Now we can’t talk about the Kennedy assassinations?
I have to say I’m just not getting it about Hillary’s reference to Bobby Kennedy, even though she’s getting criticized for it from both left and right.
Here's what she said in an interview:
Asked if her continuing fight for the nomination against Senator Obama hurts the Democratic party, Sen. Hillary Clinton replied, "I don't. Because again, I've been around long enough. You know, my husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. You know, I just don't understand it. You know, there's lots of speculation about why it is. "
Keith Olbermann, never hinged enough to now call unhinged, used Hillary’s foo poo as an opportunity to restate the ever-narrowing limits on free speech that we American’s are required to respect:
"The politics of this nation is steeped enough in blood, Senator Clinton, you cannot and must not invoke that imagery! Anywhere! At any time!"
Sounds reasonable. I know I’m always glad to update my Index of Forbidden Speech with the latest image, word, phrase, allusion, or historical event that I’m not allowed to use, Anywhere! At Any Time!
(Here in Detroit they had a very moving funeral for the n-word--never again anywhere! at any time!-- it was presided over by the embattled Mayor--except he dug up the term 2 months later when he needed it to throw around at his State of the City address.)
It's not only Obama's surrogates who are trying to turn Hillary's remark into a Big Deal. At Hot Air, they’re skeptical about Clinton’s defense that she was only referring to the historical fact that previous Democratic primaries have extended into June. If that's the case, they wonder, then “Why didn’t she use Teddy’s run at Jimmy Carter in 1980 instead?” (Here's one answer: maybe because no one remembers Teddy’s 1980 campaign, while all liberals recognize RFK in 1968 as an Icon).
Then Michelle Malkin says “Stick a fork in her. She may, at long last, be done.”
Chris Wallace told Terry McAullife on Sunday the remarks were “tasteless and ghoulish...even to use the word ‘assassination.’” Ghoulish? Even to use the word? Between the two, McAullife made more sense.
Which, of course, is The World Turned Upside Down!
No, I’m afraid I just don’t get this one.
I learned the hard way in chat room debates that once you have to start diagramming declarative sentences, all hope for rational discussion is gone. I also figured out that 90% of intellectual errors in this country are caused by poor reading comprehension.
Suffice it to say I’ve read Hillary’s statement several times, and watched the video, and I find no place that she ever “invoked” RFK’s assassination, (“mention” and “invoke” are not synonyms). Nor did I see where she either threatened Obama with assassination, nor expressed a hope that he be murdered.
Hell, I can’t even find where she said anything clumsy, stupid, or ghoulish. RFK was still in the California primary in June 1968, wasn’t he? (That is, until you-know-what happened. Or am I still allowed to say that?)
I just don’t see the offensiveness in this. But I admit I’m out of touch these days. Maybe this really was the most horrible thing anyone’s said, since, say, “God damn America.”
Apparently, a lot of us are willing to accept the Left’s extra-low threshold for imputing malevolent meaning into remarks that only tangentially touch upon a subject someone's willing to be hypersensitive about. Maybe conservatives are jumping on this too because they’ve got a version of the same derangement about Hillary the Left has had about George W. Bush the last 7 years: give us something, anything, and we'll use it to prove her diabolical pedigree.
But when did “assassination” become off limits? Who exactly is the victim group here? On whose behalf must Sharpton obtain an apology? The Kennedys?
Besides, liberals have been openly advocating Bush’s and Cheney's assassinations for years.
My complaint is that by granting to the Left, and through them the media, the power to impute malevolent meaning into neutral words, the heavier the control of free thought they can exercise. And controlling thought means a lot more to them than merely controlling free speech. You’ll never dare say what you don’t dare think.
When this power was granted to the Left in regards to race, they promptly used it to forbid white Americans from discussing race, even amongst themselves, except under the strict rules laid down by a civil-rights priesthood ordained, and carefully controlled, by the Left.
(And that's why we still can’t have a conversation about race, in spite of Obama’s ad hoc suggestion that we must have one: because a conversation is impossible when one side is forbidden to speak on the subject matter).
