls the qualities necessary his "Nine Cs of Leadership." Check the list for yourself and see how he blasts Bush on every single criteria. So why is Iaccoca speaking out now? In his own words: I'm speaking out because I have hope. I believe in America. In my lifetime I've had the privilege of living through some of America's greatest moments. I've also experienced some of our worst crises—the Great Depression, World War II, the Korean War, the Kennedy assassination, the Vietnam War, the 1970s oil crisis, and the struggles of recent years culminating with 9/11. If I've learned one thing, it's this: You don't get anywhere by standing on the sidelines waiting for somebody else to take action. Whether it's building a better car or building a better future for our children, we all have a role to play. That's the challenge I'm raising in this book. It's a call to action for people who, like me, believe in America. It's not too late, but it's getting pretty close. So let's shake off the horseshit and go to work. Let's tell 'em all we've had enough.Why did you wait till the Titanic almost sunk to speak up, Lee? Better late than never I guess, but your silence was akin to "standing on the sidelines waiting for somebody else to take action" in my opinion.