Just like any typical left-wing bunch of reptiles the NBC chicken is loose lets give the orgional peacock a club and let him beat it to a pancake

They are free to air what they want, or to not air what they don't, withing the FCC guidlines. More power to them.
It's only censorship when the government does it. Or it's the Dixie Chicks.
Then it is evil, and must be stopped.

...And we're free to call them out for what they won't air. Just like the Dixie Chicks: If that's how you want to be, fine, but be prepared for the fall out. That's what happens when you're a public figure or company.

Good for CNBC & MSNBC. These sleazy jingoistic ads are extreme emotional plugs to fan the flames for more war.

The stupid war-hugging P.O.S. Ari Fleischer couldn't even provide the name of the double-amputee who appears in one of these ads that he was hawking on MSNBC last week.

Fleischer, the war pig, could use this poor soldier to connect 9/11 w/ Fleischer's ongoing effort to produce more double-amputees, but he didn't give enough of a shit to even know the soldier's name. What a conniving & manipulative sack of puss.

Freedomlies, too bad you didn't have the same hatred and anger for the enemy.

Thank you for your astute analysis, Master Fries. If only it was written in a newspaper, then I could use it for what it's worth. Remember Sheryl Crowe says only one sheet, but she never specified the size of that sheet.

FastFood do you ever have a sane thought? You sound more like leeward ever comment. In other words a nut. Common sense (which you seem not to possess) knows that NBC is putting forth an agend for the left.

FF wants to censor Freedom Watch and writes it in a purposefully traitorous manner.

And reading the comment above, I think I've just about had it with this motherfr. I make a formal request to Wizbang to ban this a**hole permanently from here.

FreedomFries = NeedTherapyNow!

MSNBC AND CNBC are still being broadcast??????
Does anyone ever watch them????
If so, Why????

I have seen/heard two ads. One mentioned above by FF and one on the radio. In both cases the ads linked Iraq and 9-11.

If you want to argue that we should stay in Iraq, then do so without lying about the Iraqi/9-11 link.

Barney, you're an embarassment to thinking people everywhere. Thank God none associate with you.

As for the story, it rienforces my belief in boycotts. For the life of me, I don't get why so many on my side continue to patronize truth hating anti-American orgs. like MSLSD,CNBS, Le NY Crimes etc., and ALSO discourage people from boycotting. It's like, "Honey, I know you're putting arsenic in the pasta, but it sure does taste good." We ought to be encouraging people to infiltrate these culture of death orgs. so they can be outed for the scum that they are. Remember the big "expose" of Food Lion ? Or GM ? Or a hundred other American companies ? I'd love to see the day when we got old Pinchy boy on youtube ranting about what a bunch of rubes we are for buying our own destruction. But then again, Kerry did get 56 million votes even AFTER we all knew the truth about him....If anyone wants me I'll be stocking up on TP and canned goods in my bunker.

>Freedomlies, too bad you didn't have the same hatred and anger for the enemy.

He does. He hates all Republicans.

Come to think of it, Freedom Fries DOES SUCK. And I don't mean in a good way...

i believe that by law, commercial broadcasters have to have a public policy on what advertisements they will or will not air. i think the problem with what MSNBC/CNBC are doing is that they are not being consistent in applying their own policies. that's the problem i have with this situation.

oh...and FF is yet another proof that the Left is the ideology of hate.

"Barney, you're an embarassment to thinking people everywhere." by pudge

That means so much coming from someone that is holed-up in a bunker full of toilet paper.

>I have seen/heard two ads. One mentioned above by FF and one on the radio. In both cases the ads linked Iraq and 9-11.

Yes they did. ABSOLUTELY they did.

Are you too stupid to understand that the Radical Islamists have declared war on us and 9/11 was their biggest attack?

Are you too stupid to understand that if we lose in Iraq, (as you keep hoping for) our odds of being attacked skyrocket?

Are you too stupid to understand we are involved in a global war on terrorism that THEY started but we have to finish.

Are you too stupid to understand all of this???

Are you such a fucking putz that all you fucking care about is your stupid fucking political power???

DO you give a flying fuck about this country being attacked again?

Are you such a fucking idiot that you want Al Qaeda in Iraq to win because you think that it will help your side win a fucking election?!?!?! ARE YOU?!?!?!

