TM Connect


Use "My TM" for log in & register.

Taylor Marsh has been writing on line since 1996, with the archives provided here a representation of that work.

Tag Archives | guns

Violence in Air at Grievance Town Halls

By on 11 August 2009

It’s like that Phil Collins song, you can feel it coming in the air at every town hall. Just ask Arlen Specter, who faced a grievance mob today, complete with boos when Specter spoke of Obama’s Americanness. Town halls turned grievance fests with health care only the launching pad for people to act out.

“IT IS TIME TO WATER THE TREE OF LIBERTY,” was printed across William Kostric’s sign today. It’s the same quote used in the video by a different man (h/t Peter Daou) only in a separate context. But it all implies the same thing. That is if you finish Thomas Jefferson’s quote, which Kostric was careful not to do and the man in the video just hinted at himself. With a wink and a nod the message is sent, the code easy to decipher. None of this having anything to do with health care.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

William Kostric, given a platform on “Hardball” today, utilized the usual rhetoric gun fanatics employ when challenged: If more people had guns there would be less crime. These fanatics contend that if all the good guys and gals carried weapons the bad guys wouldn’t have a chance. As a gun owner myself, I’ve heard this ad nauseam, which usually leads me to laugh in their face. It’s as if to say to a single woman that she should own a gun to stay safe in her home, even if guns scare the crap out of her and she doesn’t want to own one. Shorter: It’s all her fault she’s not safe because she refuses to own a firearm. The perfect NRA sales pitch. The reality that people have a right to feel and be safe in their own homes, regardless of whether they own a firearm, never occurring to the nuts.

As the man in the video squeals Jefferson’s threat through his bullhorn, “Read what Jefferson said about the Tree of Liberty – it’s coming baby”, never having the nerve to say it out loud, because he knows very well what it implies.

As witnessed today at Arlen Specter’s town hall, you get a further sense of the grievance fest we’re witnessing across this country, all on the back of Obama’s push to get health care reform. With right wing radio giving out the call to arms, inciting their angry army to take to the town halls to defend “liberty,” though Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity (and his mini me, Mark Levin), and other hate speech peddlers like Ann Coulter have no clue what the incitement they’re stirring can manifest.

Chris Matthews said it simply on his show today.

“I think some of the people are upset because we have a black president.” – Chris Matthews, “Hardball”

A very dangerous pattern has taken shape, complete with gun toting, xenophobic, angry haters each with their own personal grievance and ax to grind.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Missourians, Guns and Gas

By on 21 July 2009

“Rumors are true! Max Motors is giving away guns,” the ad screams.

Oh! Oh! Oh, those wacky Missourians.

A graphic that sounds of bullets firing as your mouse slides across the gun graphic. But beware. It’s a full-auto graphic.

I’ll have to so hide this from my husband. He fell in love with Missouri when we went to a Mizzou game last year. But if he hears about free Kalashnikovs, well, he’ll have us packed up and ready to travel before the weekend.

Not to worry, however. Max Motors is being careful. Buyers get only a voucher, so gun owners will get background checks, just to make sure “those maggots” understand that Missourians won’t take crime standing down. You know, a “sporting chance” for citizens.

…and I say this, because I’ve actually shot an M-16. Of course, I’m a born and raised Missourian, so what do you expect?

That sound you now hear is progressive Democrats running for the hills.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Meeting in Mexico Revives Talks on Assault Weapons Ban

By on 16 April 2009

A prerequisite for all Dems should be to first run their theories on guns past Jim Webb (or some equally qualified gun expert) to see if their notions pass the smell test. They rarely do.

Backdrop: Mexico.

As Obama lands, President Calderon is calling for our Congress to reinstitute the assault weapons ban in the U.S., though this doesn’t address the million (plus or minus) assault weapons already in circulation. What Calderon is doing is passing the buck to the U.S. because he thinks that politically, with Obama in office, the Democrats will bite. We shouldn’t.

As with all my posts dealing with firearms, because I’m not an expert on the subject, I turn to my gun expert husband, Mark, a good Democrat who is easily infuriated when uninformed Democratic politicians run amok on the subject of guns. (He considers himself a Jim Webb type Dem – as do I.)

Segue to Gov. Ed Rendell, of whom I’ve always been a fan, who was interviewed by Andrea Mitchell today talking about re-instituting the “ban” on assault weapons. In the middle of his harangue I heard footsteps coming towards my office. Uh-oh. No doubt Mark heard what Rendell was saying and wanted to see the person attached to the comments.

“Who is this bozo?” Mark asked. Well, he’s not a bozo– then I was interrupted, with Mark adding, “He is if he’s saying things like that.” Talking politics for votes, because he doesn’t know what he’s talking about, he continued.

“An assault weapon is not made for long-distance firing. The Navy Seals who killed the pirates would never have used an assault weapon.” – Ed Rendell

Not even close.

Earlier this year a team of Marine Scout Snipers were deployed to the region for counter piracy work. They are armed with the SR-25 (Mk 11) 7.62×51mm semi-automatic, an AR-10 style rifle. They may well have been the men that were deployed to take out the pirates. (source)

Translation: 308 semi-auto was likely used, which looks and works exactly like an M-16.

There is a lot of guessing as to what weapon the Navy Seal snipers recently used to take out the pirates, with one of the best accounts coming in the form of an essay: Details will emerge, but I’m guessing the three SEALs were each equipped with a rifle called the SR-25, said to be the choice of SEAL snipers. It’s a semiautomatic, for fast follow-up shots, and looks like an M-16 on growth hormones.

Another review, staying with the Navy Seals since Rendell chose to use this situation, is that the “DevGru” team, which is considered the Navy version of Delta Force, likely used the MK-11, which is the 308 semiauto rifle: Poole figures the DevGru frogmen removed the “overpowered” standard-issue Leupold scopes and opted for the Aimpoint CCO augmented by the PVS-14 night vision monocular. Though the SEAL version of the MK-11 Mod 0 is issued with suppressors, it’s unclear whether the operators used them, but I’d bet a million bucks they did.

I realize we’re in the weeds for some of you, but the point is that an “assault weapon” is exactly what the Navy Seals used, unbeknownst to Ed Rendell who went on MSNBC to flatly state the opposite of what was true.

“It is for short distance firing and they can spray out a ton of bullets at one time…” – Ed Rendell

Mr. Rendell, really, now you’re talking about a full auto, which even I know. These are extremely difficult weapons to get and incredibly expensive, that is if you possess the right paperwork.

As for Mr. Rendell talking about the cop killers piercing a cop car door, quoting my husband, “most pistol bullets would do that and so would any rifle.” Again, even I knew that.

