McCain repudiate Corsi? Surely you jest.

He did in 2004, back when he had some standards. However, this time around he has been implicitly supporting Corsi's recent attacks.

I'm sure he will -- but he'll have his fingers crossed behind his back.

He did in 2004, back when he had some standards. However, this time around he has been implicitly supporting Corsi's recent attacks.

He had his fingers crossed back then, too.

Please Kevin--who are you kidding? McCain was raped by the right wing hate machine 8 years ago, and he thinks he's earned the right to rape somebody else. Now he has. (And he'll continue to) Are you really waiting for the media to do a fact check on McCain's bullshit?? Obama needs to hit back and hit hard, or this crap will become part of the subliminal narrative. Good luck dislodging it 3 months from now

Afraid I have to agree with the posters above, Kevin. This is 2008 John McCain. He's an angry man who will do and say anything to gain the presidency. He's a man who would rather lose his dignity than lose an election.

If Dwight Eisenhower as a Presidential candidate in 1952 could sit silently by and let pass Joe McCarthy's slanders of George Marshall, what makes anyone think that John McCain will now rise to the occasion with regard to Corsi's slanders about Obama? Like it or not, there's no honor in politics and there never will be when said slander is to your own political advantage. It's just human nature at it's opportunistic worst.

If nothing else, maybe this will destroy that whole meme of James Carville and Mary Matalan as DC's fun couple, and show them for the reptiles they are.

Jeebus - Joe Klein should talk.

But hey, KLEIN stands to make big bucks off this scholarship, which I'm sure was submitted for peer review and otherwise held to the highest editorial standards — and I'm sure his reputation and mediagenicity won't be damaged by this poisonous crap, and we're all friends here, aren't we?

What about the poisonous crap Klein published in TIME about the wiretapping bill? Klein lost his right to talk about editorial standards for anyone else.

Mary Matalin maybe the queen of poisonous crap but surely Joe Klein is the king of un-fact check poisonous crap too.

Yeah, Klein's got a lot of nerve. He's also just parroting the canard that "Bush's minions" were behind the smear campaign involving McCain's supposed "half-black illegitimate child," even though this was never actually traced back any farther than some idiots at Bob Jones University, and even though at this point, McCain's benefited a lot more from this story than he was ever truly harmed by the now-mythical smear campaign. But hey, if it works for Corsi, it should also work for Klein, right? Right?

Kevin has no basis for calling the book "toxic swill". This is just what he fervently wishes to believe, and to propagate.

Nor has McCain any reason to believe that the book is or is not "toxic swill". So how on earth could he reasonably repudiate it?

One person's toxic swill is another's tasty kool-aid.

McCain do something decent? Give me a break. Hell, yesterday another conservative piece of shit murders an innocent man in Arkansas, who just happened to be a Democrat. One less vote for Obama. Add this to the conservative gun goon who shot two people at the church in Knoxville, Tennessee. Need I bring up the fact that the worst American terrorist in history was a Rush Limbaugh-listening fan named Timmy McVeigh? When are we going to face the fact that conservatism is a form of mental illness?

Paragraph 16 of the Unabomber Manifesto:

Words like "self-confidence," "self-reliance," "initiative","enterprise," "optimism," etc. play little role in the liberal and leftist vocabulary. The leftist is anti-individualistic, pro-collectivist. He wants society to solve everyone's needs for them,take care of them. He is not the sort of person who has an inner sense of confidence in his own ability to solve his own problems and satisfy his own needs. The leftist is antagonistic to the concept of competition because, deep inside, he feels like a loser.

Another FAIL, Orwell.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080728160258AAvH7FQ

I just learned that a friend of mind is a member of the Knoxville church. She missed services that morning because she ran late and could not find her car keys. She sewed some of the costumes for the children's musical.

But wait, there's more!

Paragraph 15:

Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good and successful. They hate America, they hate Western civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality. The reasons that leftists give for hating the West, etc. clearly do not correspond with their real motives. They SAY they hate the West because it is warlike, imperialistic, sexist, ethnocentric and so forth, but where these same faults appear in socialist countries or in primitive cultures, the leftist finds excuses for them, or at best he GRUDGINGLY admits that they exist; whereas he ENTHUSIASTICALLY points out (and often greatly exaggerates) these faults where they appear in Western civilization. Thus it is clear that these faults are not the leftist's real motive for hating America and the West. He hates America and the West because they are strong and successful.

I don't know, Orwell --
Adkisson, an out-of-work mechanical engineer, left a four-page letter in his car in the church parking lot in which he railed against liberals and the fact that he had been unable to get a job since 2006. Owen said Adkisson was also angry that his food stamps were about to be reduced or eliminated.

"It appears what brought him to this horrible event was his lack of being able to obtain a job, frustration over that and his hatred for the liberal movement," Owen said.

The chief later added, "He did express that frustration that the liberal movement was getting more jobs and he was being kept out of the loop because of his age" and because he wasn't liberal.

"It appears he did choose that church intentionally," Owen said, possibly after it had received some publicity for its advocacy of liberal causes. "We're certainly investigating it as a hate crime."

I never see a dissection of the smear as a tactic, contrasting the seeming enthusiasm for its employ on the Right and avoidance of same by the Left. I don't think I'm portraying the dynamic unfairly or inaccurately. You rarely, if ever, see Obama surrogates deriding McCain for the cornucopia of items his resumé offers. Keating? Dead issue. Age? Nah. The inelegant dumping of his war time wife? Sure, it rated an article or two in the main stream press. But entire books, all unloaded for fifty cents apiece and distributed for free to churches, libraries and hotel reading lobbies? Hardly. Cindy's very shady prescription drug abuse era, rife with details having more to do with her personal abuse of people than narcotics? Skipped over, ignored. McCain's sometime Alzheimeresque performance before crowds or the press. Untouchable, unmentionable. Where on the left are people dredging up these points, using them to slime McCain? Well, they just aren't there in numbers amounting to anything, nor clamoring for attention in nearly the numbers and volume of those on the Right hitting Obama below the belt. Bluntly put I think it demonstrates conservatives both produce and consume this gibberish so gleefully becuase they're at root very sick people. Mentally unstable. Mean spirited and proud of it. One day I'd like to see a serious, scholastic journal study this dichotomy and publish findings. Or has it already been attempted?

