Home › Blogs › Jai Ho Tied's blog ›

Terrorism Kills One In Kansas, Many Extremist Social Conservatives Celebrate

Submitted by Jai Ho Tied on Sun, 05/31/2009 - 23:32
in

An act of terrorism in Wichita, Kansas has lead to the murder of Dr. George Tiller. A suspect has been apprehended. Tiller has been a target of anti-abortion rights extremists for being a rare doctor who performs late term abortion in cases where the mother’s life is threatened. Besides obviously taking an extremist to commit murder, it is also an extremist view to deny a woman an abortion when needed to save her life.  Such late term abortions, despite all the noise made by the right, are very rare and few doctors perform the procedure.

In addition to the current act of terrorism, Tiller’s clinic has been bombed in the past and he was shot in both arms in 1993.

Before we speak of a war on terror abroad we need to be more concerned with right wing terrorism in this country. Ironically many who support the misguided Bush administration’s war on terror are also responsible for inciting domestic terrorism, such as Bill O’Reilly.

Many on the right share in the extremism of the terrorist who shot Tiller and many are even applauding his action.  In case their comments should be taken down, Balloon Juice has archived them.  Christian News Wire issued a release saying, “Randall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue states, ‘George Tiller was a mass-murderer. We grieve for him that he did not have time to properly prepare his soul to face God.’" The Next Right diarist DebraJMSmith writes, "I do not feel sorry for a family who loved a murderer. And I sure do NOT feel sorry for a church that had no problem allowing a murderer to attend."  Other conservatives do realize that “Whoever murdered George Tiller has done a gravely wicked thing.”

 

3.22222
Your rating: None Average: 3.2 (9 votes)

Comments

The assasin is obviously a terrorist

Submitted by Joseph Hertzlinger on Mon, 06/01/2009 - 00:14.

When is the Obama administration going to open negotiations with him?

JHT=DebraJMSmith

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Mon, 06/01/2009 - 02:57.

Both are extremists trying to make sick political points from a man's brutal and senseless murder.

You get the same comment her post got from me:

Please just go away with your hatred.

And do not respond to this comment. You are a pathetic loser.

 

  This is not just a brutal

Submitted by Remains of the ... on Mon, 06/01/2009 - 03:30.

 

This is not just a brutal and senseless murder, there is a history, of being voilently attacked and of violence, to Tiller and the terrorist respectively; JHT rightly pointed out the right wing anti-abortion/scoial conservative/religious extremism that led to the murder, and the surprising (at least for me) prevalence of such extremism among conservatives like DJMS who are rejoicing the death of Tiller, while you take this oppurtunity to make your sick personal insults and false equivalences.

 

False equivalences? You must be joking.

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Mon, 06/01/2009 - 04:01.

Lets see, with JHT you get:

Before we speak of a war on terror abroad we need to be more concerned with right wing terrorism in this country. Ironically many who support the misguided Bush administration’s war on terror are also responsible for inciting domestic terrorism, such as Bill O’Reilly.

George Bush = Bill O'Reilly = Inciting Right Wing Terrorism

With Lonestar Bill you get:

JHT = DebraJMSmith

Both are extremists using a man's death in a perverted way to make political points.

 

Beck's words came out of that Assassin's throat

Submitted by Knackers on Mon, 06/01/2009 - 07:49.

here in Pittsburgh. I'm not going to defend Jai, no way. But it's in no way extremist to say that some of the right wing demagogues are inciting death.

(It's also in no way extremist to note that at least one liberal is profiting massively from the current run on guns. it's just the dang truth).

it's not about political points

Submitted by Ray in TX on Mon, 06/01/2009 - 08:13.

The Republican party has consistently used the civilian deaths 9/11 to score points, while the Democratic party has used soldier deaths in Iraq to do the same.

Debra JM Smith's sin is not using a death to score political points. Her sin is in celebrating a murder and declaring it a good thing. That, at its core, is evil.

Oh the irony

Submitted by chemjeff on Mon, 06/01/2009 - 03:16.

