Yes, I know…it’s The View. Kinda like scratching fingernails on a chalkboard but Michelle Malkin did an OUTSTANDING job of getting her point across and leaving the 3 stooges dumbfounded today:
See author page
Michelle Malkin Pummels Point Home On The View
Don’t f**k with MM!
I LOVE MICHELLE MALKIN!!Those View crones make me want to projectile vomit.
Excellent, Michelle! I no longer watch The View. Joy, Whoopi and Sherry (WTH is she doing on Tee Vee?) are the epitome of deaf, blind and dumb. Babs is simply embarrassingly predictable. Actually all four are. They are in a deep state of denial and they will never be awake.
Poor Elizabeth. She needs her own show.
“But what about Bush…..” the mantra of all those idiots. Who cares about Bush, he is not in office spending America into the toilet. How about they first answer the questions about how Obama has lied and then you can bring Bush up.
Oh my gosh, that was awesome! I thought Joy Behar was going to pass out if she didn’t get to attack Bush one more time.
Hello, Joy….wake up! Instead of acknowledging the tremendous FLAWS in Obama, and the broken promises – her only response is to say, “What about Bush? What about Bush?”
The Intellectual Dishonesty of liberal lemmings is unreal.
ah Michelle… that was like shooting guppies trapped in a plastic bowl. LOL
My favorite, however, was the applause when it was announced *everyone* in the audience was getting a Malkin book to take home. Probably one of the best promos she could have done, and one of the best educations they’ll receive. Too bad it couldn’t be teamed with Liberty and Tyranny for a double whammy.
Michelle Malkin accomplished an almost impossible task to get her points across on The View, without yelling over people, with a smile on her face, all while having to navigate around Joy Behar’s complete stupidity. I know Michelle was prepared and ready, and did an excellent job.
If they ever made a movie based on these three + Barbara it would infringe on one already released. But maybe they could get away with a takeoff on the title. Dumb, Dumber and Dumerest. The old volumes of the Encyclopedia of Britannica do not contain enough descriptive words to express the just how classically stupid these woman are.
Good question Ann Monterey. Why doesn’t she have her own show?…
The three stooges may not have been listening, but it is obvious by the applause at the end of the segment that the audience was. Michelle took full advantage of her “teachable moment,” cramming it full to overflowing with good, solid information and bringing the disinfectant of sunlight to the corruption of the current administration. You go, girl!
Michelle is, as she has always been, a woman of integrity, class and brains. The half wits from the View couldn’t tie her sneakers let alone win a debate with her.
i hate that show so much i almost didnt watch the clip, glad i did. mm is so respectful she made that joy look like a hick, loved it.
MM was rude on the view. If you have a valid comment you do not have to act the way she did. And we do need to remember the events that have taken place in the last 8 years. We are still paying for a war (two) that costs 12 billion. And corruption what about outing a US a spy, what about lying to the American people? MM is someone out just to make a buck and believes if she yells loud enough what she says is true. Oh by the way I voted for McCain.
Lulu, you should change your name to dum-dum. We fought the wars we needed to fight, NO spy was outed by Bush, Cheney, or Rumsfeld, and the only ones that lied and to continue to lie to the people are loons like you. If you had an ounce of intelligence you would understand voting for McLame doesn’t mean you aren’t a lib or at best suffering from BDS.
Now please, go learn some facts about the things you posted on before you go and spray more stupid onto this site.
@Lulu:
So what’s Obama doing about that?
Armitage?
Specifics, please.
Was she yelling?
Why?
Malkin was rude?? By gawd, what an odd perspective. I suppose Joy was the delightful hostess? You picked an apt screen name, Lulu… You sure know how to spin them whoppers.
Perhaps you’ll look at the below graph and explain to us all how we are massively in debt for two wars that are between 3-4% of the GDP for the entire five year conflict. A conflict, I might add, that those Americans being held in Iranian custody must be happy to have had happened, because Saddam sure wouldn’t be lifting his pinkie to help get them out. ’tis ever so nice to have an ally stashed inbetween Iran and Syria. But I guess you didn’t think of that, eh?
