80 Comments

• 1. SEW  |  March 24th, 2008 at 11:04 am

  http://www.townhall.com/funnies/2008/03/24/

• 2. Some Assembly Required  |  March 24th, 2008 at 11:11 am

  Funny cartoon. I think they should do one with McCain in a walker next to him though.

• 3. Kahn  |  March 24th, 2008 at 11:28 am

  Well I see how Democrats pull together to support the nation. With financial problems being battled and talks of a recession and economic hardship….. what better time for the Teamsters to threaten a nationwide trucking strike?

  Thanks Democrats. Now, go kick (not the first word I typed there) your dogs.

• 4. phnx  |  March 24th, 2008 at 11:58 am

  House sales in the Northeast jumped 11% in February. Could this be the bottom?

• 5. Joe  |  March 24th, 2008 at 12:09 pm

  phnx,
  I know, I know, I know… “liberals” are always so negative about things.

  Did you read articles on that housing sales increase?

  WASHINGTON (AP) ― After falling for six straight months, sales of existing homes posted an unexpected increase in February which may have reflected more aggressive price cutting by sellers in some parts of the country, a real estate trade group reported.

  The National Association of Realtors said that sales of existing homes rose by 2.9 percent in February to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 5.03 million units. It was the biggest increase in a year and caught economists by surprise. They had been expecting a small decline.

  The trade group reported that the median existing sales price in February fell to $195,900. That was the largest year-over-year drop on records that go back to 1999.

  So several things probably added to that increase. The significant drop in the prices coupled with very low interest rates are great for first time buyers. The number of people that have to sell at whatever price they can get for various reasons (i.e. job loss, avoid foreclosure, etc). They are not necessarily selling so they can go buy something better.

  So yes… it is great that the number of units sold has gone up, but the reasons for that could be (and most likely are) worse than the headline leads on.

  So no. I would say we have another year before hitting bottom.

• 6. eric  |  March 24th, 2008 at 12:13 pm

  Simply deplorable:

  http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/03/easter-mass-attack-protesters-scream.html

• 7. Diana Powe  |  March 24th, 2008 at 12:19 pm

  eric,

  I agree.

• 8. SEW  |  March 24th, 2008 at 12:39 pm

  Icebox Jefferson has new competition for the VP spot.

  http://www.wwj.com/pages/1869804.php?contentType=4&contentId=1762338

• 9. Diana Powe  |  March 24th, 2008 at 12:44 pm

  Rep. Virginia Foxx says she believes God will judge people for sins of omission as well as commission, so the Banner Elk Republican had a message she couldn’t keep to herself.

  “You should fear for your country,” Foxx told a gathering of members of the Charlotte Chamber of Commerce.

  The Democratic majority in Congress has become “bolder and bolder” with tax dollars and the rules of the House, she told the business leaders at their annual Washington meeting.

  “I am trying to scare you to death,” she said.
  __________
  Score: http://www.charlotte.com/630/story/540430.html

  At least she’s honest about playing on people’s fear. St. Foxx apparently sees God as a registered Republican so you better get right with the ballot box.

• 10. Diana Powe  |  March 24th, 2008 at 1:16 pm

  “We’ve won” or “we’re winning” or “there’s no substitute for victory” or maybe something far more complicated is going on in Iraq. It’s certainly interesting given the right-wing obsession with strength and weakness:
  

  [Col. Faisal Ismail al-]Zobaie, 51, knows the nature of the men in black masks. He is a former insurgent. Now, as the police chief, he has turned against the insurgency, especially al-Qaeda in Iraq. The U.S. military showcases Fallujah as a model city where U.S. policies are finally paying off and is spending hundreds of millions of dollars in the region to promote the rule of law and a variety of nation-building efforts.

  But the security that has been achieved here is fragile, the result of harsh tactics recalling the rule of Saddam Hussein, who was overthrown five years ago. Even as they work alongside U.S. forces, Zobaie’s men admit they have beaten and tortured suspects to force confessions and exact revenge.
  _____

  The story of Zobaie and his police force opens a window onto the Iraq that is emerging after five years of war. American ideals that were among the justifications for the 2003 invasion, such as promoting democracy and human rights, are giving way to values drawn from Iraq’s traditions and tribal culture, such as respect, fear and brutality.

  “We don’t have any Thomas Jeffersons here,” said Capt. Sean Miller, a member of the 3rd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division from Fairfax, Va., who works closely with Zobaie. “What we do have here is generally a group of people who are trying to save a city. It won’t fulfill our ideals or what we desire.”
  _____

  Zobaie has asked the U.S. officers to help obtain more aid for the city from the regional and central governments. Already, the U.S. military is employing street cleaners, building schools and putting up $9 million worth of solar street lights. But some U.S. officers question why insurgents once determined to kill them have so quickly embraced them.

  “Every time they talk to you there’s an agenda,” said Miller, the captain who works closely with Zobaie. “You have to figure out what they want right now. If it is this easy, it begs the question: What are we giving them that we don’t know that we’re giving them?”

  What Zobaie wants is for the U.S. military to hand over full control of Fallujah. He believes Iraq’s current leaders are not strong enough. Asked whether democracy could ever bloom here, he replied: “No democracy in Iraq. Ever.”

  “When the Americans leave the city,” he said, “I’ll be tougher with the people.”
  __________
  Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/23/AR2008032301990_pf.html

• 11. Joe  |  March 24th, 2008 at 1:47 pm

  That’s gotta hurt…

  GOP state parties are in dire straits
  At a time when the GOP presidential nominee will need more assistance than ever, a number of state Republican parties are struggling through troubled times, suffering from internal strife, poor fundraising, onerous debt, scandal or voting trends that are conspiring to relegate the local branches of the party to near-irrelevance.