The point is the HATE...I'm sick and disgusted by BUSH and COMPANY and what their two terms have brought to America...but I don't hate them or PRAY for bad things to happen to them or incite others to go out and SHOOT THEM or believe it would be a good thing if they did! It's about that PROJECTION thing that Repugs have going...always forgetting when they point a finger there are three more pointing back at them...something to be remembered in discussions about Edwards's fall from grace and this ridiculous Corsi book...

Me_again on August 14, 2008 at 1:36 AM:

Klein lost his right to talk about editorial standards for anyone else.

Klein's been on a tear lately...you should read the full posting over at Swampland for a taste.

See, he criticized the 'intellectual' neocons - particulary the ones with a Jewish background - and they turned on him. They made it personal and Klein's writing like he's had enough of the bullshit...at least for a while.

I don't think most conservatives are mentally unstable. Certainly there are many who are mean-spirited, I've-got-mine-screw-you. Unfortunately, the Republican party has made itself the home for bigots of several varieties, people who lack self-confidence and who must denigrate others to justify their own lives.

But mostly, I think the greatest number of people who vote conservative just don't think - and don't want to think. "I don't want to pay taxes." "The bridge is unsafe, the schools are substandard, why isn't the trash picked up more often?" It doesn't occur to them that taxes and services are connected. They're only thinking as far as their own yards, and beyond that, nada.

Does freedom of speech and the press include the freedom to lie?

Time for McCain to give the Chief Asshole a big hug. Oh wait, now he is Asshole Number One.

"Yeah, slide all the hate Bush books on the shelf..."

What the hell are you saving your outrage for? Of course Bush is hated, he's despicable.

Yeah, slide all the hate Bush books on the shelf which is already full from all the "Bush is a Genius" books. What? There haven't been any lately? Go look in the remainders pile at your local Borders or B&N. It's a treasure-trove of books praising Bush, praising Rumsfeld, etc. Plenty were published, but apparently they didn't sell too well. And they're not moving too quickly even at $2.95.

What strikes me is that the smear of the book is so ... February. I mean by March the narrative had shifted to Obama being the *wrong* kind of Christian, under the influence of a dangerous radical pastor. It's tough to be in the book-writing business when the memes change so quickly.

And they're not moving too quickly even at $2.95.

Posted by: thersites on August 14, 2008 at 8:59 AM | PERMALINK
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oh, they register sales well enough on some tote chart somewhere. Publishers are given credit for units moved even when they're bought by the dump truck full, sold by the pound. 90% of Hannity's numbers are generated this way, as are a slew of other conservative authors. Drudge slams Pelosi every day for her paltry sales figures on her newest tome. If Regnery were her publisher the book would be in its third printing. And church basements everywhere would have a few less square feet to store Christmas decorations due to all the books they bought at a penny apiece.

Owen said Adkisson was also angry that his food stamps were about to be reduced or eliminated...he [thought] was being kept out of the loop because of his age

Liberal efforts, of course, are the reason Adkisson was able to get food stamps when he couldn't support himself. Liberals are the reason we have what small protections we do against age-related discrimination in the workplace.

But it was easier for him to blame it all on the "undeserving" people who got what he thought was rightfully his.

What I love about this book is that even though it has been roundly condemned as an ugly fiction, Madlin's bookers are still able to secure segments on the various television networks "news and entertainment" shows.

You would think that some producer, somewhere, would say, "thanks for the call, but no thanks."

Edward T. Hamilton's sale flyers have a couple dozen Regnery and similar titles every month, often within six months of publication, even in their special 'All Books $4.95 or less' flyers.

They're published, to be published. The review articles, author tours, etc, that they spawn are part of the noise machine. The advances are part of wingnut welfare. Their mere existence turns a hack into a 'published author', an interviewable 'expert', a talking head. And any financial hit the publisher does take can be written off as as the cost of doing business, or dash, or la mordida, or baksheesh.

Whether they sell is almost besides the point.

I had forgotten all this. Quite a piece of work, this Corsi.

God damn, Joe Klein is becoming an Angry Blogger(tm) after all.

This is 2004 all over again. Haven't the Dems learned anything since then? This idiotic stuff works, and if they want to win a presidential election, Dems better start fighting. Now.

First off, they should start talking about the story about how he dumped his first wife. They should blitz TV with commercials about the Keating 5. Do this like the GOP, through shadowing 3rd parties. Rove was correct, attack a candidate's strongest attribute, even if you have to stretch the truth. Attack McCain's character head on. Hell, some right-wing groups charged that McCain's behavior as a POW was treasonous. Remember that McCain really only won the primaries through default.

Dems are not going to win this through policy debate. U.S. presidential elections are competitive assaults on character. Maybe if the Dems engage in this, the GOP will eventually call back away. But right now, the GOP has nothing to fear from getting as dirty as necessary.

John McCain is actually a secret welfare queen named Sidney.

Hate sells.
Fear sells.
Anger sells.
Jealousy sells.

---- Is there a pattern in human behavior here?

g. powell has it figured right in the post above. Presidential elections are competitive assaults on character.

Focusing on Keating 5, wife-dumping, etc. will be a winning strategy.

Focusing on the actual issues that confront the nation will be a loser... especially in the USA.

Kevin Drum - isn't it time you took down the endorsement at the top of your page from James Carville?

***

[Admitting to being a fan of Corsi is three-star wingnuttery]

Does anyone know if John McCain has repudiated Corsi's toxic swill?

McCain did in 2004.

I wonder if he will again?
.

Being an American I will decide for myself what I will or will not read.

Suit yourself. I'd have thought you'd want to invest in some remedial reading course before splurging on a multipage tome, but you're an American, so it's totally up to you.

Being an American I will decide for myself what I will or will not read.