Gee, it wasn't even all that long ago that on this blog we were discussing the DHS report on right-wing extremism that many of us believed defined in an overly broad way what constituted an extremist.  In fact, I think, we were mocked by our betters on the left for going bananas on a report that "CLEARLY" was describing only the "real extremists", and furthermore we were accused of "self-identifying with the McVeighs".

And now you know why we were so upset over that DHS report - because of comments like JHT's.  He attempts to insinuate that this terrible crime, truly the work of a nutjob, has some broader base of support.  And it's not just support among the extremists that is alleged, but "extremist social conservatives".  The shooter may have been mentally ill, he may have had a personal (rather than ideological) reason to commit the crime, heck it might not have been motivated by abortion politics at all.  But no, JHT is already convinced: social conservatives are to blame.  It is an attempt to spread guilt by dark whispers and it is shameful.

So this is why we went bananas over the DHS report.  Because we realize this is how you operate.  You see in every crime committed by right-wing extremists the "root cause" of mainstream conservatism fueling the misdeed.  You not only think our politics are wrong, but moreover you think our motives are evil; heck, the extremists are just the ones who are honest about it!

I now fully expect that Rush Limbaugh and George Bush will be blamed for this murder.

Really?

Submitted by Remains of the ... on Mon, 06/01/2009 - 04:17.

 

The shooter may have been mentally ill, he may have had a personal (rather than ideological) reason to commit the crime, heck it might not have been motivated by abortion politics at all. But no, JHT is already convinced: social conservatives are to blame. It is an attempt to spread guilt by dark whispers and it is shameful.

Apparently you were not following the news choosing to live in blissful ignorance. He IS a bomb-maker, tax protester, government-hater, anti-abortion zealot (&Tiller-hater)and Operation Rescue member: the arrested suspect manages to fit every stereotype of right-wing militia teabagger. He also happens to believe that "the act of killing abortion doctors is a justifiable homicide." 

Teabagger? Say what?

Submitted by Dave Nalle on Mon, 06/01/2009 - 12:22.

Is that an attempt to smear the Tea Parties with the broad brush of right wing nutjob extremism?  The abortion issue isn't even on the tea party agenda and the people who are running and attending the tea parties are an entirely different sort of right-wing folks -- mostly libertarians.  So please don't stuff them into your grab-bag of extremists.

Dave

ya go to places like that

Submitted by Knackers on Mon, 06/01/2009 - 12:35.

extremists show up. lefties saw the same thing when they had anti-iraq protests in 2003. it's inevitable.

quit projecting, dammit1

Submitted by Knackers on Mon, 06/01/2009 - 07:52.

"Mainstream" conservatism has drifted right, and more right.

Why else do you have people saying "veterans benefits are the new welfare"????

When you finally get the balls to disown the crazies, permanently, then we'll stop associating you with them. And America can go back to being unicorns and rainbows again. Except in the South, which will be swallowed by kudzu.

Could you source the "veterans benefits are the new welfare"

Submitted by Crow on Mon, 06/01/2009 - 10:56.

Thanks.

personal interview sorry.

Submitted by Knackers on Mon, 06/01/2009 - 11:06.

I know a guy who does strategy, all types (gets paid by the military, among other folks. ). As a result of this, he knows a LOT of strategists, including some Republicans. That's where he got the quote from. That, and their systematic defunding of the existing Veterans Benefits, which is a matter of public record.

There was a post on this very board supporting it

Submitted by NextRightNando on Mon, 06/01/2009 - 08:09.

He attempts to insinuate that this terrible crime, truly the work of a nutjob, has some broader base of support.

Well there was a post on this very board from the "Informing Christian" Debra Smith supporting it - until the mods took it down.

And there is at least one thread on Free Repbulic saying "hooray!". Link

And before the Debra Smith post was taken down

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Mon, 06/01/2009 - 09:12.

It was harshly and roundly criticized by everyone that responded.

I'm sure you don't want to leave the impression that her comments were supported by or endorsed by anyone here.