  In some of the largest, smallest, reddest and bluest states in the nation, many state Republican organizations are still reeling in the aftermath of the devastating 2006 election cycle…

  “After twelve years of being in power, you tend to get fat and lazy, and in some cases arrogant with respect to your positions,” said Saul Anuzis, chairman of the Michigan Republican party. “There is no doubt that we have had people who have gotten caught up in both illegal activities and immoral activities and none of that helps the party as a whole.

  “If you go back to 2006 most people would agree that not only did we lose our brand, that we damaged our brand significantly,” Anuzis said. “We are clearly rebuilding.”
  …
  “We are not a unified group as we once were,” said Republican John Harris, the Speaker of the Alaska House. “Between Congressman Young and Senator Stevens, and our governor seems to throw out comments periodically about the ethical operation of the state … internally, that fuels the fire constantly.”

  http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9175.html

• 12. Joe  |  March 24th, 2008 at 3:16 pm

  Why is there no talk on this “Open Thread” about McCain’s “Senior Moment”?

  After spending day after day after day after day on Obama’s pastor, McCain just gets a pass on this gaffe? It’s not like he did it just one time for cryin’ out loud.

  Even if you do chalk it up as a “senior moment”, is that what you want our next President to be? A series of “senior moments”???

  Is there nobody on the right that is even remotely concerned about this?

  He, leave it to a Democrat (albeit a quasi-Democrat) to correct him on the Sunni/Shia flub.

• 13. Kahn  |  March 24th, 2008 at 3:19 pm

  Yep. Well at least he knows Al Queda is our enemy. Obama wants to sing Kumbaya with them.

  Why is there no condemnation of Teamsters threatening action that could put us in economic chaos?

• 14. kimberly4victory  |  March 24th, 2008 at 3:22 pm

  Since Diane continues to assume things about me, I’ll give her ten facts about myself:

  1. I do not LOVE war. In fact, I don’t think anyone loves war. Sometimes war is a necessity. I KNOW war is hard on our military and their families. I’ve lived it so I know firsthand. I do know how proud I am of my father and how proud he is to have served his country.

  2. I am glad we got rid of Saddam. He murdered over 300,000+ people. He put people down wood chippers while they were still alive, he shot them in the head for disagreeing with him, he eliminated entire families, his sons raped and killed children. Good riddance to the lot of them.

  3. I want our troops to come home. 100% of Americans want the troops to come home. Not 50%, not 60%, but 100%. However, I do not want to cut and run. I do not want Iraq to turn into a breeding ground for Islamic extremists, like they did in Kosovo. Yes, it is costing us lives and money. How much will it cost us if we leave before Iraq is stable? How much will it cost us to return and start all over again?

  4. That being said … I believe the US should NOT continue to incur all the costs of rebuilding Iraq. Iraq is making boocoo bucks with their oil and it is about time, they started picking up the tab. Why should we pay for rebuilding infrastructures in cities that had none before the war? Why should we pay for street cleaners and solar lights (unbelievable!!)? If they want us there, which they do, then pay us to stay.

  5. I have voted for a Democrat before. Shock!

  6. I am pro-life. I think it is murder to kill an unborn child. I think it is disgusting what they do to children in a partial birth abortion (another reason I will not vote for Obama). However … I do not think making abortion illegal is the way to go. I don’t want women to go into back alleyways and have illegal abortions because they could die from it. I do believe education is key. Showing pictures of unborn, aborted and partially aborted children on tv, in schools … teaching abstinance, etc. is the way to go.

  7. I do care about our military and not because I am an AF brat. I do care about their health and welfare. I have argued with my representatives about their equipment, their medical treatment, etc. I have donated hundreds of dollars toward the Wounded Warrior Fund, I’ve sent over a dozen care packages each year to Iraq and Afghanistan, I started a program at my daughter’s school where each student writes a letter to a soldier, I’ve visited the vets in hospitals with my child and her friends on the weekends, etc.. I was disgusted by the conditions at Walter Reed and other Vet hospitals. But I didn’t lay the blame completely on Bush for that. These places were crumbling long before he became POTUS. It was long overdue to get these facilities in good working condition. Our troops deserve the best.

  8. I’ve disagreed with Bush and his administration on many things and have stated so. I’ve disagreed with McCain as well. I know Bush has made mistakes. Every president has made mistakes. No one is perfect, except God.

  9. I am a single mom, with no financial or emotional support from the father. It’s been tough, but I’ve made it without any government assistance. I don’t believe I should depend on the government for my well-being. I work hard. I own my business and do very well with it. I am an Arizona native, have traveled and lived all over the world, I love and support my daughter, family and friends, I love my country, I support my troops, I do not hate liberals, I do hate terrorists, and I love God.

  10. I care for the environment. I recycle more than my Democrat neighbors … LOL! I drive an economical car and because I work from my home, I rarely drive. I even walk to the store or take my bike.

• 15. Some Assembly Required  |  March 24th, 2008 at 3:25 pm

  Obama wants to focus on Afghanistan, you know that place where the US attacked after they attacked the US on 9/11.

  The US is already in an economic crisis, though this teamsters business is certainly not a step in the right direction.

• 16. Joe  |  March 24th, 2008 at 3:26 pm

  kahn,
  i’m not talking about it because this is the first I’ve heard of it.
  i’m looking for any information on the teamsters threatening a strike and have no hits. Can you link that?

• 17. eric  |  March 24th, 2008 at 3:40 pm

  Kim,
  As a child of a single mom (without any support from my father), I can completely empathize with your situation. My mom, my sisters and I existed just below the poverty line and it was tough. However, I think I grew up pretty well and I became a patent attorney (in part due to the student loans that I received from the government).

  In the irony of all ironies, my father called me last week because he wanted to borrow money from me to pay back child support for his second set of children or they will toss his sorry ass in jail. I declined to assist him.

