Rush Limbaugh blasts Ron Paul as the Conservative Killer:

…the majority of people that voted him were not Republican. And in another poll, the percentage of Ron Paul voters who say they will vote for the Republican nominee is… like 80% of Tea Party voters in New Hampshire said no matter who the Republican nominee is they’re voting for it. The Ron Paul number is 40%. Now, as I say, I’ve gotta double confirm. It’s ostensibly Rasmussen and we’re double-checking this, but what I know so far, or what I’ve been told is that Ron Paul supporters, 40% say they would vote for the Republican nominee, 23% said they’d vote for Obama, and 31% of Ron Paul voters said they would vote third party. So the Ron Paul voters cannot be counted on, and most of Huntsman’s voters and most of Paul’s voters were Democrats who walked into the New Hampshire primary, picked up a Republican ballot, also according to this polling data.

…Here we go. It’s the exit polling data from Fox, and it is on political matters, “Do you consider yourself very liberal, somewhat liberal, moderate, somewhat conservative, very conservative?” You go to Ron Paul, 33% of his voters, according to exit polls, were somewhat liberal; 24% were moderate; 0 were very liberal. So 57% of the voters that voted for Ron Paul were not Republican conservatives. And that’s one of the things that I wanted to see because with this big push — what is happening here, the final push now that’s on to get Romney the nomination, Newt and Perry, with their attacks, have made it impossible to defend them. I hate to tell you, folks, but you just can’t put your name to what they’re out there saying, vulture capitalism and so forth.

Romney, however, wants Ron Paul to stay in. Everybody is urging everybody else to get out of this except for Ron Paul. They want Ron Paul to keep pounding away at Santorum and Newt. They want Ron Paul to continue to get big numbers and take away any high second- or third-place finishes from Santorum or Gingrich or Perry or anybody else. So the powers that be realize the monkey wrench that Ron Paul represents. Ron Paul is a conservative killer. Ron Paul kills the conservative vote, and the Romney camp wants him in there, encouraging him to stay in there.

So 40% of Paul voters said they would go on to support the eventual Republican nominee. 40%!

Where’s the other 60% going to go? Apparently Obama.

While 80% of the tea-party voters will support WHOEVER the Republican nominee is.

That should tell us a whole lot about Ron Paul and his supporters. They cannot be counted on to push the Republicans to victory in 2012. The only thing Ron Paul can guarantee is to kill off Santorum and Newt’s chances.

With that I’ll segue into the John Gibson show yesterday in which Gibson asked Ron Paul supporters to call in and give him reasons why he is so awesome: (its 15 minutes well spent?)

And hey, guess who else loves themselves some Ron Paul?

The Iranian regime’s English language propaganda channel, PressTV, has discovered a new American idol: presidential contender Rep. Ron Paul.

PressTV has stepped up its coverage of Paul’s campaign to win the Republican presidential nomination in recent weeks, featuring his anti-Israel rants, his claim that sanctions against Iran are “acts of war,” his approval of Iran’s nuclear ambitions, and much more.

The Iranian government channel portrays Ron Paul as an American hero, and brings on conspiracy theorists masquerading as political “analysts” to laud him for “challenging the American establishment” and the “corporate neo-conservative Zionist consensus,” that cabal of Jews, banksters, and Reagan Democrats who in Tehran’s eyes (and in the eyes of these Ron Paul supporters) run the world.

It’s a script taken almost word-for-word from the infamous anti-Semitic forgery, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

So go ahead Paulbots….vote for Ron Paul, or Obama when RP doesn’t get the nomination but I will never pull the lever for this nut.

Of course, the 9/11 Truther movement probably has its most receptive fan base in the Middle East.

About six days ago, Iranian leader Ahmadinejad made Truther claims before the UN General Assembly:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said he believes – as an engineer – the World Trade Center towers could not have been brought down by aircraft.

