The Bonfire Of Liberal Vanities

Liberal pundits are in a full blown meltdown mode over Jeremiah Wright. You have Joe Klein claiming Wright isn't representative of the Black Church. Yet, Wright claims the attacks on him are, in fact, an attack on the Black Church.

Gee, both can't be true. It appears that without Dem politics focusing around all things Clinton, there's no one around to circulate the proverbial memo designed to get everyone on the same page.

What a wonderful state of affairs for liberal Democrats, heading into a presidential election divided and fighting amongst themselves.

Conservatives may not be enthralled with John McCain. But for the most part, they have enough sense to hold their most damaging fire, realizing there are larger issues in play when it comes to running the country.

Maybe that's it - liberal Democrats simply aren't mature enough to run things and they always end up shooting themselves in the foot.

Whatever it is, it is kind of fun to watch.

Comments

[templar knight]

Hahaha, I watched the Rev. Wright's speech as he spoke to the NAACP in Detroit and he didn't disappoint. What a complete f'ing idiot. White people think with their left brains, black people think with their right brains, and much more lunacy along those lines. If he had put on a white robe I would have thought I was at a KKK meeting. LMAO at the fool.

[jharp]

"What a wonderful state of affairs for liberal Democrats"

Yes, it is. It is just a darn shame it took George Bush running the country to near financial ruin for the electorate to see the light.

Hillary Rodham Clinton now leads John McCain by 9 points in a head-to-head presidential matchup, according to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll

[WAHOO WILLIE]

"realizing there are larger issues in play when it comes to running the country."

While it is funny watching these people bash each other and listening to Hannity pull his hair out over Wright........There really are more important things to be discussing. I'll be glad when the screamer, the dreamer and the ancient former marine change the rules again and make these two stop their primaries.

[jharp]

"When pitted against McCain, Clinton now wins among independents, 50 percent to 34 percent, when just a few weeks ago she ran about even with him with this crucial group of voters. Clinton also now does better among independents than Obama does in a matchup with McCain."

Methinks he'd better do a flip flop on the war. And it wouldn't surprise me if he did.

Then all he'd need is a decent health reform position and tax reform so I don't pay a higher rate than Warren Buffett and I might vote for him.

I always thought him a decent guy until just recently when he started pandering to the neanderthal republican base.

[jharp]

Hey Willie,

You safe down there? Sounds like some nasty weather you are having.

[WAHOO WILLIE]

"Sounds like some nasty weather you are having."

Thanks for asking! The storms are mostly inland from me, just a little drizzle here.

[ET]

jharp --

If Hillary becomes President, we will be in Iraq for years to come. She is nothing if not a realist...and the reality is we need to stay until the country is secure and stable. The only difference between her and McCain is that she lies about her position (all of her positions) to swindle people like you. Typical liberal pandering bait and switch. McCain tells the truth about our engagement there, so you won't vote for him. Believing in the boogie man (bush...McCain) feels better to the simple minded.

Only blowbama would make a disastrous retreat from Iraq. Thankfully, the odds of him getting elected are dropping like a stone.

[jharp]

"and the reality is we need to stay until the country is secure and stable"

Don't be so sure. You are listening to the folks who have wrong all along.

For a change try listening to the guys have have right all along.

The ones who say it is the occupation that is causing the instability.

We've handed Iraq to the Iranians, a bad move I know, but it's over. There are no military solutions left.

[jharp]

Hey ET,

A little FYI.

Hillary Clinton has announced her plan to end the war in Iraq and urged President Bush to act immediately.

"Our message to the president is clear. It is time to begin ending this war -- not next year, not next month -- but today.

"We have heard for years now that as the Iraqis stand up, our troops will stand down. Every year, we hear about how next year they may start coming home. Now we are hearing a new version of that yet again from the president as he has more troops in Iraq than ever and the Iraqi government is more fractured and ineffective than ever.

"Well, the right strategy before the surge and post-escalation is the same: start bringing home America's troops now."