And while you’re at it… see that really *big* fat line to the far right? That 9 trillion figure? That’s the spending the Big Zero and his Congressional comrades-in-destruction have spent for 2010-2020 in mere months. Spend out out of bankruptcy… right. Try that yourself and see how far it gets you.
Maybe you… who’s whining about the Iraq costs which are pittance by comparison and have added mightily to our national security (remember that ally in the middle of Iran/Syria bit?), will let us know how all those filthy rich and evil Americans will be paying that spending bill off. Take your time. Google your brain cell out. We’ll wait patiently for your cogent response and fuzzy math.
Mata Harley 16 great visual.
Much too complex for lulu. It would take Chris Mathews with his tingly leg hours to explain this, even after he turned it upside down.
Lulu: MM did not shout but she did hold the floor despite their attempt to overwhelm her. She knows what she’s talking about without a script or teleprompter. I became a fan beginning with the fight in the 90’s against illegal immigration. As a former life long democrat, I voted for McCain/Palin too…mostly because of Sarah because the Obama alternative was too horrible to contemplate. You see, I grew up after the 60’s and I recognize what that mind set is all about. You can’t be a mature adult and still believe in that crappola.
Michelle took no prisoners here. Rude? Absolutely not. Unapologetically forthright and persistent in getting her point across while dismissing the interruptions by Joy and Whoopi? Yes.
This is what we need to see more of from our conservative friends who are in the public limelight–just sticking to the topic, not wavering from it and not being silenced by the liberal media personality interviewing them who incessantly (and quite rudely, if you want to talk about who’s rude) try to talk over them through the entire interview.
Joy: “…went into a war that was uncalled for…”
I get so infuriated when I hear any liberal call the war in Iraq, “unwarranted, unjust, illegal, wrong, uncalled for, blah-blah-blah.”
Can anyone hear tell me exactly what UN resolution we are supposedly in violation of?? By what basis are they making these claims? I’m so sick of their ignorance.
Have those idiots forgotten that we we’re attacked??
I know this wasn’t exactly the point of this post but that typical, moronic, liberal rhetoric from Joy sent me over the deep end. Liberals…
@Neil
Was the war legal?
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6917.htm
Let me guess….Saddam was behind 9/11. That’s like blaming Thailand for Pearl Harbor.
The TARDs just can’t deal with the facts, hence their collective grip on reality is tenuous at best…
What is both insanely annoying and at the sametime somewhat hilarious is how they whine and stamp their feet in child like tantrums when their faces are rubbed into the reality of the day…
Is there a better example of this than Joy Behar?
I have a question, can anyone explain to me what Behar is given the description of, “comedian”?
Its sort of akin to calling Jon Stewart an unbiased historian…
She did indeed do a great job. You all know I’m not a Bush fan, but I find the “what about Bush” argument embarrassing. Long ago, when my parents didn’t let me do something I wanted to do, my “but Johnny down the street does it” argument didn’t go over too well.
At least Whoopi stated it was just her opinion and left room to be wrong, especially knowing that Malkin was so well prepared. The rest… well, I give them credit for even having her on the show. And I don’t agree she was rude – I don’t know much about her, but she is obviously no Anne Coulter. She’s very respectable here.
As for the subject at hand, yes the cronyism is disturbing. What is even more disturbing is the pool the President, any President, has to choose from. Are any qualified candidates for positions who don’t have skeletons in their closet? How do we attract honest people to politics? Is it possible? Might we do well to require Congressional approval of Executive appointees, the same way we do SC judges? But then isn’t it all about favors and paybacks anyway?
On this subject, it seems to me we’re in the same boat no matter who’s in charge, which is what I think Whoopi was trying to ask.
Having watched and read Michelle Malkin throughout the Bush presidency, I find it laughable that Behar would even get into the “what about Bush” mode. Malkin has been quite critical of President Bush, so much so that she lost the support of many on the right side of the aisle after Harriet Miers, Dubai Ports, prescription drugs and a few more, she was pretty relentless.
Malkin is articulate, well schooled and honest about what she goes after. It was obvious that at least two from the View didn’t bother to do any research whatsoever on Malkin. They walked right into the buzz saw because they were either too lazy to do their homework on a scheduled guest or thought they could bully their way through the “wing nut” interview, or both. IMHO Behar’s ego is her worst enemy, she has yet to realize that she lost whatever she thought she had a long time ago.