Interviewed after his address to the UN General Assembly sparked a walkout, he told the AP news agency some kind of planned explosion must have occurred.

But he stopped short of saying the US staged the disaster 10 years ago.

He had been widely condemned for using his UN address to brand the US killing of Osama Bin Laden a 9/11 cover-up.

Of course, this isn’t the first time Ahmadinejad has pushed 9/11 conspiracy theories. Following his speech last year to the UN General Assembly, ALLAHPUNDIT makes the point:

Today’s journey into Trutherism is new, though, I think. To be sure, he’s been pushing conspiracy theories about 9/11 (and not just 9/11) in interviews for years as a modern-day complement to his Holocaust denial, but as far as I know this is the first time he’s broached the subject from the podium at the UN.

It seems like a great number of people in the Middle East prefer to entertain the tantalizing notion that the U.S. government staged 9/11, framing innocent Muslims as an excuse to make war.

In Pakistan:

“Many Pakistanis I spoke to in the six years that I’ve been a correspondent here say they have no idea who carried out the 9/11 attacks,” she said.

In a 2008 World Public Opinion poll, 72 percent of the Pakistani respondents said they didn’t know who were behind the attacks. As many people believed Israel was behind it as al-Qaida (4 percent), and 19 percent thought the United States itself carried out the attacks.

“This is an argument that I have heard over and over again,” said Koster. “In this conspiracy theory, the U.S. staged the attacks to have a reason for invading Afghanistan.”

The conspiracy-minded think the United States wanted to enter Afghanistan to be closer to oil sources in Central Asia, closer to China to thwart its growing economy and power, or to wipe out the Muslim community, she said.

Many voicing these perspectives were well-educated Pakistanis, she added. “For instance, a wealthy English-speaking Pakistani from an area beleaguered by the Pakistani Taliban firmly believed the U.S. wanted to extinguish Muslims.”

According to the New Republic:

the unpopularity of the United States in the Arab world continues to be fueled by the belief that Islamist terrorists had nothing to do with 9/11, with many claiming the attacks were an American, Israeli, or joint American-Israeli conspiracy. In this sense, overcoming 9/11 revisionism is, perhaps, the greatest challenge facing American public diplomacy in the coming decade: So long as such conspiracy theories persist, Arabs will continue to view American policies aimed at preventing “another 9/11” as thoroughly illegitimate since, as they see it, 9/11 is just a big American lie.

In a report on Muslim-Western relations released on July 21 of this year, the Pew Research Center asked Muslim respondents in eight countries—including Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Turkey, and Pakistan—whether they thought groups of Arabs carried out the 9/11 attacks on the United States. In every country, less than 30 percent of respondents professed their belief for the idea, and in Jordan, Egypt, and Turkey the level of acceptance is lower today than it was in 2006. Indeed, the same revolutionary Arab Street that toppled Mubarak in Egypt also registered the highest level of denial among all the countries surveyed, with a full 75 percent of respondents recording their disbelief.

To use a badly over-abused pun, Egyptians especially are living in “da Nile”:

Pew’s poll numbers from Egypt track closely with my own experience in the country, where I lived and conducted doctoral research during parts of its tumultuous spring. Perhaps unsurprisingly, I found that 9/ll revisionism was particularly prominent among Islamists, for whom rewriting history is necessary for deflecting the accusation that their ideology motivates mass murder. “There is no Al Qaeda,” former Muslim Brotherhood Supreme Guide Mehdi Akef told me in complete seriousness. “It’s an American expression. It’s just an ideology, Al Qaeda. This ideology comes from America and their coalitions.” In Akef’s inversion of reality, 9/11 constituted an American attack on the Middle East, followed by an Islamist policy of self-defense. “When they fight in Iraq and Afghanistan, Al Qaeda thinks it’s a jihad because the fight is against occupation,” he said. “And it is jihad to fight occupation. And when Americans kill civilians everywhere, it’s a big crime against humanity.”

