One Left Nation

Just watching some of the MSNBC coverage of the rally, including these folks who led a creepy chant response thing swearing off wars and the processes of free markets that create jobs..


The girl on the left doesn't look so enthused but maybe there's a reason, who knows. Anyway, CNN has their typical non-biased biased coverage, including this gem:

Commentator Glenn Beck drew tens of thousands Tea Party activists to the Lincoln Memorial for his revival-style rally August 28.

Even the new math would not suggest 100,000+ is the same as 'tens of thousands'. AP has already admitted they didn't reach Beck/Palin attendance goals, but remember it's not a competition! It's not partisan! BTW, wonder if CNN sent any reporters into the crowd to find nazi signs or argue with the protesters? And then there was what seemed like a veiled threat by Trumka, the AFL-CIO guy:

"There is nothing, and I mean nothing, we can't do when we stand side by side, shoulder to shoulder," Trumka said. "We will stand together. And we will win together. And we won't let anyone — and I mean anyone — stand in our way."

Or what, he breaka u face? Is that what they mean by "one nation"?

But hey, it's music day. That reminds me of this...




MORE 10/2/10

BTW, the music selection was in response to the heavy handed rhetoric from Mr. Trumka not the rally-goers in general. They have every right to peaceably assemble and make fun of Beck, Palin and the Tea Party, and carry signs endorsed by the Communist Party USA.

Speaking of which, both the WaPo and NY Times have predictably sympathetic stories out, both saying "tens of thousands" attended the rally (so if we believe CNN's numbers for the Beck rally that makes it a tie!), including the obligatory swipes at Beck for pointing out the sponsors included CPUSA and La Raza. WaPo didn't even mention the CPUSA, but of course, they mentioned Beck.

Responding to the CPUSA sponsorship, project leader Ben Jealous of the NAACP claims they have a 'big tent'. But how big? Bin Laden is now on record of wanting more social spending and global warming mitigation. So...

Saad bin Laden Undead?

Thomas Joscelyn has an informative piece on Long War Journal you won't see in the mainstream news (most of whom are currently obsessed with the suicide of a gay college student or our government's apology for Democrats infecting poor Guatemalans with STDs back in the 40s):

According to Al Watan, Saad bin Laden, Osama’s son, and Saif al Adel, one of al Qaeda’s most senior military planners, were also part of the deal for Heshmatollah Attarzadeh. Both reportedly left Iran after receiving refuge there since late 2001.

Saad left Iran in 2008 and was reportedly killed in a US airstrike in northern Pakistan in 2009. But in conversations with the Long War Journal, US intelligence officials cautioned that Saad’s death has yet to be confirmed.

Al Qaeda typically releases martyrdom tapes when senior terrorists are killed. No such tape has been released for Saad, the officials pointed out.

Although Abu Ghaith, Saad bin Laden, Saif al Adel and other senior al Qaeda terrorists were reportedly under “house arrest,” it was a loose form of detention. “House arrest is a convenient cover for high-level meetings,” one US intelligence official explained.

For those keeping score, Saad was once killed in 2009 after either being released or escaping from Iranian house arrest (if he escaped Hollywood should find him and offer a movie). Like so many jihadies he seems to have a remarkable immune system.

A day after this column aired comes a new bin Laden tape featuring a warning about how climate change is impacting the Muslim world. Oddly enough, the keeper of his son railed about that very same thing at the Coopenhagen summit last year, and hinted again at the UN a few days ago by condemning US hegemony and capitalism as the main global culprit. And here we thought Shias and Sunnis couldn't work together.

Meanwhile Obama's magical influence on our world rep seems to be wearing off with the moderate Pakistanis. It's truely a bizarroworld when we have to depend on truck convoys across Khyber pass or through Baluchistan to maintain our military presence in Afghanistan. Oh well, the AfPak strategy is obviously far too complex and nuanced for hayseed tea baggers to understand, much less more cultured commentators. But most can understand the simple fact that if our enemy is on one side of the line we can shoot at them, but if they run across to the other side we can't, that such a war is neither sustainable or winnable. Something must be done--we're running out of money.

God on Their Side

The Huffington Post has a breathless headline this morning:

Christine O'Donnell Says God Is Guiding Her Campaign (VIDEO)

The story goes on to point out comments she made about her faith guiding her in the campaign. But that's not the story. The article quotes Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy, President of the Interfaith Alliance, on the subject on politics and faith:

Candidates for public office are free to talk about how their faith informs their thinking, but should not imply that policy positions will be based on scripture rather than the Constitution. It has been my experience that when candidates intentionally insert faith into politics, the purpose is rarely to protect religion; rather it is done to enhance a political position.

Emphasis added to point out the dichotomy created by this statement just a few days ago, from the President of the United States, in response to why he became a Christian:

"It was because the precepts of Jesus Christ spoke to me in terms of the kind of life that I would want to lead -- being my brother's and sister's keeper, treating others as they would treat me," he said.

"And I think also understanding that, you know, that Jesus Christ dying for my sins spoke to the humility we all have to have as human beings -- that we're sinful and we're flawed and we make mistakes, and that we ... achieve salvation through the grace of God."

and..

"I think my public service is part of that effort to express my Christian faith,"

Hmm, sure seems like he might be trying to suggest the precepts of Jesus and the Bible have led to his 'policies', doesn't it?

Not in My Backyard!

CNN reports the 'backstory' of how the Hatfield-Clubbs of Des Moines, Iowa got their backyard picked for Obama's backdrop backyard tour:

"It's like winning the lottery," Jeff Clubb said, "but without even buying a ticket."

The couple say they are baffled about how they even made the list to be considered. They are both registered Democrats who voted for Obama, but neither of them campaigned or raised money for the candidate. Jeff Clubb, a former Arizona resident, says he voted for John McCain for senator when he lived there.