  Like you, I work at home and I rarely drive. In fact, I sold my Corvette a couple of months ago because I simply wasn’t driving anymore. I loved that car (in an admitted very materialistic sort of way), but it was just sitting in the garage collecting dust.

  I know this is too much personal information, but I appreciated the honesty of your above post.

• 18. Diana Powe  |  March 24th, 2008 at 3:41 pm

  We know why the media can barely bestir themselves to note Senator McCain’s conflation of al-Qaeda and Iran - a casual conflation very similar to that which occurred in the months leading to our invasion of Iraq - because he has so much “in the bank” with the media. The plain implication is that they like John McCain (he feeds them “delicious barbecued ribs”) and he’s a Serious Foreign Policy Expert who must be listened to because, after all, he wants to stay in Iraq another hundred years.

• 19. eric  |  March 24th, 2008 at 3:53 pm

  Diana,
  Have you seen this 2003 interview with Senator Obama’s military adviser, Gen. Tony McPeak? He seems to concur with Senator McCain’s assessment.

  Q: Is Iraq the last country we confront in the Middle East?

  A: Who wants to volunteer to get cross-ways with us? We’ll be there a century, hopefully. If it works right.

  The entire interview can be found here:
  http://www.poor-attitude.org/mt/archives/000074.html

• 20. kimberly4victory  |  March 24th, 2008 at 3:56 pm

  Thank you, Eric. I suppose I gave too much personal information but what the heck! Wow … the nerve of your father! I’m glad you declined to help him out. My daughter’s father is rich so he won’t dare ask me for financial help …

  Diana … We still have bases in Europe, Japan, South Korea, after 50+ years. We still have troops in Kosovo after 9 years. Should we return all troops to the US?

  Since you have an issue with what McCain said, do you have any issue with Obama stating the United States must be willing to strike al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan even though Pakistan is against us doing so?

  Do you have any issue with Obama stating he would be willing to meet the leaders of Iran, Cuba, Syria, North Korea and Venezuela WITHOUT preconditions in his first year in office?

• 21. Diana Powe  |  March 24th, 2008 at 4:03 pm

  A Vermont newspaper calls out their senior Senator:
  

  When The Day endorsed Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman for re-election in November 2006 it was supporting a candidate who demonstrated a history of pragmatic leadership and a willingness to seek bipartisan solutions.

  We wonder what happened to that senator.
  _____

  But while Sen. Lieberman remains experienced, he is no longer even-handedly principled.
  _____

  Rather than building the bridges The Day expected when it endorsed Sen. Lieberman, he appears busy burning bridges with the party of which he is allegedly still a member. Perhaps the senator is positioning himself for a top cabinet post in a McCain presidency. But if the Democrats prevail, and enlarge their control of the Senate, it is hard to imagine this Connecticut senator being welcomed back with open arms.
  __________
  Source: http://www.theday.com/re.aspx?re=ebf24507-9e00-405c-96ed-a82fb2f5373b

• 22. Joe  |  March 24th, 2008 at 4:04 pm

  k4v:
  Since you have an issue with what McCain said, do you have any issue with Obama stating the United States must be willing to strike al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan even though Pakistan is against us doing so?

  Are you ok that that is already happening with the current Administration? Why would you be outraged because Obama said what the U.S. has already done?

  Tuesday, February 19, 2008; A01
  In the predawn hours of Jan. 29, a CIA Predator aircraft flew in a slow arc above the Pakistani town of Mir Ali. The drone’s operator, relying on information secretly passed to the CIA by local informants, clicked a computer mouse and sent the first of two Hellfire missiles hurtling toward a cluster of mud-brick buildings a few miles from the town center.
  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/18/AR2008021802500_pf.html

• 23. Joe  |  March 24th, 2008 at 4:06 pm

  k4v:
  Do you have any issue with Obama stating he would be willing to meet the leaders of Iran, Cuba, Syria, North Korea and Venezuela WITHOUT preconditions in his first year in office?

  Why are you people AGAINST talking to enemies???? Why does there have to be any preconditions? Why are we so arrogant that we won’t talk to people unless they give us something?

  Talking to enemies is what gets things done and AVOIDS military action.

  We SHOULD BE talking with “the leaders of Iran, Cuba, Syria, North Korea and Venezuela”

• 24. Joe  |  March 24th, 2008 at 4:08 pm

  b4v:
  One more thing regarding your faux outrage over Obama’s Pakistan comments.

  (CBS/AP) The U.S. would consider military force if necessary to stem al Qaeda’s growing ability to use its hideout in Pakistan to launch terrorist attacks, a White House aide said Sunday.

  The president’s homeland security adviser, Fran Townsend, said the U.S. was committed first and foremost to working with Pakistan’s president, Pervez Musharraf, in his efforts to control militants in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border region. But she indicated the U.S. was ready to take additional measures.
  http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/22/terror/main3086282.shtml

• 25. Diana Powe  |  March 24th, 2008 at 4:38 pm

  kimberly4victory,

  Contrary to evidence-free claims by Almiranta, I am not an Obama partisan. I will, however, support the Democratic nominee. That will almost certainly be Senator Obama, but I’m not interested in predicting a horse race.

  The vast sums that the United States spends on its armed forces is the most sacred of Washington cows. This country spends more on “defense” than every single country in the world (including our allies) combined and yet we still have calls to increase military spending. Part of that defense spending is having troops and arms stationed in some of the most prosperous and technologically advanced areas of the globe - Japan, the EU and South Korea. Oddly, none of those countries have bases or forces stationed in the United States. The fact is that the military-industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned of exists and has become it’s own independent interest in the debates over the DoD’s budget. They don’t own the debate but they sit at the table and work the lobby constantly.