Younger generations of Muslim Brothers echo Akef’s distortions without fail. “America did [9/11] for some business interests,” Alexandria Brotherhood leader Ali Abdelfattah said to me. Abdel Monem Abouel Fetouh, a former Brotherhood leader whom The New York Times touts as a “liberal Islamist,” agrees: “I don’t believe it was jihadists—it was too big an operation,” he told me. “This was done by a country, not individuals. It’s not a conspiracy theory—it’s just logical. They didn’t bring crimes before the U.S. justice system until now. Why? Because it’s part of the conspiracy.” Even Islam Lotfy, who recently left the Brotherhood to establish his own political party and works as a contractor for USAID in Egypt, finds American complicity in 9/11 plausible. “I can’t imagine someone flying for twenty minutes and nobody realizes it, and then another plane goes and crashes and then another in Pennsylvania,” he said. Sobhi Saleh, a former parliamentarian who is considered among the Brotherhood’s top legal thinkers, had a slightly different theory. “The Jews and the Zionist lobby [did it],” he said, referencing a book that a Lebanese Christian cleric gave him. “And this study is well known in America and it’s on the Internet. … It was a scientific research.”

Yet Islamists were hardly the only group I encountered in Egyptian society that denied Al Qaeda’s complicity in 9/11. Revolutionary socialists, who comprise an important segment of the youth activists that catalyzed the January anti-Mubarak revolt, see the machinations of global domination at work. “Personally, I think the imperial interests needed something like this,” Mustafa Shawqi, a leader in the Coalition of Revolutionary Youth, told me. “Gas tycoons—blocking any attempt for democratic change in the Arab world and serving the security of Israel.” And a number of self-proclaimed liberals sounded awfully like the Islamists when asked who was responsible for 9/11. “The CIA knows who did it. I don’t know,” said liberal Wafd party youth activist Mohamed Fouad. “It will remain a question mark. Al Qaeda is part of the theories, but it was organized with others. And let’s not forget that Al Qaeda is made and supported by the Americans.

Eric Trager concludes his piece by stating how difficult it will be to curb anti-American sentiment and resentment in the war on terror so long as Arab 9/11 conspiracy theories are the prevalent beliefs being spun and propagandized. One major problem of course, is the refusal on the part of Muslims to take ownership and responsibility that violent brethren of their religion were indeed responsible for “waking the sleeping/paper tiger” from its slumber. It is far easier to scapegoat the dysfunctions of their society upon the Jews or the U.S. Living in denial. And of course, when Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda claimed the charges of responsibility were true, that they brought the Towers down, some Arabs secretly (and openly) showed anything from admiration, sympathy, or support for their romanticized version of “Robin Hood” to claims that Osama must be an agent working for the CIA. No amount of evidence to the contrary will ever be enough to convince those who want to believe in conspiracies rather than face the real causes for their miserable states.

When Ahmadinejad suggested that 9/11 wasn’t caused by al Qaeda but by the U.S. government, who else other than We the People of the United States took offense? Why, al Qaeda in Yemen, no less, in the 7th issue of Inspire Magazine for Jihadis:

“The Iranian government has professed on the tongue of its president Ahmadinejad that it does not believe that al Qaeda was behind 9/11 but rather, the U.S. government. So we may ask the question: why would Iran ascribe to such a ridiculous belief that stands in the face of all logic and evidence?” opinion writer Abu Suhail asks.

Last week, Ahmadinejad appeared before the United Nations General Assembly and blasted the U.S. for disposing of al Qaeda leader Usama bin Laden.

“Last year, when the need to form a fact-finding team to undertake a thorough investigation concerning the hidden elements involved in September 11 incident was brought up; an idea also endorsed by all independent governments and nations as well as by the majority in the United States, my country and myself came under pressure and threat by the government of the United States,” Ahmadinejad said, referring to the United States.