“Long ago, when my parents didn’t let me do something I wanted to do, my “but Johnny down the street does it” argument didn’t go over too well“…
Funny thing but my old man didn’t buy that argument either…
He’d always come back with that old saw, “if Johnny jumps off the bridge does that mean you should too?“…
Damn but I hated that bit of logic…:-)
@neil:
Neil, I COMPLETELY agree with your thought here. I think it’s time we start battling against the liberal media brain fog that many, many people are in and refute it the same way you just did. I have a confession…I have cow-towed before to some folks who say something negative about our mission in Iraq, fearing verbal insults. I wasn’t agreeing, but I didn’t counter it either. No more. I will now gently but firmly correct them.
The argument of “Sadaam didn’t attack us on 9/11” has always amazed me anyway. He repeatedly violated 16 UN Security Council Resolutions, http://www.milnet.com/wh/sect2.html, and was considered a viable threat to the U.S. and allied nations with the manufacturing and use of weapons of mass destruction–period. So, the argument that Sadaam didn’t attack us reminds me of a hypothetical situation. You are relaxing in your living room, watching American Idol, or some dumb thing. Suddenly, your front door is bashed open by home invaders. While you are trying to defend yourself from them, someone else, a different thug, is yelling at your back door, threatening to break in. So, since the first set of thugs is who literally broke into your home, and is the most immediate threat, does that mean you just ignore the person yelling at the back door? O.k., maybe not the greatest analogy, but that’s what it has always reminded me of.
So, as Michelle Malkin has set a great example to no longer be intimidated by the leftists approach of if-you-say-it-enough-times-it-makes-it-so brainwashing, we should, too, dispel their lies.
@SoCal
Yes a somewhat interesting analogy. I would say that Saddam was out back yelling at neighbours than directly at the US’s door. Either way the point is that it’s perfectly fine to deal with the guy yelling but it’s seperate from those different guys who smashed down the front door. Because if the guys who smashed down the door didn’t do that – does that mean you wouldn’t of dealt with the yeller? What you don’t do is confuse the two.
MM for the win. The sad part tho, after she left the stooges (View hosts) thought they won. QQ
I think Malkin comes across well but the discussion by the very format of this TV show wasn’t very focused. Did it really shed any light? Seemed to be to be pretty much hot air.
Gaffa #21:
Actually, a better analogy would be “blaming Germany for Pearl Harbor”.
SoCal Chris #26:
What you should ask your friends, Chris, is whether or not President Bush ever said Saddam did attack us on 9/11.
I watched the clip, though I never watch the show. I was entertained and delighted to see MM repeatedly bitch-slap those three fools.
@Wordsmith:
You are exactly right, Wordsmith. President Bush didn’t ever say that. What disturbes me is how ridiculous the argument was, dismissing completely that Sadaam was a threat worthy enough of his removal. This is the statement from the Bush Whitehouse Archives in answer to that:
.
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/mideast/
Then she takes it Matt:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxwkzSKlESU
@Gaffa
We invaded Iraq for mostly different reasons. SoCal already explained, Saddam and his regime were a definite threat to America and allies so I wont elaborate any more… but, we do know that that country had very strong ties within the al qaeda network (the group that pulled off 9-11). How do I know this? Because, I was there, Gaffa. Since our presence in Iraq, there network, leadership and countless amounts of resources (i.e. weapons caches, IED making facilities, etc) have been crushed.
So, yes… I believe in the cause of the war in Iraq. And guess what? Had we not taken him out when we did, there’s a very good chance he would have acted up AGAIN in the future like he did back in 91.
@Neil
You were in Iraq just before 9/11?
Gaffa, I hate to be the one to point out your obvious stupidity with your comment:
May I remind you that the ISG (as in Iraq Survey Group) and supporting troops were there and witnessed both documents from Saddam’s regime, and witnesses verbally, that give us a history of what went on before we were there? For example, one of the early, and best books, on the ISG Harmony/ISG docs was written by Ray Robison. Another one who “was there” and witnessed the truth when they uncovered the evidence.