  Yes, I do object to any idea that we use military force within the borders of another friendly nation without their consent. Of course, the real question is whether or not it is wise for us to uncritically believe that Pakistan is our ally, given the fact that the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan has been greatly aided by their ability to operate unhindered in northern Pakistan courtesy of the government of President Musharraf.

  No, I don’t have any objection to any president meeting with any head of any government “without precondition”. It is perfectly permissible, in my view, for a president to meet with someone and, if necessary, announce later that he or she did not agree with what the other leader said. This whole notion that “we’ll show them, we won’t talk to them” is so idiotic and juvenile that it’s hard to imagine anyone defending it. However, having said that, I strongly suspect someone will.

• 26. kimberly4victory  |  March 24th, 2008 at 4:49 pm

  Hold your horses, Joe. Did I agree or disagree with Obama’s statements? Nope. I was only asking Diane if she did or did not. I suppose I was being sneaky so I could catch Diane in an “Aha! You do agree with the Bush Administration!” LOL. :-)

  I do agree with Obama’s first statement. Pakistan is not doing what we are paying them to do. If we have to do what is needed to capture/kill our enemy, so be it. I am surprised, albiet pleasantly, that Obama agrees with the Bush Administration.

  I do not agree with his second statement, however. What’s wrong with talking with our enemies without preconditions? It doesn’t work. We’ve tried in the past and it doesn’t work. We get nothing in return.

  What happens when we talk with our enemies and give them something, like say, two light water nuclear reactors and a massive allotment of oil, in return for them promising not to build an atomic bomb? Well, we now know what happens, and all at the expense of not being “arrogant”, but ignorant. I guess we should have known what would happen when we (Clinton) sends in the worst x-president in the history of the US to negotiate.

• 27. Joe  |  March 24th, 2008 at 4:55 pm

  See kimberly, here is the issue.

  You say this “What happens when we talk with our enemies and give them something, like say, two light water nuclear reactors and a massive allotment of oil, in return for them promising not to build an atomic bomb?”

  Isn’t that “talking to your enemy” in order to come up with those pre-conditions? Saying you will give them two light water nuclear reactors in return for not building a bomb is the result of talking to the enemy.

  Pre-conditions for example would be… we are not talking to you unless you free x number of prisoners.

  THAT is what I think is foolish. In that example, you talk to the enemy to get the release of said prisoners and in return they get something.

• 28. Joe  |  March 24th, 2008 at 4:58 pm

  oh.. by the way kimberly, my posts #22 and #24 were for everyone on this blog who will consistantly bring up Obama’s remarks as a “weakness” of hi foreign policy.

• 29. Diana Powe  |  March 24th, 2008 at 5:00 pm

  So, kimberly4victory, do you agree with the fact that the Bush Administration ignored the Iranian’s offer to talk without conditions in 2003?

  http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/showdown/themes/grandbargain.html

• 30. kimberly4victory  |  March 24th, 2008 at 5:05 pm

  Raise your hand if your pastor, on Easter morning, preached about how to avoid a public lynching? Anyone?

  Actually, the result is North Korea can now build 100 atom bombs that can reach the US. Kewl, huh? Can you honestly say, with a straight face, that talking with the dictators in North Korea, Iran, Syria will make a difference in how they feel about the US and act toward us? I mean, really?

  I’m not saying we shouldn’t ever talk with these evil men. I just don’t think it is in our best interest to not have some type of precondition before doing so. Of course, even having a precondition doesn’t make it so. These dictators lie out both sides of their face.

  Dang, where did this day go?! I’ve got to get some work done!! Ciao, for now.

• 31. Canadian Observer  |  March 24th, 2008 at 5:06 pm

  The vast sums that the United States spends on its armed forces is the most sacred of Washington cows. This country spends more on “defense” than every single country in the world (including our allies) combined and yet we still have calls to increase military spending. Part of that defense spending is having troops and arms stationed in some of the most prosperous and technologically advanced areas of the globe - Japan, the EU and South Korea. Oddly, none of those countries have bases or forces stationed in the United States

  25. Diana Powe | March 24th, 2008 at 4:38 pm

  Well said, Diana! Now if only the powers that be and their backers could share similar insight. Sigh….

• 32. Typical White Person  |  March 24th, 2008 at 5:21 pm

  Soooo, Hitlary’s story about corkscrewing into Bosnia was untrue? She misspoke?

  Maybe the snipers she was referring to were in Northern Ireland…

• 33. kimberly4victory  |  March 24th, 2008 at 5:25 pm

  Diane: Was the fax from the Supreme Leader or Iran’s Security Council? It really isn’t clear. Some say yes, others say no. Iranians were “even a bit suspicious that the Swiss ambassador wrote that fax himself; we don’t know it for sure. … It was not an important issue, and I’m sure the Supreme Leader and the National Security Council had nothing to do with it.”

  I tend to agree with the naysayers. Can you imagine Iran stating they would need to be prepared to deal with our concerns about their WMD activities, their links to terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, and they said in there that they would be prepared to eliminate military support for these organizations and to work to turn Hezbollah, for example, into a purely political and social organization in Lebanon.

  I mean, come on! I’ve still got some beachfront property in Yuma to anyone who believes Iran’s leaders would do any of those things!

  I realize something needs to be done with Iran and I certainly don’t want to go to war with them. Frankly, I’m sick of war. I’m still hoping the young Iranians (over 70% of the population) will revolt and kick some Supreme Leader butt. :-)

• 34. Michael  |  March 24th, 2008 at 5:26 pm

  Another fine, upstanding Democrat politician seems to have a teensy-weensy problem.

  DETROIT (AP) - Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, a one-time rising star and Detroit’s youngest elected leader, was charged Monday with perjury and other counts after sexually explicit text messages contradicted his sworn denials of an affair with a top aide.

  Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy also charged the popular yet polarizing 37-year-old mayor with obstruction of justice and misconduct in office.