The Left has seized power in a similar way to limit thought about homosexuality, about abortion, and now, about the science fiction of global warming.
I have no interest in defending Hillary or her campaign. I see this as defending myself, and all the rest of us who still value what’s left of our right to free speech. And my right to not have any obstreperous son of a bitch telling me what I can and cannot say, Anywhere! At Any Time!
Showing posts with label assassination. Show all posts
Showing posts with label assassination. Show all posts
Monday, May 26, 2008
Friday, October 05, 2007
Shit First, Ask Questions Later
Blackwater USA founder and CEO, Erik Prince, former Navy SEAL and Michigan native told Congress:
No individual ever protected by Blackwater has ever been killed or seriously injured. There is no better evidence of the skill and dedication of these men,” Prince said, adding there was a “rush to judgment” on whether Blackwater had acted improperly. (“Congress grills Blackwater CEO”).
He said this on Tuesday to Rep. Henry Waxman’s House Oversight Committee. Waxman is no slouch when it comes to rushing to judgment, and immediately changed the subject from Blackwater's perfect record to the scandal that privatizing security in Iraq was “working exceptionally well for Blackwater,” meaning financially. (Just after saying this, and momentarily misunderstanding the name “Blackwater” to mean that the contractor was actually a large and greedy oil company, Waxman was only just yanked back by an alert staffer from promising into the mike that "I want to take those profits" and put them into Senator Clinton's strategic energy fund. )
In keeping with the Left’s modus operandi of taking their opponents’ every potential political bump, without regard for the complications of facts, and reducing it to a slogan that can be plastered with all the others onto the rear hatch of a 1979 Subaru, the charges being repeated now against the Blackwater company are that they are “cowboys,” "trigger-happy," and that they're “out of control,” Now, thanks in part to Waxman’s committee and the New York Times, we all know there is “a shoot-first, ask-question-later mentality on the part of Blackwater guards.” (“Firms in Iraq face court jurisdiction").
There were even charts being passed around to show how often Blackwater guards “fired first.”
ABC News explains (“Blackwater: Shoot First, Face Questions Later, Committee Says”)
Overall, the firm's soldiers-for-hire, working on contract to the U.S. government, have engaged in at least 195 shooting incidents in Iraq since 2005, the committee said. In 84 percent of such incidents, the committee said, Blackwater personnel fired first. The other firms, Dyncorp and Triple Canopy, reported shooting first in 62 percent and 83 percent of their incidents, respectively.
State Department policy and U.S. law requires contractors to “engage in defensive uses of force” only to prevent “imminent and grave danger” to themselves or others, according to the committee's memo. But “the vast majority of Blackwater weapons discharges are preemptive,” before the company's guards receive any incoming fire, the committee found.
Stated another way, critics of a “fire first” policy clearly favor either a “fire second” policy (which has proven successful in sport target-shooting where all contestants politely take turns), or a “fire-second-if-you-still-can policy.”
The Left's traction on this issue is due in part to Americans' overexposure to too much E! Channel and VH-1. It isn't quite clear enough that Blackwater "bodyguard" duty in Baghdad is not exactly comparable to bodyguard duty in say, Los Angeles, where Sonny and T-Bone’s primary mission is to protect J-Lo’s bottom from unauthorized pinching by the drunks on the other side of the velvet rope. (Don't ask how I know.) Blackwater’s primary mission is protecting US and other diplomatic personnel from getting assassinated by highly-aggressive, and suicidal, murderers in an extremely hostile urban combat zone.
Yet it turns out that Blackwater has in fact experimented with an “ask-questions-first, wait-for-incoming-fire-then-shoot-second” policy during one of its recent patrols. The results, which were mixed, were caught on a tape recovered from a destroyed SUV, and a transcript of which naturally, we at DU, have obtained.
The situation is a convoy of Blackwater vehicles on a mission to escort US Assistant Undersecretary of State for Baghdad Reconstruction Miles Tugo down the Iraqi capitol’s violent Haifa Street:
1st Guard: “...so anyway, I don’t think I’ll forget my wedding anniversary again next year!”
