Comments on: Blunt Talk on National Security Readiness http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/03/02/blunt-talk-on-national-security-readiness/ Sun, 22 Nov 2009 01:45:02 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: readerOfTeaLeaves http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/03/02/blunt-talk-on-national-security-readiness/#comment-150373 readerOfTeaLeaves Mon, 03 Mar 2008 06:08:25 +0000 http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/03/02/blunt-talk-on-national-security-readiness/#comment-150373 Just spent nearly 2 hours cruising websites on a Sunday evening, and can only conclude that there are/were parties who wanted Bill Clinton silenced. To do that, they claimed that he 'made (racist/unfair) comments in (nameYourStateHere)' and that 'hurt' Hillary's campaign. What bugs the sh*t out of me is that whoever was/is running the Hillary campaign should have called specific members of the press on the carpet quite publicly -- starting with Chris Matthews, moving on to Bill O'Reilly, to and every other member of the Infotainment Circus who kept k-k-k-karl Rove's 'Bill is bad for Hillary' meme alive. Hillary's campaign needed to call bullsh*t, BECAUSE they were damned either way - damned if they did, and damned if they didn't. So since they were going to lose either way, IMHO they should have exposed this line of bullshit for the veiled sabotage it is. After 7 years of GWBush, Bill Clinton looks damn good. So of course those who dread the Clintons -- precisely b/c they surely know where a lot of bodies are buried -- sought to untether one of Hillary's best assets, her spouse. And they got away with it. I don't believe the media-driven wankering that Bill 'hurts' Hillary. It's a crock of steaming fecal dung. And whoever is/was running Hillary's campaign should have called the media out on it. ----------- Love the guy in the video; a lack of bullshit is always refreshing. Just spent nearly 2 hours cruising websites on a Sunday evening, and can only conclude that there are/were parties who wanted Bill Clinton silenced.

To do that, they claimed that he ‘made (racist/unfair) comments in (nameYourStateHere)’ and that ‘hurt’ Hillary’s campaign.

What bugs the sh*t out of me is that whoever was/is running the Hillary campaign should have called specific members of the press on the carpet quite publicly — starting with Chris Matthews, moving on to Bill O’Reilly, to and every other member of the Infotainment Circus who kept k-k-k-karl Rove’s ‘Bill is bad for Hillary’ meme alive. Hillary’s campaign needed to call bullsh*t, BECAUSE they were damned either way – damned if they did, and damned if they didn’t. So since they were going to lose either way, IMHO they should have exposed this line of bullshit for the veiled sabotage it is.

After 7 years of GWBush, Bill Clinton looks damn good.
So of course those who dread the Clintons — precisely b/c they surely know where a lot of bodies are buried — sought to untether one of Hillary’s best assets, her spouse.

And they got away with it.
I don’t believe the media-driven wankering that Bill ‘hurts’ Hillary. It’s a crock of steaming fecal dung. And whoever is/was running Hillary’s campaign should have called the media out on it.

———–
Love the guy in the video; a lack of bullshit is always refreshing.

]]> By: chris http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/03/02/blunt-talk-on-national-security-readiness/#comment-150157 chris Sun, 02 Mar 2008 22:55:25 +0000 http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/03/02/blunt-talk-on-national-security-readiness/#comment-150157 The Houston Chronicle allowed this one: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/5584383.html Clinton will change our future for the better By COLLYN A. PEDDIE Copyright 2008 Houston Chronicle The Houston Chronicle allowed this one:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/5584383.html

Clinton will change our future for the better

By COLLYN A. PEDDIE
Copyright 2008 Houston Chronicle

]]> By: Douglasbot http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/03/02/blunt-talk-on-national-security-readiness/#comment-150146 Douglasbot Sun, 02 Mar 2008 22:24:39 +0000 http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/03/02/blunt-talk-on-national-security-readiness/#comment-150146 "Putting someone who has no fuckin idea, no clue, who's never served in the military, will never know nothing more that what they read is absolutely fucking ridiculous." So he's for John Mcain? By the way it's not about race. Also young people are stupid. Osama. This isn't a race thing. He wore diapers while my buddies lay face down in the muck. VOTE HILLARY! Excellent. “Putting someone who has no fuckin idea, no clue, who’s never served in the military, will never know nothing more that what they read is absolutely fucking ridiculous.”

So he’s for John Mcain?

By the way it’s not about race. Also young people are stupid. Osama. This isn’t a race thing. He wore diapers while my buddies lay face down in the muck. VOTE HILLARY!

Excellent.

]]> By: vbonnaire http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/03/02/blunt-talk-on-national-security-readiness/#comment-150046 vbonnaire Sun, 02 Mar 2008 18:37:23 +0000 http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/03/02/blunt-talk-on-national-security-readiness/#comment-150046 hi again--- I was just sent two videos from somebody named "geeklove08" the links are on my page-- I watched the first one a minute ago, it's great and PRO-HILLARY and all about the "just words" don't miss it! hi again—

I was just sent two videos from somebody named “geeklove08″ the links are on my page– I watched the first one a minute ago, it’s great and PRO-HILLARY and all about the “just words” don’t miss it!