  Notice how the MSM (AP) fails to mention his political party affiliation. Think a Republican mayor would get the same “oversight?”

• 35. kimberly4victory  |  March 24th, 2008 at 5:35 pm

  I’m sure we would close our bases in those countries IF those countries asked us to leave. But the fact remains, they want us there. And the reason why those countries have no bases here in the US is not odd. It’s because we don’t need them here.

  BTW, CO, we lived in your neck of the woods for a few years. Your country is beautiful. The reason our military was there is my father, and others, were training Canadian pilots how to fly US jets. He was happy to help out our northern neighbors and they were just as happy to receive his assistance. XXXOOO

• 36. Typical White Person  |  March 24th, 2008 at 5:37 pm

  Why is there no talk on this “Open Thread” about McCain’s “Senior Moment”?

  Because, Joke, it’s old news, and no big deal. Just like you…

• 37. Diana Powe  |  March 24th, 2008 at 5:39 pm

  Michael,

  Oh, I’m just thinking out loud here, but maybe the news story didn’t mention a political party affiliation because Detroit municipal elections, like many cities (including Dallas, Texas) have non-partisan elections. Just a guess. However, you may prefer the ominous Main Stream Media Conspiracy Against Republicans ™ explanation instead.

• 38. Joe  |  March 24th, 2008 at 5:49 pm

  Typical White Person (aka keefer),
  You are a funny one. Your names are just so witty that it really shows your age.

  Anyway… I’d rather elect a Pres that will not have “Senior Moments”. I’d rather not elect a President that will make mistakes because it was a long trip and he was tired.

  Yours truly,
  Joke
  (ha… you kill me with your name-calling)

• 39. Diana Powe  |  March 24th, 2008 at 5:52 pm

  There’s no discussion about Senator McCain either lying about al-Qaeda leaders being trained in Iraq and then returning to Iran (the version he was directed to correct himself to by Senator Lieberman) or being a Serious Foreign Policy Expert who can’t get basic facts straight due to age (Brit Hume’s pet theory) or disinterest when speaking to a press group in the Middle East, because either way it makes him look bad. Fortunately, we know, courtesy of NBC News political director Chuck Todd that Senator McCain has enough “in the bank” with the press that he gets little attention for it and “had Clinton or Obama done something like this, this would have been played on a loop, over and over, and would have absolutely hurt them politically.”

  http://mediamatters.org/items/200803190004

• 40. kimberly4victory  |  March 24th, 2008 at 5:53 pm

  I personally don’t care which party the person belongs to. When you have been elected to a public position, it’s best to a) keep it in your pants, b) refrain from stealing, cheating, lying, etc. If you are charged with any crime, you should immediately resign your position from any committee you are on until you are given a fair and balanced trial. If you are found guilty, you should immediately resign from your elected position.

  I don’t want to work today. :-)

  Joe: How about the “mistake” of stating you never heard racial/anti-American statements from your preacher and then stating a couple days later you actually did? Maybe Obama was tired … or he lied.

• 41. Typical White Person  |  March 24th, 2008 at 6:10 pm

  Joke,

  Misspeaking and having a senior moment are two different things. Maybe Hitlary had a senior moment or two–in Northern Ireland, Bosnia, or with Sir Edmund.

  As for my age, I’m probably twice your age and have probably forgotten more than you’ll ever learn. I just call you names because, well, I don’t like you. You’re just here for “gotchas,” just like almost all of the trolls who pollute this blog. I don’t like libs; I haven’t since about 1976, when I grew up and realized how empty liberalism was. You have an empty suit and an empty pants suit battling for your nomination. Hell, even Bill Richardson himself couldn’t come up with a reason for endorsing Earbama. And now some kook who worked for Reagan and Bush41 is backing the big-eared one. Earbama is magic, for sure. The messiah will perform magic on your wallet; he’ll make it disappear…

• 42. Diana Powe  |  March 24th, 2008 at 6:20 pm

  Now there’s Pastor John Hagee telling the New York Times that Senator McCain actively sought his endorsement while trying to use the interview to wriggle out of his anti-Catholic statements (emphasis original):
  

  As a prominent evangelical pastor based in San Antonio, you were recently catapulted into national controversy when you endorsed Senator John McCain for president. Is it true that McCain actively sought your endorsement? It’s true that McCain’s campaign sought my endorsement.

  How did you feel when critics called you a Catholic-basher and said McCain should reject your endorsement? My statements regarding the Catholic Church have been grossly mischaracterized. I never called the Catholic Church “the anti-Christ” or a “false cult system.” I was referring to those Christians who ignore the Gospels.
  __________
  Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/23/magazine/23wwln-q4-t.html?scp=1&sq=hagee+interview&st=nyt

  Meanwhile, Bill Donohue, Catholic League president isn’t taking the bait, “Anti-Catholic Protestants have long labeled the Catholic Church ‘The Great Whore,’ and no amount of spin can change that reality. No one who knows anything about the term would suggest otherwise.”

• 43. Diana Powe  |  March 24th, 2008 at 6:22 pm

  But, it’s perfectly okay if Senator McCain seeks the endorsement of someone who hate the Roman Catholic Church. Nothing to see here. Everyone move along.

• 44. Diana Powe  |  March 24th, 2008 at 6:23 pm

  But, it’s perfectly okay if Senator McCain seeks the endorsement of someone who hates the Roman Catholic Church. Nothing to see here. Everyone move along.

• 45. Typical White Person  |  March 24th, 2008 at 6:26 pm

  What’s your point, Diana?

• 46. Diana Powe  |  March 24th, 2008 at 6:29 pm

  Different standards apply.

• 47. Diana Powe  |  March 24th, 2008 at 6:32 pm

  Be it conflating al-Qaeda and Iran, flip-flopping on torture or flip-flopping on “agents of intolerance”, Senator McCain will get a pass.