… shooting fish in a barrel…
@MataHarley
Was this the survey that cost a billion dollars and found that Saddam had ended his nuclear program and had abandoned his biological weapons?
I’ll take a look at the Duelfer Report later to see what ‘strong ties’ the Saddam Regime had with the Al Qaeda network before 9/11 and get back to you. It will be interested to see what Saddam knew and contributed to the 9/11 attacks.
I’m reminded of this great debate between Scott and James.
A Debate on The Iraq War & the Ties Between Saddam and al-Qaeda
A Debate on The Iraq War & the Ties Between Saddam and al-Qaeda, Part II
A Debate on The Iraq War & the Ties Between Saddam and al-Qaeda, Part III
Take the time to read through it all, LOTS of information and facts.
In a word, Gaffa… No.
Duelfer report? You are so woefully ignorant, it frightens me that you’ve ever weighed in on any thread with Saddam/AQ/jihad movements thread in the past.
So thank you now for prequalifying yourself as completely clueless as to the Pentagon VI reports, the ISG and Harmony documents, and what they have revealed from Saddam and his regime’s own words. They have only been posted on this blog countless times, over and over again. Apparently, you have never clicked on a link and read a noun and verb of the source data and translations of the multitude of documents confiscated in the wake of Saddam’s desposition.
I like you Gaff… but frankly you are an utter buffoon, and an embarrassment considering how many times you’ve pontificated on this blog about source information that you’ve never once explored out of laziness. I am so flabbergasted at your lack of interest in education, that I have absolutely nothing more to say. Your opinions on this subject in the future are to be called out as nothing more than idiocy from the uninformed.
@Curt
Thanks:)
@MataHarley
I’ll ignore your cheap shots for now – and I’ll go through Curt’s links over the weekend. It may surprise you but I don’t follow every FA post nor does it seem I (or many else on here or otherwise) have the time and ability to track down as much info you are able to (e.g. the Palin ethic complaints). Good for you (no sarcasm intended). However when looked at detail – statements based on cited ‘evidence’ can ‘sometimes’ be overblown in its interpretation and the relevant parts need separating from those that are irrelevant etc. For example the sorry piece of cr*p that was the Downing St Dossier. I’m not disputing that there are separate reasons for the Iraq War – and I’m not disputing there were Al-Qaeda links with Saddam but my belief in what I have seen is the links were tenuous – certainly compared to other countries (e.g. Saudi Arabia) which remain intact. Nevertheless I will read those links and dig deeper and get back to you on my thoughts.
Meanwhile check this out…
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a94familydisown
If what Posner is saying is true then why isn’t US at war with Saudi Arabia?
MM is four times (or more) the journalist that Matt Liar is. He was clearly over his smarmy liberal head.
I never ever watch the view because it is far too unbalanced, and very much like watching a horrible 1970’s women exploitation prison movie without any of the good parts. Joy is a lobotomized Democratic talking-points/blogger parrot that the show could well do without. Whoopie, although also a rabid left winger at least sounds like she is intelligent. Hasselbeck can be a bit much sometimes, but at least she argues her side with honesty, which the other “hosts” do not.
Keep Elisabeth and Barbra (or Whoopie, but not both,) and replace the others with libertarian and a REAL moderate, (or perhaps a nun with a yardstick,) and maybe, (maybe,) I and others would consider watching the show. As it is now it is little more than a liberal henhouse with a token Republican to make it appear balanced.
@GaffaUK #40:
I was actually thinking the “similar” thing, as Mata. You don’t have to have followed “every thread” to have come across a mention here of the Iraqi Perspectives Project with links to relevant posts and source itself. I was quite flabbergasted too that you’d “run to the Duelfer Report” (soooo 2004) which explored the issue of wmd search not “’strong ties’ the Saddam Regime had with the Al Qaeda network before 9/11”; rather than to the more recent Pentagon-funded study that examines some of the translated documents from the Harmony Database. I think FA is one of the great repositories of information and alnaysis when it comes to Saddam/al Qaeda/wmd/intell.