]]> By: vee http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/03/02/blunt-talk-on-national-security-readiness/#comment-150013 vee Sun, 02 Mar 2008 17:13:42 +0000 http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/03/02/blunt-talk-on-national-security-readiness/#comment-150013 John, I have noticed too that most of the opinion pieces in the newspapers are very harsh in depicting Senator Clinton. Obama is typically praised outrageously or the subject of mild questioning. I should have figured out before now that Obama has been so successful largely because he has the full support of the media establishment. The media wants to stop the Bush-Clinton cycle no matter what the cost to Americans. It is really Senator Clinton running against the media. That is a lop sided race. The media usually gets what it wants. A lesson not lost on George Orwell. This angst over a Bush-Clinton name cycle is a trivial concern. The people are picking a person, not a name. John, I have noticed too that most of the opinion pieces in the newspapers are very harsh in depicting Senator Clinton. Obama is typically praised outrageously or the subject of mild questioning. I should have figured out before now that Obama has been so successful largely because he has the full support of the media establishment. The media wants to stop the Bush-Clinton cycle no matter what the cost to Americans. It is really Senator Clinton running against the media. That is a lop sided race. The media usually gets what it wants. A lesson not lost on George Orwell. This angst over a Bush-Clinton name cycle is a trivial concern. The people are picking a person, not a name.

]]> By: John http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/03/02/blunt-talk-on-national-security-readiness/#comment-149997 John Sun, 02 Mar 2008 16:42:00 +0000 http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/03/02/blunt-talk-on-national-security-readiness/#comment-149997 I wonder how that got past the editors at The Washington Post- every day the Op-Eds are filled with "Why Hillary sucks" pieces, so on Sunday they provide a little "balance" by throwing this in? Maybe they figure the readership is lower on Sundays than during the week? ( I don't read the Post on Sundays. I would have missed this one. ) I wrote a leter to protest Richard Cohen's hit piece earlier in the week. It didn't make it to the paper. A friend of mine in Vermont wrote one too- it didn't make it, either. However, several pro-Obama letters DID make it in. One letter yesterday decried the lack of balance in the Op-Ed section AND the Letters to the Editor. Like the Ignatius piece, I guess the editors felt compelled by what ever bit of journalistic integrity they have left to include it. I wonder how that got past the editors at The Washington Post- every day the Op-Eds are filled with “Why Hillary sucks” pieces, so on Sunday they provide a little “balance” by throwing this in? Maybe they figure the readership is lower on Sundays than during the week? ( I don’t read the Post on Sundays. I would have missed this one. )

I wrote a leter to protest Richard Cohen’s hit piece earlier in the week. It didn’t make it to the paper. A friend of mine in Vermont wrote one too- it didn’t make it, either. However, several pro-Obama letters DID make it in. One letter yesterday decried the lack of balance in the Op-Ed section AND the Letters to the Editor. Like the Ignatius piece, I guess the editors felt compelled by what ever bit of journalistic integrity they have left to include it.

]]> By: SusanUnPC http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/03/02/blunt-talk-on-national-security-readiness/#comment-149995 SusanUnPC Sun, 02 Mar 2008 16:40:08 +0000 http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/03/02/blunt-talk-on-national-security-readiness/#comment-149995 I can't wait for my "Magic Pony." I can’t wait for my “Magic Pony.”

]]> By: SusanUnPC http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/03/02/blunt-talk-on-national-security-readiness/#comment-149993 SusanUnPC Sun, 02 Mar 2008 16:36:12 +0000 http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/03/02/blunt-talk-on-national-security-readiness/#comment-149993 Trent Lott was on -- I think Ill O'Reilly -- the other night. He said he enjoyed getting to know Obama in the Senate but that he did not see Obama reaching across the aisle much. That jives with what I've heard from others say. Obama's bipartisan record is not good. Hillary's record is much better on that. Trent Lott was on — I think Ill O’Reilly — the other night. He said he enjoyed getting to know Obama in the Senate but that he did not see Obama reaching across the aisle much. That jives with what I’ve heard from others say. Obama’s bipartisan record is not good. Hillary’s record is much better on that.

]]> By: kenoshaMarge http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/03/02/blunt-talk-on-national-security-readiness/#comment-149991 kenoshaMarge Sun, 02 Mar 2008 16:32:03 +0000 http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/03/02/blunt-talk-on-national-security-readiness/#comment-149991 But for Obama supporters he doesn't need to "do" anything. All he has to do is "say" yes we can and it's as good as done. But for Obama supporters he doesn’t need to “do” anything. All he has to do is “say” yes we can and it’s as good as done.