If President Bush does not end the war, when Hillary Clinton is president, she will. Her three-step plan would bring our troops home, work to bring stability to the region, and replace military force with a new diplomatic initiative to engage countries around the world in securing Iraq's future. Hillary has been fighting every day in the Senate to force the president to change course. And today she described how she would bring the war to an end.

[Capitalist Infidel]

This is what the democrats get for pigeonholing everyone into categories. The best example was back a couple of years ago when the Colts beat the Bears in the Super Bowl. All I saw was 2 great coaches while the liberal media only saw 2 black coaches. I expect the super bowl teams to be coached by 2 great coaches, liberals were amazed that 2 black coaches did so well.

[TexasFred]

Wright doesn’t want honest debate about racial problems in America, he wants to stir up hate and discontent, and that’s exactly what he has done, but on the bright side, he’s also given us a DEEP look at Obama’s beliefs as well, Obama did NOT come out and condemn this man for his words, and in my opinion, a lack of condemnation for those words translates into an approval of them…

Real Americans must unite in this effort, even if Hillary Clinton and John McCain aren’t the perfect choices for president, I don’t believe that either of them would give this nation away to Islam, I fear that Obama is waiting to do exactly that, with his Rev. Wright at his side as he does indeed cause God to DAMN America…

[tally]

No Quarter Headline: Obama Turns on the Race Baiting Wurlitzer - Signs of Candidacy in Trouble

[WAHOO WILLIE]

Being among those people who've been (mostly) right along about the sandbox misadventure ET, I tell you that the region will never be "stable and secure". If we leave tomorrow or a thousand years from now, those "people" will go back to sawing heads and strpping bombs to babies within 6 months.......period. My advice to GW is not to even bring their luggage home, let Obama "lose" the war.

[Fred Beloit]

Say, Harpo, here is more news that rebuts your argument that it is Bush who is causing inflation. It seems Pelosi, leader of the Do-nothing-but-spend majority in Congress, may be the main problem:

"But Republican and Democratic appropriations staffers say Pelosi’s office is seriously considering skipping over their committee to take a $178 billion war funding bill — $70 billion more than the president wants — straight to the House floor." From The WAPO.

Only $70 bil more than George wants? Big deal. That's peanuts to Pelosi.

[Fred Beloit]

Say, Harpo, it seems Hillary refuses to yield to Murtha and Byrd in the race for Earmark Queen. Honk honk. Enjoy this from The Hill blog: http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/clinton-2.3b-in-earmarks-2008-04-28.html.

[Lala]

Hillary and war - from the Boston Glove

quote
AMERICANS have learned to take with a grain of salt much of the rhetoric in a campaign like the current Democratic donnybrook between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Still, there are some red lines that should never be crossed. Clinton did so Tuesday morning, the day of the Pennsylvania primary, when she told ABC's "Good Morning America" that, if she were president, she would "totally obliterate" Iran if Iran attacked Israel.
unquote

[templar knight]

This is getting better by the minute. Now the nutroots over at dKos are wanting their Messiah to ditch the preach. Put a sheet on Wright, he sounds exactly like a Klansman. LMAO.

[Fred Beloit]

Lala, in this age of the admitted non-objective news (see Time Rag...er...Mag) it is considered better journalism to make up quotes than merely quote someone. You probably read, as I did, many stories that said Hillary would obliterate Iran. I don't believe this is true. From ABC news blog:

"Clinton said. "In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them." "

[Fred Beloit]

This is how a statement that we are able to do something becomes "a vow" to do something. After all the LA Times are some of the biggest liars using ink.

"Presidential contender Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's vow to "obliterate" Iran, presumably with nuclear weapons, if it attacked Israel on her watch was duly noted in the U.S.."

[Fred Beloit]

In the World Socialist Web Site the vow becomes a "pledge": "Democratic Party presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s pledge to “obliterate” Iran if it attacks Israel marks a sharp escalation of threats against that country and its entire population."