I’ve said it before, but an assault weapons “ban” doesn’t necessarily ban assault weapons. For instance, during the “ban” people were only prohibited from buying certain configurations. The Brady Bill didn’t stop the importation of all assault weapons, it only banned folding stocks, bayonet lugs, magazines over 10 rounds, and other variations on the theme. However, you could still get an assault weapon; they just couldn’t have the banned features.

Tell me how that’s “banning” assault weapons.

Read full story · Comments are closed

A Predictable Apology from Napolitano

By on 16 April 2009

The apology is airing on Fox News channel, though I wish it would have been offered as a press conference instead. Giving Fox this type of platform for an apology to veterans from a leading Democrat is just bad practice.

“To the extent veterans read it as an accusation … an apology is owed,” she said during an on-air interview on FOX News Thursday, a day after veterans’ groups and members of Congress blasted her for the report, which they said libeled members of the armed forces.

“This was an assessment, not an accusation,” Napolitano continued. “It was limited to extremists those who seek to commit violence within the United States. And all this was meant to do was to give law enforcement what we call ‘situational awareness.’”

“The last thing I want to do is offend or castigate all veterans. To the contrary, let’s meet and clear the air,” she said. [...]

Mind you, I could care less what the conservative American Legion has to say on any issue.

However, as I stated before, the writing of the particular portion that linked firearms and returning veterans was wrongly, clumsily written. No doubt the boss told the Secretary to fix it.

Read full story · Comments are closed

The Perfect Storm for Extremists

By on 14 April 2009
Photobucket

It happens every time you get a dynamic Democratic president in office. It happened when William Jefferson Clinton hit Washington. The conservatives began hunting him in earnest and didn’t let up until they had him in their sights. Handing them the dagger didn’t help, but they would have found an opening regardless. Now they’re hunting again, but this time the perfect storm has settled in, with economics, alienation and anger all funneling into a fire that also has a racial component, with President Obama being the first African American ever elected to the presidency. So is it any wonder Homeland Security is on the alert?

When you add in the toxic gas of right-wing radio, which sells misinformation and fear by the commercial break, aided by other media (and political) enablers, the virulent hatred being spread across our airwaves is nothing to take lightly. Not that it hasn’t been there for over 15 years. It’s just been turbo charged since Obama.

The Washington Times reports that Barack Obama is a “recruiting tool” for the hate groups, with reporting that reveals Homeland Security on the alert.

The Department of Homeland Security is warning law enforcement officials about a rise in “rightwing extremist activity,” saying the economic recession, the election of America’s first black president and the return of a few disgruntled war veterans could swell the ranks of white-power militias.

A footnote attached to the report by the Homeland Security Office of Intelligence and Analysis defines “rightwing extremism in the United States” as including not just racist or hate groups, but also groups that reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority.

“It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single-issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration,” the warning says. [...]

Below is one part of the document, Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment, currently circulating on the web, bringing with it the upside of causing Michelle Malkin & Co. a great deal of indigestion.

(U//LES) The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific information that domestic rightwing* terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues. The economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization andrecruitment.

— (U//LES) Threats from white supremacist and violent antigovernment groups during 2009 have been largely rhetorical and have not indicated plans to carry out violent acts. Nevertheless, the consequences of a prolonged economic downturn—including real estate foreclosures, unemployment, and an inability
to obtain credit—could create a fertile recruiting environment for rightwing extremists and even result in confrontations between such groups and government authorities similar to those in the past.

— (U//LES) Rightwing extremists have capitalized on the election of the first African American president, and are focusing their efforts to recruit new members, mobilize existing supporters, and broaden their scope and appeal through propaganda, but they have not yet turned to attack planning. (U//FOUO) The current economic and political climate has some similarities to the 1990s when rightwing extremism experienced a resurgence fueled largely by an economic recession, criticism about the outsourcing of jobs, and the perceived threat to U.S. power and sovereignty by other foreign powers.

— (U//FOUO) During the 1990s, these issues contributed to the growth in the number of domestic rightwing terrorist and extremist groups and an increase in violent acts targeting government facilities, law enforcement officers, banks, and infrastructure sectors.

— (U//FOUO) Growth of these groups subsided in reaction to increased government scrutiny as a result of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing and disrupted plots, improvements in the economy, and the continued U.S. standing as the preeminent world power.

(U//FOUO) The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.

* (U) Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration. [...]

Note that “possible passage of new restrictions on firearms” nugget above. Oh, for want of a comma, but none was used, at least in this version. So forgive me if find exceptions to this passage, though I respect the seriousness of the message. (Update: As I said over “In the News,” I reject this entire paragraph in the DHS report.)

It’s not like this hasn’t been building since Obama surged last year.

Now that this document is circulating the web it’s only going to incite people more, with the aid of the wingnut radio hosts, of course, add in the now obligatory odd monologue sure to come from Glenn Beck, to put an exclamation on it all. It’s the nature of the wingnut beast.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Wanted: Private Pirates

By on 10 April 2009

Consider it a new calling for all you daring entrepreneurs. CEI calls it a “free-market solution.” But this is deadly serious stuff.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton called the pirates “nothing more than criminals” and noted that they were not a new problem for the United States — though this was the first time in 200 years that pirates had captured an American vessel. “One of the very first actions that was undertaken by our country, in its very beginning, was to go after pirates along the Barbary Coast” of North Africa, Mrs. Clinton said at a State Department news conference, in which she called on the international community to “come together to end the scourge of piracy.”

Gen. David H. Petraeus, the head of United States Central Command, said Thursday that two additional ships would be sent in coming days to the region around the Gulf of Aden and the coast of Somalia, to augment an international naval armada that had tried in vain to secure thousands of square nautical miles of sea.

I’ve been watching the pirate drama off the Somali coast as closely as anyone. I’ve only come up with one solution and it’s incredibly simple. Arm the sailors. In lieu of that, let loose the Special Forces commandos.

But via Tapped, we learn that the Competitive Enterprise Institute has come up with another solution. Tapped doesn’t link to it, but it comes in the form of an actual news release from CEI and it’s priceless stuff. Worthy of The Onion.

CEI OFFERS POTENTIAL SOLUTION TO PIRATE PROBLEM
Congress Should Consider Empowering Private Action Against Thugs of the High Seas

Washington, D.C., April 9, 2009— News that Somali pirates had seized an American ship and, after being repelled, held her captain hostage drew a response from analysts at the Competitive Enterprise Institute: the United States should consider authorizing private parties to attack pirate ships under little used instruments called “letters of marque and reprisal.”