I don't pretend to know the private thoughts of people who read

Submitted by NextRightNando on Mon, 06/01/2009 - 09:17.

this board. I am simply saying that chemjeff's assertion that there is not "some broader base of support." for the murder is demonstrably wrong.

listen harder.

Submitted by Knackers on Mon, 06/01/2009 - 09:20.

chemjeff is saying "that's not mainstream conservatism"... and he's both right and wrong.

Certainly, many conservatives believe that abortion is murder. And by stating it that way, instead of saying it is immoral, sinful or something else that distances more, it is INFLAMMATORY.

I don't think you believe that most people on this board support the murder of gynecologists. You're not refuting chemjeff's point, but making a different one. You Do That A Lot.

Where do you find that?

Submitted by NextRightNando on Mon, 06/01/2009 - 09:29.

chemjeff wrote:

He attempts to insinuate that this terrible crime, truly the work of a nutjob, has some broader base of support. 

you write:

chemjeff is saying "that's not mainstream conservatism".

Are there words that appear on your screen that don't appear on mine?

Expressions of support for this act are popping up everywhere. Read the comments in this thread on Red State.

 

here

Submitted by Knackers on Mon, 06/01/2009 - 09:41.

skipping the quotes:

Chemjeff sez: You see in every crime committed by right-wing extremists the "root cause" of mainstream conservatism fueling the misdeed.

He's acting with a pinch of a persecution complex (like that's uncommon for conservatives this year!), but is actually making something resembling an honest point.

You're making a different honest point.

The thing is? your point does not mesh at all with his, and yet you keep on claiming you're responding to him! You Do This A Lot. I read five, ten response long posts that you've done to Lonestar Bill -- and you're both on different subjects! It's tiresome and annoying.

Try assuming that people have honest points to make, and are behaving in good faith. Chemjeff is not saying that there aren't extremists out there -- and if he is, he'd better correct me!

OK, I'll agree that chemjeff did get around to saying that

Submitted by NextRightNando on Mon, 06/01/2009 - 10:02.

"mainstream conservatism" has nothing to do with this murder. However, he ALSO said that the murdered was a lone nutjob and there was no broader support for him. Simply. Not. True.

As for the more general question of discourse in general - you can pretend, if you wish, that Person A can frame an issue in a certain way and Person B must operate within that narrow framework in response. Especially if Person B happens to be one of those dreaded liberals. However, in the real world, discourse doesn't work that way. For example, if you go to Philadelphia, Mississippi and make a speech about states rights, it won't work to get all po-faced when people raise the issue of implicit racism. People aren't fools, you see.

Here is a good example of

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Mon, 06/01/2009 - 10:10.

Here is a good example of what you do:

However, he ALSO said that the murdered was a lone nutjob and there was no broader support for him. Simply. Not. True.

Here is what he actually said (my bold)

The shooter may have been mentally ill, he may have had a personal (rather than ideological) reason to commit the crime, heck it might not have been motivated by abortion politics at all. 

For accusing a lot of people of having poor reading comprehension skills, you certainly either lack them or willfully misrepresent what people say on a consistent basis.

I will simply requote the relevant sentence

Submitted by NextRightNando on Mon, 06/01/2009 - 10:14.

He attempts to insinuate that this terrible crime, truly the work of a nutjob, has some broader base of support. 

 

you're coming from a different perspective on this

Submitted by Knackers on Mon, 06/01/2009 - 10:23.

you assume that this whole jeremiad can be parsed sentence by sentence. the money quote is:

But no, JHT is already convinced: social conservatives are to blame.  It is an attempt to spread guilt by dark whispers and it is shameful.

When chemjeff speaks of "broader support" he means "Most Social Conservatives do not support this" -- a conclusion that should be obvious.

You are supporting his victim mentality and persecution complex by arguing an entirely different point, which is that some crazy internet posters support killing doctors.

Trust me, I know crazies. Greenpeace's military wing has a hit out on one of my good friends. He asked them, "why do you want to kill me?" and they responded, "we don't know, we just kinda do" (grunts don't know why they get orders, obviously).

Fabulist of the day

Submitted by NextRightNando on Mon, 06/01/2009 - 10:57.

