Yep. When Edwards dropped out on Jan. 30, he had endorsements from 28 superdelegates, including Reps. Bob Etheridge (NC), Mike McIntyre (NC), Brad Miller (NC), Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (SD), Charlie Gonzalez (TX), Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX), Jim Oberstar (MN), David...
9:18 PM |
0 comments
There's this: Notice the big jump since January? The primary process seems to be weighing heavily on voter dissatisfaction with the current administration and their Republican apologists. The more people read about the issues and see what their choices are...
6:15 PM |
0 comments
Republicans have made fundamentally wrong choices for America, and instead embarked on a self-serving, morally righteous crusade that has touched and tainted everything from the Justice Department's US Attorney scandal, to the Iraq march to war and subsequent attempts to involve Iran as a part of a religious imperative to rid the world of Islam. Now it's time to pay the piper...
3:29 PM |
6 comments
I hit on this a few days ago in a post titled "McCain's Dirty Little Money Secrets", and now a defiant and arrogant Cindy McCain is back in the news this morning, and once again its news of her own making. She's the kind of trouble John McCain just doesn't need -- but as far as I can see McCain has no chance of keeping a lid on the problems she will create for his candidacy.
9:00 AM |
12 comments
It's not easy being Al Reynolds these days. The soon-to-be ex-husband of Star Jones says he's "been called a gigolo, a freeloader, unemployed, a sham and many other things...
8:25 AM |
0 comments
Angelina Jolie is indeed expecting twins, and it was Jack Black who let the news slip with a "Brady Bunch" crack. Long rumored to have two children by Brad Pitt...
8:23 AM |
0 comments
Firefighters were called Sunday morning to the apartment model Heather Stohler shared with her boyfriend, Daniel Risley. When they got there, they found the unit up in flames. Both...
8:16 AM |
0 comments
In the new issue of GQ, Shia LaBeouf says: "I've been in love with every woman I've ever worked with but there's the three-month attention span that actors have. I...
8:09 AM |
0 comments
8:05 AM |
0 comments
Bounty hunter Duane "Dog" Chapman's cable TV show will soon be back on the air. Filming has begun on the fifth season, according to executives with A&E, the cable...
7:52 AM |
0 comments
Comments (16)
- Kennedy is playing to the... (Below threshold)1. Posted by Big Bang Hunter | January 29, 2005 4:12 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
- Kennedy is playing to the Deaniac left trying desperately to ward off the Clintoneesta's...its also good timing to devert attention from the Iraqi elections so it won't be too obvious when the liberal MSM is underwhelming in its coverage.... that is as long as things go well....
1. Posted by Big Bang Hunter | January 29, 2005 4:12 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 29, 2005 04:12
2. Posted by Rob Hackney | January 29, 2005 4:26 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Goddamn right it's still war Kevin.
And war aint pretty. We need to stay the course and support the troops.
I don't know what your point of putting up these alleged "BBC" casualty reports, unless you're somehow trying to support anti-war liberals or something. Which I hope you're not, since if you start down that path, many many more AMERICANS WILL LOSE THEIR LIVES!
The bottom line is casualties ultimately do not matter. What matters is WINNING. I've been in war, and it's all about bleeding and getting the job done. The American people knew this, and knew they had to bleed...THAT"S WHY WE ELECTED OUR PRESIDENT!
So DON"T GO SOFT!
2. Posted by Rob Hackney | January 29, 2005 4:26 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 29, 2005 04:26
3. Posted by bullwinkle | January 29, 2005 4:41 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I don't trust those numbers, if there's any doubt at all who is repsonsible you can bet the BBC put the death in our column. I've seen enough news stories in the last 12 months about civilian causalties caused by car bombs and other terrorist attacks to put the 1,233 deaths attributed to the TERRORISTS to shame. Let's call them what they are, they aren't insurgents. Insurgents don't murder their own country's police and civilians either. Nine Iraqi citizens were killed by car bombs on the 27th, pretty much a typical day for the last year and those can only blamed on the terrorists. I've read several articles about people there just murdered and left laying on the streets, my guess is the BBC will automatically put them in our column if nobody came forward and say they Zarqawi do it.