The letters, specifically authorized in the Article 1 section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, allow private parties to attack and seize the property of other parties that have committed violations of international law. Congress has the power to grant the letters. The United States made significant use of them during the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 and never joined 19th Century treaties in which European nations forswore their use. The U.S. issued letters of marque to ships during the Spanish-American War of 1898; and a civilian operated airship, The Resolute, operated under a letter marque during World War II. The letters also have a long history prior to the establishment of the United States. Elizabethan-era explorer and adventurer Sir Francis Drake operated under a letter of marque.

“The world has changed a lot since nations last made significant use of letters of marquee and reprisal. If Congress were to decide to issue them, it would certainly have to revisit the concept,” said CEI Senior Fellow Eli Lehrer. “It’s the type of free-market solution to a real problem that Congress should consider but hasn’t in any serious way.” Lehrer added.

CEI policy analyst Michelle Minton agreed. “American citizens have the right to defend themselves, regardless of their location,” said Minton. “If international governing bodies fail at the task, which repeated pirate attacks seem to indicate, the US government should do something,” she said. “Issuing letters of marque are one way to foster the protection of American citizens abroad without requiring an American military presence in foreign territory.”

With ideas like these you’d think they would lose their “institute” status.

–comments are closed–

Read full story · Comments are closed

Glenn Beck on the Defensive

By on 06 April 2009

This was predictable. As the right feels the heat for the cop killing that just went down, especially since there is evidence that their hate speech helped fuel it. Though the responsibility is still on the guy that morphed into a murdering cop killer.

Oh, and just to note, I was one of the people named and quoted by Mr. Sheppard over at NewsBusters in his round up yesterday. I’m in very good company.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Shooter Murders Policemen

By on 04 April 2009
Photobucket

Distraught over losing his job, 23 year-old man Richard Poplawski told a friend he was “going to die today,” then after police were called to his home checking out some sort of “domestic disturbance,” which still hasn’t been fully explained, he opened fire murdering two cops, then, proceeded to have a gunbattle that had SWAT and other Pittsburgh teams on the scene firing over 100 rounds.

A gunman wearing a bulletproof vest and “lying in wait” opened fire on officers responding to a domestic disturbance call Saturday, killing three of them and turning a quiet Pittsburgh street into a battlefield, police said.

[...] Poplawski had feared “the Obama gun ban that’s on the way” and “didn’t like our rights being infringed upon,” said Edward Perkovic, his best friend.

Perkovic, 22, said he got a call at work from him in which he said, “Eddie, I am going to die today. … Tell your family I love them and I love you.” [...]

This follows a similar pattern in other homicides when the shooter involved often telegraphs violence to come, whether to himself or others.

But the report that, according to his friend, Poplawski was afraid of some fictional Obama gun ban was on its way, reveals a loose grasp on reality by the shooter. The only thing to which Obama is committed with regards to guns is enforcing the laws, which is as it should be.

However, one element in today’s world that also plays a part, particularly since the shooter mentioned an Obama gun ban that is a fear threat of the right used by people like the N.R.A., is that people like Poplawski are the perfect target for the right-wing fearmongering hate speech circling the media airwaves since conservatives lost their hold on everything.

But no one is responsible for the cold blooded murders of the three policeman but Richard Poplawski.

That the shooter warned something was coming, however, even supposedly saying he was “going to die tonight,” is a not a minor part of this story. Everyone needs to take words of this nature seriously when they hear them. In these troubled, fragile times, when the bottom has fallen out of lives, we can’t afford to shrug these dire statements off.

Prayers go out to the families of the slain Pittsburgh officers and the larger police family there, all of whom are grieving.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Hillary to Mexico

By on 25 March 2009

UPDATE: Today in Mexico Secretary Clinton brought U.S. responsibility for problems we’re facing on the border with her.

“Our insatiable demand for illegal drugs fuels the drug trade,” Clinton said as she headed on her third trip abroad since taking office. “Our inability to prevent weapons from being illegally smuggled across the border to arm these criminals causes the deaths of police officers, soldiers and civilians,” the chief US diplomat said. “So yes, I feel very strongly we have a co-responsibility, and part of what we are trying to do is not only acknowledge that but working with the Mexicans to create very best possible responses.”

Clinton’s trip comes the day after Napolitana announced Obama’s border security initiative. But Hillary arrives in Mexico as things have gotten a bit tense let’s say on our southern border. ABC’s Blotter has gone the extra mile driving this one home.

The Obama administration may have announced its $700 million plan to help the Mexican government fight the powerful drug cartels, but the cartels have already geared up for a battle undergoing a “transition from the gansterism of traditional narco hit men to paramilitary terrorism with guerilla tactics,” according to a confidential federal law enforcement assessment obtained by ABC News.
U.S. agents say the cartels are now transitioning to paramilitary terrorism.

“We have a criminal insurgency by organized crime that may well be a precursor to civil anarchy in part or all of Mexico,” warns the assessment.

Clinton’s approval continues at a high, with nine out of 10 Dems approving of her in her new job, with Republicans think she’s doing good too.

Seventy-one percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Wednesday say they approve of how Clinton is handling her job as America’s top diplomat. Fewer than one in four disapprove.

“Nine in 10 Democrats approve of Clinton — that’s no surprise,” says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. “But by a 50 percent to 43 percent margin, Republicans also think she is doing a good job at the State Department. That’s an interesting result for a polarizing figure like Clinton.”

The challenges we face in Mexico have been heading this way for many years. It’s a warning that we’ve got problems over here that could cause us more immediate and direct challenges than anything we’re fighting over there.

Read full story · Comments are closed

A Word About the Blog

By on 20 March 2009
Photobucket

Now that I’m finally settled in D.C., I’d like to talk about what’s going on around here, which actually started after the primaries last year. Big changes, good changes, with more to come. There has been a change in the community, too, and that’s not over either.

First, I made a risky decision to focus on foreign policy, one of my passions, in addition to the usual fare of political analysis, my main gig. It was a jolt for some, especially after the primary season, because the wonky side of foreign policy isn’t as easily digested as the sport of campaign politics. But it’s a choice I made taking me further down a road I’ve been traveling through serious study for a very long time, long before I made it a central focus of my writing around here, though I do mix it up. This will continue and broaden, which won’t be for everyone, but it’s following my bliss, so there you have it.

Secondly, the community has shifted from last year in a dramatic way. We all know why, but considering Clinton is Secretary of State, it’s all good in my opinion. The newcomers are terrific, as was the big community we had going last year, as are the people who have been following me for over a decade.