Undersecretary: “Hey, guys, there’s the white pickup again.”
2nd Guard: “Yup. Definitely trying to cut us off.”
Undersecretary: “They’ve stopped. They’re getting out. I see guns!”
1st Guard: “Okay guys. You know the drill. Take up defensive positions.”
2nd Guard: “Roger. I’m going for that burned-out taxi over there.”
Undersecretary: “I can see at least four of them. They’re running straight at us!”
From distance: “Allahu Akhbar! Allahu Akhbar!”
1st Guard: “Relax. Soon they’ll be close enough to that taxi where Zeke can start asking them questions one by one.”
Undersecretary: “Is that shooting! They’re all shooting at the car!”
1st Guard: “Not quite ready yet, Mr. Undersecretary. ”
Sounds of gunfire, and shouting, much closer: “Allahu Akhbar!”
Undersecretary: “Why don’t you shoot?”
1st Guard: “Policy. First we ask questions. Then they get to shoot. Only then do we shoot.”
Sounds of shooting, very close: Ka-pow! ka-pow! ka-pow! ka-pow! “Allahu Akhbar! Allahu Akhbar!”
Undersecretary: “Questions? What kind of questions do you ask at a time like this? Aaaaakkk!”
1st Guard: “Are you okay, Mr. Secretary? Mr. Secretary? (Sounds of continuous gunfire). Zeke? Zeke? Talk to me! Zeke! Zeke? Can you help us out here, Zeke?”
No individual ever protected by Blackwater has ever been killed or seriously injured. There is no better evidence of the skill and dedication of these men,” Prince said, adding there was a “rush to judgment” on whether Blackwater had acted improperly. (“Congress grills Blackwater CEO”).
He said this on Tuesday to Rep. Henry Waxman’s House Oversight Committee. Waxman is no slouch when it comes to rushing to judgment, and immediately changed the subject from Blackwater's perfect record to the scandal that privatizing security in Iraq was “working exceptionally well for Blackwater,” meaning financially. (Just after saying this, and momentarily misunderstanding the name “Blackwater” to mean that the contractor was actually a large and greedy oil company, Waxman was only just yanked back by an alert staffer from promising into the mike that "I want to take those profits" and put them into Senator Clinton's strategic energy fund. )
In keeping with the Left’s modus operandi of taking their opponents’ every potential political bump, without regard for the complications of facts, and reducing it to a slogan that can be plastered with all the others onto the rear hatch of a 1979 Subaru, the charges being repeated now against the Blackwater company are that they are “cowboys,” "trigger-happy," and that they're “out of control,” Now, thanks in part to Waxman’s committee and the New York Times, we all know there is “a shoot-first, ask-question-later mentality on the part of Blackwater guards.” (“Firms in Iraq face court jurisdiction").
There were even charts being passed around to show how often Blackwater guards “fired first.”
ABC News explains (“Blackwater: Shoot First, Face Questions Later, Committee Says”)
Overall, the firm's soldiers-for-hire, working on contract to the U.S. government, have engaged in at least 195 shooting incidents in Iraq since 2005, the committee said. In 84 percent of such incidents, the committee said, Blackwater personnel fired first. The other firms, Dyncorp and Triple Canopy, reported shooting first in 62 percent and 83 percent of their incidents, respectively.
State Department policy and U.S. law requires contractors to “engage in defensive uses of force” only to prevent “imminent and grave danger” to themselves or others, according to the committee's memo. But “the vast majority of Blackwater weapons discharges are preemptive,” before the company's guards receive any incoming fire, the committee found.
Stated another way, critics of a “fire first” policy clearly favor either a “fire second” policy (which has proven successful in sport target-shooting where all contestants politely take turns), or a “fire-second-if-you-still-can policy.”