The White House often looks for people who have a good life story and have benefited from the administration's policies. The Clubbs fit the bill, as middle-class parents of two young children, Tristan 11, and Skyelar 9. Jeff is a former firefighter who now teaches social studies and religion at Holy Trinity Catholic School. Sandy is the athletic director at Drake University.

Hmm, what consists of a "good life story"? Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck have good life stories--both came from 'working families' and both have overcome adversity. How about Sarah Palin? Would her backyard qualify? So maybe there's a backstory to the backstory. Scrounging Googles we find this feed:

White House staff asked Democratic state Rep. Janet Petersen, one of the first state legislators to endorse Obama, for names of potential hosts. "I wasn't given any parameters, like they've got to be Democrats or Republicans or independents," said Peterson, who lives near the Clubbs. After scouting the Clubbs' yard, White House staff said they were interested.

Yet she picked Democrats who lived in the neighborhood. What are the odds!? For some reason CNN didn't think that was part of the backstory. What are the odds!? More from the feed:

Sandy Hatfield Clubb said there's no backstory of a connection to the White House. [1] The guest list is about 80 names long, and the White House let the Clubbs choose all but about 20

Yes, all the stories made a point to note the couple were not political activists and didn't give money to Obama. Indeed, the net seems devoid of screeds under their names (or they've covered their tracks well). But does it really matter? As long as they weren't closet Birchers or birthers Obama only needed a nice prop to continue his down home message of how Destructive W. Bush screwed America and it ain't his fault...



Notice he is now claiming the Bush tax cuts are the largest part of the current deficit, even larger than his "emergency" stimulus spending that goes into the trillions. And he says the GOP didn't counter them with any spending cuts. Trouble! Yet immediately thereafter he launches into a back-pat over passing 8 small business tax cuts and proposing an extension of those very same Bush tax cuts, with no proposed cuts. Eh? Gee, doesn't anyone in the backyard get to ask a follow up or pose a rebuttal? Were the media tied up behind an oak tree or something?

Threat Interrupted?

That's what they're saying, at least:

US law enforcement officials say they have been told the terrorists were planning a series of "Mumbai-style" commando raids on what were termed "economic or soft" targets in the countries. Pakistani militants killed 173 people with guns and grenades during the 2008 attacks in Mumbai, India.

The Eiffel Tower was evacuated again yesterday for the second time in as many weeks so even if they blame false alarms there's clearly some nervousness out there right now. As to picking up the threat, thank western intelligence:

Intelligence and law enforcement authorities in the US and Europe said the threat information is based on the interrogation of a suspected German terrorist allegedly captured on his way to Europe in late summer and now being held at Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan.

And thank the courts, including the Obama DoJ. There's a reason they sent him to Bagram instead of Gitmo, made clear in a recent ruling. Glenn Greenwald might envision a Utopia where terrorists are people too and get rights, but here in the real world they grilled the bastard and he spilled something. Hopefully lives were saved.

BTW, this is yet another example of president possum's shell game--while he focused everyone on the outrages at Gitmo and "torture" his admin kept rendition (apparently used here) and quietly pushed back against a lawsuit seeking habeas rights for Bagram prisoners, winning in part by using a Bushian state secrets defense. How many young skulls of mush even know this?
Yet he's out on the campaign trail warning voters about losing their civil liberties if the TeaGOParty takes over. Guarding the change, baby.

Defining Evil Again

The master prevaricator has struck again, dishing out another attack on Fox News the very day after a Politico.com poll showed that Bill O'Reilly--and about any cable or radio channel--is more popular than network news.

Meaning? The odds on favorite is that Obama thinks a vast majority of Fox viewers are ignorant gun toting dupes, clinging to their bitterness. Likely voters seem to fall into this category based on the Politico poll. But that doesn't make total sense because not all Fox viewers can possibly be registered Republicans. He's now attacking moderates, it would seem. You figure it out.

Meanwhile somebody should ask Obama where he would recommend people get their news...which papers? Which networks? After all, Couric asked Palin so it's a legit question for presidential timber.

More Woodward

The WaPo has provided more snippet detail from "Obama's War" in support of their superstar's book tour. The internet headline mentions a "Vietnam legacy" hovering over the proceedings, as if to say further reading would reveal a president trying hard to avoid another one.

It's almost possible while reading this new insider scoopage to forget that Obama is the same guy who campaigned about Afghanistan being the central front in the war on terror, a place George W. Dimwit had underfunded and under soldiered but something he would fix. Yet here he is behind Woodward's curtain worried about the political impact of troop levels:

"Six years out from now, we're just back to where we are now?" said Obama in mild disgust. "I'm not going to sign on for that."

Do our leaders even discuss winning anymore? Here's another gem:

The military did not understand, he said. "It'd be a lot easier for me to go out and give a speech saying, 'You know what? The American people are sick of this war, and we're going to put in 10,000 trainers because that's how we're going to get out of there.' "

Yes, while many people might understand such a speech and agree with the sentiment they would also instantly understand that the president was BS'ing when he said getting bin Laden and not letting the place turn back into Talibanistan was job one. Worse, if Woodward has this framed correctly the notion O was playing political games with the lives of US troops is unavoidable. And yes, other presidents have probably done it, they just haven't been caught.

So that begs the question again--why let Hollywood Bob rummage around the White House digging up dirt on top secret national security meetings? Well, perhaps the reason is that banning him would have resulted in not only a more critical book but would have washed out any notion of transparent sunniness for good. They know none of this will shock anyone on the right, so perhaps the point was to show his restless core base (who contribute and stage fake rallies and such) he's actually a stalwart against warmongering generals and quagmires. After all, most of them probably knew he was just winking about Afghanistan all along as a way to beat Bush and McCain.