So you decide to be lied to, so you can pretend you have a rational reason to vote for McCain?

Yeah, we knew that.
.

So how come the "liberal" NY Times put a review of Corsi's slime on its front page and published the first chapter gratis?

Sounds almost as credible as Corsi's last book which "charg[ed] President Bush was secretly plotting to create a North American Union by merging the U.S. with Canada and Mexico"

Being an American I will decide for myself what I will or will not read. Blah...blah...blah...blah...blah...

shorter mhr: Being a troll, I obey my instructions to copy and paste the rightard daily talking points.

It's time to point out (again) that McCain cheats on his wife and bombed innocent civilians in Vietnam - i.e. he is a war criminal.

Does anyone know if John McCain has repudiated Corsi's toxic swill?
Who cares? By asking McCain to repudiate it you automatically allow him to distance himself. He can't be responsible for everything out there, he doesn't even know the guy, politics is a rough business, etc. etc.

I think that Dems should tie McCain and Corsi together so closely that people think that Corsi is on the ticket. You should make a Youtube ad showing Corsi (he's not a very attractive guy) morphing into McCain, add Corsi's Free Republic postings as text over the top (Corsi's statements on Catholicism are real beauts), use an ominous voice, get Obama to condemn the Youtube ad in a stump speech and ask Youtube to pull it. Do that and McCain will be distancing himself from Corsi like you wouldn't believe.

Corsi's job is to energize the base. McCain has to seem like a nice guy. If you successfully tie Corsi to McCain you start eroding McCain's likability and his base isn't big enough to compensate for that.

In the news article about book, I was intrigued by mention of the sales being pushed along by bulk purchases. Alas, the reporters did not follow upon that-I fired off e-mails to them, but am very doubtful they'll respond.

Anybody know enough to figure out who's buying all those books in builk, and what % of sales are from those bulk purchases?

the McCain ad running on the Political Animal header just now is the one filled with footage of McCain just after his release from captivity. (the other side of the "Obama is a secret Muslim" coin, I think)

Tut, tut. The proper PC response is: What's wrong with being a Moslem? Racism is showing.

Mary, get a job.

James Carville and Mary Matalan go home at night and laugh at the American publics stupidity believing they are on opposite sides. I knew Obama was facing an uphill battle when CNN trotted out the crypt keeper Carville who wore out the American public screaming he wants Gore in 2000. I fear the Clinton machine is once again going to try a Tonya Harding style attack on Obama at the convention, to break Obama off at the knees. I have to agree on using fire to fight fire as stated above, and the perfect opportunity arose yesterday when pill popping Cindy may have convinced a doctor to break the law by suppling a known drug addict with narcotics, not to mention tyeing up emergency services under false pretenses, while the American public footed the bill.

After the Stephanopoulos debate I wouldn't put anything past the Clinton war machine.

Deflator:

Calling McCain a wife-cheater might be effective.

Calling him a war criminal, even if it's somewhat grounded in truth, only reinforces the notion of the Left as America-haters and is not a winning strategy. Leave that one in the box.

I hate McCain, I hated the Vietnam war from day one, I'm a card-carrying member of Veterans for Peace, and it even raises my hackles when people call refer to veterans as war criminals. I can only imagine the broader reaction.

Anonymous Obama-hater wrote: "Obama fuels this stuff by lying about his past and concealing important facts about his life."

While you attempt to fuel Obama-hatred by lying about Obama and concealing your identity by posting anonymously -- not even using a handle -- so as to evade responsibility for your deliberate lies.

Your comment is appropriate for this thread. You epitomize the politics of hate.

I haven't seen the book, won't read it, and doubt it will resonate like Corsi's 2004 book. Sounds like just another book on the shelf in the Why I Hate Clinton/Bush/Pelosi/Rove/etc. section at Barnes & Noble.

Give me a break. Hell, yesterday another conservative piece of shit murders an innocent man in Arkansas, who just happened to be a Democrat. One less vote for Obama. Add this to the conservative gun goon who shot two people at the church in Knoxville, Tennessee. Need I bring up the fact that the worst American terrorist in history was a Rush Limbaugh-listening fan named Timmy McVeigh? When are we going to face the fact that conservatism is a form of mental illness?

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator

This is an unusually hate-filled comments section today. You must feel you are losing. Someday, maybe you will face the fact that Kerry, aside from being a poor candidate anywhere but Massachusetts, made a terrible mistake by trying to run as a war hero. His anti-war actions after he returned made every veteran I know hate his guts. Of course they were not going to stay quiet in 2004.

I haven't read the Corsi book on Obama but, now that I see how excited you all are about it, I'm going to read it today. It has to be good.

thersites, any sentient being should see the United States is a corporate owned imperialistic entity. It's bent on subjugation of all the world's citizens for current profit and a strategic upper hand for even more profit in the future. We take from others so that we may live well. If they resist we kill them. Hence, if you enlist in our military you are signing on for duty as a war criminal. We are not at risk for invasion as our geography plainly doesn't permit it. Our armed forces exist largely for offensive purposes. We contemplate hostilities in Georgia for what? To protect the corporate investment made by British Petroleum and other oil companies in infrastructure and mineral rights. If our military goes over there and kills people it won't be to help Georgian citizens. It will be an operation to secure property. Property that doesn't belong to the United States. Telling the truth about our military may not be a winning electoral gambit. It is however the truth in labeling our soldiers war criminals. They fit the definition quite properly since the U.S. military is plainly a criminal enterprise.

As several people note above, you cannot assume something is toxic swill without contradictory facts.

Oh yes, Kweschuns Has Bin Razed. Unfortunately the fact that those questions have been adequately answered, debunked and otherwise shown to be bad-faith canards over and over and over and over again doesn't prevent the willfully ignorant from disingenuously posturing that this kind of smear job is somehow Obama's fault. And then demand we must rehearse the rebuttals over and over again for your benefit every time one of you ignoramuses decide to troll around in return for your Genuine McCain Campaign Doormat or whatever premium he's offering this week. Feh.