• 48. kimberly4victory  |  March 24th, 2008 at 6:35 pm

  Oh you know what she is trying to do, TWP! She’s trying to compare Obama’s friendship with an anti-white, anti-American preacher for 20 years, his 20 year membership in that anti-white, anti-American church, and his lying about not hearing any of those hate sermons with seeking an endorsement from someone you hardly know who allegedly hates the Catholic Church.

• 49. Kahn  |  March 24th, 2008 at 6:37 pm

  Diana, absolutely correct. Different standards apply. One is an endorsement. The other is a 20 year close affiliation which included donations and apparently left the Senators wife hating the country. yes, you are correct. Different standards DO apply.

  On a different note, I see even Harvard now says that public opposition to the war emboldens the enemy… who would have thought?

  AND - everyone is OK with Teamsters pulling a national strike while the economy is in danger? Repeat after me, because you will need to learn this for the fall: “It’s the economy, stupid.” Get it? This is of course the point of Obamas proposed 25% increase in spending and taxes also.

• 50. Some Assembly Required  |  March 24th, 2008 at 6:51 pm

  Kahn, Now your spinning it with Obama’s preacher compared to McCain’s (he’s worse than I am). All I can do is laugh. I said something like this would break and sure enough it has. The media has opened the door for hit pieces on candidates based on what their preachers say or any preacher they may associate with. It is a new low for politics. I hope they will drop this fast. Not because of different standards but because of a week of this would only deflect from the issues just like last week. It would also move the issue of Obama’s pastor to the background where the two are so closely linked.

  McCain himself was quoted as saying “I don’t know much about the economy”. Did he miss speak here to or was it a senior moment?

• 51. Canadian Observer  |  March 24th, 2008 at 6:57 pm

  BTW, CO, we lived in your neck of the woods for a few years. Your country is beautiful. The reason our military was there is my father, and others, were training Canadian pilots how to fly US jets. He was happy to help out our northern neighbors and they were just as happy to receive his assistance. XXXOOO

  35. kimberly4victory | March 24th, 2008 at 5:35 pm

  Yes, I’m sure it was much appreciated. Just the fact that your military was here on a friendly mission and not as an occupational force is a great relief.

• 52. Diana Powe  |  March 24th, 2008 at 7:06 pm

  Well, Kahn, actually Harvard doesn’t say that (emphasis added):
  

  From these results it is not possible to determine the benefits or costs of public debate. Without knowing the effect of changes in policy generated by this debate and the nature of changed perception of the insurgents about US casualty sensitivity, it is not possible to determine if criticism of U.S. policy is on balance bad. Thus, the direct consideration of how to adjust political speech to address this issue is a complex and the results of this paper do not bear directly on this question.
  __________
  Source: http://people.rwj.harvard.edu/~riyengar/insurgency.pdf

  Some additional interesting facts about this study is that they excluded data from violence in Baghdad because it was such an outlier. They concluded that ?the insurgent response to low resolve periods may not represent an overall
  increase in the total number of attacks, but rather a change in the timing of attacks.? (emphasis added) Most interestingly, though, is that their measure of ?emboldening statements? was not based on such purported statements but ?the number of times top Bush administration officials?the President, Vice-President, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, Press Secretary, and the U.S. commander Iraq?refer to statements or actions by other U.S. political figures that might encourage violent extremist groups in Iraq.? (emphasis added)

  Thanks, Bush Administration!

• 53. kimberly4victory  |  March 24th, 2008 at 7:32 pm

  CO: You’re so funny. :-)

  Where in Canada do you live? We lived in Ottawa and traveled to different provinces. Loved it.

• 54. Ole'Smokey  |  March 24th, 2008 at 7:54 pm

  KimberlyforVictory,

  Spare us the cheerleader crap. Put your money where your mouth is and put the kid in a relatives house and enlist like daddy did.

  Go fight the good fight over there, so we won’t have to fight them here.

  Rah, rah, rah. Blah, blah, blah.

• 55. Canadian Observer  |  March 24th, 2008 at 8:00 pm

  Where in Canada do you live?

  53. kimberly4victory | March 24th, 2008 at 7:32 pm

  Less than a two hour drive from our nation’s capital; Montreal in la belle province.

• 56. congressive  |  March 24th, 2008 at 8:02 pm

  I love the smell of irony in the morning -

  #36. Typical White Person | March 24th, 2008 at 5:37 pm

  Why is there no talk on this “Open Thread” about McCain’s “Senior Moment”?

  Because, Joke, it’s old news, and no big deal. Just like you…”

  McCain will be so much younger if he’s elected president.

  It does bring up an interesting issue, though. Who will be JMcC’s VP? THAT is who will really be the president for the next four years if JMcC’s elected. JMcC won’t serve out his term, either through death or stepping down, so the VP will be president, no doubt about it, IF and I say IF JMcC is elected.

  Johnny is five years older than Cheney, and would be the oldest first-time president ever elected. Ever.

  Who do y’all think will get the VP nod?

• 57. kimberly4victory  |  March 24th, 2008 at 8:29 pm

  I dunno, congressive, McCain’s mom is pretty able for a woman in her 90s. I only hope I’m as lucky. I’d like to see him pick Romney as his VP.

  From Mudville Gazette:
  In spite of the recent escalation in violence in Iraq it remains much more secure than it was in late summer, early fall of 2007. The terrorists in Iraq have escalated their attacks as we approach the fifth anniversary of operation Iraqi freedom. Our forces and the Iraqi forces (now much better trained) and the awakening committees are much better prepared to deal with these terrorist and many of them are being turned in and captured. A number of arrests have been made for the bombing in Karbala of the 16th and Iraqi security forces have set up a special task force to find the killers of the Chaldean bishop of Mosul.
  There has been much condemnation from Muslim, Christian clergy as well as political leaders.

