Chaos versus Radar
In answer to why liberals hate George Bush by chaos_engineer, in italics. My responses in regular script and quotes from other sources are in bold:
Why do they do it? For the endorphin rush. Getting yourself all worked up for a "righteous" cause is exciting and it feels good. Calmly considering both sides of the issue might be more productive, but it's just not as much fun.
100% right! Political conversations can be a great deal of fun and poking fun at tempting targets is one of my hobbies.
This isn't just a liberal problem, of course. Conservatives can be just as bad. We don't have to look too far back on your blog to find people spouting hysteria like, "Why is the United Nations always wrong?" or "Liberal moonbats [] take the side of the terrorists" or "...a rather prominent liberal drowning a prostitute.
(And this is one of the calmer blogs. Compare it to something like Free Republic or Little Green Footballs.)"
Saying the United Nations is wrong is hysteria???? Where were you during oil-for-food or when the UN made a mockery of "peace-keeping" in Somalia? (You can substitute "Congo" or half a dozen other places and all were disasters). What do you say about an organization that appoints the worst human rights violators imaginable to the Human Rights post at the UN, or a country piling up weapons of mass destruction to an arms control post? Just recently Kofi Annan condemned Israel for the warfare against Lebanon - warfare started by the terrorists in Lebanon known as Hezbollah. Politically the UN is part of the problem rather than the solution.
Do liberal moonbats take the side of terrorists?
1) the EU steadfastly refuses to name Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. In fact, speaking of the EU, consider this:
"If he had been a genuine rescue worker, he would deserve a medal. Mr "Green Helmet" is everywhere at Qana, rushing around pulling children out of the rubble, carting them to ambulances and even, on the front page of the Guardian, escorting "White Tee-shirt", who also performs his own cameo role, carting round the body of another unfortunate girl, emoting freely while he does so.
That photograph is credited to Nicolas Asfouri of AFP/Getty Images and the caption reads, "A man screams for help as he carries the body of a young girl after Israeli air strikes on the southern Lebanese village of Qana".
"White Tee-shirt" is still "screaming" on the front page of The Telegraph, but in an altogether different location, this photograph attributed to Reuters. He also makes the front page of The Times and The Independent, in yet another location, with “Green Helmet” just out of shot.
The New York Times, however, has "Green Helmet" dragging the body of yet another unfortunate child from the ruins, this photograph attributed to Tyler Hicks of The New York Times. The caption reads, "Rescue workers recovered bodies at the scene of an Israeli air raid on the southern Lebanese town of Qana on Sunday".
We also get one more shot of the baby dragged from the rubble – yet another pose to add to the many already published. This time, "Blue Tee-shirt" is standing behind the baby's body, holding its head up to make a more dramatic picture.
The picture itself is in Arab News with the caption, "A dead child, a victim of Jewish terror, is taken out of a destroyed building in Qana on Sunday. The pacifier of the child is seen hanging from the vest, a mute testimony to the innocent victim's tragic end." The photograph is attributed to EPA.
A picture remarkably similar to that in The New York Times is also offered by Reuters, attributed to Zohra Bensemra. Its caption reads, "A Lebanese volunteer rescuer carries a child killed in the Israeli air raid in Qana." It looks like the same child, but "Green Helmet", seems to have swapped positions for the camera with "Grey Tee-shirt".
Gulf News, on the other hand, has "Green Helmet" carrying the body of the girl shown in the previous post, but in yet another, slightly more picturesque location. This shot carries no attribution and the caption is not related to the picture. It refers to the cessation of air strikes by the Israelis.
But the great tragedy for Qana, of which we are constantly reminded by the media, is that this is history apparently repeating itself. On 18 April 1996, the village was also visited by death and destruction. re-visiting the photographs of the time, however, who do we see at the centre of the action? Why, "Green Helmet" of course. This is a younger man, without his glasses, but recognisably the same man, in his now classic pose of handling a victim of an Israeli "atrocity".
His presence at Qana on Sunday, and his central, unchallenged role, cannot have been a coincidence. Is he a senior ranking Hezbollah official? If not, who is he?..." Click here for the rest of the story.