Can you see past you stupid fucking immature partisan dumbshit to quit fucking cheering for Al Qeada every fucking time you get the chance?

Are you too fucking stupid to comprehend if we leave Iraq millions of innocent people will be slaughtered....

Are you that fucking stupid Barney?... ARE YOU.

sorry everyone

Barney, I want so much for to hate you, but your humor are belong to me. Come on Barn, walk towards the light -No, not the one on the helmet of the guy workin' in the sewer- the light of the truth my man. I refuse to believe that one with a wit that has made me laugh twice in less than a month, is that confoundedly base in his world view. Come on boy, I got a biscuit and plenty of TP for ya, whadda ya say ?

Paul, it sounds like you are misinformed. Iraq did not attack us, we attacked them. Al Qaeda was and still is in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The war has created more terrorists not less. Whether we stay or go they will still want and try to kill us. If we leave it up to the Iraqis they will be more than happy to wipe-out every single known Al Qaeda terrorist they can find. It is already happening now and it will only increase once the militias are set free.

Now take your putty mouth over to pudge's bunker and use up some of that toilet paper.

correction: "potty"

The networks have routinely rejected ads on controversial subjects for years.

Where was your outrage when it happened to liberal spots:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0313-04.htm

http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=59&aid=21677

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/01/16/moveon/index.html

Paul, save your fingers, you are wasting your time trying to inform BG and the rest of the liberal slime. They care for nothing except to marginalize GW. That is it. They would sell out the country, and some have, to get GW. That is the intensity of their hatred. ww

>Paul, it sounds like you are misinformed. Iraq did not attack us,

I didn't say they did you fucking moron.

learn to fucking read.

>The networks have routinely rejected ads on controversial subjects

THAT'S the problem....

When did winning a war become a controversial topic?

Like it or not, they are deemed controversial.

I personally think this is a shitty and cowardly decision by MSNBC/CNBC. Just like I thought it was shitty and cowardly when the rejected anti-war ads in 2003 and 2004. As long as it is clear that they are ads, I don't see what the problem is.

Run the ads, let the people decide. It's as simple as that.

NBC, and especially MSNBC, have so soiled their own reputations by now, that this takes on less significance, merely by the fact that so few people will be watching ads.

It's the same old slow death march into oblivion the MSM have been on for years.

#17 Paul
Extremely well expressed

hey, where's the breaking news about the Republican Toiletgate, or should we call it Urinalgate, perhaps Bathroomgate?

Perhaps for the weekend caption contest you could picture a Republican Senate caucus bathroom photo of a urinal or gloryhole.

(AP) Fox News is refusing to air an ad critical of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito.

While I don't agree with their decision, I do understand that CNN and CNBC are within their rights to choose which commercials they do and do not want to run.

Choosing not to do so, however, shows an obvious clear and present bias.

Kudos on #17, Paul. That needed to be said. And don't be sorry. Hell, protesters were yelling FAR WORSE at President Bush here in Seattle yesterday.

Paul, YES, he is.

I just love how all of the pro-war folks here keep repeating the tired old RW talking points like: "fight them over there" like they don't have maps and can't find the USA unless they "follow us home". My other favorite is: "this is the most important struggle of our time".

If conservatives truly believed these things than your actions would match your words, but they don't.

Where is your call for a draft? If a surge of 30,000 troops into Iraq is "showing signs of progrss" than why not a surge of 500,000 like the earlier Generals in this conflict wanted? You know the ones that Donald Rumsfeld had dismissed, those Generals. So many Patriotic Americans predicted back then the mess we now find our selves in it boggles the mind. How could we have possible thought that we as a Nation could do this on the cheap?

Come on now, if our Goverment in the 1940s could defeat Germany and Japan at the same time by asking us to sacrifice by paying higher taxes, rationing supplies and instituting a draft, why are we so unwilling to step up to the plate now?

There is no call for sacrifice coming from this Government because the people who talked us into this war knew that asking Americans to give up a little comfort to win this "epic struggle" was more than we were willing to.

So next time you give us your rah-rah lets kill the bad guys speech, please tell us what you're willing to sacrifice for this "epic struggle of our generation".

The troops have given it their all, when are you going to step up to the plate?

