Tag Archives: Washington Post

Is Obama Building a Case for War with Iran?

An assessment by U.S. spy agencies concludes that Iran is prepared to launch terrorist attacks inside the United States, highlighting new risks as the Obama administration escalates pressure on Tehran to halt its alleged pursuit of an atomic bomb.  The Washington Post

 

We’ve been down this road before haven’t we, only last time it was Bush and Iraq playing cat and mouse. We said they had weapons of mass destruction, they said they didn’t; however they stopped inspectors from verifying what they were saying was the truth. As we all know, that was a big mistake.

A DISTINCTION WITH NO DIFFERENCE

ONE IN THE SAME

Now we have our fake President Obama (what Constitution?), the man that now can detain any American citizen without due process simply by stating the person is a terrorist, the man who has already ordered the killing of an American citizen abroad, is playing cat and mouse with Iran.


Defense Secretary Leon Panetta recently made clear in an interview with CBS that the U.S. will not allow Iran to get a nuclear bomb; period.

Walter Russell outlined Team Obama’s position in Via Meadia.

If Washington must bomb Iranian facilities to stop them, Obama will bomb.

[...] Panetta said “the United States does not want Iran to develop a nuclear weapon. That’s a red line for us. We will take whatever steps are necessary to stop them. A nuclear Iran is unacceptable”.

When US secretaries talk about “whatever steps are necessary” they are not usually talking about holding one more meeting of the sanctions committee.  They are thinking shock and awe and not cookies and tea.

Is it possible the Iranians are foolish enough to really go after the U.S. with an “all out war” or will that be the propaganda our obedient FOOS (Friends of Obama) in the MSM will be spewing in the upcoming months?  

Salon’s Glenn Greenwald thinks so. In fact, he says the some in the MSM appear to be banging the war drums with relish and in a manner that would have been anathema if Bush 43 was targeting Iran. 

Is war with Iran inevitable before November of 2012 and will another event like 9/11 be manufactured as justification? 

All of which leads to whether you can you believe your own eyes and believe our fake President?

What do you mean we're not journalists

NY TIMES & WASHINGTON POST SINK TO NEW JOURNALISTIC LOWS; MINING FOR DIRT IN PALIN’S 24,000 E-MAILS

We have definitely found ourselves on the other side of the looking glass. The New York Times and the Washington Post, aka the Tweedledum and Tweedledee of the journalism, have issued nearly identical press releases asking for 100 people to help them “analyze” the 24,000 Palin e-mails that Alaska will be releasing on Friday.

What do you mean we're not journalists?

It is an act of yellow journalism unparalleled in the 21st century.  These tabloid rags are mining for dirt on a woman who isn’t running for president and isn’t even a candidate for office.

The newspaper that the great Kathrine Graham once headed has made the National Enquirer look good. Her newspaper went after President Nixon and oversaw the Watergate coverage that eventually to his resignation.

Fast forward to today, where we have a fraud with multiple social security numbers sitting in the White House.  Instead of searching for the truth about Obama and his eligibility, his wholesale destruction of the economy, bringing us into a third war in Libya, these papers are instead focused on their Palin Derangement Syndrome. This is sad and disgusting; and they wonder why readership is down!

This is from the Washed-Up Post:

Over 24,000 e-mail messages to and from former Alaska governor Sarah Palin during her tenure as Alaska’s governor will be released Friday. That’s a lot of e-mail for us to review so we’re looking for some help from Fix readers to analyze, contextualize, and research those e-mails right alongside Post reporters over the days following the release.

We are limiting this to just 100 spots for people who will work collaboratively in small teams to surface the most important information from the e-mails. Participants can join from anywhere with a computer and an Internet connection.

If you need inspiration before getting started, take a look at what to expect from the e-mail drop. For micro-updates as tomorrow unfolds, check out our new Twitter feed.