[Lala]

Fred,
Yes, I know. But, it's funny coming from the Boston Globe and it seems like this story is big in Europe and Saudi Arabia. I originally picked it up from Instapundit.

[Fred Beloit]

Harper's left-wing magazine has a bold headline that says:

"Hillary: We’ll “totally obliterate” Iran"

[Fred Beloit]

Yes, Lala, I agree with you that the lie has become the story. This happens a lot.

[Fred Beloit]

Harpo writes: "Hillary Clinton has announced her plan to end the war in Iraq and urged President Bush to act immediately."

This reminds me of Bush the First's pledge: "Read my lips. No new taxes." Running for office, pols make many claims. Presidents need to be more careful. A lesson for you Harpo. Don't believe every thing a candidate tells you. For more evidence of this reread Pelosi's plan for the first 100 whatever-it-was Hours or days of Dem majority in Congress.

http://www.democrats.org/a/2006/10/100_hours_with.php
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_zZKEtoPpM

[ET]

jharp --

You can quote Hillary all you want. I don't believe a word she says. Anyone who thinks all American troops will be out of Iraq by the end of her (first and only) term is addicted to the kool-aid.

Bush has said all along that he would begin bringing the troops home when the situation on the ground permits. This is essentially what Hillary says, but she does so with feigned indignation and self-righteousness. That makes her a lying hypocrite, not an agent for change.

As for the "occupation" causing the "insurgency", please hear an update from someone in a position to know.

http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/talkradio/transcripts/Transcript.aspx?ContentGuid=2e0278ff-f379-47ed-85fa-bd7d374a0171

[Lala]

Fred,
I did a quick search and I see that the foreign papers are using the accurate quote that you cited.

[Lala]

Anyone read Michael Yon's book?

[jharp]

ET,

You're not listening. Hugh Hewitt is at the top of heap of the "wrong about everything" group.

Please, if only briefly, try listening to the guys who have right all along.

There are plenty.

[ET]

Harp--

Hugh Hewitt was asking the questions. Try reading the responses from the repondent, Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch. He knows more about the situation in Iraq than you ever will, especially since you only listen to the "guys who have right all along". Of course, as a typical head-in-the-sand lefty, you stop reading the moment you are confronted with someone (HH) you perceive to have different ideas from your elitist cliche.

Your ignorance is showing.

Here is some input from the Maj. Gen. (since you won't read past the headline):

---Yeah, Hugh, when we got here fourteen months ago, we were being attacked 25 times a day. I mean, there was nothing but pure combat operations. The surge forces that came at me gave me the combat power to take the fight to the enemy. And what we’ve been able to do over the last fourteen months is kill or capture about 6,000 of the insurgents, and we’ve transitioned from 25 attacks a day to now less than two attacks a day, and the entire conversation has changed. The security now allows us to work on capacity building, to transition to stability. So I find myself spending the majority of my time thinking about jobs and services and schools and local governance. So the progress is amazing to me. This is my third tour in Iraq, and the security situation we enjoy today, less than two attacks a day, battle space the size of the state of West Virginia, is a tribute to all the great work we’ve done over the last fourteen months.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________

HH: Those two attacks a day against your troops, General Lynch, are they motivated by Sunni nationalism, the desire to return the Baathists? Or are they Wahabist extremist? Is it ideology or nationalism?

RL: No, what I’m finding is that most of the attacks are criminally motivated. You know, that’s what I’m seeing over time. What the Sunni extremists, and the Shia extremists, what they’re doing is doing something for their own personal good. We’re way past the point where the people of Iraq consider us to be occupiers. Now, in my area, when I’m out and about, they’re always saying we’re glad you’re here, and can you help us with this and this and this. So you know, we’re not being considered occupiers anymore. I tell my folks a lot of times the best way to train for Iraq these days is to watch the 6th season of The Sopranos, because a lot of this is a pure Mafioso kind of activity. A lot of it is Shia on Shia violence. This idea that there’s some civil war taking place over here, that’s not true. There’s not Sunnis fighting Shias. A lot of the violence is Sunni on Sunni, or Shia on Shia.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

Believe it or not, jharp, you are on the wrong side of history supporting two of the most inept and dishonest presidential candidates in the history of America. You keep on believin' dude...