My other favorite is: "this is the most important struggle of our time".

If conservatives truly believed these things than your actions would match your words, but they don't.

Where is your call for a draft?

What a pitiful strawman. There is no call for a draft because a draft is a bad idea.

You would have conservatives actively try to harm the military just to prove that terrorism is serious?

You're a putz.

By your same argument if we don't use nuclear weapons then that proves we really don't believe the war on terror is that important.

Because we don't have a draft that means that terrorism isn't important.

Are you as dumb as Barney?

Live@9,
Do you have any talking points that are not like ... three years old? I've heard and rebutted those like a thousand times. Gimme something new to deal with.

So I see SPQR and Paul would rather others do the fighting and sacrificing for them. They can't be bothered to give up anything for this epic struggle. Great, more keyboard warriors from the right is just what this country needs to win.

Paul,

You would have conservatives actively try to harm the military just to prove that terrorism is serious?

WTF?

Of course Iraq did not attack us on 9-11. But Iraq was tying down strategic forces we needed to fight the War on Terror. They were also in gross violation of the cease-fire agreement they signed in 1991. They were regularly firing on US and UK aircraft enforcing the terms of that cease fire.

That, by itself is justification for finishing off Saddam's regime. For those unclear on the concept of a cease-fire (vs a negotiated peace) a cease-fire means you can start shooting any time you feel like it once the other party violates it. After 9-11 we felt like it.

Why? Because we had a war to fight and Iraq was tying down three to four aircraft carriers and two (or maybe three) air divisions. This was a significant chunk of our ability to project force.

Leaving Iraq alone and withdrawing those assets would have put US ground forces in Kuwait, as well as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia at the mercy of Iraq's army. It may not have been much, but it was a match for those ground forces we had in Kuwait and SA absent our strategic assets.

It would also have left terrorist a major base from which they could operate out of. Remember, Italy did not attack Poland in September, 1939, but by 1940 German military assets were operating out of Italian territory. To have ignored Iraq would have been to leave a major threat in our rear.

Today, while the US Army is fully committed in Iraq, neither the Air Force nor the Navy have much of their power projection assets there. They are available elsewhere.

That is one reason why North Korea has left South Korea alone. They saw what US air assets did to organized military formations in both Iraq and Afganistan. Today, wherever we have air superiority, a battalion of Special Forces and Rangers, equipped with the right radios can stop the advance of an army group, simply by calling down smart bombs. That is why Iran is infiltrating guerrillas and hiring insurgents That is why Syria has limited its actions to supporting surrogates.

We are in a much stronger position strategically today than we would have been had we ignored Iraq. The world is a much safer place because we invaded Iraq. That is what really drives the libs nuts. Because on a subconscious level they realize it.

>So I see SPQR and Paul would rather others do the fighting and sacrificing for them. They can't be bothered to give up anything for this epic struggle. Great, more keyboard warriors from the right is just what this country needs to win.

Oh my, the dreaded chickenhawk/keyboard warriors gambit.. what ever shall I do... The mental firepower just bores er- overwhelms me.

sigh...

Please, I know school just started but don't you have some Algebra to do?

Paul,

You would have conservatives actively try to harm the military just to prove that terrorism is serious?

WTF?

OK, I can tell already you're not too smart, but I'll try anyway.

1) You said that if we really believed that terroism was so serious we would bring back the draft.

2) The draft would hurt the military.

THEREFORE you are calling on conservatives to hurt the military just to prove to you that we think terrorism is serious.

That's just a freaking dumb thing to say.

Mark,
You write very well and make some good points in your post.

I do have to disagree with your conclusion however. In order for the world to be a much safer place because we invaded Iraq, shouldn't the amount of global terrorist attacks since 2003 have gone down instead of increased like they have? I'm sure the citizens of Baghdad would also disagree with your conclusion.

How does more violence make us safer?

Live@9,
So you know already just how much I've done in service to this nation? That's great, why don't you read off my service record for me since you have it in front of you? What year did I enlist first again? Which years was I deployed overseas, I seem to have forgotten?

What injuries did I sustain in the service? I am pretty sure its in my DD214.

Paul,
The surge of 30,000 is working, right. We don't have the man power to keep it going past the next 6 months. Without a draft we will have to pull troops out and lose the gains we've made. Are you one of those conservatives that just wants to hand off this mess to the next President?