“Instead of assigning a fact-finding team, they killed the main perpetrator and threw his body into the sea. Would it not have been reasonable to bring to justice and openly bring to trial the main perpetrator of the incident in order to identify the elements behind the safe space provided for the invading aircraft to attack the twin world trade towers?”

Several diplomatic delegations walked out of Ahmadinejad’s speech.

“If Iran was genuine in its animosity towards the U.S., it would be pleased to see another
entity striking a blow at the Great Satan but that’s not the case. For Iran, anti-Americanism is merely a game of politics,” reads Inspire’s article. “Iran and the Shi’a in general do not want to give al Qaeda credit for the greatest and biggest operation ever committed against America because this would expose their lip-service jihad against the Great Satan.”

ALLAHPUNDIT:

“For them, al Qaeda was a competitor for the hearts and minds of the disenfranchised Muslims around the world,” the article says. “Al Qaeda… succeeded in what Iran couldn’t. Therefore it was necessary for the Iranians to discredit 9/11 and what better way to do so? Conspiracy theories.”

That’s super, but AQ’s relationship with Iran is a lot more complicated than their propaganda would have you believe. I wonder if the tool who wrote that article realizes that and is simply pushing out standard anti-Shiite Wahhabist yammering or if he’s so low on the totem pole that he actually doesn’t know about the collusion at the top.

Rasmussen’s latest tracking poll shows 46% strongly disapprove of Obama’s performance as president. That is compared to 43% who strongly disapproved of George W. Bush at the end of his presidency. But how much worse would Obama’s numbers be (and how much better Bush’s) if not for this Rasmussen finding:

One bright spot in the numbers for the President is that 51% of voters still say former President George W. Bush is more to blame for the nation’s economic woes. Just 41% point the finger of blame at the current President.

In fact, the mortgage meltdown was overwhelmingly a Democrat production, and one in which Barack Hussein Obama played a crucial double role, while George W. strove mightily for 8 years to secure much stronger oversight for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The only media outlet to tell the truth about Bush’s efforts to rein in the Democrat’s reckless government subsidized lending policies was Fox:

Fox was also the only major media outlet to explain why Obama was the second largest recipient of Fannie and Freddie lobbying money, behind only corrupt Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd. It is because there are two sides to the affirmative-action lending scheme that destroyed the U.S. mortgage market, and Obama was crucial to both of them.

The seeds of the meltdown were planted by the Clinton administration’s creative use of lawsuits to force banks to implement affirmative action in the issuing of housing loans. Listen to Clinton Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Andrew Cuomo announcing a multi-billion dollar settlement under which banks would lower their lending standards for low income and minority borrowers. Cuomo explicitly calls it “affirmative action” (at 2:40), and explicitly acknowledges that the loans will not be economically rational (that they will have higher default rates than normal, profitable loans, at 2:20 and 3:00):

But Democratic administrations bent on establishing affirmative actions loans were only half the equation. Clinton needed boots on the ground: minority activist groups who could push lawsuits through the legal floodgates that the Clinton lawyers were opening up. To create a sea change in lending practices, there needed to be this hounding legal threat, and this is where Obama came in.

The boots on the ground were provided by the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now (ACORN), which was getting legal advice from Obama. This is the “community organizer” work that constitutes Obama’s entire pre-electoral resume. He was helping groups like ACORN use bogus claims of racial victimization to extort, not equal treatment for blacks, but special treatment, on unprofitable terms for the extorted parties. (Obama acknowledges this work at 5:20 above. Background on the Community Reinvestment Act that Obama and ACORN used–signed by President Carter in 1976–begins at 3:50.)