The Left's traction on this issue is due in part to Americans' overexposure to too much E! Channel and VH-1. It isn't quite clear enough that Blackwater "bodyguard" duty in Baghdad is not exactly comparable to bodyguard duty in say, Los Angeles, where Sonny and T-Bone’s primary mission is to protect J-Lo’s bottom from unauthorized pinching by the drunks on the other side of the velvet rope. (Don't ask how I know.) Blackwater’s primary mission is protecting US and other diplomatic personnel from getting assassinated by highly-aggressive, and suicidal, murderers in an extremely hostile urban combat zone.
Yet it turns out that Blackwater has in fact experimented with an “ask-questions-first, wait-for-incoming-fire-then-shoot-second” policy during one of its recent patrols. The results, which were mixed, were caught on a tape recovered from a destroyed SUV, and a transcript of which naturally, we at DU, have obtained.
The situation is a convoy of Blackwater vehicles on a mission to escort US Assistant Undersecretary of State for Baghdad Reconstruction Miles Tugo down the Iraqi capitol’s violent Haifa Street:
1st Guard: “...so anyway, I don’t think I’ll forget my wedding anniversary again next year!”
Undersecretary: “Hey, guys, there’s the white pickup again.”
2nd Guard: “Yup. Definitely trying to cut us off.”
Undersecretary: “They’ve stopped. They’re getting out. I see guns!”
1st Guard: “Okay guys. You know the drill. Take up defensive positions.”
2nd Guard: “Roger. I’m going for that burned-out taxi over there.”
Undersecretary: “I can see at least four of them. They’re running straight at us!”
From distance: “Allahu Akhbar! Allahu Akhbar!”
1st Guard: “Relax. Soon they’ll be close enough to that taxi where Zeke can start asking them questions one by one.”
Undersecretary: “Is that shooting! They’re all shooting at the car!”
1st Guard: “Not quite ready yet, Mr. Undersecretary. ”
Sounds of gunfire, and shouting, much closer: “Allahu Akhbar!”
Undersecretary: “Why don’t you shoot?”
1st Guard: “Policy. First we ask questions. Then they get to shoot. Only then do we shoot.”
Sounds of shooting, very close: Ka-pow! ka-pow! ka-pow! ka-pow! “Allahu Akhbar! Allahu Akhbar!”
Undersecretary: “Questions? What kind of questions do you ask at a time like this? Aaaaakkk!”
1st Guard: “Are you okay, Mr. Secretary? Mr. Secretary? (Sounds of continuous gunfire). Zeke? Zeke? Talk to me! Zeke! Zeke? Can you help us out here, Zeke?”
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Lebanon Not Deterred by Murder of MP Assassination
From Ya Libnan:
The killers will not succed; Lebanon vows to move on
Thursday, 20 September, 2007 @ 8:23 PM
Beirut - Antoine Ghanem fell victim as the eighth political assassination in Lebanon since February 2005. Lebanon's pro-Western government says it is determined to hold a presidential election, despite the latest assassination.
Prime Minister Fouad Siniora said the killers of MP Antoine Ghanim would not be allowed to succeed in their aims.
Syria has been accused of being behind the killing, but it denies involvement.
MPs are due to choose a new president next week. The killings of several anti-Syrian figures has left Lebanon's government with only a slim majority.
Banks, schools and government offices have been closed in Lebanon, as the country mourns Mr Ghanim, of the Maronite Phalange party.
The education ministry said schools and universities would remain closed again on Friday, when a funeral would be held.
Mr Ghanim died with at least six others in a car bombing in the mainly Christian Sin al-Fil district on Wednesday.
Mr Siniora said on Thursday: "The hand of terror will not win and will not succeed in subduing us and silencing us.
"The Lebanese will not retreat and will have a new president elected by lawmakers, no matter how big the conspiracy was."
He has called for a UN investigation into the assassination of Mr Ghanim, who had returned to Beirut just a few days before his death to take part in next week's vote.
Lebanon is poised to choose a successor to pro-Syrian President Emile Lahoud.
The country has been mired in an ongoing political crisis, with a deadlock between pro- and anti-Syrian factions in parliament.