  Iraqis commemorated the dark day of the gassing of the Kurds by Saddam’s regime on the 17th of March twenty years ago. All provinces in Iraq observed this day of national mourning.

  Iraqi refugees who left the country when Saddam was in power are beginning to return to Wasit province south east of Baghdad.

  As the fifth anniversary of operation Iraqi freedom approaches, we see Iraqis living in a country ruled by law and governed by politicians elected by Iraqis. Many Iraqis express strong hope for their future and the future of their children. Much has been achieved over the last short five years thanks to the hard work of our men and women who have served and who are serving in Iraq and the Iraqis who are stubbornly holding on to their new found freedom.

  Regards
Haider Ajina

• 58. Kahn  |  March 24th, 2008 at 9:18 pm

  Some Assembly Required, no. Not one is worse than the other. I’m saying the relationships are different.

  And I’m pretty sure he know enough about the economy to know that raising spending and taxes 25% is a move toward socialism and would hurt the economy. Do you know that? Disagree with some aspect of that statement? Did I spell something wrong?

• 59. Kahn  |  March 24th, 2008 at 9:23 pm

  Diana, nice extract. It is of course from the analysis section. How would YOU analyze your post? The paragraph you posted… what are they saying?

  Here is MY analysis: Harvard says that public criticism DOES embolden our enemy BUT maybe not bad enough to stop debating. It’s too hard to compare the cost of people dieing in Iraq to the benefit of healthy political debate here.

  Thats the way I read it. You? Do you read it that way? Please don’t cut-n-paste an answer. Think for yourself.

• 60. Kahn  |  March 24th, 2008 at 9:27 pm

  But everyone is OK with the Teamsters threatening to destroy the economy? No actual problems with that?

  Loyalty to party is THAT strong with you guys? Well, I guess you were only following orders. Oh wait, wrong party.

• 61. congressive  |  March 24th, 2008 at 9:33 pm

  Everyone is OK with the conservatives actually destroying the economy? No problems with that?

  Loyalty to party is THAT strong with you guys? Well, I guess you were only following orders.

  Bla bla bla.

• 62. neocon  |  March 24th, 2008 at 9:33 pm

  It sounds as though Hillary has had a blonde moment re: her recollection of her Bosnia trip in 1996. The woman is a pathological liar.

  LMAO.

• 63. kimberly4victory  |  March 24th, 2008 at 9:54 pm

  Foaud Ajami at the Wall Street Journal has an opinion, that the War in Iraq, five years on, has been necessary, stoically fought, and more successful than less. We are left with a better place for Iraqis and Americans in Iraq than what we faced 5 yrs ago.

  <a href=”http://online.wsj.com/article_print/SB120588186774146747.html

• 64. Kahn  |  March 24th, 2008 at 9:59 pm

  congressive, so turn it on us and not utter a word against one of the blessed unions eh? OK - gotcha. Thanks.

• 65. kimberly4victory  |  March 24th, 2008 at 10:08 pm

  What did I do wrong with my link? Should I have put quotes after html? Waaaaah!

• 66. kimberly4victory  |  March 24th, 2008 at 10:20 pm

  Iraqis in America celebrating the 5th anniversary:

  http://www.kirotv.com/video/15647913/index.html

• 67. kimberly4victory  |  March 24th, 2008 at 10:26 pm

  OOOOPS!

  Palestinian militants accidentally set off a large blast at a Hamas training base in the central Gaza Strip on Thursday, killing two members of the violent Islamic group and wounding another, a Palestinian medical official said.

  Hamas initially blamed Israel for the blast (BUT OF COURSE, THEY DID), but later acknowledged that it was caused by a mishandling of explosives, saying its men died while performing a “holy mission.”

  Holy? Okay dokey.

• 68. brett michaels  |  March 24th, 2008 at 11:06 pm

  I havent been on here in a long time and I see nothing has changed.

  Do any of you all have lives?
  Instead of spending so much time on a blog…get out and spend more time with family and friends.

  I havent been on blogs hardly at all and have really enjoyed the extra time I spend with real, live people. You peeps should try it sometime.

  peace.

• 69. Diana Powe  |  March 25th, 2008 at 12:08 am

  Kahn,

  For starters, if you’d paid attention to the study, you’d know not to keep repeating that “Harvard said” this or that. One of the authors teaches at Harvard, but Harvard did not fund the study. Second, what’s your objection to the author’s analysis of their own work? They plainly said that it didn’t bear on the question of political speech in the United States.

  As for what they were measuring, “emboldening speech”, the blame can just as readily, if not more readily, be placed on the Bush Administration. Their measure was based on how often people in the Executive Branch appeared in the press and complained about the terrorists being emboldened by what some other political figure said. Knowing the history of the last five years, the things that were said were typically only claimed by the Administration to be “emboldening terrorists” because of the Administration’s desire to squelch criticism of their actions. So, if the Executive Branch officials that served as the indexes for this study had decided not to employ this talking point all the time then perhaps the terrorists might not have shown a small (but measurable) change in the timing of when they conducted attacks which is what the study found, not the number of attacks.

• 70. Kahn  |  March 25th, 2008 at 12:24 am

  Diana, I have no problem with their analysis.

  They applied their values to the speech vs. violence timing and saw a correlation. But they discounted deaths of Iraqis and mostly conservative soldiers and Marines in favor of free political speech.

  The study shows that our enemies were emboldened by YOUR speech. And the analysis of the study shows that your side does not care about that.

  And yes, I understand that Harvard is a university consisting of colleges that each have an administrative section and many different professors, assistants, secretaries, and so on. I realize that Harvard is not some cheap giant Japanese monster movie character and is many many people. Thanks for thinking to explain it to me.