President Clinton signed legislation forcing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to underwrite the unprofitable loans. (Fannie and Freddie are public-private corporations that back private loans with repayment implicitly guaranteed by the federal government. That implicit guarantee has been made explicit through the ongoing bank bailouts). Without this underwriting, the damage from the Obama-ACORN extortion racket would have been limited. The banks that knuckled under would have lost value accordingly, which would have stiffened resistance and probably would have led to the Community Reinvestment Act being declared unconstitutional. But with government underwriting, the financial risk could be passed on to taxpayers, making the banks happy to write as many bad loans as they could find takers for, poisoning the entire financial system, as Obama fully understands.

“Sub-prime lending started off as a good idea,” Obama says (at 6:30 above):

…helping Americans buy homes who previously couldn’t afford to. Financial institutions created new financial instruments that could securitize these loans [losses?], slice them into finer and finer risk categories, and spread them out amongst investors and around the country, as well as around the world. In theory this should have allowed mortgage lending to be less risky and more diversified.

No, mixing bad loans with good was not a way to make mortgage lending less risky, no matter how it was securitized. The securitization just allowed this insane mixing to proceed on a massive scale.

But while Obama knows how the “sub-prime mortgage fiasco” came about, and his own role in it, he constantly blames the disaster on the one person who did the most to try to stop it. Bush tried and failed to roll back the reckless government foray into the backing of uneconomic loans. After the Democrats regained Congress in 2006 they kept expanding government’s exposure to bad loans, a course they are still pursuing today, even after bringing the world economy to the brink of collapse.

If you prefer to read rather than watch, Stanley Kurtz wrote an excellent summary of the ACORN-Fannie-Freddie-Obama ménage for the NY Post in October 2008.

Orson Scott Card wrote a nice pre-election bit on the media’s systematic (and ultimately successful) efforts to keep the American electorate ignorant of Democrat and Obama culpability for the financial meltdown.

Ace of Spades was one of many to note many examples of media cover up as they transpired. One instance here.

So this is how Obama got elected. The media systematically fooled the electorate about who was responsible for the mortgage meltdown and the subsequent recession, to the point where people voting first and foremost on the state of the economy voted for the one man most responsible for creating the financial chaos.

The current Rasmussen poll indicates that the people are still duped and it is hard to see what will ever shake them out of it. People who get their information from our Democrat-controlled media will never have any reason to think they are not blaming the right people. However bad the economy gets, their Democrat information sources will never blame the Democrats, and anyone who has imbibed the anti-conservative bigotry of the established media to the point of being invested in it will resist turning to the alternate media–which is the only available source of honest information.

This dire predicament is exactly what we should expect. A society that allows all of its information industries to be taken over by leftist demagogues has gotten itself into a very bad fix, with no easy way out. (That would be our news media, academia, the big charitable foundations, our professional associations and the government.)

Maybe the collapse of the CO2-warming fraud will wake people up to the fact that our information industries are indeed capable of lying systematically and en masse for years on end. Even in the so-called “hard sciences,” if the players are Democrats, they are prone to be utterly and constantly dishonest: pure political animals, with many rationalizations, but no principles beyond their grab for power.

If it is our quiet sun that alerts the duped masses to the systematic dishonesty of our Democrat elites it will be one more exhibit for the proponents of a providential history of America, and the country will certainly require a re-awoken rationality and moral consciousness if we are to successfully negotiate any serious downturn in global temperature. There will be no more room to throw away our prosperity on attempted usurpations of our republic a la California’s death by public union payoffs or Obama’s mimicry of Hugo Chavez. If the sun stays quiet, nature will strip our prosperity for us, unless we are able to compensate by freeing liberty to maximize progress.

The first step to economic recovery is to end the insane Democrat war against energy. They want an excuse to tax this life-blood of the economy as a way to fund their broader war against liberty (the socialization or communization of everything). As I put it in my Copenhagen post:

We ought to be developing energy resources as fast as humanly possible in preparation for the likelihood of global cooling. Energy development would also save the economy, and even allow the United States, which sits atop the world’s largest fossil energy resources, to pay off the killing debt that Obama is dropping on us like a rain of battleships.