However, some are struggling and want to rekindle the community of last year, bemoaning the tight group that finds consensus here in the comments at times. It’s intimidating for people who aren’t part of the die hard Obama chorus, which has naturally broadened since Barack Obama became president. So let me make something clear. This is a site for all opinions and political stripes, though I don’t have any patience for commenters who claim Dick Cheney is a hero, because it doesn’t foster serious debate, but is meant to bait people. That said, dissenters are welcome. In fact, I encourage you. We need more of it around here.

The one thing that is really odd is the lack of courage to engage the cliques that rise up inside the comment section, which cause it to be a bit insular. I’m getting emails about how hard it is to comment because of it. Buck up. Take a deep breath and engage. Disagree. Debate. Have a rhetorical rumble. Name calling is just that, so jump in and fight back. I can’t do this for you.

I’ve been writing on the web since 1996, so I’ve been through a lot of site incarnations. This move is a big one and it’s quite an adventure. I value everyone who stops by here every day, believe me. I learn from your debate when you choose to mix it up. I’d like to see more of it.

Also, I hope to bring the podcast back soon, though it will be different too. One thing it isn’t is the blog. Radio is entertainment; that is if you want to stay or get back on the air, though in this economy that is the biggest long shot of all. I don’t care, because I love doing radio, so I’ll do it however I can. But it’s a whole different thing than the blog, except for when I’m interviewing people on foreign policy, which I did a lot when my show was streamed live. No date, but we’ll get it going in the not too distant future.

So, to sum it up, yes, the blog has changed. It’s not for everyone, but I’m writing about what I find important. The rest will take care of itself.

Moving on… I’ll be out for a while today, so enjoy your Friday. And thanks for making this one of your stops. It means the world to me. My work is not a whim. It’s not just this blog or radio. It’s a passion I’ve had for many years to study, learn and then change my little part of the universe while exploring ideas that matter. Sharing it with those who are interested, one reader, one listener at a time.

Oh, and Happy Nowruz! President Obama has a message (available with Persian caption) for the Iranians. I second it. But I did get a chuckle imagining George W. Bush trying to do something like it, though the very effort will drive the wingnuts mad. Expect another crying fit from Glenn Beck.

Read full story · Comments { 62 }

Standing Against Holder on Resurrecting ‘Assault Weapons Ban’

By on 27 February 2009

I’m beginning to wonder about A.G. Eric Holder’s priorities, not to mention his knowledge base of weaponry. Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi have this one exactly right. Any attempt to resurrect the “assault weapons ban” should be opposed, because it’s absolutely ludicrous.

… “Senator Reid would oppose an effort (to) reinstate the ban if the Senate were to vote on it in the future,” Manley told The Hill in an e-mail late Thursday night.

It was not immediately clear whether Reid would block the bill from the Senate, but his opposition casts serious doubt on its chances. Also, Manley noted that Reid voted against the ban in 1994 and again when it expired in 2004.

Reid’s stance joins him with Pelosi, who told reporters Thursday that the administration had not checked with her before Attorney General Eric Holder told reporters the administration would attempt to reinstate the ban. Pelosi gave a flat “no” when asked if she had spoken to Holder or any other administration officials about the issue.

“On that score, I think we need to enforce the laws we have right now,” Pelosi said at her weekly news conference. “I think it’s clear the Bush administration didn’t do that.” [...]

First, there is no way to “ban assault weapons.” I’m not the gun expert in my family, but “ban” an assault weapon, and the gun manufacturers still provide ways around the “ban” so people can have their assault weapons, one part at a time.

Besides, there is no reason in the world a law abiding American shouldn’t be allowed to own whatever he or she wants, including an assault weapon. My husband used to have one (which I had the pleasure of firing), though I won’t get into the special license etc., because it’s in the weeds for most people. He’s a gun expert and someone who appreciates the craftsmanship of firearms. So I’d like someone to tell me why he shouldn’t be able to own whatever he wants, especially if all he’s going to do is case it or collect it. But even if he wants to fire it, why should anyone else care?

A.G. Holder is involving himself in the sort of activism that is mindlessly political and stupid amidst the real issues Justice should be tackling. Go after the gun shows, encourage more study on “microstamping” (something California will require by 2010 on all semiautomatic pistols), “encoded ammunition”, enforce the laws on the books, among other things, but resurrecting the “assault weapons ban” is a monumental waste of time.

Read full story · Comments { 18 }

Wind Down

By on 03 February 2009
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mji4nAk_8ZY

Free for all on topics.

I’ll start by answering a question we’re getting: have you looked at your new website with your monitor set at 800 x 600? Short answer from my tech whiz is that this resolution is receding from popularity, my words not hers, but the gist of what I picked up.  A portion of the site, including the post itself does fit the screen at that resolution, is easily seen, as is the header. So, we made a decision, but yes we definitely checked that out. No doubt there will be tweaks and additions along the way, so this is just a start.

The post of the day for my money is over at Media Matters, where they take a defense cutting rumor by Robert Kagan apart:

In his February 3 Washington Post column, headlined “No Time To Cut Defense,” Robert Kagan claimed that “Pentagon officials have leaked word that the Office of Management and Budget [OMB] has ordered a 10 percent cut in defense spending for the coming fiscal year, giving Defense Secretary Robert Gates a substantially smaller budget than he requested.” In fact, as Josh Rogin reported in a February 2 Congressional Quarterly article, the Obama administration has actually proposed increasing the Pentagon’s fiscal year 2010 budget by about $14 billion from its 2009 budget. In stating that OMB has “ordered a 10 percent cut,” Kagan was comparing the limit reportedly set by the Obama administration for defense spending with what Rogan reported was “a $584 billion draft budget request compiled last fall by the Joint Chiefs of Staff for fiscal 2010″ — not a budget that Gates “requested,” as Kagan claimed. Indeed, Kagan baselessly suggested a split between OMB and Gates over the increasing size of the budget, writing that President Obama “should side with Gates over the green-eyeshade boys.” But Gates has stated that the “FY 2010 budget must make hard choices” and that the “spigot of defense funding opened by 9/11 is closing.”

Read full story · Comments { 67 }

New York Gets a Senator

By on 23 January 2009

–updated–

Paterson is doing as expected according to reports yesterday. Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand will be appointed to Hillary Clinton’s Senate seat. I’ve been out this morning, but it becomes official at noon today, when Paterson is expected to make the announcement.