This is from the NY Times:

On Friday, the State of Alaska will release more than 24,000 of Sarah Palin’s e-mails covering much of her tenure as governor of Alaska. Times reporters will be in Juneau, the state capital, to begin the process of reviewing the e-mails, which we will be posting on NYtimes.com starting on Friday afternoon.

We’re asking readers to help us identify interesting and newsworthy e-mails, people and events that we may want to highlight. Interested users can fill out a simple form to describe the nature of the e-mail, and provide a name and e-mail address so we’ll know who should get the credit. Join us here on Friday afternoon and into the weekend to participate.

Now here’s the best part. Go to the comments of both papers and read what people are saying. Many, many of the comments are negative.  There are some really good ones that pull no punches.  Here are a few examples before they are scrubbed.

From the WaPo:

That sucking sound you hear is WaPo slipping down below the National Enquirer in quality and integrity.

That cracking sound in the background is the last remnant of the Washington Post’s integrity falling to the ground.

wow! not since the 1930s in Nazi Germany has there been such evidence of mass psychosis ..

One-Think, One-Speak partisan lap-dogs.

You’d think this was the release of the Pentagon Papers.

And these are from the Times:

Jesus, is this what it’s come to? E-lynch mobs combing through data to use to as “gotcha” material?

I don’t remember the NY Times asking the public to go through then Senator Obama’s emails to find newsworthy materials…

Astonishing to see how low the lamestream (aka state run) media have sunk. This is nothing more than juvenile junior high clique style gossip and defamation of character. It is hilarious to watch you all jump out of your skin when Sarah says, “BOO!”
No honor or pride left in the journalism business, eh? The professionalism went a long time ago.

Both the Times and the Washington Post are sending out identical notices of recruitment!! What is this journalistic ploy? How many staffers do you plan to let go to cover this assignment with “just plain folks”? Well, I guess the Progressive “investigators” can do as well. Does Obama get to add the “volunteers” to his job creation tally?

This is pathetic and quite creepy

That last quote sums it all up, doesn’t it?

 






SARAH PALIN & THE NEW FACE OF FEMINISM (Part 1)

Sarah Palin just may be the most complete woman I have ever seen!

She’s a mayor and governor, a mom, a married woman with 5 children who has been with the same man she married since high school, she hunts and shots, is an accomplished athlete, she’ sexy (yes, it’s OK to acknowledge the obvious and not take offense) and smart, intelligent, a problem solver, tough as nails . . . what’s not to love!

And, that, boys and girls, is why tired sour old pusses like Sally Quinn and Maureen Dowd dislike her and are threatened by her. She’s everything they aren’t. If that wasn’t enough Sarah is clearly happy with who she is! That’s got to be galling to these old time, out of vogue, feminists. It’s not their ages that make them passe, its their adherence to the 70′s feminist model orthodoxy … the one so many young women today have chosen to reject.

Sarah’s brand of feminism is not an extreme of the left or of the right. Sarah Palin is not Phyllis Schlafly or Dr. Laura or Gloria Steinem. In truth, Sarah chose a life style someplace in the middle. She may not have it all, but she’s damn close! And she’s authentic in a way those other pusses will never be, will never understand or “get”.

Shouldn’t old time feminists like Sally and Maureen be singing Sarah’s praises? Wasn’t the reason all those bras were burned was so women would have the right to choose? Well, yes and no. The truth is, the underlying current of the 70′s feminism was, the right to choose really meant the right to choose abortion, to disparage men, to choose career over family. You always had the feeling that when a woman choose not to have a career or “just” to have a family that the choice was considered second rate. I think many women felt their choice of a traditional family was looked down on and thought to be quaint . . . a throw back to yesteryear.

That’s sad, because the right ot choose should mean exactly that; and either choice should be celebrated and not diminished by either side. That having be said let me be perfectly clear. The feminism of the 60′s and 70′s had to be fought and many of the issues then remain with us now, not the least of which is the rampant sexism that plagued Hillary and which Sarah and women across the country deal with on a daily basis.