But we can’t do anything until we get rid of the Democrats. According to Rasmussen, that would be accomplished in very short order if we could just wise our fellow countrymen up to one easily verifiable truth: that it is the Democrats who were and are responsible for the financial meltdown, with President Obama being the one figure who worked both sides of this dirty street, generaling the boots-on-the-ground extortion racket on the one hand, while working as a legislator to bill the whole resulting mountain of bad debt to the American taxpayer.

Charles Krauthammer at his best in identifying how a Van Jones can happen in Obama’s world:

It’s a reflection of the boss. The boss also had a history before he became a candidate of being around and friends with the likes of Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers. The liberals scolded us last year on how irrelevant all that is and how it’s a smear campaign against Obama. But, if you live in that environment and you find nothing inherently wrong with that kind of radicalism. Then a Van Jones will show up. You’ll watch him years and years and you’ll think this guy is perfectly mainstream.

We’ve been saying this very same thing for over a year now. What did we hear from the left when Obama’s associations with nuts and racists was brought up? Why, we’re all just racists ourselves….nothing to see here.

We all railed against the MSM bias in not covering the associations, and now we need no clearer proof of this then the Van Jones story. If you received your news from the MSM you had no idea who Van Jones was, Andrew Brietbart:

…the American mainstream media – ABC, NBC, CBS, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Time, Newsweek, et al – must be held to account for sitting on the sidelines as this major story kept building without them, went viral on YouTube, and then became so large that a key appointee of President Obama was forced to step down.

But with their decision to ignore the Jones story, they may have actually done Mr. Obama far more harm than good: Who vetted this guy? How did he get past the FBI? What did he say, and how did he answer the infamous seven-page questionnaire that all Obama appointees were required to fill out? Inquiring Freedom of Information Act minds want to know.