The N.R.A. backed her to help her win her seat, and she’s not been exactly enthusiastic (h/t American Prospect) about gay rights, but recently came out in favor of gay marriage, which her fans are trumpeting. TNR has more. As gun owners, we stay miles away from the N.R.A., an organization that wouldn’t know a responsible gun law even if it was approved by the whole town. She also voted in favor of the laws repealing the prohibition of possessing semiautomatics in D.C. Gillibrand comes from a conservative district in New York, with few thinking she can win re-election. But she opposed TARP, so she’s not stupid. One thing is certain, however, is that there will be a primary fight for her seat.

Oh, and let me add, she isn’t Miss Popularity.

“Nobody really likes her,” said one New York City-area member, speaking on condition of anonymity.”She’s smart and capable but she’s rubbed people the wrong the way,” said another.

“I think she’s going to get a serious primary in 2010,” opined a longtime state Democratic operative who supports Gillibrand. …

UPDATE: Obama statement on appointment:

“Governor Paterson made a wonderful choice in appointing Kirsten Gillibrand to fill Secretary Clinton’s seat in the United States Senate. I am confident that she will continue Secretary Clinton’s distinguished service to the people of New York and to our country.

“During her career, Kirsten has been a strong voice for transparency and reform in government and shares the belief that government should be open, accessible and work for all of our citizens. In Congress and as special counsel for the Department of Housing and Urban Development, she worked to strengthen public and private partnerships to invest in infrastructure and New York’s economy.

“At this time of great challenge, I know that Kirsten has the integrity, character, and dedication to public service to help us achieve our greatest goals,” said President Obama.

Read full story · Comments { 19 }

Gillibrand Surfaces as Frontrunner for Clinton Seat

By on 22 January 2009

This will cause indigestion among many, but it’s being reported by several news sources: Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand. Daily Beast:

… Politically, Gillibrand, who is 41, is a conservative Democrat and a member of the Blue Dog caucus, which might make her more palatable to some of the more right-leaning areas outside the city. You might call her a bizarro version of Sarah Palin: she proudly touts her 100 percent rating from the National Rifle Association, and has two young children, aged 4 years old and six months old. …

Daily News reports the same scuttlebutt, with the announcement from Paterson to come tomorrow.

Read full story · Comments { 17 }

D.C. Gun Ban Baloney

By on 04 September 2007

Talk about ridiculous, this editorial is staggering in the whopper-ific category,
compliments of D.C. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty, and Linda Singer, the District’s
attorney general.


The handgun ban has saved countless lives, but this fundamental part of the
District’s public safety laws will be no more if the Supreme Court does not
review and overturn this year’s decision by the D.C. Circuit. Departing from
the consensus of the courts, the court (in a 2 to 1 vote) decided that the
Second Amendment is not about state militias after all but about personal
gun rights. We think that ruling is extraordinary and wrong. Indeed, it is
the first time a federal appellate court has used such a view of the Second
Amendment to strike down any gun-control law. …

Fighting
for Our Handgun Ban

The D.C. handgun ban has saved countless lives? Are they kidding? Isn’t D.C. still the
murder capital of the country? Maybe not, because the city lost the title in ’05, but it’s still a very dangerous place.

But it’s nothing compared to the petition filed to try to undo the previous win against the gun ban. One section reads as follows:


The choice of a ban further reflects the recognition that the threat of handgun
violence extends well beyond the premeditated acts of criminals. The Council
noted that guns “are more frequently involved in deaths and violence
among relatives and friends than in premeditated criminal activities,”
and that many “murders are committed by previously law-abiding citizens,
in situations where spontaneous violence is generated by anger, passion, or
intoxication.” App. 102a.

Evidently, Fenty and Singer think it’s their job to save people from themselves.
Nanny gun alert! Scotusblog
has the link of the petition, plus analysis. Only a lawyer could decipher this
junk.


The Supreme Court has not ruled on the scope of the Second Amendment in 68
years — not since U.S. v. Miller in 1939.

Washington, D.C., is a city that is often described as a “crime capital”
because of the high incidence of murders and other assaults. The petition,
without applying any such label to the city, suggests that the need to regulate
handguns is a life-or-death matter there. “Absent review by this Court,”
it contends, “the District of Columbia — a densely populated urban locality
where the violence caused by handguns is well-documented — will be unable
to enforce a law that its elected officials have sensibly concluded saves
lives.”

It notes that the city has been regulating guns since 1858, and goes on to
document the problems the local City Council discerned when it adopted the
current handgun ban 31 years ago. At the time, it said, handguns were used
in 88 percent of armed robberies and 91 percent of armed assaults, and in
one year — 1974 — “were responsible for 155 of the record 285 murders”
in the city.

Handguns, it sums up, “present a singular danger,” leading the
Council to adopt a freeze on the “pistol population” within the
District. … ..

But get this, Singer
really believes they can win.


The ruling, written by conservative senior judge Laurence Silberman, “wears
the trappings of a bona fide legal theory, but it distorts both the words
of the amendment and the plain intent of the founders,” according to
the petition. The city offers arguments aimed at making it palatable for the
Court’s conservatives to uphold the ban noting, for example, that the city
allows possession of rifles and shotguns. It also makes a federalism argument,
asserting that the Second Amendment targets only federal interference with
state militias — and therefore has no effect on the D.C. ban.

Singer calls the city’s arguments “very textual” ones that would
appeal to any justice who wants to honor the words of the Second Amendment.
She sounds confident that victory is within reach. “If we didn’t think
we could win, we would not have taken it up.”

I’m all for gun laws that work and make sense, but just because D.C. residents
can purchase and own shotguns doesn’t make the D.C. handgun ban right. It’s
wrong. The March decision is correct and I hope the Justices walk away from
D.C. mayor, who has overreached by not only saying that D.C.’s handgun ban has saved lives, but that owning a shotgun means that you don’t need or shouldn’t want a handgun.

In my own case, I can’t shoot a shotgun worth beans. First, I’ve done it and can’t control the kick, which knocks my boney shoulder, because I’m too shotgun shy not to wince before pulling the trigger. Call me a wimp. However, with my HK everything is different. I’m sure, confident and prepared to protect myself. It’s absurd to think that if I lived in D.C. I’d be relegated to anything other than a handgun, which is the only way I would feel safe in a home alone at night. However, according to the D.C. mayor I might get liquored up and shoot someone with my handgun, which I wouldn’t do with a shotgun. Go figure.

Stupid gun laws are heralded by people who seem ignorant of reality. I’ll let the lawyers and the Supremes, God help us, decipher the rest.

Read full story · Comments are closed

It’s Called Fratricide

By on 27 July 2007

The government’s unraveling story of Pat Tillman’s death just keeps getting
worse. The more truth that escapes their grasp the more obvious this story becomes.
You can call it “friendly fire” or fratricide, but it all comes down
to the same thing. The cover up of a soldier’s death.