Trust me, I know crazies. Greenpeace's military wing has a hit out on one of my good friends. He asked them, "why do you want to kill me?" and they responded, "we don't know, we just kinda do"

 

you, my good sir, do not know my friend.

Submitted by Knackers on Mon, 06/01/2009 - 11:08.

and the next time I source something you like from him, you'll take me at face value. That's just simple intellectual dishonesty, but hey, what's a little prevarication among friends?

I tell the truth, because the truth is stranger than fiction.

I do not jump six foot high fences, even when people in limos pull up beside me walking down the street.

I agree with Lonestar

Submitted by Ray in TX on Mon, 06/01/2009 - 10:40.

Before Debra's diary was removed, the response was universally negative on this site. Frankly, I think that has a lot to do with this site being very tolerant of a broad range of political opinions - left, right and center. There are certainly people who read this site that agreed with Debra's point of view, but they knew better than to post it here because this site is no echo chamber.

 

Yes, the man that assassinated a doctor in church was a terrorist. Yes, he was a right-wing extremist. Yes, there is an active network of conservative right-wing nuts who are cheering this murder. Yes, this is an example of what the DHS report was referring to.

But no, it is not representative of conservatism nor of conservatives in general.

I understand the need to empathize with the motivations of this killer if you are an ardent pro-lifer, as are many conservatives. By the same token, there are a lot of liberals who empathize with left-wing radicals who commit acts of violence for their particular cause.

But that empathy should not be construed as neither approval nor support. I think a lot of people conflate those and assume that just because "I can empathize with why he did that"  also means "I think he should have done that".

No one likes abortions. I understand why the killer did what he did. And if there is a God, his chances of landing in Hell went up astronomically. However, I am pro-choice, and I understand why the doctor did what he did. Late-term abortions are legal only if the life of the mother is at risk, so I can't fault the doctor for doing what he considered to be the ethical thing when so many other doctors were too intimidated to do the same.

 

shorter: Core Belief Good, Method Bad.

Submitted by Knackers on Mon, 06/01/2009 - 10:48.

;-) thanks for this. helps to keep perspective.

Ray, I don’t know of

Submitted by JHT on Mon, 06/01/2009 - 11:22.

Ray,

I don’t know of anyone who is saying that this is representative of conservatives/social-conservatives in general. I certainly did not say that.

muddying the waters

Submitted by chemjeff on Mon, 06/01/2009 - 12:36.

Nando, you have parsed my words totally out of context in some pedantic semantic game.  In my very next sentence, I write that the only broader base of support that this nutjob has is among other nutjobs, and not among "social conservatives" as a group, as the original poster intended to construe.  But congratulations, you were able to falsify one single sentence of mine, out of context.  You win a gold star.

And this is why the DHS report is so infuriating to me - because this happens EVERY TIME when some right-wing nutjob commits some terrible act.  You all cannot just let it be at kooks with guns who live in the mountains.  Oh no, there must be some "root cause", some "connection" with mainstream conservatism, that is "troubling" and "disturbing" and that warrants some government action.  When McVeigh bombed the OK federal building, we were told that Rush Limbaugh and "right wing hate radio" was at fault.  When Eric Rudolph bombed abortion clinics and the Olympics, we were told it was the scary work of the "Christian Right".  And now with this murder, social conservatives as a group are being scapegoated.  EVERY TIME, you all attempt to blur the line between what constitutes extremism and what constitutes acceptable mainstream behavior.  Even Knackers does this same thing - "OMG the shooter is just a guy who walks among us!  You can't tell he's a nutjob!"  There is no point to making these blog posts unless you deliberately want to create fear and muddy the waters concerning who is a mainstream conservative and who is not.

don't use me as your fucking strawman.

Submitted by Knackers on Mon, 06/01/2009 - 12:46.

you can, and should be able to tell who the brainwashed are. I specifically ask in that post for you to notify the proper authorities. I know I will, at the first opportunity.

It is NOT FUN to have a knife pulled on you while working at an amusement park. That's a nutjob.