How exactly would a draft hurt? Or is that another one of your always correct RW predictions?

The military does not want another draft because they do not want to have to handle a load of draftees who do not want to be there. The military has done very well since the '80's with a volunteer force - a force with a high degree of professionalism.

The current military is getting a bit tired of repeated deployments to Iraq but it is a long way from being unable to maintain its obligations. A draft is not necessary regardless of how long the surge in total troops is maintained.

As noted in # 21, these and other mainstream commercial networks have refused controversial ads before - which are coming from the other side of the political spectrum.

As also noted in # 11 and # 19, the ads are falsely conflating 9/11 and the invasion and occupation of Iraq - as if those who are fighting in Iraq are reducing the power of Al Qaeda.

As has been repeated many times - by any and all impartial statistical measures, the invasion and occupation of Iraq has *increased* the power, resources, recruiting and prestige of Al Qaeda.

It's tragic that our soldiers in Iraq are being maimed and killed, with this end effect - but that is *reality*. Whether we face it or not, it remains the same.

Finally, what is really most blatantly wrong with these ads, is the phone # at the end of them. "Call your Congressman and Senator!" the title screams - implying the # that follows goes directly to congress. Instead it goes to an operator who SCREENS the call - so only those agreeing with Ari Fleischer actually get patched through.

This is the line that separates pushing for an opinion, from propaganda.

As has been repeated many times - by any and all impartial statistical measures, the invasion and occupation of Iraq has *increased* the power, resources, recruiting and prestige of Al Qaeda.

>The surge of 30,000 is working, right. We don't have the man power to keep it going past the next 6 months. Without a draft we will have to pull troops out and lose the gains we've made.

I'm sorry I didn't realize I was talking to one of the joint chiefs... I'm sure you know so much about the requirements of the military. My apologies General.

sigh.

Lively@9:

The world was a much safer place in August 1944 than it had been in August 1939, even though casualties were much higher in August 1944. That is because Italy was beaten, and Germany and Japan were going down to defeat. The threat to the world was less by 1944.

Similarly you cannot look at just the number of terrorist attacks -- you have to look at the size of them, and where they are taking place.

For example, there are fewer terrorist attacks taking place inside Israel today. The wall had removed that opportunity. Also, the latest round of terrorist attacks in London were fizzles -- car bombs found before they went off, and crazies setting themselves on fire. Many -- if not most -- of the first string, the type that could plan and carry off a 9-11 style attack -- have either collected their 72 virgins or are in Club Gitmo.

And many of those enjoying their white raisins did not intend to be in that condition. Certainly Zarhari did not. Neither did many of the trainers and planners of attacks, the ones that got closely acquainted with Mr. Hellfire sent to them special delivery by Mr. Predator.

In 2001 they were targeting American civilians. In 2004-5 they were targeting American soldiers in Iraq and Afganistan. In 2005-2006 they were primarily targeting Iraqi and Afghan military and police. In 2006-2007 they were targeting Iraq and Afghan civilians. The latest round of attacks went after weak civilian minority groups. There may be more attacks, but they are against softer and softer targets. That is not the sign of a confident, and advancing enemy.

Right now their objective is to win the press war -- to convince us that things are going badly. They get a lot of help from our own news media, who seek bad news and filter out good. So they have increased the number of attacks -- against whatever targets they can find. Or reach.

It doesn't matter. As long as we keep up the pressure, they get weaker, and more and more Iraqis start siding with us. It is near the tipping point now. Petreaus is about to take Atlanta. When he does, the Copperheads can rattle, but they can no longer bite.

I hate when the kiddies get new computers at school and can't wait to use them....

Damn, Paul, you are right. I forgot to look at the calendar. The freshmen just learned where the school library computer terminal is, didn't they?

As far as the draft goes -- we do not need, nor can we use, enough troops to allow a fair draft. We need, at most 30-60K more soldiers.

We can get that in a number of ways. The simplest is to lower some of the physical standards. For example, my two oldest sons tried to join, but were rejected because they had childhood asthma. I had childhood asthma, but that did not disqualify me from going through ROTC in the 1970s. Several of my buddies spent 20 years in the Army despite having childhood asthma -- starting their careers in the 1970s. Today it is a nonstarter.