What would it matter if McCain repudiated Corsi's swill? If anything, he would be lauded by the Douchebag Corporate Media as even more mavericky.

We're so doomed.

[Kerry's] anti-war actions after he returned made every veteran I know hate his guts.

Here is one veteran who admired Kerry's courage, both for his actions while he was serving and afterward, and know that I'm not the only one.

And which war is Mr. Corsi a veteran of? I do believe he was of military age during the Vietnam war, but I don't see which branch he served in.

Everyone should buy and read Jerome Corsi's book, especially conservatives, who will appreciate his repeated equation of Catholicism and the Catholic Church with radical Islam. Yes, Corsi has his head screwed on straight!

"[Kerry's] anti-war actions after he returned made every veteran I know hate his guts" - you must not know very many veterans.

Hate sells.

Whatever happened to prestige being a sales motivation?

I take the liberty of slightly editing lampwick at 11:55:

Everyone should sit in the bookstore and read Jerome Corsi's book, then put it back on the shelf....

Thersitis is 100% correct, calling McCain a war criminal is a losing strategy. Doing so makes you look like a loony leftist and your arguments will do you more harm than good. Steve Duncan's comment proves this point.

Call McCain a traitor, call him a wife-cheater, call him corrupt. Call him incompetent. Don't call him a war criminal, a lot of Americans equate that with patriot.

They fit the definition quite properly since the U.S. military is plainly a criminal enterprise.
Posted by: steve duncan

With friends like you, Obama really doesn't need any enemies.

Steve Duncan -- I'm sure you think you're just telling it like it is, so to speak, but you're kind of rhetoric only fuels the fires of the far right and dispirits the left. America's bad actions are not it's only actions and its bad motives are not its only motives, but you're apparent brand of leftism -- the least appetizing currently on the market -- says that it is. Whatever we do, whenever we do it. It's bad, bad, bad and so, of course, our soldiers are inherently war criminals and we cannot be attacked. (Pearl Harbor and 9/11? Mere pinpricks, I suppose.)

For other countries, you're apparently brand of leftism will occasionally offer an excuse, but never even a shred of context for the U.S. We're just a "criminal enterprise." Never mind that every country on the planet has plenty of dirty laundry in its past. Some (sit down, this will be a shock) worse than ours and some, I admit, less so, but you're kind seems so shocked to discover that we are merely a country like other countries and let that recognition cloud a few of things that make us just a little bit distinctive.

You'll gladly remind us of the genocide of the Indians and slavery, but play down our role in inspiring Democracy throughout the world. You're ideological fellows argued against the invasion of Afghanistan because, well, we did a lot of very bad things in Latin America and other places (absolutely true, sadly). A nonsensical argument that basically asks America to stop defending itself as a form of penance. Actually, this would be a great thing if every country practiced it, because then only, I don't know, Costa Rica and maybe Lichtenstein would be morally able to defend themselves.

When we do actually do something for humanitarian reasons -- say, our involvement in Kosovo (which I opposed at the time), I suspect you were among those saying the U.S. had some kind of commercial interest there because it's just so impossible that the U.S. could ever even attempt to do something for humanitarian reasons.

This kind of thinking is the reason I can't listen to even music on a Pacifica station any more for fear of hearing these kind of prattle. It makes me a kind of ill. I'm a proud liberal but you're brand of leftism is not much better than Sean Hannity's brand of rightism.

And please stop slandering our soldiers. I was opposed to just about every war between World War II up to Kosovo, and I was convinced Iraq was idiotic, murderous, and suicidal long before our first bomb dropped. Yet I am able to see that we have a need for them and that they've often done far more good than we give them credit them for.

I wish conservatives could see how angry a person they would not doubt regard as a "far left" can become at someone who really does defame his country.

Yes g. powell, it is the exclusive province of loony leftists to point out the criminality inherent in our military. Only those on the furthest, most unhinged leftist fringes of society view My Lai, Abu Ghraib, Nagasaki and Hiroshima as regrettable events.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Author(s): Turse, Nicholas
"Kill anything that moves": United States war crimes and atrocities in Vietnam, 1965--1973.
Advisor(s): Fairchild, Amy,
Physical Description: 1025 p.
Issue Date: 2005
Description: Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 66-05, Section: A, page: 1930.
Sponsor: Amy Fairchild.
Thesis (Ph.D.)--Columbia University, 2005.
Bookmark as: http://hdl.handle.net/10022/AC:P:7502
Full Text (ProQuest): /ac/proxit.jsp?url=http://gateway.proquest.com/ope...
Abstract: This dissertation offers a history of U.S. war crimes and atrocities during the American War in Vietnam from 1965--1973. During the conflict, U.S. military policy was, to use historian Christian Appy's formulation, a "doctrine of atrocity" (DoA) in which the strategy of attrition; the indiscriminant use of firepower; an over-riding command emphasis on killing as the measure of success (the "body count"); the fact that the American military's stated rules of engagement (ROE) were largely ignored, broken or circumvented; and standard operating procedures that exhorted soldiers to "kill anything that moves"; dehumanized the Vietnamese as "mere gooks"; and cast civilians as enemies; ensured that millions of Vietnamese noncombatants were killed and wounded. Throughout the entirety of the conflict, the U.S. military regularly flouted the laws of war. Yet, despite a contemporary literature that shed light on American atrocities, most of the mainstream histories of the Vietnam War, ignore, marginalize or deny the pervasiveness of U.S. atrocities and reduce discussions of American war crimes to the U.S. massacre of Vietnamese civilians at My Lai.

This dissertation uses formerly classified military criminal investigations documents, once confidential Department of Defense analyses, veterans' testimonies, military court records and secondary source materials from a now largely marginalized and out of print literature, among other sources, to reveal the existence of the American doctrine of atrocity and the pervasiveness of U.S. war crimes during the conflict. This dissertation also attempts to properly contextualize the doctrine of atrocity by demonstrating that the DoA did not originate during the Vietnam War, but instead was part of a long legacy of the U.S. military's conduct during wars against racial Others over the prior 100 years. As such, this dissertation is meant to contribute to a greater understanding of the American War in Vietnam and ongoing discussions, across a variety of disciplines, of atrocities, humanitarian law and American military policy, past, present and future.