3. Posted by bullwinkle | January 29, 2005 4:41 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 29, 2005 04:41
4. Posted by a | January 29, 2005 5:36 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Hang on a minute.
Let's go back to Nancy Youssef's Sep 04 report, which is also based on Iraqi Health ministry numbers:
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/9753603.htm
And look:
"the interim Iraqi government recorded 3,487 Iraqi deaths in 15 of the country's 18 provinces from April 5 - when the ministry began compiling the data - until Sept. 19. Of those, 328 were women and children."
Yes my friends. 94% of the casualties were adult males.
"civilians" my ass.
4. Posted by a | January 29, 2005 5:36 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 29, 2005 05:36
5. Posted by Just Me | January 29, 2005 8:35 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Also, if you factor in the fact that many of the coalition casualties were because they were trying to get insurgents, who is really at fault? If the insurgents weren't doing their insurgent thing, and we all know they do their insurgent thing purposefully among civilians, the coalition wouldn't have any reason to bomb or shoot.
5. Posted by Just Me | January 29, 2005 8:35 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 29, 2005 08:35
6. Posted by Rob Hackney | January 29, 2005 9:32 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Exactly, so what if some civilians die.
They are dying for freedom for others. Sacrifice is a big part of war.
I would say a free Iraq is probably worth a few hundred thousand civilian deaths before it gets too much to bear. I mean, Saddam killed over 5 MILLION of HIS OWN PEOPLE.
So a few hundred thousand is fine by me if it means it will never happen again!
6. Posted by Rob Hackney | January 29, 2005 9:32 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 29, 2005 09:32
7. Posted by Drew - Dallas, TX | January 29, 2005 10:50 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Every paragraph can be marked suspect in Kennedy's speech.
For example:
The President bungled the pre-war diplomacy on Iraq and wounded our alliances
Pre-war diplomacy? We've heard all of this bullshit before. So after the world witnessed the "pre-war diplomacy" between Kuwait and Iraq which went terribly, terribly wrong, we're all supposed to speculate what the Administration could have done right with diplomatic relations between the UN/Iraq? If the Bush Administration can't do anything correctly now according to Kennedy's accusations, why would he state that diplomacy could have worked?
Iraq could very well be another Algeria, where the French won the military battle for Algiers, but ultimately lost the political battle for Algeria.
But Teddy, the French also apparently lost their bid to keep Iraq under their part of the UN umbrella? So we aren't entirely like the French as you would have us believe.
The President recklessly declared “Mission Accomplished”
Um, no Jack Daniels, he didn't. The mission to remove Saddam had been accomplished successfully however. Our military is great at kicking ass offensively, but as Kennedy notes, we are a sub par occupation force. However, that's what the UN is for Teddy. Why isn't he bitching about them? Because he's weak.
The ugly fact is that the UN failed (and apparently lied for good rea$on) which is never mentioned by Kennedy. He can somehow throw in important parts of history like Vietnam and the French Algeria campaign, but leave out the 12+ years of UN failures that led Bush to finally say "enough". During patrols over the no-fly zone, our pilots were being shot at routinely, but where was this fantastic diplomacy under the Clinton Administration?
As for the numbers, this is indeed war, and not drinking shots to the Bob Newhart show, which Kennedy would win hands down.
I'd go on defending my country against - a fellow countryman? But why? I wouldn't say Kennedy hates his country, just half of it. I was reading his speech and it makes you wonder what type of brainstorming was done to come up with this shit, and even more frightening, what was left out of the speech?