Funny how the liberal moonbat reporters seem to be taking staged pictures and presenting them as real news. Are they not, in fact, complicit in the very terror acts themselves by such cooperation? Wait, it gets worse...
2) Hezbollah apparently forces civilians to inhabit areas from which they have fired rockets, and then run away before the danger is eminent. They may even kill civilians themselves and set up a faked "atrocity" to present to the always-accomodating liberal press.
Confederate Yankee has the following post up today:
"IDF Investigating Qana Because of Blog Reports
From the Jerusalem Post:
The IDF is looking into allegations raised over the past few days by several pro-Israel, Jewish and conservative Weblogs that Hizbullah may have staged aspects of the Kana tragedy on Sunday, in which some 60 Lebanese bodies were removed from a building that collapsed seven hours after being hit in an Israel Air Force strike.
The dead were mainly children, women and elderly people.
The International Committee of the Red Cross Mission in Israel said Tuesday that it would inform its Swiss headquarters about the allegations and seek to clarify the questions raised.
Israel has acknowledged hitting the building, and said 150 Katyushas had been fired from the village in the previous 20 days, with Hizbullah hiding rocket launchers in civilian buildings there. Israel said it did not know civilians were inside the building and expressed sorrow over the tragedy.
The IDF is investigating questions raised by Confederate Yankee, EU Referendum, and other blogs and web sites.
The questions include:
When did the building collapse, and what caused the collapse?
Were the photos taken of the victims staged?
Why do the bodies of the victims not show the crushing injuries one would expect in a building collapse?
Why weren’t journalists allowed near the building?
Why is their such a discrepancy in the initial casualty figures cited to the world (55-60) and the number of bodes recovered by the Lebanese Red Cross (28)?
Who is the man known as “Green Helmet” who was in so many of these pictures, and why was he in other, similar photos dating back to 1996?
The International Committee of the Red Cross is currently preparing a report based upon data collected by the Lebanese Red Cross."
Anyway, this sort of stuff has been happening in American politics from the very beginning. We get by somehow. Mostly it's just people blowing off steam.
But when people curse and lambaste our own President in such a manner, it is beyond lamentable. The brutish and uncivilized treatment of such a fine man is irresponsible and an indication that the liberal side has far too many dark-side adherents and influences.
The only advice I have is to make sure you don't get the rhetoric confused with reality. If you ever find yourself seriously believing that your political opponents want to "surrender to the terrorists" or "call you a terrorist and ship you off to Guantanamo", then it's probably a good idea to take a break for a couple of days.
I wish there were not hordes of liberals who truly do wish to turn tail and run away from Iraq and the war on terror. I wish that what you say is true. I wish John Murtha was not such and enemy of the war that he would slander American fighting Marines to the point they actually must file suit against him.:
"August 02, 2006
Murtha's Mouth Earns Defamation Suit From Marine
Cross-posted from The Dread Pundit Bluto
From the Washington Post:
A Marine Corps staff sergeant who led the squad accused of killing two dozen civilians in Haditha, Iraq, will file a lawsuit today in federal court in Washington claiming that Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) defamed him when the congressman made public comments about the incident earlier this year.
Attorneys for Frank D. Wuterich, 26, argue in court papers that Murtha tarnished the Marine's reputation by telling news organizations in May that the Marine unit cracked after a roadside bomb killed one of its members and that the troops "killed innocent civilians in cold blood." Murtha also said repeatedly that the incident was covered up.
Perhaps Murtha thought that, as the Old Media have already tried and convicted the accused Marines, he could get away with the vilest slander he chose in order to further his political goals.
One of Wuterich's attorneys, Mark S. Zaid, said:
"This case is not about money; it's about clearing Frank Wuterich's name, and part of that is to identify where these leaks are coming from," Zaid said in an interview. "Congressman Murtha has created this atmosphere that has already concluded guilt. He's created this environment that really smells, and he's the only one who has done that.""
Also see what Alexandra has to say about it, and check out the picture!