ESPN’s Mike Fish is a good place to start, if you want to revisit the unwinding
of this tale:

• Ranger
with Tillman on ridgeline
• Ranger
in the firefight
• Sergeant
firing at Afghan fighter
• Ranger
firing toward Tillman
• Medic
who attended to Tillman
• Officer
at forward operating base
• Officer
who made fratricide announcement
• Critical
events debriefer
• Officer
involved in investigation

This story gets more disturbing with every drip. But if you didn’t have a clue
before, once Mr. Bush claimed executive privilege on disseminating more information on Tillman’s death, you knew we’d finally reached the tipping point. By now
you’ve likely read the new AP story. It adds
even more detail on what has been a nightmare tale of war.

Via Martha
Mendoza of the AP:


Army medical examiners were suspicious about the close proximity of the three
bullet holes in Pat Tillman’s forehead and tried without success to get authorities
to investigate whether the former NFL player’s death amounted to a crime,
according to documents obtained by The Associated Press.

“The medical evidence did not match up with the, with the scenario as
described” … ..

The medical examiners’ suspicions were outlined in 2,300 pages of testimony
released to the AP this week by the Defense Department in response to a Freedom
of Information Act request.

Among other information contained in the documents:

_ In his last words moments before he was killed, Tillman snapped at a panicky
comrade under fire to shut up and stop “sniveling.”

_ Army attorneys sent each other congratulatory e-mails for keeping criminal
investigators at bay as the Army conducted an internal friendly-fire investigation
that resulted in administrative, or non-criminal, punishments.

_ The three-star general who kept the truth about Tillman’s death from his
family and the public told investigators some 70 times that he had a bad memory
and couldn’t recall details of his actions.

_ No evidence at all of enemy fire was found at the scene – no one was hit
by enemy fire, nor was any government equipment struck. … ..

Continuing from the AP article, we learn that “the bullet holes were
so close together that it appeared the Army Ranger was cut down by an M-16 fired
from a mere 10 yards or so away.”

At one point, the Army tried to target a soldier manning the .50-caliber machine
gun as the likely shooter. I’m simply a gun owner, not an expert — I leave that job to my husband
Mark — but as far as I know a .50-caliber bullet would have not only left a
“gruesome” wound, as Mike Fish says in his investigative piece, but
it would have not left room for two other bullet holes. The .50-caliber would
have done the damage of all three shots in one. Parts
two, three
and four
of Fish’s investigation are all worth a read.

As a gun owner, I’ve covered issues relating to firearms and the military for
a while now. But when it comes to getting details, I go to my husband Mark.
He conducted the firearms
field test for me when Dick Cheney shot Whittington, because he’s a crack
shot, which led us both to conclude that Cheney was a lot closer than reports
first stated, though we never learned the truth. So whenever military and firearms
questions arise, he’s my go to guy. So I had a short discussion today with Mark.

HYPOTHESIZING: Interview on firearms and ballistics re: Tillman death

There is only one conclusion to draw. Pat Tillman was killed by friendly fire, with many questions left unanswered; like could Pat Tillman have been fragged? We may never know. Maybe more information will yet drip out and we will find out something less sinister unfolded on the fields in Afghanistan, but given the latest new evidence and all that’s come before it certainly seems
to be the inescapable conclusion, along with one other.

It’s time to reopen the investigation into the death of Pat Tillman.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Tragedy in Virginia

By on 16 April 2007


One thing that seems obvious is that there was mass confusion this morning. One
parent interviewed stated that an email went out to report “suspicious
activity,” but there was no lockdown. One thing is clear is that on a campus of 2,600 acres, 100 buildings
and around 28,000 students you need to have a plan in place when students are
threatened. Only 9,000 students are on campus at a time. There were patrolling vans with a loudspeaker. But without a lockdown the shooter was able to walk through the campus to another
building and continue his rampage. After Columbine, this seems just incredible
to me.

Chief Wendell Flinchum said they believed the shooter had left the campus. They were wrong. There was a decision not to lock down the school because of this. No doubt this will be talked about often in the future.

Listen
to this eye witness account. It’s harrowing.

As is expected after something this tragic, everyone wants to talk about gun
laws. Some want to talk about banning guns, which is wrong and unconstitutional.
However, the one issue that is really serious to talk about is the leniency
of Virginia’s gun laws, which even in a rural hunting state are beyond comprehension.

One thing that is absurd is that Virginia does not require much for a person to get a concealed carry permit. My husband, who
is a gun expert and has a concealed carry (at my urging because of his business), was on my radio show today and he found this shocking as well. No background
checks are required and no training is required either. It’s madness. Colorado has
the right approach, as does Nevada.


Colorado (04/09/2007): Victory! Database of Permitees to Carry Concealed
Handguns Remains Intact

Today, the Colorado State Senate successfully passed HB 1174, an important
bill that will keep in place an already existing database of those permitted
to carry concealed handguns in public. Despite the efforts from the gun lobby
that would have tied the hands of law enforcement officials, the state senate
passed the bill 18-17. The bill provides law enforcement with an important
tool to keep guns out of criminals’ hands, including domestic violence
offenders, by maintaining a statewide database of those permitted to carry
loaded, hidden handguns in public. The bill is now awaiting Governor Ritter’s
signature.

Virginia has no gun show background checks either. This needs to be changed.

Many states are moving on legislation
for positive change and pushback on the NRA. Virginia is not.

Another issue many do not talk about is “secondary sales.” That’s
when a person sells a gun through the newspaper; someone shows up and buys it,
but no one knows that person has the gun. Obviously, there are no background
checks on these types of sales. Someone should figure out how to regulate this
because it’s obviously very dangerous. Not knowing who has guns is not part
of the second amendment last time I checked.

Democrats who are second amendment advocates should try to find a gun manufacturer
with whom to partner so we can encourage “ballistic fingerprinting.”
The short version is that this is when a manufacturer actually shoots the gun
made and then keeps possession of the bullet on file so it can be cross-referenced
with bullets found in crime scenes, etc. This is a battle worth waging, too.

A waiting period for gun sales is also important, I believe, for obvious reasons.
Maine just had a public hearing on this in February. Virginia has no waiting period.

New Mexico also just defeated the ridiculous NRA “shoot first” legislation,
as did Colorado.