For most people in this country, the resignation was the first they had heard of Van Jones. For this sin of journalistic omission, there’s institutional media blame. Bias is too tame a word for the utter shamelessness on display: Only Republican scandals – real and imagined – matter.

~~~

…the Jones narrative hurts Mr. Obama because it underlines how the mainstream media helped elect the president by glorifying him instead of vetting him.

Just as Mr. Obama was not even cursorily investigated, Van Jones, a fellow “community organizer,” was not given the slightest media attention when named as an unaccountable “czar” selected to oversee billions in taxpayer money for the ambiguous purpose of “green energy.” And that despite having a body of damning evidence that could be found with a single Google search by an ADHD-addled high-school journalism student.

Andrew details a couple more stories about this administration that the MSM is silent on:

One of the stories is that ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, a massive radical organization, is poised to receive billions from the Obama “stimulus.”

ACORN’s voting division is currently under investigation in multiple states for fraud. And its housing division exists to fulfill an unclear mandate that has been accused of using funds to pay for political protests. If the alternative media digs further and finds out ACORN is guilty as charged, and as corrupt as its ample critics say it is, the onus is those who didn’t question when the Obama team decided to allocate billions to expand the group’s reach.

Brian Williams, the ball is in your court.

Another story not making the evening news is that of artist Patrick Courrielche, who has shown that the National Endowment of the Arts is seeking to use government funds to promote Obama administration initiatives. On Sunday’s “This Week,” George Will pierced the mainstream media veil.

“Recently there was a conference call arranged by the National Endowment for the Arts, with a representative of the White House, for potential grantees or actual grantees of the federal government, getting subsidies – the theme of it was how the arts community could advance the president’s agenda. Now I don’t know how many laws that breaks, but I am sure there are some.”

What are you waiting for, Katie Couric?

We know what she’s waiting for. She’s waiting for it all to blow over, for the left to come to the rescue, so she and her fellow “reporters” don’t have a hand in damaging their messiah. As the saying goes, the cover up is always worse then the crime. Hell, why didn’t she just try to excuse Van Jones and his beliefs like another nut…ahem…Democrat tried today. (h/t JustOneMinute)

Now he’s been thrown under the bus by the White House for signing his name to a petition expressing something that 35% of all Democrats believed as of 2007 — that George Bush knew in advance about the attacks of 9/11.

Nope, that’s not a The Onion piece….that’s Jane Hamsher who just made Krauthammer’s point. You surround yourself by nutcases and you start to think being a nutcase is normal.

Allah at Hot Air thinks Mr. “Bush was behind 9/11″ Van Jones will be gone by tomorrow afternoon. Mickey Kaus thinks by midnight. Myself, I think the man should never of stepped foot anywhere near our Capitol in any position of influence and apparently some former White House staffers are now saying Van Jones would never had passed muster to even be considered for the position he got. We all know only a man known to run in a circle of loons could of brought him in…and that man is our President. John McCormack thinks it was Emanuel:

Former White House staffers I’ve spoken with say they would bet the FBI uncovered much of Jones’s past–especially if Jones truthfully answered their questions. What would then happen is this: the background report would go to the Counsel’s office (run by Greg Craig), who would then raise the question of whether what the FBI found was disqualifying with the the potential employee’s boss. Jones was hired by Council on Environmental Quality Chair Nancy Sutley, but he presumably (and ultimately) reports to the chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel. Emanuel must have decided that nothing in Jones’s background was alarming enough to prevent his appointment.

So even if Jones is thrown overboard this weekend, it’s worth asking: Did Rahm sign off on Jones’s appointment despite what the FBI must have discovered about his background. And, incidentally–did Jones tell the truth to the FBI?

The man who would befriend the likes of these three loons:

Wouldn’t find anything odd about another racist conspiracy nut…so I lay odds that it was Obama who gave the nod.

Either way, its another one under the bus and good riddance. Now he can go back to Color of Change and work more on that Beck boycott….because its going soooooo well for them /sarc

Oh, btw….Jake Tapper is the ONLY msm person pursuing this story. Shocking eh?

Gateway Pundit has the details.

Mike posted earlier on how Democrats plan to memorialize commemorate the events of September 11th, this year:

Van Jones, an Obama environmental adviser, said 9/11 would be an opportunity to “connect, to find other people in your peer group who are also passionate about repowering America but also greening up America and cleaning up America.”

Musings of a blame-America Firster:

We need to get down on our knees and thank these Native American communities. But also the Latino community, Asian community, and every other community that’s willing to come here and help us out, ’cause we obviously need some help. We need some wisdom from someplace else. ‘Cause what we’ve come up with here don’t make no sense at all.”

* [W]hat about our sisters and brothers that are in prison right now?