[jharp]

"No, what I’m finding is that most of the attacks are criminally motivated."

That's really encouraging. We don't have enough police on our own streets and we're spending $12 billion a month to police Iraq.

You, ET, have lost your mind.

[ET]

Once again, Harpo, the point whizzes past your closed mind. The "insurgency" has been reduced to a couple thousand thugs out of a population of 27 million. We will soon be able to reduce our ground forces to a minimum number of peacekeepers. As Iraqi democracy takes hold, their Iranian neighbors will begin to demand similar reforms from the Theocrats that currently oppress their youthful population. We won't have to fire a shot to remove 'wackmanjob'...the people will do it themselves.

All of this is the result of the Bush Administration's resolve to bring the fight to the enemy after the failed containment policies of chucklehead clinton. We spent billions of dollars per year on a failed policy of watching the islamists grow in stregnth and arrogance, while Saddam Hussein played chicken with the UN over WMD. Bush had the balls to call bullshit after 9/11 and determine to take out the extremists and the regimes that supported them. Your inability to perservere when the war got difficult, and your need to demonized Bush, reflect the typical lefty reaction when events refuse to conform to your utopian views. Our removal of Saddam and our establishment of a stable, democratic Iraq will go down in history as genius. And you get to tell your grandchildren that you sat on the sidelines and bitched and moaned through it all.

Sucks to be you.

[jharp]

"The "insurgency" has been reduced to a couple thousand thugs out of a population of 27 million."

You, my friend, are completely an idiot.

So, what you're saying is we're spending $12 billion a month, devoting 150,000 soldiers(of which 44 were killed in April), to be the police force to keep a couple of thousand thugs in line.

With folks like you around it makes me seriously doubt the future of our country.

[jharp]

ET,

Your post was so friggin stupid I felt a need to respond further.

"All of this is the result of the Bush Administration's resolve to bring the fight to the enemy"

Really? And what enemy are referring to.

Al qaeda? Who wasn't in Iraq pre invasion.

Or Osama bin laden who is still free.

[ET]

jharp--

You said:

...And what enemy are referring to. (sic)

Al qaeda? Who wasn't in Iraq pre invasion.

Or Osama bin laden who is still free.

My answer: Both

1. Al Qaida (can anyone spell that word?) is not associated with any one country...it is an international network, which is a different enemy. Your argument that al Qaiada (second try) was not in Iraq before the invasion is both specious and ignorant...Specious because it ignores the idealogy that crosses borders and drives the aggression...Ignorant because we told you this repeatedly since 2001. You are the one who is no longer listening.

I believe American liberals suffer from amnesia + ADD...they pretend that the twin towers never fell, forget that the Pentagon was hit and that brave citizens prevented another attack on the Nation's Capital. And they are distracted by their own frustration, being idealists, with the harsh reality of life, which they refuse to accept.

Back on point...Bush's stated strategy from his speech on 9/14/01 forward was to take the fight to the enemy, to go on the offensive. He has been consistent in that strategy. You may have done it differently, but you are not as smart as George W, so, thankfully, we will never know.

We knew that Al Qaeda (I think you had it right the first time) would flow into Iraq to fight us. That was not a mistake, it was part of our strategy. And it has worked. We have killed our enemies by the thousands, 'at a time and place of our choosing' (I anticipate the predictable retort about collateral damages, which have been inflated).

2. Bin Laden is still at large, and we are all disappointed. Do you suggest that we are no longer looking for him? So you think 100% of our military and intelligence resources have been diverted from Af'ghan to Iraq. C'mon, you must be smarter than that. We will find this M'fer, dead or alive. In the meantime, most of his cohorts are long dead or behind bars, and, as Adam Sandler said at the post 9/11 fundraiser, "Obama is shitting in a cave." Look at a map. Why do you think we went to Iraq...maybe the reasons are too big for you to grasp. Seriously, look at the map. We are in Af'ghan and Iraq. Donde esta Iran?