To be systematically reviled by on-air spokesmen for these terrorists, that's a different story. McCain went to a convention a while back where clinic shooters such as this one were openly praised (note: all politicians need an umbrage speech on short notice, in case they go to the wrong convention.)

I revile Bill O'Rilley in specific, while remaining aware that most social conservatives would not condone this expression of violence.

I'm glad to hear that you don't consider Bill O'Reilley a mainstream conservative. I wish more people would repudiate his ilk.

 

You missed it chemjeff

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Mon, 06/01/2009 - 03:46.

I now fully expect that Rush Limbaugh and George Bush will be blamed for this murder.

He blames George Bush, who apparently is still running a war on terror ,and Bill O'Reilly:

 Ironically many who support the misguided Bush administration’s war on terror are also responsible for inciting domestic terrorism, such as Bill O’Reilly.

It's already started . . .

O'Reilly is to blame!

Submitted by chemjeff on Mon, 06/01/2009 - 12:57.

See?  There we go.  It is reflexive for these liberals.  They CANNOT let it be at declaring the shooter guilty.  They are compelled to heap guilt upon all of us.  I'm not normally a conspiracy nut, but this has happened EVERY SINGLE TIME that a right-wing terrorist commits a heinous act, that I'm compelled to believe that it is a political strategy for them.  A shameful, disgusting strategy, but one that apparently works.

when it is a political strategy for the right wing conspiracy

Submitted by Knackers on Mon, 06/01/2009 - 13:01.

to use demagoguery to split the American populace, to demonize the liberals, yes, I'll feel free to point that out.

kthxbai.

I have specific citations for the deviltry that Oreilley has strewn. They're posted. I can condemn him in specific, for adding to a conflagration of hate. This is not to say that he deserves to be murdered, but simply to say that his immoral behavior reflects poorly on your movement, should you choose to still own him (the movement as a whole is of course able to disown him).

Finally, Ayers was not a best

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Mon, 06/01/2009 - 13:21.

Finally, Ayers was not a best friend of Obama’s. He had minimal association on him. -JHT

See? No Ayers/Obama connection. They just had tea together and served on boards. Doesn't mean that you can imply that Obama in any way supported what Ayers did (and I actually agree with that). But there is a direct line between Tiller and O"Reilly. Clear as day.

Next we get to the heart of the matter:

Liberals oppose violence and terrorism from both the far left and right. Why are so many conservatives defending terrorism from the right?-JHT

I haven't seen one mainstream conservative or anyone (other than that fruitloop that got herself deleted) on this board defend the murder of Dr. Tiller. Not one. But keep the inference out there and create an impression. It's twisted really.

cause and effect relationship does not imply support

Submitted by Knackers on Mon, 06/01/2009 - 13:26.

merely provocation and demagoguery.

Tiller was one of three doctors in the country that performed late term abortions. O'Reilley called him many nasty names, had his crew harrass the man, and created a climate that obscured the fact that Tiller was a damn fine doctor and a better human being.

O'Reilley did this for ratings, or for profit.

And it's despicable.

I'll continue to call O'Reilley and the other demagogues out for being stupid pieces of shit who are Making Problems Worse.

I do not conflate them with Mainstream Conservatism. Like many Republicans in my state, I devoutly pray that the Republican Party finishes splitting itself in twain soon. Then I'll have a choice again, and that's a good thing!

the case for cause and effect is much stronger

Submitted by Knackers on Mon, 06/01/2009 - 13:29.

when Beck is quoting conspiracy theorists, that the pittsburgh copkiller then spouts off as truth.

O'Reilley's demagoguery, while just as provacative in this case, has been less substantiated as a proximate or distal cause.

Just truth in advertising -- I still hold it to be despicable.

But you do know

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Mon, 06/01/2009 - 13:39.

that Dr. Tiller had been bombed and shot long before O'Reilly ever came on the scene? He had been a target for a long time, had thousands of death threats, and no doubt many close calls. Again, long before O'Reilly started his investigation.