I am not opposed to a draft when it is necessary, but it is only necessary when you need hundreds of thousands of soldiers. And we do not need 2 million men under arms the way we did in WWI and WWII. That would weaken the military. If we tried to draft only 15,000-30,000 people each year the result would be horribly unfair. That is what happened in the 1960s.

"FreedomFries"

hey, where's the breaking news about the Republican Toiletgate, or should we call it Urinalgate, perhaps Bathroomgate?

Miss Teen South Carolina?

I knew it was you! Don't you have other stuff to do,...like study?

Paul, don't ban her, she doesn't know any better!

Mark L,
Horribly unfair? We need these troops now to win this epic struggle. What's unfair about winning a war.

In order for the world to be a much safer place because we invaded Iraq, shouldn't the amount of global terrorist attacks since 2003 have gone down instead of increased like they have?

Are you for real? You've quoted every 4 year old talking point there is...

Look, I've given you a hard time on this thread but I have to remember that part of my mission here is to educate... the educatable at least.

So let me try....

You know the year after Pearl Harbor, U.S. deaths where much higher than before. Civilian deaths in Europe where at an all time high. The recruiting in Germany was going like gangbusters. German and Japanese attacks where happening on a daily basis.

Your argument is that if the other side fights back then we're wrong to fight. That's silly.

How does more violence make us safer?

Because it kills the bad guys my poor little deprived flower child.

You know the year after Pearl Harbor, U.S. deaths where much higher than before. Civilian deaths in Europe where at an all time high. The recruiting in Germany was going like gangbusters. German and Japanese attacks where happening on a daily basis.

Wait a minute, hold the phone...I think I'm making a connection....

HOLY SHIT PAUL, WE'RE AT WAR RIGHT NOW!

Put a headscarf on Pelosi and deploy her immediately...we must capitulate as soon as possible!

I have only one thing to say to Paul, SPQR, and Heralder:

BRAVO!

Looks like ol' Baghdad BarneyG got his head handed to him with a side order of FreedomFries to boot.

Live at Nine's pretty clever. He takes the left's cognitive dissonance and tries to make a melody of it. Look, he supports the draft. He claims he wants to fight al-Qaeda, but not in Iraq.

Sorry, sonny; you're a fraud.
=======================

wherever we have air superiority

And the United States Navy and Air Force flat out OWN the airspace.

We don't have the man power to keep it going past the next 6 months

Blasts from the past from the naysayers -

We can't win in Afghanistan. The whole Soviet military couldn't beat the mujahideen, the US military surely can't either.

Days into the Afghanistan war: Our troops are bogged down. They can't break through. It's a quaqmire! It's Vietnam all over again! Quagmire!

We can't win in Iraq. We aren't ready for a protracted battle in the desert against an entrenched Iraqi army. We're underestimating their military. The Republican Guard are some of the best trained fighters in any military.

We stop for a couple of days to let the sandstorms pass, allow the rear echelon support to catch up to our lightning fast advance -

We're bogged down! Is this the last stand for the United States forces? Can they break through?

General, all this bombing, are you trying to soften up the enemy? Hell no, we're not softening them up, we're killing them.

We can't take Baghdad without significant loss of life. As many as 10,000 body bags will be returning to the United States.

We can't do it. It'll be a quagmire. It's a quagmire (days into the war in Iraq).

I wish I had a buck for every time someone said the United States military couldn't do something.

Pfffft! F@%# them!

Horribly unfair? We need these troops now to win this epic struggle. What's unfair about winning a war.

What's horribly unfair dip weed is we'd wind up with pissers and moaners like you alongside serious men who volunteered. They'd get tired of your B.S. pissing and moaning and one of them might feel compelled to waste a bullet on your dumb ass.

That would be unfair, because then he'd be up on a murder charge for doing the military a favor.

>We stop for a couple of days to let the sandstorms pass, allow the rear echelon support to catch up to our lightning fast advance

heh- The "tactical pause" I remember that myth.

John, what the "we can't keep it going" nattering nabobs of negativism don't seem to comprehend is that the plan was never designed to be sustained for a long period.