As for Saudi Arabia, they have definitely been a problem in exporting wahhabism and creating a breeding ground for extremism and terrorism. But they have also since, joined “with us, not against us” in the war on terror and have been a strong partner and ally since 9/11 in the capture and killing of al Qaeda operatives. The Saudi government is just as threatened, probably more so, by al Qaeda, as we are. From May 2003 through Feb 2006, their cities have experienced terror attacks at the hands of al Qaeda. The Saudis, in return, have been aggressive in a multi-pronged approach to dealing with them, including public awareness campaigns, legal reforms, educational reforms, and religious moderation.
Just last month, they tried 323 of 991 al Qaeda suspects under Islamic law by judges schooled in wahhibism….live by the Sharia, die by the Sharia…
@MataHarley:
@Wordsmith:
Anyone wonder why I now choose to ignore “the blunder from down under”?
But he’s a brithead….not an aus… 🙁
He lives in Aussie land now.
First, Gaff… do not confuse the Duelfer horse manure with the ISG/Harmony docs, which were original documents confiscated after the fall of Saddam (what we could get before they destroyed it, anyway). There is still, to date, only a small percentage translated. But what has been translated (plus more) was first covered by Ray Robison, former ISG member in Iraq, in his book, Both in One Trench. It was published Nov 2007.
March 2008, the following year, the Iraqi Perspectives Project released their five volume report, linked here at FAS, with analyses of Saddam’s relationships with the jihad movements based on the documents’ translations. (not just AQ, since AQ is an ever morphing “association” of terrorist movements). When originally linked via ABC, they labeled the PDF the Pentagon VI report.
“Volume 1 examines the relationships between the regime of Saddam Hussein and terrorism in its local, regional, and global context. Volumes 2 through 4 contain the English translations and detailed summaries of the original Iraqi documents cited in Volume 1. Volume 5 contains additional background and supporting documents.”
I suggest you read about Saddam’s use of the jihad movements as an unofficial state weapon back to after the first Gulf War. I also highly recommend Robison’s book, as it a primer on the big players in that region of the world, and their relationships. Quite the eye opener in itself.
INRE your “cheap shots” comment. May I remind you of your snippy come on first? ala
Not only a snipe of a phrase you delivered, but you are clueless as to the Duelfer Report’s purpose… THat being to report on their findings of the WMD program status (not Saddam’s relationship with jihad movements in the region) in Iraq immediately after Saddam’s deposition. The Duelfer report was released Sept 2004. A completely different report on a completely different subject, and all done prior to translation of the Saddam regime documents.
Considering the focus of that document is the WMD status, it’s unlikely you’ll find anything about Saddam’s long term relationship with Zawahiri, and the other jihad movements. You might as well be looking for what happened to Mr. Spock in the text of Alice in Wonderland.
There is also 77 posts done here on Flopping Aces about the Harmony documents and more then a hundred about the ties between AQ and Saddam.
Don’t bring a knife to a gun fight here at FA Gaffe…..plenty here that will call you out on your ignorance.
@Aye Chihuahua #45:
Oh, yeah….I think I vaguely remember him mentioning somewhere about living in the land of Auz…
My excuse is,
I don’t follow every FA post nor does it seem I (or many else on here or otherwise) have the time and ability to track down as much info you are able to
@Curt, Wordsmith & Mataharley
Trouble is with forums – is that info isn’t succinct. For example with Curt’s first link with the discussion between Scott and James – there are over 7000 words and yet most of that is about semantics over insurgency and people like Abu Abbas etc – yet little if any hard evidence of any strong connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein regime before 9/11. Certainly nothing of an operational relationship. As a lay person wading through such tangents isn’t helpful.
Yep – and I know you guys HATE wikipedia but read this page…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda_link_allegations
A lot more succinct and direct specifically about the different reports and puts it in context. Interesting that the Harmony database takes up only 2 lines and indeed it found evidence that al-Qaeda jihadists had viewed Saddam as an “infidel” and cautioned against working with him.
Anyway I’ll continue wading through the 77 posts etc – but really to speed things up – let me know specifically what on that wikipedia page do you disagree with. Either way it’s scary that about 70% of americans believe Saddam was behind 9/11 where so many reports conducted under the Bush admin have shown there was no cooperative effort between Saddam and Al-Qaeda. A sporadic meeting here and there doesn’t add up to squat.