The simple fact is there are nut jobs out there. 

well, it'd be more fair to say that I became aware of that

Submitted by Knackers on Mon, 06/01/2009 - 13:46.

today before posting, but yeah, I do know that. ;-)

Bonzos like this: http://www.talk2action.org/story/2008/10/7/194617/223 as well deserve condemnation (I'm not particularly yelling at McCain -- the people actually heaping praise on murderers, yes, McCain, no).

Be just as fair to say that O'Reilly is out to make a quick cheap buck off of manufacturing outrage and hysteria, and that he doesn't particularly care how far his followers go.

Yes, there are nutjobs. But there's a difference between nutjobs and organized nutjobs who are slowly gaining mainstream-ness because they've got shows on TeeVee that tell them that they are Not Alone (cue the weirdo music). I'm a lot more concerned about the pro-life-psychos than I am about two lone crazies from Arkansas planning to kill the president (issues irrelevant. coordinated racist attack on president just as scary).

If anyone is at fault for crafting the perception that mainstream conservatism is about kooky weirdos, it's Fox News. ;-)

whispers

Submitted by chemjeff on Mon, 06/01/2009 - 13:55.

I haven't seen one mainstream conservative or anyone (other than that fruitloop that got herself deleted) on this board defend the murder of Dr. Tiller. Not one. But keep the inference out there and create an impression. It's twisted really.

That is exactly right.  It is a whisper campaign of mammoth proportions.

Chemjeff, You have it

Submitted by JHT on Mon, 06/01/2009 - 09:22.

Chemjeff,

You have it backwards. The DHS report was valid because right wing terrorism is a very real problem, with this being only one example of it.

The question is whether the broader conservative movement should consider themselves part of the terrorism problem. When the report came out I did separate the majority of conservatives from the right wing terrorists. This event shows that many conservatives do oppose terrorism but an alarming number are sympathetic to this type of terrorism.

There is no doubt that pro-life terrorists are to blame--this is hardly not any attempt to spread guilt. I never said anything along the lines of crimes committed by right-wing extremists being the “root cause” of mainstream conservatism, but there is an actual example of a supposedly mainstream conservative encouraging the terrorist mindset. Why must you respond by lying about what is being said as opposed to providing an honest opinion? --Jai Hot T

Jai Ho Tied, I think you've got it ass-backwards, sweety.

Submitted by Michigan-Matt on Mon, 06/01/2009 - 09:54.

"Right wing terrorism" isn't a problem except to farLeft activists working overtime to discredit anyone on the Right as being a terrorist... including, as Homeland Security Czarina Janet Napolitano tried to do, American military vets returning from honorable service abroad.http://www.dhs.gov/ynews/releases/pr_1239817562001.shtm

Of course, if the farLeft was REALLY interested in protecting Americans at home, maybe you shouldn't have as a poster boi and Obama-best-boyfriend-pal a convicted domestic terorrist duo in the form of Bill Ayres & wife.  And then, almost inviting domestic terrorists to act on America's safety because, just like Bill Ayres & wife, the liberals can promise to get all farLeft domestic terrorists a Presidential pardon if you act because the other liberals were too weak to act and now need to assuage their guilty little dirty collective conscience.

Sorry, sweetie, it isn't ChemJeff who has it backwards. 

It's you who has it ass-backwards. 

BTW, speaking of ass-backwards... why do you keep writing here instead of a place like DailyKos or HuffPo where your pals-in-politics probably have a broader base? Do you like to inflame and irritate?  What's that say about your character --or lack of it?

Matt, You have your facts all

Submitted by JHT on Mon, 06/01/2009 - 10:22.

Matt,

You have your facts all wrong. First of all, nobody is trying to discredit people on the right as being terrorists unless they are actually involved in terrorism. Terrorism from the right does exist.

Secondly you are misrepresenting what the Homeland Security report said.

Third, the report was written by a Bush administration appointee, so if you object to it there is no need to start calling Napolitano names.

Finally, Ayers was not a best friend of Obama’s. He had minimal association on him. Ayers has nothing to do with this.

