Carol Platt Liebau: Lefty Wishful Thinking

Tuesday, June 27, 2006

Lefty Wishful Thinking

Over at the Fox News site, Martin Frost writes,

We truly live in a dangerous world and the United States should lead the way in ridding the world of Al Qaeda. To accomplish this, liberals should support a strong U.S. military and significant funding for homeland security. Many traditional liberals, both in Congress and in the general public, have done just that.

Care to name names? Who, exactly, are these "traditional liberals" -- besides Joe Lieberman?

Surely he's not talking about people like John Murtha (denominated a "hawk" by an adoring MSM here and here and here, for example). Suffice it to say that, although we see no names being specified, it's not because there are too many to include.

I'm still waiting to hear a Democratic senator denounce The New York Times for betraying the details of an effective and lawful program designed to catch Al Qaeda and protect the American people. Congress was briefed on it, and if the author of the linked piece truly believes that "the United States should lead the way in ridding the world of Al Qaeda" -- and believes his Democratic buddies believe it -- they'd best speak up.

Because that's not the impression most of America is getting.

20 Comments:

Blogger COPioneer said...

They're losing it, just as they'll lose it come November.

3:42 PM  
Blogger Dittohead said...

In American, the people elect leaders, not rulers. And it is the people who exercise their rights to monitor those leaders via the free and open press.

With each episode where the Bush administration accuses the free press or free citizens of 'treason' for exercising their freedom of expression, the end result is that more and more people see the White House as full of desperate crackpots.

3:55 PM  
Blogger COPioneer said...

The freedom of expression does not include divulging classified information. Why do you think it's classified?

Maybe the Time should just sell the Terrorists some nukes, so they can express themselves the way they'd like to. Un-be-liev-able...When will the Madness end?!

The MSM is full of desperate crackpots, because their readership is in SERIOUS decline.

4:03 PM  
Blogger wrabkin said...

As I posted down below, the paper that claimed Murtha called the US the greatest threat to world peace has retracted the story and issued an apology. (Someone actually interested in finding out the truth rather than savaging an opponent might have stopped to notice there was no direct quote in that story...) Now I don't expect lying gasbags like Drudge, Hannity, and Hugh Hewitt to correct their accusations -- in fact, I fully expect them to keep using this lying smear as long as they can.

But I know Carol to be a woman who values truth and decency, and therefore I know that she will retract what she said, and issue an apology.

Right, Carol?

Link: http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/27/murtha-quote/

4:56 PM  
Blogger Dittohead said...

There is no reason to believe Al Qaeda has not avoided the banking system after Bush broadcast in 2001, his desire to use the bank system to freeze their assets and discover their funding.

5:01 PM  
Blogger Dittohead said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

5:51 PM  
Blogger Dittohead said...

Carol owes us a retraction and apology on Murtha!!!!!

Now will she call for resignations of the swift-boaters?

5:56 PM  
Blogger Carol Platt Liebau said...

In light of reports that the Sun-Sentinel intends to issue a retraction of Murtha's comments tomorrow, I will verify that's the case, and if so, I will of course make note of it in a post.

5:58 PM  
Blogger Dittohead said...

Here is another story that could be corrected:

Scientists OK Gore's Movie for Accuracy
By SETH BORENSTEIN
AP Science Writer

June 27, 2006, 9:15 PM EDT

WASHINGTON -- The nation's top climate scientists are giving "An Inconvenient Truth," Al Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy.

6:46 PM  
Blogger Dittohead said...

Who's a traitor?

Generals Shinseki, Eaton, Zinni, Newbold, Batiste, Riggs, Swannack, and Clark.

Congressional Representatives Murtha, Kucinich, Paul, Conyers, Lewis, and Senators Kerry, Feingold, Byrd, Kennedy, and Boxer. President Jimmy Carter. Let's just say, "Anyone who is now, or ever has been, a Democrat."

The New York Times Editorial Board and all their reporters, Anyone Who Worked for CBS.

The ACLU, Amnesty International, the International Red Cross.

People for the American Way, Code Pink, the Quakers, Women in Black Cindy Sheehan, 9/11 Widows and ANSWER.

Hollywood.

The Cato Institute, William F. Buckley Jr., and Francis Fukuyama.

Readers of the Washington Post, LA Times, Boston Globe, and Chicago Tribune.

Those whiners in New Orleans. And New York.

Arab Americans, Mexican Americans, muslims, and non-christians.

2000 soldiers that have refused to return to Iraq...