'Hand of terror'
Syria said it had no involvement in the attack, calling it a "criminal act" that undermined hopes for Lebanese national reconciliation.
But some Lebanese politicians were quick to blame Damascus for the blast.
Saad Hariri, son of Rafik Hariri, a former prime minister who was assassinated in a bomb attack in 2005, said responsibility lay with the "cowardly regime" of Syria.
Even pro-Syrian Mr Lahoud said it was no coincidence someone was killed whenever there were positive developments in Lebanon.
US President George W Bush denounced the "horrific assassination", which he described as attempts by Syria and Lebanon to destabilise Lebanon.
The attack has also been criticised by the UK, the EU, Russia, China, France and Italy.
Six other leading figures in Lebanon's anti-Syria movement have been killed since Rafik Hariri's assassination in 2005.
Lebanese Assassinations
Feb 2005: Ex-PM Rafik Hariri
Feb 2005: MP Bassel Fleihan
June 2005: Anti-Syria journalist Samir Kassir
June 2005: Ex-Communist leader George Hawi
Dec 2005: Anti-Syria MP Gebran Tueni
Nov 2006: Industry Minister Pierre Gemayel
June 2007: Anti-Syria MP Walid Eido
Sep 2007: Anti-Syria MP Antoine Ghanim
The killers will not succed; Lebanon vows to move on
Thursday, 20 September, 2007 @ 8:23 PM
Beirut - Antoine Ghanem fell victim as the eighth political assassination in Lebanon since February 2005. Lebanon's pro-Western government says it is determined to hold a presidential election, despite the latest assassination.
Prime Minister Fouad Siniora said the killers of MP Antoine Ghanim would not be allowed to succeed in their aims.
Syria has been accused of being behind the killing, but it denies involvement.
MPs are due to choose a new president next week. The killings of several anti-Syrian figures has left Lebanon's government with only a slim majority.
Banks, schools and government offices have been closed in Lebanon, as the country mourns Mr Ghanim, of the Maronite Phalange party.
The education ministry said schools and universities would remain closed again on Friday, when a funeral would be held.
Mr Ghanim died with at least six others in a car bombing in the mainly Christian Sin al-Fil district on Wednesday.
Mr Siniora said on Thursday: "The hand of terror will not win and will not succeed in subduing us and silencing us.
"The Lebanese will not retreat and will have a new president elected by lawmakers, no matter how big the conspiracy was."
He has called for a UN investigation into the assassination of Mr Ghanim, who had returned to Beirut just a few days before his death to take part in next week's vote.
Lebanon is poised to choose a successor to pro-Syrian President Emile Lahoud.
The country has been mired in an ongoing political crisis, with a deadlock between pro- and anti-Syrian factions in parliament.
'Hand of terror'
Syria said it had no involvement in the attack, calling it a "criminal act" that undermined hopes for Lebanese national reconciliation.
But some Lebanese politicians were quick to blame Damascus for the blast.
Saad Hariri, son of Rafik Hariri, a former prime minister who was assassinated in a bomb attack in 2005, said responsibility lay with the "cowardly regime" of Syria.
Even pro-Syrian Mr Lahoud said it was no coincidence someone was killed whenever there were positive developments in Lebanon.
US President George W Bush denounced the "horrific assassination", which he described as attempts by Syria and Lebanon to destabilise Lebanon.
The attack has also been criticised by the UK, the EU, Russia, China, France and Italy.
Six other leading figures in Lebanon's anti-Syria movement have been killed since Rafik Hariri's assassination in 2005.
Lebanese Assassinations
Feb 2005: Ex-PM Rafik Hariri
Feb 2005: MP Bassel Fleihan
June 2005: Anti-Syria journalist Samir Kassir
June 2005: Ex-Communist leader George Hawi
Dec 2005: Anti-Syria MP Gebran Tueni
Nov 2006: Industry Minister Pierre Gemayel
June 2007: Anti-Syria MP Walid Eido
Sep 2007: Anti-Syria MP Antoine Ghanim
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