Liberals oppose violence and terrorism from both the far left and right. Why are so many conservatives defending terrorism from the right?

Is/Was Bill Ayers a terrorist?

Submitted by Freedoms Truth on Mon, 06/01/2009 - 14:23.

Finally, Ayers was not a best friend of Obama’s. He had minimal association on him. Ayers has nothing to do with this.

Ayers' relationship with Obama is not the issue, let's leave it aside for a bit ... the issue is:

Were and are Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, both of whom engaged in violence and plotted to kill people, different types of the same breed as the killer of Tiller - ie domestic terrorist?

See how easy it is to make up a sentence: Conservatives oppose violence and terrorism from both the far left and right. Why are so many liberals defending terrorism from the left?

If you are calling this act 'terrorism' and the perp 'terrorist' its fair to ask:

Is/Was Bill Ayers a terrorist?

if the answer is yes - Where are the liberal condemnations of Ayers?

 

Not wrong and, unlike you JHT, I can count & read.

Submitted by Michigan-Matt on Tue, 06/02/2009 - 11:25.

The HomelandSec report is titled "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment".  The report, which was reviewed and edited personally by DHS Czarina Napolitano, does indeed try to discredit political movements, trends and groups by classifying TeaBag anti-tax, anti-bailout efforts with neo-Nazi groups and black-church-burning klanners... it argues that the FBI and other federal assets should be watching returning vets from overseas service as one source for recruitment into the farRight terrorist movements.

Czarina Napolitano personally read and edited the report from suggestions made to her by the newly appointed partisan political-animals inside the ExecOff of DHS and the WH.  Try to distance her from the report is like trying to argue that Moses didn't have something to do with the 10 commandments.

Ayres, we learned AFTER the election was indeed a closer friend of the Obamas than our Deceiver-in-Chief led us to believe... in fact, Ayres himself explained that he used to babysit for the Obamas... ok, can we drop your DailyKos talking points for a bit and stick to the truth.  Ayres and his wife ARE and WERE domestic terrorists agitating for domestic violence.  Their crime won a Presidential Pardon from SlickWilly at the partial involvement of... guess who?... yep, State Senator Barack Obama & noted ChicagoLand community activist.

You may not like to bring up domestic terrorists who are pals of the Obamas... but then, that's the double standard most Democrats and liberals like to embrace... "Do as we say today, not as we do tomorrow".

Liberals clearly don't oppose violence?? Are you asleep? Civic disobedience and violent rioting are benchmarks of a "good event" on the Left.  How many times were liberals arrested for protesting S.African govt policies in the 80s?  How about the American-Liberals-HumanShield effort that personally protected Saddam's treachery in Iraq and had them even mugging it up with him for photodogs before the invasion? How about the liberal and farLeft violence that almost always accompanies WorldBank meetings?  Or CodePink on any given day between 2001-2008?

I think you've been Jai Ho Tied again, JHT... and with your own arguments.

liberal interlopers

Submitted by chemjeff on Mon, 06/01/2009 - 12:51.

BTW, speaking of ass-backwards... why do you keep writing here instead of a place like DailyKos or HuffPo where your pals-in-politics probably have a broader base? Do you like to inflame and irritate?

You know, I wonder the same thing about a lot of our liberal interlopers here.  You hardly see them cite actual news stories, all of their news information seems to come from Daily Kos or HuffPo or McClatchy, and they seem more intent on 'proving conservatives wrong' than on actually learning anything.

Chemjeff, it's their version of the Brave New World.

Submitted by Michigan-Matt on Tue, 06/02/2009 - 11:34.

About 9 years ago, newspaper editorial boards were noticing a high uptick in "letters to the editors" that appeared to be part of a well-coordinated, quick response, PR-savvy effort from the Left.  It turned out to be the work of State Democrat party organizations.

The editors really noticed when the "Bush Stole the Election" lie started to fly like jets with afterburners and no missles to weigh 'em down.  Then the "There were no WMDs" lie got similar traction... then it was the PlameNon-Affair... etc.