What Bob Westal said.

steve, you're not wrong to assert that the U.S. Military has often been used in the pursuit of immoral, or just plain wrongheaded, ends, or that atrocities occurred in Vietnam.

But the original point here is that if we're trying to elect a Democratic candidate to the Presidency, we're going to do ourselves more harm than good by branding a candidate who's a veteran "war criminal." Unless we want to help elect McCain, we need to keep this sort of rhetoric to a minimum.

thersites, it's also a real downer during Becky's birthday party for someone to object that she's sitting on Uncle Don's lap despite his recent pedophilia conviction. No sense pissing in the punch bowl when everyone just wants to get around to opening the gifts.

And here I thought "Get a job, Mary" referred to Mary Matalin. But if the shoe fits...

My name is not Mary. And we can all agree that your names are not really shortstop or SecularAnimist.

Now there you're wrong again. My daddy was a huge Ozzie Smith fan. Kind of embarrassing in professional situations, but I'm used to it now.

Did you really just post a link to NoQuarter without cringing, NotMary? What in the world are you going to do when Obama is president? Do you have a game plan for dealing with your irrational anger beyond spending hours a day combing through hate sites to feed your dysfunction?

Everyone should buy and read Jerome Corsi's book

Why not carry it into the bathroom of the bookstore, Costanza-style, to ensure a deep markdown will be required?

steve, I'm not sure how that wins the argument for you, but clearly in your own mind you've won. Mission accomplished.

Hey you anonymous piece of shit from the posts at 10:59 AM and 12:04 PM

This Chicago Tribune article is only one of many that have thoroughly debunked the racist, bigoted lies about Barack Obama's time in Indonesia. Similar articles can be found at several other newspapers and networks.

The lies about his birth certificate have also been thoroughly debunked by numerous sources including the rightwing blog FreeRuplic. Among other things, www.politifact.com emailed the copy of the birth certificate posted by KOS and the Obama campaign to the Hawaii Department of Health and their spokesperson Janice Okubo verified its authenticity back on June 13.

The candidate and his campaign have addressed most of these false rumors directly at http://factcheck.barackobama.com/.

The fact that you, several state Republican party organizations and various other right-wing idiots keep trying to spread these lies is the clearest sign that you have no interest whatsoever in the truth.

Anonymous Obama-hater wrote: "... witness SecularAnimist above, who thinks I am 'Mary' and accuses me of having no job."

You are confused or lying. I have not written that I think you are "Mary" (whoever that is) or that you have no job.

Anonymous Obama-hater wrote: "As long as people attack the person instead of their statements, this is not a safe place to reveal personal information of any kind."

The Internet is not a safe place for anyone to reveal personal information of any kind, no matter what the particular forum.

No one is asking you to post "personal information". I don't. But I use the "handle" SecularAnimist, and I always post with that handle, and I thereby take responsibility for and ownership of what I write.

My "online identity" has nothing to do with any "personal information". It has to do with what I write and post in this public forum. People who read my commens on these and other pages know "who I am" in the sense that matters -- that I am an individual who holds and expresses and takes responsibility for the views and information that I post. If I were to post deliberate, scurrilous lies about Obama, like you often do, then readers would know that I was a liar and could treat my comments accordingly.

Anonymous Obama-hater wrote: "If Obama addressed the controversies about his life directly, he could undercut the rumors."

No matter what Obama does, people like you will continue to spread deliberate, scurrilous lies about him, and to concoct fake, phony "controversies", and to spread fake, phony, made-up "rumors".

All you have to offer is hate and lies.

In other words person who posts without even a handle you are a coward.

Mary was a Hillary supporter with a truculent, precise prose style and a seething animosity toward Barack Obama.

I do think our anonymous Obama-basher, although she uses caps, is the sullen Mary of yore. One who would whine about online bullies while pushing this tired story straight from the shop about Obama's school registration. Irony was never her strong suit.

"I do not post using a handle because Obama supporters have threatened those who criticize Obama by publicly posting their real life identities."

Oh Dear, you are very confused Michelle Malkin is on your side.

What the Hell is "our man" Jimmy Carville *doing*married to a destructive enemy witch like Matalan anyway? He should either reign her in or ditch her, or we must ditch him!

Speaking of online identities, are Neil B and Swan the same person? Just askin'!

Make. It. Stoooopppp.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080814/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_obama

thersites, exactly when would it be convenient for a mainstream political leader to point out our military isn't God's gift to freedom loving peoples everywhere? Abu Ghraib has been so thoroughly swept under the rug and banished from public discussion it's embarassing. Who is supposed to lead, to demand accountability and change when the Left fears losing elections for having done it? Obama prevails and we can commence a very honest, public review of Iraq atrocities? Nah, wouldn't want to endanger anyone running for Congress in the midterms, would we? Maybe when Obama is secure after a second victory in 2012, popular and more immune to the electoral pressures he faces now? Damn, now we have 2014 midterms to think about. And we're trying to lay the groundwork for Obama's VP to take over. Can't have those pesky ankle-biters on the Right starting a flame war over Democrats not supporting the military. Apparently accountability never happens since there's always another critical election just around the corner. Seemingly every day another soldier or officer has charges dismissed relating to misdeeds in one of our wars. When jail time is served it's certainly never anyone above sargeant sitting behind bars. The big boys and generals issuing the orders and setting policy are free to roam the halls of power. And that's just fine and dandy with the Left so long as we're winning elections. Small comfort to all the Iraqi and Afghan wedding parties we bomb, free of punishment, repercussions or even the accusation of impropriety. Don't be pointing a finger, Limbaugh and Hannity might bite it off!

America's hate, hate, hate on the interstate is partly a response to Sen. Obama's popularity and probable win in November. Attacks by hating conservatives against progressives, like the one in Arkansas yesterday and the one at the Unitarian church earlier, will probably increase as November approaches and after Sen. Obama's win. However, European immigrants to America were motivated to migrate because of the hate they had for the lands they left behind. America was founded by haters.