A majority of Americans who say Congress should pass a resolution that outlines a plan for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq.

Bloggers.

Bruce Springsteen, the Dixie Chicks, Neil Young, Michael Moore, Air America Radio, Charlie Sheen, Jane Fonda, Barbara Striesand, Robert Greenwald and others.

Intelligence, WMD and anti terror veterans Robert Baer, Bill Christison, Milt Beardon, Ray McGovern, Larry C. Johnson, Patrick Eddington, Scott Ritter, Dr. David MacMichael, Hans Blix, Charles Duelfer, and Michael Scheuer.

Former administration appointees Richard Clark, Paul O'Neill, Rand Beers, Dr. David Kay, and Thomas E. White, Collin Powell, and Lawerence Wilkerson.

NASA scientists, EPA scientists, and leading scientists.

At this point, it's easier to list the few people in America who have not been called 'traitor.'

10:50 PM  
Blogger Greg said...

Ditto:

"With each episode where the Bush administration accuses the free press or free citizens of 'treason' ..."

Can you cite a single, specific case of the Bush Administration accusing anyone of treason?

5:40 AM  
Blogger eLarson said...

Treason being extraordinarily difficult to prosecute, I wouldn't count on any administration official using that word.

6:23 AM  
Blogger Dittohead said...

The Boston Globe...

WASHINGTON -- News reports disclosing the Bush administration's use of a special bank surveillance program to track terrorist financing spurred outrage in the White House and on Capitol Hill, but some specialists pointed out yesterday that the government itself has publicly discussed its stepped-up efforts to monitor terrorist finances since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The controversy continued to simmer yesterday when Senator Jim Bunning, a Republican of Kentucky, accused the Times of ``treason,"

But a search of public records -- government documents posted on the Internet, congressional testimony, guidelines for bank examiners, and even an executive order President Bush signed in September 2001 -- describe how US authorities have openly sought new tools to track terrorist financing since 2001. That includes getting access to information about terrorist-linked wire transfers and other transactions, including those that travel through SWIFT.

``There have been public references to SWIFT before," said Roger Cressey, a senior White House counterterrorism official until 2003. ``The White House is overreaching when they say [The New York Times committed] a crime against the war on terror. It has been in the public domain before."

6:59 AM  
Blogger COPioneer said...

Nothing in Washington is classified anymore. They need to find who leaked it, and send them down to Gitmo for some rest and relaxation. Those who leaked it are the ones who signed an oath when they received their security clearances. Wonder what the odds are that they are left wingers? If they are not, send 'em away too.

dhead, there's a big difference between saying "we're watching financial records more closely since 9/11" and publishing details and specifics. You still haven't answered my previous question, does it matter if information is classified?

I'll add another, if it were a Democrat in the WH, and Rush Limbaugh broadcast the information, would you have a different tune? (I know that's unfair, because a Democrat in the WH would only care about the minimum wage, and not WoT)

9:34 AM  
Blogger Dittohead said...

Copioneer,

If a Dem was prsident, you'd be screaming "rule of law" and "wag-the-dog".

I on the other hand, side with the majority of Americans, who 2 to 1 have more trust in the media than the government.

11:02 AM  
Blogger dodger said...

I come to this site to learn just how wacky some of us have become. I try to see if they are pulling my leg or if they are consistently loopy.

It is scary. But no less scary than the performance of the Surgeon General last night on PBS, alerting us to the certain death facing us all from second hand smoke. If he had been wearing a tin man hat it would have been appropriate.

I went to his website. His evidence is that cigarettes contain chemicals, therefore those chemicals are introduced into the atmosphere by second hand smoke.

One time I had a product and was seeking EPA approval for it. They contested the presence of copper and zinc. I replied, yes, copper and zinc are in the environment. As soon as you eliminate copper and zinc from the environment I will eliminate copper and zinc from my product.

Brilliant? I thought so. They denied my permit.

11:24 AM  
Blogger Duke-Stir said...

That IS brilliant. How about arsenic in mouthwash? Or plutonium fillings? I know, lead teething rings!

11:36 AM  
Blogger COPioneer said...

2 to 1 trust WHICH media over the government? When there is NO TRUST in either, that's a pretty worthless stat to throw out...

12:57 PM  
Blogger Dittohead said...

Approximately 60% trust media while about 30% trust government.

1:34 PM  
Blogger dodger said...

As an old attorney once said to me, when a reasonable conclusion is available, ludicrous conslusions will be rejected. Duke, your conclusion is rejected.

3:45 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Google