]]> By: Tom http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/03/02/blunt-talk-on-national-security-readiness/#comment-149989 Tom Sun, 02 Mar 2008 16:25:50 +0000 http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/03/02/blunt-talk-on-national-security-readiness/#comment-149989 Did you all see David Ignatius's column today on Washington Post about Obama's thin record? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/29/AR2008022902784.html Obama: A Thin Record For a Bridge Builder By David Ignatius Sunday, March 2, 2008; Page B07 Hillary Clinton has been trying to make a point about Barack Obama that deserves one last careful look before Tuesday’s probably decisive Democratic primaries: If Obama truly intends to unite America across party lines and break the Washington logjam, then why has he shown so little interest or aptitude for the hard work of bipartisan government? This is the real “Where’s the beef?” about Obama, and it still doesn’t have a good answer. He gives a great speech, and he promises that he can heal the terrible partisan divisions that have enfeebled American politics over the past decade. This is a message of hope that the country clearly wants to hear. But can he do it? The record is mixed, but it’s fair to say that Obama has not shown much willingness to take risks or make enemies to try to restore a working center in Washington. Clinton, for all her reputation as a divisive figure, has a much stronger record of bipartisan achievement. And the likely Republican nominee, John McCain, has a better record still. Obama’s argument is that he can mobilize a new coalition that will embrace his proclamation that “yes, we can” break out of the straitjacket. But for voters to feel confident that he can achieve this transformation should he become president, they would need evidence that he has fought and won similar battles. The record here, to put it mildly, is thin. Did you all see David Ignatius’s column today on Washington Post about Obama’s thin record?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/29/AR2008022902784.html

Obama: A Thin Record For a Bridge Builder

By David Ignatius
Sunday, March 2, 2008; Page B07

Hillary Clinton has been trying to make a point about Barack Obama that deserves one last careful look before Tuesday’s probably decisive Democratic primaries: If Obama truly intends to unite America across party lines and break the Washington logjam, then why has he shown so little interest or aptitude for the hard work of bipartisan government?

This is the real “Where’s the beef?” about Obama, and it still doesn’t have a good answer. He gives a great speech, and he promises that he can heal the terrible partisan divisions that have enfeebled American politics over the past decade. This is a message of hope that the country clearly wants to hear.

But can he do it? The record is mixed, but it’s fair to say that Obama has not shown much willingness to take risks or make enemies to try to restore a working center in Washington. Clinton, for all her reputation as a divisive figure, has a much stronger record of bipartisan achievement. And the likely Republican nominee, John McCain, has a better record still.

Obama’s argument is that he can mobilize a new coalition that will embrace his proclamation that “yes, we can” break out of the straitjacket. But for voters to feel confident that he can achieve this transformation should he become president, they would need evidence that he has fought and won similar battles. The record here, to put it mildly, is thin.

]]> By: Simon http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/03/02/blunt-talk-on-national-security-readiness/#comment-149978 Simon Sun, 02 Mar 2008 15:51:43 +0000 http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/03/02/blunt-talk-on-national-security-readiness/#comment-149978 http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/who_is_nadhmi_auchi_and_whats.html I know this isn't on topic, per se, for this thread, but this columnist did a good job of summing up Auchi (partially), and the consequences of his involvement with Obama. The link is from rezkowatch.blogspot.com. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/who_is_nadhmi_auchi_and_whats.html

I know this isn’t on topic, per se, for this thread, but this columnist did a good job of summing up Auchi (partially), and the consequences of his involvement with Obama.

The link is from rezkowatch.blogspot.com.

]]> By: Mel http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/03/02/blunt-talk-on-national-security-readiness/#comment-149964 Mel Sun, 02 Mar 2008 15:22:20 +0000 http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/03/02/blunt-talk-on-national-security-readiness/#comment-149964 This will never be heard on the airwaves, just as most of the things that are so incredible about this lady, because the Republicans are scared of this lady! Republicans are masters of deceit thanks to Rove, and who dumped most of the money collected by Obama last year into his campaign was via major Bush Republican fundraisers! http://www.thecityedition.com/Pages/Archive/Winter08/2008Election.html Why do Republicans want Obama to be the nominee so much, simple, this guy lacking of experience is the easiest fall guy on the block and they are taking full advantage of it! And the Obama dreams will fall like a rainstorm when the General Election takes place! Some think McCain was being civil when chastizing that talk show host in Texas when he was chanting Obama's full name, think again, no one wants to expose GE attacks before theyhave their lame duck poised for their slaughter! This will never be heard on the airwaves, just as most of the things that are so incredible about this lady, because the Republicans are scared of this lady!

Republicans are masters of deceit thanks to Rove, and who dumped most of the money collected by Obama last year into his campaign was via major Bush Republican fundraisers! http://www.thecityedition.com/Pages/Archive/Winter08/2008Election.html

Why do Republicans want Obama to be the nominee so much, simple, this guy lacking of experience is the easiest fall guy on the block and they are taking full advantage of it! And the Obama dreams will fall like a rainstorm when the General Election takes place!

Some think McCain was being civil when chastizing that talk show host in Texas when he was chanting Obama’s full name, think again, no one wants to expose GE attacks before theyhave their lame duck poised for their slaughter!

]]>