Excuse me "" but the fact that Obama's school wanted to list him as "Muslim" because of their procedures about parental background doesn't mean Obama *was* a Muslim. Doesn't a person get to decide what their own beliefs are? Minors have to put up with parents and institutions decided how to categorize them, but if you believe that people can be intelligent enough at least by around 12 y.o. or so (even normal IQ; younger for higher) to know what they really believe in, then those nominal designations are not genuine attributes.

You and others shouldn't complain about people being "hateful" when they complain of something being hateful to begin with. The errors in the book have been dissected in many places, including PBS radio with e.g. discussion of how Obama has been placed in FL by various sources during the infamous Wright sermon, but the book claims he was there.

And it's indulgent not to even make up some string of characters to at least make quoting or reference convenient, if you're going to post here at all. Do you really think typing e.g. "anti-Obamanaut" or etc. would somehow tip people off about who you are? (Don't you know, Kevin can see your URL anyway, and you can leave out or fake the email address?) Finally, in real experience who tends to be the most threatening? Are you aware of how e.g. Bill O'Reilly often threatens callers or critics, says vile things like "we know where you are" etc? (This should have been prosecuted or sanctioned by the FCC by the way ...) Micheal Savage played "Dead Kennedys" after the cancer announcement? -
and so on ad nauseum.

So what if he is Muslim? I suppose he'll then become a terrorist president and attack himself.

Silly e henry. He'll be too busy jamming burkas on Clinton supporters who refuse to get in line, and forcing them to legally change their names to Aisha Sweetie Smith, Fatimah Sweetie Jones, Khadija Sweetie Brown, Amira Sweetie Taylor, etc.

No shortstop I am not "Swan" but I do post variations of my name, including special characters as above. Partly this is due to the odd failure of my "remember personal info" routine, even though I thought I enabled it. Partly I get a kick out of weird characters (heh.)

I used alt+13 to get the note characters "♪" x 3 above (as they appear to me in my encoding, what do they look like to you?)

Well, does my and Swan's writing seem the same? I am not sure also what Swan's basic orientation is, or was it the style (I like to indulge in big sprawling sentences with lots of big words and commas - not such easy reading.) I am left-leaning but have a mavericky streak (I hope not McCain's fake type.) Note how well, I hope, I can fillet right-wing trolls here. I am especially supportive of what the Right calls "class war", hard-assed anti-population growth/development and love the environment, and very aware of how logically fallacious (not just undesirable to interest groups of my sympathies) the arguments of libertarians/conservatives are.

Good Lord, too careless/dumb to remember that my name would come out on the bottom of the comment when it posted ..

Wizard of Oz namesake:

Aren't the Jammin' Burkas a ska band from Istanbul?

Really more rocksteady than ska, e henry. You're not the first to make that mistake.

Your argument is weak in view of my previous deconstruction, but: actually Cabbage, it might be better for Obama to say he did use to be Muslim - for then, the Christians in America should consider him a hero for converting to Christianity from another faith. Isn't that what they admire most? (Instead of the easy way of having been raised that way?)

tyrannogenius

Nobody Him/herself apparently wrote:
"It clearly lists Obama's religion as Islam on a form that was for admission to a Catholic school."

Well, Ummm ... Admission to a *Catholic* school eh? Wouldn't they expect students to be considered "Catholic" at that point just as the Muslim school considered Obama to be a "Muslim"? Should BHO thereby say he was also once a "Catholic"?
Just asking nobody.

My parents listed me as Methodist on every goddamned document presented them during my childhood. I had no say in the matter. Little did all the knucklehead adults swirling about me know I was an atheist. If Obama believes he was of a Christian persuasion depite whatever was checked off on some piece of paper I don't see stating that's how it's always been constitutes a lie. My parents proclaimed me Methodist but they were mistaken, as evidently were Obama's parents about his religion.

Additionally, most people making an issue of Obama's religion trace their lineage back to proponents of gold stars stitched onto clothing and numbered tattoos affixed to your arm.

Additionally, most people making an issue of Obama's religion trace their lineage back to proponents of gold stars stitched onto clothing and numbered tattoos affixed to your arm.
Posted by: steve duncan

Nice...

Steve duncan visits Democrat Ideological Headquarters

Heh

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp

Most people, nanmeless lie-spreader, recognize a distinction between being a in a religious cultural environment, and *being* a Christian or Muslim. So when you pull the "obvious lie" bit there your credibility is gone.

Most of us BHO supporters *do* care about truth. You don't. This is about semantically bashing "heritage," which can mean almost anything, into "being." -- plus a lot of truculence and free-floating paranoia. Shame on you.

Anyway, the real birth certificate
http://slicedbreadtwo.com/images/uploads/COLMKBTWL.gif
has been finally found so we can all stop arguing about that!

Sigh, while I agree that anonymous trolls serve no useful purpose in these threads, the moderators deleting 3 separate anonymous posts made over a 4+ hour period after they have drawn multiple responses does little good and leaves those responses looking unhinged.

Please either delete these posts more quickly, or leave some kind of note behind when they are removed. Alternately, leave the posts but flag the IP address to prevent futures posts.

I am not sure also what Swan's basic orientation is, - Neil B.

Most prescient Neil, I suspect this is the one thing you have posted that most of us would concur with.

"...it even raises my hackles when people call refer to veterans as war criminals." -- theristes

Same here.

I was in the army (and Vietnam) 1966-69. The experience inoculated me against automatically referring to all soldiers as either war criminals or heroes.

Simply doing a duty one volunteers for isn't "heroism," although it deserves respect.

Most often, alleged "war crimes" are individually committed atrocities, not sanctioned policies.

War itself is nasty, brutal business, that corrupts those engaged in it. I don't think every war is not worth fighting, but all of them should be an absolute last resort. (The invasion of Iraq, ordered by a draft dodger, is a prime example. To paraphrase Clemeceau, war is too important to be left to Fox News.)