Get with it, jharp. You might be too smart to be a liberal.

[jharp]

ET,

"We knew that Al Qaeda (I think you had it right the first time) would flow into Iraq to fight us. That was not a mistake, it was part of our strategy. And it has worked."

Never have understood this reasoning. So if we'd have attacked Saudi Arabia, or Egypt or Darfur or Kenya we could have fought al Qaeda there instead.

I guess it was just bad luck for the Iraqis that we happened to pick their country.

"We knew that Al Qaeda (I think you had it right the first time) would flow into Iraq to fight us."

So we've destroyed a country of 25 million to police a couple of thousand "criminal elements"(your words).

"Bin Laden is still at large... ... Do you suggest that we are no longer looking for him?"

No, I'm not suggesting this. Though President Bush has said such. What was that line?

You are a complete nitwit. And you are voting against your own best interest. Go get yourself an education.

And I'm not that smart. It's only common sense.

[jharp]

Dam, those those 2 thousand criminal elements are some dam disruptive ones.

"Mahdi Army militiamen killed 2 US troops in northern Baghdad on Wednesday morning. US Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates admitted on Tuesday that the reduction in US troop casualties in recent months had ended in the past few weeks, because of the fighting in Sadr City in the capital. Over 40 US troops have been killed in April. Gates also brandished a second aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf...

The sandstorm continued in Baghdad on Tuesday, and so did the fierce fighting between the US military and the Shiite Mahdi Army (paramilitary of the Sadr Movement), leaving 37 dead and 6 US soldiers wounded. The dead were said to include 9 civilians, including 3 women and a child.

[ET]

jharp--, Here is part of our dialogue:

ME: We knew that Al Qaeda (I think you had it right the first time) would flow into Iraq to fight us. That was not a mistake, it was part of our strategy. And it has worked.

YOU: Never have understood this reasoning. So if we'd have attacked Saudi Arabia, or Egypt or Darfur or Kenya we could have fought al Qaeda there instead.

I guess it was just bad luck for the Iraqis that we happened to pick their country.

MY ANSWER: You are missing the distinction between a traditional enemy and a multi-national, ideology-driven cult. If you acknowledge this distinction, the Bush Admin strategy makes good sense. Prioritize the targets, then get started.

We attacked Iraq for several justifiable reasons. Iraq took priority because it was the next shoe to drop in the effort to marginalize the ideology-driven enemy. We chose Iraq over the other options you present (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Darfur, Kenya) because, (a) we were already engaged, and (b) we believed we could win quickly and, (c) Saddam Hussein was taunting the UN in the aftermath of 9/11 (do you remember?).
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
YOU: I guess it was just bad luck for the Iraqis that we happened to pick their country.

MY ANSWER: Luck has nothing to do with it. We picked Iraq for strategic reasons. All of them legal and endorsed by the international community.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Here is a Question for you:

How do you propose to interact with Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Darfur, Kenya? You have identified major hot spots in the world. How would you prioritize these challenges for the next President? You are great at locating glitches, like a typical whining liberal, but slow to deliver on solutions. This explains your position on Iraq. You don't know what to do (and your candidates won't change a thing) but you know for certain that the only place we should NOT have gone is IRAQ.

Think about it. You might be too smart to be a liberal.

[jharp]

ET,

"We attacked Iraq for several justifiable reasons. Iraq took priority because it was the next shoe to drop in the effort to marginalize the ideology-driven enemy. We chose Iraq over the other options you present (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Darfur, Kenya) because, (a) we were already engaged, and (b) we believed we could win quickly and, (c) Saddam Hussein was taunting the UN in the aftermath of 9/11 (do you remember?)."

It's difficult to respond to such an idiotic post.

You think about. And you are dumb enough to be a conservative.

[WAHOO WILLIE]

ET and Harpie; You'se are fighting a losing battle what with neither of you making any sense and all.