The plan, as I understand it (and I could be wrong) is to use large numbers of troops to push the enemy out of his safe havens, then decimate them with the aid of the Iraqi forces. Once the enemy is reduced in numbers sufficiently, and the Iraqis are well trained enough, we can begin a gradual drawdown, which is what General Petraeus has already planned for.

But the drawdown has to happen when dictated by events in the theatre of war, not by some politician stumping for votes among stoned peaceniks thousands of miles away.

It's so entertaining to read the leftist wacko rants on this block. Such miserable whining pussies.

"..which is what General Petraeus has already planned for."

Allowing 190,000 assault rifles and handguns to end up with the bad guys was part of a plan?

How many people have been killed by that nice piece of work? How about the catholic priest that was murdered in Turkey with one of those missing glocks?

Want to explain that ccg?

Baghdad Barney, you never fail to show up with a crazy statement.

The Concerned Citizens program allows approved Iraqi militias to have AK-47s, yes, but it does not provide them. And in order to get approval the militia has to do certain things, including agreeing to wear distinctive and Coalition-approved uniforms and to work with, and generally defer to, Iraqi Police and Coalition forces.

And if you think that there were no firearms in Iraq prior to 2003, you're stupider than you appear... and that boggles the mind!

"The Concerned Citizens program allows approved Iraqi militias to have AK-47s,"

ccg says the missing 190,000 weapons is just approved operations (by Petreaus?)

If that is so, then why is this the case?

BAGHDAD, Aug. 27 -- Several federal agencies are investigating a widening network of criminal cases involving the purchase and delivery of billions of dollars of weapons, supplies and other matériel to Iraqi and American forces, according to American officials. The officials said it amounted to the largest ring of fraud and kickbacks uncovered in the conflict here....But now, American officials said, part of the criminal investigation is focused on Lt. Col. Levonda Joey Selph, who reported directly to General Petraeus and worked closely with him in setting up the logistics operation for what were then the fledgling Iraqi security forces."

Baghdad barney:

(AP) Fox News is refusing to air an ad critical of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito.

Didn't you forget something, like the rest of the quote?

(AP) Fox News is refusing to air an ad critical of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito, citing its lawyers' contention that the spot is factually incorrect.

Or maybe you believe Fox should ignore the advice of lawyers paid be on retainer.

Or maybe your brain operates at Absolute Zero where "neither emits nor absorbs energy."

So, Baghdad Barney, what proof do you have that the gun that killed that priest was part of the arms that went to Coalition forces under Petraeus' command?

Oh, and Baghdad Barney, please explain what your red herring has to do with the length of time our troops will need to be stationed in Iraq.

I am ashamed I fell for it, and I apologize to my conservative colleagues for my slip-up.

ccg, "80,000. That's how many Glock 19's and other pistols the GAO figures have gone missing among the 190,000 weapons that are "lost" in the Iraq War zone.

Newsweek offers a thoughtful examination of the history of how this hemorrhaging of weaponry is helping to destabilize the Middle East.

- A fifteen year old Muslim with a "grudge against the West" used one such gun to murder a Catholic priest in a coastal Turkish town....

- Another Muslim fanatic used a Glock last May to shoot up the Turkish Supreme Court. One justice was killed and four others were wounded....

Turkish - and American - authorities have since learned from Glock, the weapon's Austrian manufacturer, that the guns used in these attacks were only two of thousands that have streamed into Turkey and other countries from Iraq. And that the serial numbers on the guns match those assigned to "US Mission Iraq."

Baghdad barney:

AGHDAD, Aug. 27 -- Several federal agencies are investigating a widening network of criminal cases involving the purchase and delivery of billions of dollars of weapons,

....yadda....yaddaa...yadda. OK, you want an explainaton: There's none at the moment.

You're using your Rep[rehensible] Murtha card trying to lay blame before the investigation is complete.

BAGHDAD, Aug. 27 -- Several federal agencies are investigating a widening network of criminal cases involving the purchase and delivery of billions of dollars of weapons, supplies and other matériel to Iraqi and American forces, according to American officials. The officials said it amounted to the largest ring of fraud and kickbacks uncovered in the conflict here....But now, American officials said, part of the criminal investigation is focused on Lt. Col. Levonda Joey Selph, who reported directly to General Petraeus and worked closely with him in setting up the logistics operation for what were then the fledgling Iraqi security forces."