In fact, check out my other post for today, in which I give Alexandra center stage! Cheers!!!!!
Why do they do it? For the endorphin rush. Getting yourself all worked up for a "righteous" cause is exciting and it feels good. Calmly considering both sides of the issue might be more productive, but it's just not as much fun.
100% right! Political conversations can be a great deal of fun and poking fun at tempting targets is one of my hobbies.
This isn't just a liberal problem, of course. Conservatives can be just as bad. We don't have to look too far back on your blog to find people spouting hysteria like, "Why is the United Nations always wrong?" or "Liberal moonbats [] take the side of the terrorists" or "...a rather prominent liberal drowning a prostitute.
(And this is one of the calmer blogs. Compare it to something like Free Republic or Little Green Footballs.)"
Saying the United Nations is wrong is hysteria???? Where were you during oil-for-food or when the UN made a mockery of "peace-keeping" in Somalia? (You can substitute "Congo" or half a dozen other places and all were disasters). What do you say about an organization that appoints the worst human rights violators imaginable to the Human Rights post at the UN, or a country piling up weapons of mass destruction to an arms control post? Just recently Kofi Annan condemned Israel for the warfare against Lebanon - warfare started by the terrorists in Lebanon known as Hezbollah. Politically the UN is part of the problem rather than the solution.
Do liberal moonbats take the side of terrorists?
1) the EU steadfastly refuses to name Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. In fact, speaking of the EU, consider this:
"If he had been a genuine rescue worker, he would deserve a medal. Mr "Green Helmet" is everywhere at Qana, rushing around pulling children out of the rubble, carting them to ambulances and even, on the front page of the Guardian, escorting "White Tee-shirt", who also performs his own cameo role, carting round the body of another unfortunate girl, emoting freely while he does so.
That photograph is credited to Nicolas Asfouri of AFP/Getty Images and the caption reads, "A man screams for help as he carries the body of a young girl after Israeli air strikes on the southern Lebanese village of Qana".
"White Tee-shirt" is still "screaming" on the front page of The Telegraph, but in an altogether different location, this photograph attributed to Reuters. He also makes the front page of The Times and The Independent, in yet another location, with “Green Helmet” just out of shot.
The New York Times, however, has "Green Helmet" dragging the body of yet another unfortunate child from the ruins, this photograph attributed to Tyler Hicks of The New York Times. The caption reads, "Rescue workers recovered bodies at the scene of an Israeli air raid on the southern Lebanese town of Qana on Sunday".
We also get one more shot of the baby dragged from the rubble – yet another pose to add to the many already published. This time, "Blue Tee-shirt" is standing behind the baby's body, holding its head up to make a more dramatic picture.
The picture itself is in Arab News with the caption, "A dead child, a victim of Jewish terror, is taken out of a destroyed building in Qana on Sunday. The pacifier of the child is seen hanging from the vest, a mute testimony to the innocent victim's tragic end." The photograph is attributed to EPA.
A picture remarkably similar to that in The New York Times is also offered by Reuters, attributed to Zohra Bensemra. Its caption reads, "A Lebanese volunteer rescuer carries a child killed in the Israeli air raid in Qana." It looks like the same child, but "Green Helmet", seems to have swapped positions for the camera with "Grey Tee-shirt".
Gulf News, on the other hand, has "Green Helmet" carrying the body of the girl shown in the previous post, but in yet another, slightly more picturesque location. This shot carries no attribution and the caption is not related to the picture. It refers to the cessation of air strikes by the Israelis.
But the great tragedy for Qana, of which we are constantly reminded by the media, is that this is history apparently repeating itself. On 18 April 1996, the village was also visited by death and destruction. re-visiting the photographs of the time, however, who do we see at the centre of the action? Why, "Green Helmet" of course. This is a younger man, without his glasses, but recognisably the same man, in his now classic pose of handling a victim of an Israeli "atrocity".
His presence at Qana on Sunday, and his central, unchallenged role, cannot have been a coincidence. Is he a senior ranking Hezbollah official? If not, who is he?..." Click here for the rest of the story.