I guess the old dogs can't learn any new tricks.  If they write enough and say it enough, even they'll start to believe it's true and others will too.

This site's Jai Ho Tied is a cookie-cut out of the kind of people who engage in those efforts.  They firmly believe that in telling and repeating lies, they'll win by forced silence of their opponents... when all it is is that their opponents got tired and withdrew.

"It's victory, I tell.  Victory!"  No matter what.  It's why our Charcoaled-Kennedy-Camelot-Obamas are still waging a poltical campaign against Bush and others... they don't know how to break out of the mold they've grown ohh, so comfortable in.

Regarding your lie about the "There were no WMDs" lie

Submitted by NextRightNando on Tue, 06/02/2009 - 11:39.

Then the "There were no WMDs" lie got similar traction.

So, it is a lie, is it? Can you link to pictures of all the WMDs that were found???

Old dawg, old tricks, old game...

Submitted by Michigan-Matt on Tue, 06/02/2009 - 11:47.

The editors really noticed when the "Bush Stole the Election" lie started to fly like jets with afterburners and no missles to weigh 'em down.  Then the "There were no WMDs" lie got similar traction... then it was the PlameNon-Affair... etc.

I guess the old dogs can't learn any new tricks.  If they write enough and say it enough, even they'll start to believe it's true and others will too.

This site's Jai Ho Tied (and NextRightNannie) is a cookie-cut out of the kind of people who engage in those efforts.  They firmly believe that in telling and repeating lies, they'll win by forced silence of their opponents... when all it is is that their opponents got tired and withdrew.

"It's victory, I tell.  Victory!"  No matter what.  It's why our Charcoaled-Kennedy-Camelot-Obamas are still waging a poltical campaign against Bush and others... they don't know how to break out of the mold they've grown ohh, so comfortable in.

 

Repetition is not proof

Submitted by NextRightNando on Tue, 06/02/2009 - 12:12.

You say it is a lie that there were no WMDs. Prove it, by simply pointing to a credible report that anyone found anything resembling actual WMDs - a little bit of pre-Gulf War One junk that was squirrelled away and then forgotten about doesn't count.

 

Repetition is the right way to answer your closed mind...

Submitted by Michigan-Matt on Tue, 06/02/2009 - 12:37.

let's see... ask a Kurd if they thought Saddam had WMDs?

let's see... ask BillClinton if his Administration thought Saddam had WMDs?

let's see... ask the French if they sold Saddam 72kg of bomb-grade Uranium?

let's see... ask the French if they sold Saddam chemical and biological warfare equipment?

let's see... ask the frontline Iraqi soldiers who carried HazMat equipment if they thought Saddam had WMDs?

let's see... ask GeorgeTenet if he thought the Iraqi's had WMDs?  If he thought Saddam was engaged in efforts to locate dirty bomb making materials to destablize Israel & the West with so-called "super suicide bombers"?

let's see... ask Italy if they provided equipment to extract and concentrate bomb grade materials already in Saddam's stockpile of terror?

The only people we can't ask are the human intelligence assets inside Iraq who weren't there, who weren't cultivated, who weren't available to US or FreeWorld intelligence agencies because SlickWilly undercut and eliminated their funding from successive federal budgets.  Go ask SlickWilly if he thought Saddam had WMDs, Nannie.

My statement, NextRightNannie, was that the editors of newspapers watched the farLeft and Democrat Party activists take-over the letters-2-the-edtior page with lies like GeoBush stole the Election, there were no WMDs, PlameNonAffair... the lie on the "There were no WMDs" spinfest was that there were over 50+ other reasons the US entered into an agreement with other allies to invade Iraq... but that doesn't stop you now or them then from lying about it.  Instead we still get, even to this very day and this very thread, your LIE that WMDs were the reason for the invasion and that the threat of Saddam acquiring more WMDs was pure neo-con fancy.  LIE, LIE, LIE like a cheap Persian rug.

Repetition is sometimes needed to crack that extra dense skull of yours, Nannie.  Like I said, you should stick to pacifiers and diapers and nappie times... 'cause when it comes to salient debate, you come up short.