New Mexico (03/17/2007): Dangerous “Shoot First” Legislation Defeated

Today, as the New Mexico legislature was concluding its work for the year,
a dangerous NRA-supported bill that would have allowed people to use deadly
force as a first resort in public was successfully defeated. This type of
“Shoot First” legislation permits the average citizen to bypass
our entire justice system by permitting him or her to assume the role of police
officer, prosecutor, judge, and executioner. This victory is due to the courageous
legislators in New Mexico that stood up to the gun lobby and refused to compromise
public safety.

We can do many things to ensure gun safety without banning guns. Fighting what the NRA has done in Virginia is a place
to start. Virginia activists should get busy. There’s no time like the present, which includes your own state. Being pro second amendment also includes being for good gun laws that help keep us all safer.

Prayers go out to the families of the victims, the students wounded, as well as all the officials involved in this horrendous tragedy. It’s incomprehensible that after Columbine any school would be so unprepared for this challenge. I can’t imagine how tortured the administrators and others at Virginia Tech are today. I pray that people in charge of every school in the country learns a lesson. The minute there was a shooter on campus it should have been locked down. Period.

Read full story · Comments are closed

REWIND: Was Deadeye Drinking or Not?

By on 22 February 2006

Fact or fiction, I found this article, I report it – you decide.
If Fox “News” can use that line, so can I.



We talked with a number of administration
officials who are privy to inside information on the Vice President’s shooting
“accident” and all admit Secret Service agents and others say they
saw Cheney consume far more than the “one beer” he claimed he drank at
lunch earlier that day. “This was a South Texas hunt,” says
one White House aide. “Of course there was drinking. There’s always drinking.
Lots of it.” One agent at the scene has been placed on
administrative leave and another requested reassignment this week. A memo reportedly
written by one agent has been destroyed, sources said Wednesday afternoon.
Cheney has a long history of alcohol abuse, including two convictions
of driving under the influence when he was younger. Doctors tell me
that someone like Cheney, who is taking blood thinners because of his history
of heart attacks, could get legally drunk now after consuming just one drink.

Secret
Service agents say Cheney was drunk when he shot lawyer
by Doug
Williams

Mwwaaaaaahaaaa. Here come the stories. One by one, little
by little, the legend is being built. Constructed on the mutilated, dead carcass
drive-by hunters like Deadeye leave out to rot.

Eleven days after the vice president of the United States shot
a man in the face and heart at around 15-18 yards, we get the story of the written affidavits.

Oh, and the Kenedy County Sheriff Ramon Salinas III ruled the shooting an accident.
That we knew, but was Deadeye drinking that day? That we’ll never know.

There’s only one reason why someone doesn’t want to talk to the sheriff after
a shooting accident, something every other hunter in America would have to do. Deadeye got the Secret Service to make sure that didn’t happen, while Deadeye
got Whittington driven to Kingsville, instead of Corpus Christi, which is closer. Then the vice president doesn’t even go to the hospital, instead
he goes out to dinner. But that’s so yesterday’s
news.

What’s really touching is that we find out that Ambassador Pamela Willeford,
shooting next to Deadeye, decided to give him the shot. She says the bird was
out of range. She was standing next to her drive-by hunting partner. Ah, but
she deferred to
Deadeye. Isn’t that darling? What else happened that day?


But we will never know for sure because the owners
of the Armstrong
Ranch, where the shooting occurred, barred the sheriff’s department from
the property on the day of the shooting and Kenedy County Sheriff Ramon Salinas
III agreed to wait until the next day to send deputies in to talk to those
involved.

NBC News had to file an “Open Records Act request” to get the affidavits.
But let’s remember, they were written between 4-7+ days after the shooting.
But we’re never going to get the full truth, baby, old Deadeye made sure of
that.


There are six new affidavits from members
of the shooting party. Most are dated Feb. 15, four days after the
shooting. One is dated Feb. 17, almost a week after the vice
president accidentally shot his friend, Harry Whittington. Some
law enforcement experts say that’s an unusually long period of time,
after a shooting, to gather written statements from witnesses. Ideally, they
say, investigators like to get such affidavits when memories are still fresh,
and can’t be influenced by other witness accounts. Documents
support Cheney’s shooting account

Did anyone actually think the documents wouldn’t support Cheney’s
story? Puh-leaze. To top it off, Deadeye got lucky with Terror Guy
tripping over his oblivious presidency, as his aides thought they could slip
a Dubai deal through without Congress waking up.

It’s a new game we’re playing, watch the Administration implode,
week two in the latest installment. Coming on the trail of Deadeye’s bad shot,
it just keeps getting worse. After seeing Deadeye in action, the country has
decided Iraq
was a mistake. Deadeye scared
O’Reilly so much he even said we have to leave Iraq now. Hey, but Deadeye
should look on the bright side, at least all the affidavits match.


Several of the statements say that no
one was drinking alcohol during the late-afternoon hunt — again, consistent
with the vice president’s account. One member of the hunting party does volunteer
that she had a glass of wine at lunch, four hours before the accident.

Nobody remembers if the quail Deadeye was after was in front of
the group or behind them. Umm, excuse me, but the point is not just where the
quail is, but where your fellow hunter is, which seems to be lost on these drive-by
hunters. That’s why Whittington got shot
in the heart by the vice president in the first place. Deadeye had his head
up his ass, as my husband so eloquently stated when this got started, pulling the trigger when he
didn’t have a clue where everybody in his party was located.

Let’s just call it the Armstrong amateur drive-by hunting hour,
starring Deadeye Dick. But one thing good about being second in command to Terror
Guy. You don’t have to wait long before the dork at the top takes the heat off
your own under the influence stupidity.

But at least Deadeye Dick got everyone to tell the same story,
including waiting days afterwards before they turned them in to the sheriff.
Access has its privileges, even when the vice president shoots a man, evades
authorities for hours, doesn’t tell his boss, who just happens to be the president
of the United States, then believes he also doesn’t owe the American people
an explanation when he shoots a man at 15-18
yards, but gets everyone to say it was actually “30 yards.” Oh,
and no one was drinking, but one lady now had a “glass of wine at lunch.”

Deadeye got lucky. He even got the man he shot to say he
was sorry. Nice touch Dick. With the conservative
cliterati falling
all over themselves to save him.

Oh, and sorry about all the rumors, but that’s what happens when
you try to hide the truth. We thought you’d learned something from Iraq. Have
a cocktail, maybe it will make you feel better.

Oh, but don’t expect the rumors and stories go away. Deadeye Dick
is a legend that’s here to stay.