I grew up in a single family home. My mother had to work nights (11pm to 7am) as a machinist for 14 years because my father, the sperm donor, (a term Dr. Laura coined to identify men who father children, leave, and do nothing to support them) deserted my mother leaving her with two little girls to support, ages 4 and 5 years respectively. How she did everything I will never understand. She worked nights, made sure we had piano lessons, tap dancing lessons, she made our clothes, canned food, made our lives as complete as she could under the circumstances she was given.

How far have we come? When my mother wanted to buy a house, she had to have my grandfather co-sign for the loan because banks didn’t lend money to divorced single women. Women didn’t have the ability to get credit in their own names until 1976 when a law was passed preventing banks and credit card companies from discriminating.

Title IX had yet to be passed. For those who don’t know Title IX gives women the same rights and access to sports as men. Before that, girls and women were cheated, big time. When I taught and coached in the 70′s I was also the girls department head. The high school budget for boys sports teams was $50,000.00 . . . a tidy sum in the 70′s. The budget for the girls sports teams was $5,000.00. I taught in one of the wealthiest communities in Connecticut and we had to hold bake sales to get new uniforms for the girls hockey team because there was no money in the budget!

How far do we still have to go? When I left teaching I became a business woman through a series of circumstances in my life. I’ve been in business with a male partner (my husband at the time) and without and I can tell you first hand that it is definitely easier trying to finance a business when lenders think there is a man that is heading the operation. Little has changed over the years. Here we are in 2008, and women . . . small business owners for the most part . . . already acknowledged to be a primary engine in the U.S. economy get little help!

After last night’s speech at the Republican Convention, America has a new political leader. Women have a new hero, and for all the rest of you who don’t get it . . . she’s our next Vice President! Deal with it!

You go girl! You go girl! You go girl!

DEM’S ATTACKS ON PALIN PATHETIC & PREDICTIBLE#1

OK boys ‘ girls, let’s go with the Dem’s first attack, the first in a series.

McCain picked Sarah Palin just because she’s a woman. And we know that, why? Well, because its been reported that McCain had only one phone call with her 5 o 6 months before he picked her.

Might I offer the following observation. That kind of comment should be expected from a group that vetted multiple choices for the Democratic VP and the best they could come up with, after many months of searching, was Joe Biden. The only interesting name, as reported by the MSM, was Chet Edwards, but he was eliminated because of fears that the great unwashed, the voters of this country might get his name mixed up with John Edwards.

The truth is Palin was always on McCain’s list.

Far from being a last-minute tactical move or a second choice when better known alternatives were eliminated, Palin was very much in McCain’s thinking from the beginning of the selection process, according to McCain’s advisers. The 44-year-old governor made every cut as the first list of candidates assembled last spring was slowly winnowed. The more McCain learned about her, the more attracted he was to her as someone who shared his maverick, anti-establishment instincts.

But indulge me for a moment. Suppose, as the dem’s are trying to spin it, McCain’s look at her was minimal. So what? The first time you tasted ice cream or chocolate, did you need six months to decide if you liked it? No?

Never heard of love at first sight? Did Charlie Brown need six months to figure out he was in love with “the little red haired girl” that sat in front of him? No!

Let me reverse the analogy. If you take of taste of something that is rotten or vile, you need to eat the entire pot, in order to be sure? No?!?

The truth is, sometimes people, events, things are so self evident that excruciating, mind-numbing, lengthly investigations are not necessary. Sarah Palin is that good and her record is that self-evident, and that’s why the Dem’s are reduced to such inane stupidity.

The truth is, if Sarah’s first name was Sam, if we were talking about Sam’s record of accomplishment, whether McCain had spent one hour, one day, or one year vetting Sam Palin wouldn’t even be a topic of conversation. Sexist pricks! Go Sarah, go McCain!