7. Posted by Drew - Dallas, TX | January 29, 2005 10:50 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 29, 2005 10:50
8. Posted by bullwinkle | January 29, 2005 12:01 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
To say that the nombers given by the BBC are more than a little supsect is a definite understatement. On 1-21-05 14 people were killed by a car bomb as they left a mosque in Baghdad, later that day 7 more were murdered by a car bomb while leaving a wedding. Between the two attacks 56 were wounded, and some may have died later, but those deaths would hardly benewsworthy by BBC standards. That's well over 1% of the total deaths the BBC is willing to attribute to terrorists in Iraq in one day. Every day there are similar stories and very few days pass without 5 or more killed. Days with greater numbers of victims are all too frequent for the numbers to be even close. I would be very surprised if the true umbers weren't more than triple what they claim, and the numbers given for coalition forces substantially lower. I also doubt the combined numbers aren't lower than Saddam's true body count for most any of his years in power.
8. Posted by bullwinkle | January 29, 2005 12:01 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 29, 2005 12:01
9. Posted by andrei | January 29, 2005 3:01 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
The BBC is backing off their claims now.
"The BBC reported these figures as meaning that the deaths and injuries resulting from "military operations" were the result of actions by the Coalition and Iraqi Security Forces.
Today, the Iraqi Ministry of Health has issued a statement clarifying matters that were the subject of several conversations with the BBC before the report was published, and denying that this conclusion can be drawn from the figures relating to military operations. It states that those recorded as killed in military action included Iraqis killed by terrorists, not only those killed by Coalition forces or Iraqi security forces; and that those recorded as killed in military action included terrorists themselves, and Iraqi security forces.
The BBC regrets mistakes in its published and broadcast reports yesterday."
9. Posted by andrei | January 29, 2005 3:01 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 29, 2005 15:01
10. Posted by RR | January 29, 2005 3:15 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Any non combatant civilan deaths are bad. So are coalition force losses. At the same time my local newspaper editors allow people to send letters quoting the stupid Lancet numbers of 100,000 deaths. This report should cut back on some of the propoganda from the Lancet study.
10. Posted by RR | January 29, 2005 3:15 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 29, 2005 15:15
11. Posted by Just Me | January 29, 2005 5:00 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I have to agree that the lancet number quote is annoying, and misleading, and the people who keep quoting it either know this, or have read too many DNC talking points without doing any of their own research.
Also, I wonder why the BBC didn't clarify those numbers with the Iraqi ministry of health? Sounds like the BBC was looking for the sexy story, and not accuracy.
11. Posted by Just Me | January 29, 2005 5:00 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 29, 2005 17:00
12. Posted by bullwinkle | January 29, 2005 9:31 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
If only there was a way for the BBC to unring that bell like you have. Just like the Lancet article, people will be citing the figures as originally presented from now on.
12. Posted by bullwinkle | January 29, 2005 9:31 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 29, 2005 21:31
13. Posted by The Enigma | January 29, 2005 10:15 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
A question to teddy boy,
How many troops would it have taken to save the life of Mary Jo Kopechne?
13. Posted by The Enigma | January 29, 2005 10:15 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 29, 2005 22:15
14. Posted by firstbrokenangel | January 30, 2005 2:35 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Does anyone know the breakdown of the coalition troops per country or even their names?
Cindy
14. Posted by firstbrokenangel | January 30, 2005 2:35 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 30, 2005 02:35
15. Posted by Big Bang Hunter | January 31, 2005 12:37 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
- In response to Kennedy's pro-Jihadist speech Ms Kopechne could not be reached for comment....
- One of the Iraqi consulate workers mentioned on FOX the other day that so far the interum government has gathered a list of 1.2 million Iraqi's that have been murdered under Husseins regime in the years he ruled.... and they haven't reached the end of the counting yet.... Wonder why that never shows up in any of the AssHat crowds speeches.....
15. Posted by Big Bang Hunter | January 31, 2005 12:37 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 31, 2005 00:37
16. Posted by firstbrokenangel | January 31, 2005 10:16 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Wish someone would just bury this guy.
Cindy
16. Posted by firstbrokenangel | January 31, 2005 10:16 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 31, 2005 10:16