Read full story · Comments are closed

MOVING ON: Cheney Shooting

By on 20 February 2006

Please keep in mind that the same gun,
ammunition, and choke-related criticisms I made about the Jones video apply
to the myscienceproject.org report, but the most important evidence of this
report (in my opinion) comes from the close range shooting tests, where choke
and ammunition variables are less pronounced. In these close range test, Jones’
contention that Whittington was shot at 15-18 feet are proven absurd
by the massive damage of a shotgun blast at such a short range. Harry Whittington
simply could not be out of the hospital (and would more than likely be in the
morgue) if shot at the distance Jones speculates. I’d also like to state
that I’m willing to take a polygraph to support my contentions, providing
you can find one in the Raleigh, NC area. I doubt this would be difficult. I’d
also ask that Mr. Jones review my post and this alternate shooting report, and
then take a polygraph of his own. – confederateyankee

Let's move on. Really. We've proved our case. If more
information comes to us, we'll keep you posted. That said, the bulk of email
requires a response.

This is going to be quick because I simply can't continue to state
our contentions, the facts, or the bulk of evidence again and again. First,
you should see my emails on why the Alex Jones video is wrong. So, here we go
again.

First and again, our contention that Whittington was shot
at about 15 YARDS was made long before we saw the video. In fact, we
were the first to openly challenge Cheney's, hmmmm, what to call it? There's
only one thing to call it: alibi. The video came after the fact. If you don't
believe the video, fine, don't, but that in no way changes our conclusions.

Secondly, I've now gotten enough “science projects”
to last a lifetime. We looked at as many as possible, but we did our own long
before it became in vogue and our judgment stands. Send the rest to Texas. Better
yet, send them to Mary Matalin. Maybe she'll use it in her next “Meet the
Press” smackdown.

Thirdly, there are evidently other “liberal bloggers”
out there talking about what ConfederateYankee does as well, that is a “15-18
feet” shot. That's not a contention made by this liberal or my gun guy
husband, who happens to be an expert.

Again, with feeling, our contention and that of many others, even
people up the arms ladder chain, is that Whittington was hit at 15 YARDS.
Nothing presented has changed this judgment, which, again, has been made by
others as this furor was unleashed.

To say that I find it odd that people are willing to take a polygraph
so I will know they are not lying is absurd in the extreme. Neither me or my
husband are saying anyone is lying, or that the Alex Jones video is the proof
on which we based our conclusions. I believe the wingnuts truly want to exonerate
their guy. It's just not going to happen on this one, so please, don't embarrass
yourself any further. If you need a polygraph to prove you're telling the truth,
take one, post it. I'm not interested.

Our truth is in every post we've written.

It would also help if people didn't send me emails talking about
15-18 feet and that Alex Jones is wrong. Send your emails to him, because I'm
not his proxy. I offered the video so as many people as possible could see the
two in-depth videos currently available, which are still on this blog. Lots
of amateur videos exist, but I picked those two. Other blogs will have to host
other videos.

But again, our facts, field test and final conclusion are based
on our own independent analysis first, with the facts gathered and judgment
made long before anyone else, including the guys with the videos, came forward
doubting Cheney's alibi or supporting it and trying to prove Cheney's facts
were true. I've got one of each on this blog, including other information, make
your own assessment.

One last thing, there was one way to keep this confusion and independent
analysis from spinning off into polygraph poppycock and wingnut blogs talking
about FEET instead of YARDS, trying to save Dick Cheney's riddled political
carcass. If the vice president had come forward in the beginning we wouldn't
even be having this discussion. But he didn't so we are.

There are many other important topics to discuss, towards which
I must turn my attention. However, we are listening and receiving credible information
all the time. If I get any pertinent and new details on the swiss cheese
alibi of Dick Cheney, I'll let you know. Otherwise, we've proved our point,
bolstered by others weighing in too, beyond what the video shows. Our analysis
stands.

Read full story · Comments are closed

The Mary Matalin Smackdown

By on 19 February 2006
Mary should have stayed inside the castle.

But the segment began with Tim
basically giving Mary the first third to lay out her side of the story. It was
bad enough to just have an administration mouthpiece on to regurgitate talking
points, but why not allow — in old Meet the Press fashion — the journalists
to question her? Maybe Mary demanded some solo time, but, if so, it didn't serve
her boss well. The impact of her appearance was to make the whole story seem
even less under control than having a beer and shooting your friend in the face.
As for what she said, there were so many intelligence-insulting lies and half-truths
it's hard to know where to start. Arianna
Huffington

Meow. Fssssst. Grrrrrr.

Mary Queen of Carville made a fool out of herself today, which
Arianna captures perfectly as does half the blogosphere. The beginning of the
interview was bad enough, but this exchange, where Mary came unraveled, really
shows the spiteful venom to which Dick's diva resorted to spewing.

MS. MATALIN: It strikes you as odd because
you live in a parallel universe. It did not strike Americans as odd.
Press were calling me saying, “The president—the vice president
needs to apologize.” He did profusely and repeatedly to the victim of
his accident, who was Harry Whittington.

MR. GREGORY: If you thought he did everything right,
why is it that you ultimately—if the vice president said, “I did
everything right,” by disclosing it the way he did, why did you do a
big national interview this week?

MS. MATALIN: Because you went on a jihad, David.
For four days you went on a Jihad.

MR. GREGORY: And that’s an unfortunate
use of that word, by the way. This is not what that was.

MS. MATALIN: Oh, OK. All right. How—were
you saving up for that line?

MS. DOWD: Mary, it isn’t only the
press. He blows off the FISA courts, he blows off the Geneva Conventions,
he blows off the U.N. to go to Iraq. He wants to blow off everything. He’s
got a fever of about presidential erosion just the way he had a fever about
going into Iraq.

Jihad?

Meow.

Then you have the nerve to get pissed at David Gregory when he
calls you on it?

Fssssst.

But, really, "were you saving up for that line?"

Grrrrrr.

It got worse.

MS. MATALIN: … … Well, Maureen
Dowd, the diva of the smart set would be swooning. Moms across the
country would be saying, “Hey, she thinks like me. That’s right.
A guy shoots his friend. That’s not relative to my life. Let’s
move on to serious issues.” No, that was a politically stupid thing
to do, beside the delicious and just absurd hypocrisy of the forthcomingness
of an administration.

The "diva of the smart set," huh?

Raarrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

This was crisis management that now needs more crisis managing,
because Mary Matalin made things a whole lot worse today. She turned damage
control into All the Days of Dick's Lying Life, or maybe Desperate Palace Pimps,
starring Mary Matalin as the Joan Collins-like villain.

Now, go back and read Arianna, if you haven't already. Then fire up the TiVo or VCR and watch Mary Queen of Carville come unglued. It's smackdown wrestling for grown-ups.
Cue the theme song. Pen the kitties.

Read full story · Comments are closed