@GaffaUK
Tell me you’re joking. Aren’t you? Wilkapedia is not a fact verified information database. Wilkipedia entries are written by anonymous web-heads and are sometimes chock full of inaccuracies, wrong data, bias and even outright fabrications, and this is ESPECIALLY true for any Wilkapedia entry of a political nature. If you are relying on Wilkapedia for your research in political discussions you might as well be doing all your fact finding by going to a seance.
@GaffaUK #49:
Gaffa,
Curt said he was reminded of the great conversation/debate Scott and James had. Their conversation ranged through a number of issues. You can always sift and skim, you know?
Let me help you out, into why FA’s entries are superior to wikipedia’s and any media article you’ll find out there (these will be specific, so you won’t whine about having so much reading material to sift through for specifics):
Pentagon Report confirms Saddam’s Regime supported al Qaida. Excerpt:
McClatchy reported the “findings” as “no smoking gun” and other such misleading conclusions on what the Iraqi Perspectives Project determined in regards to “operational” Saddam-al Qaeda links. The reporter, however, was leaked some supposed bullet points and reported without ever bothering to read the actual 1600 page report (something which Scott and I think Mata actually ended up doing).
Scott recommended looking at the exclusive summary and key judgment section, and that alone contradicts the MSM, in how they characterized the study. Scott comments:
The distinctions that differentiates one Islamic terror group from another are not always clear-cut. The boundaries can get easily blurred, with Islamic holy warriors melting in from one terror cell to the next. You have Egyptian Islamic Jihad, which is Zawahiri’s previous group, Ansar al-Islam (a group that belongs to Osama bin Laden), Jemaah Islamiyah, and abu Sayyaf, which is essentially al Qaeda in the Philippines, for instance.
Saddam’s Files, They Show Terror Plots, But Raise New Questions About Some Media Claims
Mark Eichenlaub:
Gaffa:
That bit of surveying is outdated, now so please don’t say it. Thanks to media distortions on the topic and propagating the myth of “no ties”, I challenge that most people have been made dumber on the issue, and less informed.
I did a post which might explain why 70% of Americans connected Saddam to the events of 9/11, when Bush never made any such statement. Part of it is media reports during the 90’s that made such connections; another part is media misrepresentation and distortions in quoting Bush officials.
When McClatchy preemptively (mis)”reported” on the Iraqi Perspectives Project before the release of its executive summary, what did the rest of the media outlets do? Cite and parrot McClatchy, thereby perpetuating the distorted and flawed reporting. It actually prompted the USJFCOM to release all five volumes.
No Ties Between Saddam and Al Queda Network of Terrorist Groups:
More reading and clicking:
I apologize if that wasn’t succinct enough for you. It’s an unfortunate circumstantial fact of life that becoming better informed sometimes requires some extensive reading, don’t you know?
Of course, if you want us to be really “succinct”, how about this:
There were ties between Saddam’s regime and the al Qaeda network.
Succinct enough for you?
Bush never said Saddam had a hand in orchestrating the events of 9/11, but there are connections between Saddam and al Qaeda.
Can you understand why the first half and the second half of that sentence, isn’t a contradiction? That they are two different arguments put forth, with the first one being a strawman?
@Wordsmith:
The “blunder from down under” wants microwave education and knowledge.
After typing in saddam hussein al qaeda connection in the FA search function I found a wealth of info. Such as:
This by Scott, same as what Word posted, but always read the comments, there’s always more:
No Ties Between Saddam and Al Queda Network of Terrorist Groups
This by ChrisG, might be a bit too much info for Gaff to take in in one sitting:
Why Iraq
Every time I go into the archives I wind up spending a lot of time, bookmark a lot of stuff to return to and always, always find things I’ve never seen before such as the following from one of Curt’s past posts:
All the above is not even a drop in the bucket when considering all the work and research the FA team has done about Iraq, every one of the writers on this blog has contributed a wealth of accurate, well studied information. We can’t even say they forget more than we will ever know, because they don’t forget, ever. It’s extremely foolish to go up against them.