  What we have here is liberals discovering that as we told you, terrorism is targeted at opinion here by conducting violence there. The people who die there are only tools to the terrorists in their efforts to influence our thoughts here. Obviously they watch the public discourse here to see how they are doing. This study shows that. And it concludes that its not worth knowing.

  OK? How about actually analyzing the information instead of knee jerk reactions?

• 71. Diana Powe  |  March 25th, 2008 at 12:43 am

  Well, thanks for your “analysis” based on your preconceived belief that my speech “emboldened the terrorists”. You still don’t get it about the Harvard connection, do you? Harvard University had nothing to do with the study other than being one of the author’s employers. However, that’s one of those details that might come from actually paying attention to it.

  In fact, the study doesn’t even support the “emboldening” effect which might have been supported to some extent if they had shown that the President, the Vice-President, et al being quoted in the press as complaining that others were saying things to “embolden the terrorists” had increased the number of attacks. However, it didn’t. What they showed was that, as rational actors, those responsible for attacks showed an approximately 10% change in the timing of their attacks.

  The study didn’t even attempt to address what effect or lack of effect this small change in timing might have had on public opinion in the United States.

• 72. Kahn  |  March 25th, 2008 at 1:13 am

  Plural your.

  great, so it’s the presidents fault for saying your side was saying what you were saying? Give me a break. Cede a point when it’s been made and move on.

  The terrorists watch what we say as reported in the press to score their hits. That IS the correlation.

  You really don’t get this?

• 73. congressive  |  March 25th, 2008 at 2:41 am

  Don’t understand why we don’t say “we’re leaving now! Bye, Iraq.” Then don’t. Then anyone who jumps out of hiding to claim victory gets arrested.

  Victory!

  By announcing our plans (always a bad idea) that we’re surging, not leaving, the bad guys adjust.

  Failure!

• 74. congressive  |  March 25th, 2008 at 2:47 am

  Hey, look who’s fighting for their right to cuss and swear and smutify our broadcast airways - FOX!

  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/24/AR2008032402969.html

  That bastion of family values and Republican moral uprighteousness, Fox Broadcasting, claims it has a Constitutional right to broadcast naked people and profanity over publicly owned network TV frequencies!

  Maybe they do. After all, third graders can always just reach up and turn off the TV, right? Gonna make some “family values” heads explode, though.

• 75. Freedom1  |  March 25th, 2008 at 4:22 am

  “Iranian Entanglements: McCain was right the first time — Iran is helping al-Qaeda in Iraq” - NRO

  Senator McCain was right the first time. In fact, al-Qaeda and Iran have a rather long history of cooperation.

  A few days before Senator McCain’s unfortunate retraction, a senior military adviser to the Barack Obama campaign, retired Air Force general Merrill McPeak, was quoted in the March 15 edition of the Washington Times as saying, “Iran is a big enemy of al-Qaeda.”

  General McPeak’s statement is astonishing for its ignorance, especially coming from a flag-rank retired military officer.

  The shadowy relationship between Iran and al-Qaeda was first revealed in the report issued by the bipartisan, independent 9/11 Commission back in 2004.

  In compiling that exhaustive report, the 9/11 Commission interviewed over 1,000 people from at least 10 countries. Among the conclusions that they reached regarding Iran and al-Qaeda:

  In late 1991 or early 1992, in meetings held in Sudan, Iran agreed to train al-Qaeda operatives. Not long afterwards, al-Qaeda terrorists traveled to Iran and received training in explosives. Subsequent to this, al-Qaeda terrorists also traveled to Lebanon’s Bekaa Valley, where they received training from Iranian Revolutionary Guards. [..]

  Other reports have reinforced the 9/11 Commission’s findings of al-Qaeda/Iran cooperation in Iraq: [...]

  In May 2007, as reported by Bill Roggio at The Weekly Standard’s website, coalition forces captured a courier carrying messages from al-Qaeda in Iraq leaders to senior al-Qaeda leaders who have long been in safe haven in Iran, including Osama Bin Laden’s son, Said Bin Laden.

  http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OGE0ZWE0MWVjMmI2YjI4NzI1OTg2YzZmMjJjNzMwOGY

• 76. Freedom1  |  March 25th, 2008 at 4:41 am

  “Dramatic Lemur” (Video) :)

  http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=27196359

• 77. Freedom1  |  March 25th, 2008 at 4:59 am

  Rabbi Attacked In NYC Subway; Assailants Allegedly Chant ‘Allah Akhbar!’…

  http://wcbstv.com/seenon/rabbi.arab.yarmulke.2.683833.html

• 78. Typical White Person  |  March 25th, 2008 at 5:54 am

  Thanks again, Freedom, for reminding me why a Hillbama presidency would be bad for this nation. Hill and Ear would want to negotiate with these radicals, and give them public defenders.

• 79. Some Assembly Required  |  March 25th, 2008 at 8:28 am

  58. Kahn | March 24th, 2008 at 9:18 pm

  I’m not saying I agree with the 25% tax increase. I’m pointing out that Bush’s… I mean McCain’s economic plan is not working / will not help. The economy is slipping further and further on a daily basis. Obama’s plan to put money back into the hands of the middle class is what needs to be done. Taxation of corporations who outsource jobs to other countries because it’s cheaper needs to be enforced as well. America is the most Material country in the world. These companies need American consumers more than everyone seems to think. Heavier taxes on outsourcing would not hurt the economy, instead it would force these corporations to stay in the US if they wish to compete. Prices may rise, but then thats where competition comes into play.

  I still haven’t gotten all the information on this teamsters business yet so I have no opinions on the matter as of right now.

• 80. js  |  March 26th, 2008 at 11:11 pm

  I never spotted where the constitution said that the Executive Branch is responsible for what the free economy does.

  Matter of fact, the Executive brance has far less impact on that issue than Congress.