Funny how the liberal moonbat reporters seem to be taking staged pictures and presenting them as real news. Are they not, in fact, complicit in the very terror acts themselves by such cooperation? Wait, it gets worse...
2) Hezbollah apparently forces civilians to inhabit areas from which they have fired rockets, and then run away before the danger is eminent. They may even kill civilians themselves and set up a faked "atrocity" to present to the always-accomodating liberal press.
Confederate Yankee has the following post up today:
"IDF Investigating Qana Because of Blog Reports
From the Jerusalem Post:
The IDF is looking into allegations raised over the past few days by several pro-Israel, Jewish and conservative Weblogs that Hizbullah may have staged aspects of the Kana tragedy on Sunday, in which some 60 Lebanese bodies were removed from a building that collapsed seven hours after being hit in an Israel Air Force strike.
The dead were mainly children, women and elderly people.
The International Committee of the Red Cross Mission in Israel said Tuesday that it would inform its Swiss headquarters about the allegations and seek to clarify the questions raised.
Israel has acknowledged hitting the building, and said 150 Katyushas had been fired from the village in the previous 20 days, with Hizbullah hiding rocket launchers in civilian buildings there. Israel said it did not know civilians were inside the building and expressed sorrow over the tragedy.
The IDF is investigating questions raised by Confederate Yankee, EU Referendum, and other blogs and web sites.
The questions include:
When did the building collapse, and what caused the collapse?
Were the photos taken of the victims staged?
Why do the bodies of the victims not show the crushing injuries one would expect in a building collapse?
Why weren’t journalists allowed near the building?
Why is their such a discrepancy in the initial casualty figures cited to the world (55-60) and the number of bodes recovered by the Lebanese Red Cross (28)?
Who is the man known as “Green Helmet” who was in so many of these pictures, and why was he in other, similar photos dating back to 1996?
The International Committee of the Red Cross is currently preparing a report based upon data collected by the Lebanese Red Cross."
Anyway, this sort of stuff has been happening in American politics from the very beginning. We get by somehow. Mostly it's just people blowing off steam.
But when people curse and lambaste our own President in such a manner, it is beyond lamentable. The brutish and uncivilized treatment of such a fine man is irresponsible and an indication that the liberal side has far too many dark-side adherents and influences.
The only advice I have is to make sure you don't get the rhetoric confused with reality. If you ever find yourself seriously believing that your political opponents want to "surrender to the terrorists" or "call you a terrorist and ship you off to Guantanamo", then it's probably a good idea to take a break for a couple of days.
I wish there were not hordes of liberals who truly do wish to turn tail and run away from Iraq and the war on terror. I wish that what you say is true. I wish John Murtha was not such and enemy of the war that he would slander American fighting Marines to the point they actually must file suit against him.:
"August 02, 2006
Murtha's Mouth Earns Defamation Suit From Marine
Cross-posted from The Dread Pundit Bluto
From the Washington Post:
A Marine Corps staff sergeant who led the squad accused of killing two dozen civilians in Haditha, Iraq, will file a lawsuit today in federal court in Washington claiming that Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) defamed him when the congressman made public comments about the incident earlier this year.
Attorneys for Frank D. Wuterich, 26, argue in court papers that Murtha tarnished the Marine's reputation by telling news organizations in May that the Marine unit cracked after a roadside bomb killed one of its members and that the troops "killed innocent civilians in cold blood." Murtha also said repeatedly that the incident was covered up.
Perhaps Murtha thought that, as the Old Media have already tried and convicted the accused Marines, he could get away with the vilest slander he chose in order to further his political goals.
One of Wuterich's attorneys, Mark S. Zaid, said:
"This case is not about money; it's about clearing Frank Wuterich's name, and part of that is to identify where these leaks are coming from," Zaid said in an interview. "Congressman Murtha has created this atmosphere that has already concluded guilt. He's created this environment that really smells, and he's the only one who has done that.""
Also see what Alexandra has to say about it, and check out the picture!
In fact, check out my other post for today, in which I give Alexandra center stage! Cheers!!!!!