The veterans I know aren't enthusiastic about war, particularly Dubya's Big Adventure in Iraq. Frankly, there's nothing like conscription to make a country think twice.

I suppose you could construe Obama's comment about never having been a Muslim to mean that since he didn't choose it and didn't actively believe it (retrospectively speaking), didn't accept it in the way one accepts a personal savior, he wasn't really Muslim, so that means he can say without crossing any fingers that he was never a Muslim.

Or you could construe it as, you know, him never having been a Muslim. But why take the simple explanation when you can take the most tortured, contorted position possible so you can maybe make him look bad out of the corner of your eye?

This is an unusually hate-filled comments section today. You must feel you are losing.

Fascinating that you're openly admitting that you're in favor of random violence to frighten off voters so you can win the election. You guys aren't even trying to pretend you're any different than al-Qaeda anymore.

alibubba, the point is volunteering for today's military is like signing up for the John Wayne Gacy Clown Academy. It's just a front for accumulating tortured, sodomized dead people in the basement.

This is great, Obama hitting back at the Corsi crap:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080814/ap_on_el_pr/anti_obama_book;_ylt=Ars_iKNey.YfgJZtdGlrDkkb.3QA.

BTW optical weenie, don't you think most of what I say is in line with most commenters' opinions here? Perhaps awkward wording.
More important: if you work with optics, I have some questions for you about polarization, interference, etc., if you can give me a contact hint (don't be scared of the other side attacking you like "" thinks we will do to him/her/it, just sting O'Reilly away with a salt shotgun blast.

Steve Duncan: Wingnut sock puppet? Any clever conservative with decent verbal skills could concoct such a persona with ease, getting into character by listening to Pacifica for a few hours and maybe reading random issues of Counterpunch. Once the mood was established, he could post his spew in comments sections on prominent liberal blogs, then email links to his posts to prominent conservative bloggers, who could highlight them as blazing examples of those bad America-hating liberals.

Wingnut sock puppet?

What Steve Duncan writes resonates with me. Although I blame the soldiers for killing for their leaders, I do not think most of them are war criminals and it definitely is not a theme that is going to win elections. Individuals should blame the soldiers for their obedience which enables monsters like W. Bush, but they should publicly hold the leadership monsters responsible for the war crimes.

What is interesting is Anon of Ibid's reaction to Steve Duncan's opinion, since it has been applied to me by others as well. Polarizing, unpopular opinions are attributed to the opposition as a ploy to demonstrate such opinions are the result of ideology, intimidating those more moderate in their views from being associated with those whose opinions are more radical.

Is Anon of Ibid a neocon trying to intimidate Political Animal progressives, who have some nationalistic respect for the soldiers who serve W. Bush, to repudiate their anti-war policy by linking them to those who understand killing in this war is a crime? Perhaps not, but who gives a fuck what the racist, murderous and cowardly scum at conservative blogs write?

"[Kerry's] anti-war actions after he returned made every veteran I know hate his guts" - you must not know very many veterans.
Posted by: RobertSeattle

Well, let's just say I don't know many of this persuasion:

thersites, any sentient being should see the United States is a corporate owned imperialistic entity. It's bent on subjugation of all the world's citizens for current profit and a strategic upper hand for even more profit in the future. We take from others so that we may live well. If they resist we kill them. Hence, if you enlist in our military you are signing on for duty as a war criminal. We are not at risk for invasion as our geography plainly doesn't permit it. Our armed forces exist largely for offensive purposes. We contemplate hostilities in Georgia for what? To protect the corporate investment made by British Petroleum and other oil companies in infrastructure and mineral rights. If our military goes over there and kills people it won't be to help Georgian citizens. It will be an operation to secure property.

You pseudo-vets crack me up.

So, Mike K, any vet who's seen a war and then decided that war is something to be opposed is a "pseudo" vet? That is nonsense.

The person you quote is not claiming to be a vet, so what exactly is your point?

Speaking of the politics of hate, it seems strange that nobody mentioned the death of the Arkansas Democratic Party Chairman Bill Gwatney.

I guess killer Timothy Johnson must have been a true red blooded Karl Rove Republican. No word from the press about Bush's uniter not a divider that hired Karl Rove to divide the nation with hate politics against Democrates and how I'm sure that contributed to Bill Gwatney's untimely death.

I mean what if it had been a Republican chairman that got shot? I'm sure we would never hear the end of it on TV. Apparently liberals are subhuman and it okay to kill one because media doesn't mention the politics of hatred. I'm suprised most blogs haven't mention this at all.

Kevin, what's up with your continued infatuation with the disingenuous musings of D.C. pop journalist Joe Klein? And no, John McCain hasn't repudiated the swill peddled by Jerome Corsi. Rather, his campaign has been sending e-mail blasts touting the guy's work.

"alibubba, the point is volunteering for today's military is like signing up for the John Wayne Gacy Clown Academy. It's just a front for accumulating tortured, sodomized dead people in the basement."

Maybe you're right, Steve.

I've coached soccer in a small town. Three of my former soccer players have been killed in either Iraq or Afghanistan. I knew them pretty well. They were good kids. I couldn't tell you their personal reasons for joining the military, but I don't think they intentionally signed up for the John Wayne Gacy Clown Academy.

But, thanks for assigning them their legacy.

"Just three dead clowns." -- Steve Duncan

Brojo, you drive me crazy sometimes, and you madden others even more often. But you generally know where to draw the line, and you know your shit too well to be a sock puppet. Can't say the same for Mr. Duncan.