Yeah, America’s the worst of all possible nations- a blight upon the planet earth that “don’t make no sense at all”. Throw it all out- bathwater, baby, rubber ducky, and all.

Any surprise he’d also believe 9/11 was orchestrated by the machinations of our government than by Islamic takfiri terrorists?

Gee…what was I thinking?!

Sometimes, I can be such an @$$hole….

I’m sorry, but I simply MUST post this. Memories of A Few Good Men…(ht Hot Air)

Watch this, and consider that we’re not talking about beating up a Marine, but getting rough with the people who planned and executed the 911 attacks, who tried to kill hundreds of thousands of Americans, who SUCCESSFULLY MURDERED 3000 civilians.

Chris,

YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

Poor Ford. He knows torture’s an issue that-in the end-causes more damage to Democrats than to Republicans. He knows the reality that in 2001, 2002, and 2003 the US intel community was freaking out, dazed, and confused (as every 911 and Iraq investigation shows), and he just can’t tell the Bush haters to stop, let it go, MOVEON.

Why?

Because torture, 911, BUSHLIED, etc are all distortions of the truth that come out if there’s an investigation.

Good luck Harold. I’m with CHEEENY-Show the docs. Show em all!

First and foremost, I do not want or like etc torture. I’m not one of those millions of Americans who wanted Osama Bin Laden’s skin peeled on pay per view.

However, the myth that a ticking bomb scenario doesn’t exist is a lie. It DID exist, and it does exist today. Before 911, the US new for months that a big attack was coming. George Tenet told the Joint House/Senate inquiry (as also reported in the 911 Commission and Richard Clarke’s book, Against All Enemies) that he was running around DC like he was on fire. Then, the FBI grabbed Zacarias Moussaoui, and his laptop computer. The investigative process blocked American investigators from looking at the laptop which would have revealed the 911 plot and likely prevented it. Equally, he was not allowed to be tortured. America could have prevented 911 if the investigative process wasn’t hindered, OR if he was tortured.

Months later, Zubaydah and KSM are captured. Intel agencies know another 911 attack is coming, but the process can’t figure it out (again). This time, harsh interrogations were used, and then torture (not all harsh interrogation is torture and vice versa), and a 911 attack was prevented (according to multiple CIA directors, the Vice President, the President, and the new Director of National Intelligence.

Sick and sad as it is to say, torture worked. It was a last resort, and it worked.

SO, we can look at it simply. When intel says there’s an attack coming, and the investigative process is stumped, America can either:
A) stoop to torture and hope that it reveals the attack like it would have with Moussoui, and did with KSM
or
B) refuse to stoop so low, and know that lives could have been saved.

I say the lesson here is do like the Navy does in a sinking ship. When you’re told to close the hatch and let people die so that the ship may survive, close the hatch. Let the people in NYC, DC, Los Angeles, San Fran, etc., let them get attacked & then tell their families that we had people in custody who knew of the attack, but we didn’t want to torture em. We CHOSE to let the people die. That’s the decision.

Do like they do in the military and cut your losses. Close the hatch. Let the attack happen (still understanding that the investigative process is blocked like before and after 911).

The families won’t understand, and politically it’s equally suicidal, but the honor of the flag is protected. Besides, maybe then Richard Clarke’s testimony to the 911 Commission will be remembered, ‘America needs more body bags before people will get it.’

For YEARS Senator Obama boasted about closing the Gitmo Gulag while he was campaigning. As President-elect, he vowed to close it. As President he gave an order to close it (but the fine print said only IF the Dept of Justice said it was feasible and after an extensive study). Then he thumped his chest to Americans that he had ordered Gitmo closed. He told it to the Canadians on his first big trip far from home. Obama bragged about his decisiveness on the matter to every visiting foreign leader. He went to Europe and bragged about closing Gitmo as he gave speeches apologizing for American arrogance to each and every country.

Then he came back

And after 3 months of investigation, the Obama Dept of Justice has reached the same conclusions that President Bush’s did years ago:
-no one will take the detainees
-no (Democrat) member of Congress can get re-elected if you put the detainees in their district
-a lot of the remaining detainees are too dangerous to release
-Gitmo just might not be able to be closed after all

Obama is STILL making the same 3 foreign policy gaffes (lies):

1) The US didn’t take its eye off the ball in Afghanistan and let UBL escape because Bush was preoccupied w Iraq. UBL escaped in Nov2001, Iraq buildup began 10 months later, and Iraq was invaded in 2003. WILL SOMEONE PLEASE GET OBAMA A CALENDER

2) The cost of the war in Iraq literally changes every week according to Obama. Tonight he claimed it was $700+bn. No. That’s the cost of the war on terror as a whole. Iraq (per the Congressional Research Service) cost $444.6bn as of July. For reference, the cost of all the Clinton Wars was about $450bn most of which was spent “containing” Saddam, and that “containment”….caused UBL to decide to start killing Americans; caused the war on terror

3) Obama promised to encourage democracy, reforms, peace, love, and happiness in Pakistan via foreign aid, but Biden said in the VP debate that the first thing they’d cut due to the financial crisis….is foreign aid.

(waiting for link to transcript)