And sure enough, you get some twit like Mike K. ready to assign Duncan's words to any veteran who speaks against war. It's almost enough to make you believe in sock puppets.

alibubba, you were right at 4:10 when you said "there's nothing like conscription to make a country think twice." I actually know someone who said in effect "I support the war but I hope it's over before my son is 18." People like that really drive me crazy.

alibubba, I'd say as a coach and mentor you were grossly remiss in not advising your young athletes against joining in Bush's sociopathic genocidal adventure. Shame on you. Yes, they were three clowns. Just think, they were fighting to preserve the President's right to imprison U.S. citizens without charges being filed, witnesses compelled to testify in open court and confront the prisoner, and the right to the attorney of their choice availed of them. A fine military it is for preserving those conditions for their commander-in-chief. If you don't like it you can rot in GITMO where more fine soldiers piss on your holy book and torture you for informaton long since relevant to anyone. No Red Cross allowed. Better still an Air Force pilot can whisk you away on a U.S. miltary plane to a Syrian hellhole, your trip under guard of more fine soldiers. A grand organization your soccer players signed up for.

. . . but I don't hate them or PRAY for bad things to happen to them . . . Posted by: Dancer

Oh I do. I want to see both Shrub and Cheney impeached and imprisoned and both to die slow agonizing deaths. And even then, decent people would be cheated in retribution for all that they have done to American and Americans.

steve duncan. You probably see yourself as a clear-eyed realist, telling it how it is. The American imperialism is out of control; I share your outrage. Yet you lack nuance and perspective. Young men get ground up in the wheels of the American Imperial Machine for personally admirable reasons. To suggest that most are nothing other than sociopathic monsters like John Gacy is not a provoking thought. It's just a stupid thought - It's untrue. It flies in the face of most everyone's experience. It gets you nowhere.

MHO

"alibubba, I'd say as a coach and mentor you were grossly remiss in not advising your young athletes against joining in Bush's sociopathic genocidal adventure. Shame on you. Yes, they were three clowns. Just think, they were fighting to preserve the President's right to imprison U.S. citizens without charges being filed, witnesses compelled to testify in open court and confront the prisoner, and the right to the attorney of their choice availed of them. A fine military it is for preserving those conditions for their commander-in-chief. If you don't like it you can rot in GITMO where more fine soldiers piss on your holy book and torture you for informaton long since relevant to anyone. No Red Cross allowed. Better still an Air Force pilot can whisk you away on a U.S. miltary plane to a Syrian hellhole, your trip under guard of more fine soldiers. A grand organization your soccer players signed up for."

Steve:

Just for the record, the three young dead men I mentioned joined the military before George Bush started his war.

But, don't let that impede your masturbation.

steve duncan, Here's how much the "clowns" love that war-monger McCain.

You really have no idea what you're talking about.

(h/t to Blue Girl and Warren Street)

Kevin, Mary Matalin did not publish Corsi's book. In the Klein piece you link to, she is described as commenting on the book. I haven't run down who did publish it, but I feel certain Mary Matalin has not suddenly become a publisher.

This is good about the killing of the AR Demo Chairman and hate speech:
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/95112/

Lynn Lightfoot,

I have to differ. Try this newfangled "Google" thing. First, type "Obama Nation" and you will learn learn that the publisher is "Threshold Editions." Then type "Mary Matalin" and, within seconds, you'll find yourself looking at a page for "Threshold Editions," publishers of this "book" and many similar fine titles.

...Shrub and Cheney...both to die slow agonizing deaths.
Posted by: Jeff II

Nice try, Jeff II, but I think steve duncan retains the Asshole Of The Thread award with his "Just three dead clowns" quote.

SJRSM, I wish you got a tenth of a percent as exercised about people invading countries on the strength of a web of lies, causing hundreds of thousands of unjustified deaths, maimings and needlessly ruined lives, as you do every time someone acts like a jerk when describing the military. It's like shooting fish in a barrel getting you to rise to the bait, which is probably a large reason why these assholes do it.

In this article Nedra Pickler discusses the Obama campaigns 41 page takedown of Corsi's book. Said takedown can be downloaded from their campaign website.

I think this can end any cry of "he hasn't responded".

The best quote of the article is this:

Corsi writes for World Net Daily, a conservative Web site whose lead headline Thursday was "Astonishing photo claims: Dead Bigfoot stored on ice."

First, I'm beyond getting incensed about mil-hate here. It's just jaw dropping in a "watch me shoot all my fellow dems in the foot and hurt our chances to regain the Whitehouse" way.

Second, I'm comfortable with rationale for invasion and its execution, disgusted with their incompetence in how they didn't prepare for the post-invasion, comfortable that Iraq is now headed the right way, worried now about Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Like I said, I wish you got it, Jingo.

It's like shooting fish in a barrel getting you to rise to the bait, which is probably a large reason why these assholes do it.

Since I haven't been around, that's unlikely. I think they were just speaking their mind.

You and I are always going to differ about Iraq. I've accepted it and know I won't change your mind, you haven't.

the three young dead men I mentioned...

It is terribly sad those young men are dead, killed in a war they did not even know was going to occur, but we have no way of knowing who they killed while serving W. Bush and, in their minds, the country. Probably the Iraqis or Afghanis they killed were just as precious to their parents, siblings, wives and soccer coaches as these Americans were. The big difference between the young Americans who were killed and the Iraqis and Afghanis they killed is the Americans were not killed in their homeland. The Americans were killed as invaders and the Iraqis and Afghanis killed by them were killed as defenders of their homeland. That does not make the American soldiers war criminals or clowns, but it does not make them heroes either. The American verterans of the Iraq and Afghan invasions/occupations are victims of their leaders' voracious egotism and their own misguided patriotism.

"It is terribly sad those young men are dead, killed in a war they did not even know was going to occur, but we have no way of knowing who they killed while serving W. Bush and, in their minds, the country."

We don't know that any of three killed anyone.

I don't claim they were heroes. Heroes are few and far between. That they were patriotic, I don't doubt, but I fail to see why serving in the military is "misguided." An awful lot of young Americans joined the military for education and training they couldn't afford otherwise.

Unfortunately, armies aren't democratic, can't be, and shouldn't be. It's a soldier's responsibility to follow orders. It's a nation's moral responsibility to keep its sons and daughters out of senseless wars.

Mary Matalin is trash...no integrity, no class. Rick, undoubtedly, but trash nonetheless.

This is the real change Americans need visit www.democracyconservator.com,