65. Posted by BarneyG2000

BaghdadBarney, First, don't you think it's significant that it's OUR own agencies that discovered and are investigating this?

And, do you think this is the first time something like this has happened during war? It happened in Vietnam, it happened in Korea, it happened in WW2. It happens when we aren't at war. It will happen in the next war.

ANYTIME someone has access to materials and weapons of great value and desired by others, the system can be perverted by someone with the means to establish the fraud network.

Now, what does that have to do with our fight in Iraq?

And this has exactly what to do with the length of time that the surge will need to be sustained, Baghdad Barney?

"Or maybe you believe Fox should ignore the advice of lawyers paid be on retainer.

Or maybe your brain operates at Absolute Zero where "neither emits nor absorbs energy."" by marc

To bad an independent review of the ad found it factual:

"Nov. 23 - A new ad taken out by several liberal interest groups says Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito made a ruling "to make it easier for corporations to discriminate" and also "voted to approve the strip search of a 10-year-old girl." ABC7's Mark Matthews conducts a Fact Check.

The ad in question won't run on the Fox network. Fox refuses to air it, saying it's factually incorrect. Our own fact check of this ad finds that it's accurate as far as it goes -- which isn't very far."

Baghdad barney:

Newsweek offers a thoughtful examination of the history of how this hemorrhaging of weaponry is helping to destabilize the Middle East.

Buwahahahahahahahaha!

Yep that's the ticket, lay blame on the alleged lose of weapons for the actions of deranged nutjobs.

Ever hear the phrase "guns don't kill people, people kill people?"

And so do deranged islamists and jihadist-cut-throats.

Our own fact check of this ad finds that it's accurate as far as it goes -- which isn't very far."

BaghdadBarney, They said it themself. "...as far as it goes -- which isn't very far."

The ad took the decision, without the context of the ruling, to make it sound unreasonable and irrational.

As I recall, the case was about a drug bust in a house and the officers serving the warrant were concerned the perps had used the girl to stash the drugs. The officers, a woman IIRC, took the young girl into a bathroom, and searched her.

Now, did the hit ad include that context? That sounds perfectly reasonable to me. The unreasonable part is someone who would allow druggie parents use a ten year old kid to avoid being arrested for drug possession.

ABC7's Mark Matthews

So, ABC, a competitor of Fox, is Baghdad Barney's idea of an "independent review[er]"?

No wonder he's so confused.

Close John in CA, this from the court record" (note the link Baghdad Barney and that it's a pdf file)

Once inside, however, the officers found no visitors, but only John Doe's wife, Jane, and their ten year old daughter, Mary...They were instructed to empty their pockets and lift their shirts. The female officer patted their pockets. She then told Jane and Mary Doe to drop their pants and turn around. No contraband was found.

Strip is strip....sans all clothes.

Thank you marc for the exact details. It's not even as "bad" as I remembered it.

As I said in a comment on a different thread a few days ago - liberals argue that there are few valid reasons for a search.

HEY!!!

I wasn't helping you John :-)

I was excoriating Baghdad Barney.

If you don't mind... just butt out! :-)

I see Barney is back to spamming comments with repetitions of irrelevant comments he's made in other threads.

And BTW Baghdad barney your "Samuel Alito made a ruling "to make it easier for corporations to discriminate" smells like 40 acres of horse crap also.

You been hangin' around DKos Kiddies, media matters and the DUmmies haven't you?

Ya know, between this thread and yesterdays you've been beat down pretty good. May I suggest a nice long vacation.

I hear the "rooms" at Wizbang Blue are reasonably priced (if you overlook the HIGH occupancy tax) they provide fee medical care during your stay and they even have moonbats on 24 hour call to attend to your every need.

I see Barney is back to spamming comments with repetitions of irrelevant comments he's made in other threads.

You didn't expect him to have an original thought, now did you?

You didn't expect him to have an original thought, now did you?

C-C-G - I'd settle for an original cut & paste. He can't even do that.

Using the words "Newsweek" and "thoughtful" in the same sentence pretty much proves you're an idiot.

Barney's nonsense is not going unnoticed by The Powers That Be, btw . . .

C-C-G - I'd settle for an original cut & paste. He can't even do that.

He can't even link. Or is that he won't link?

Isn't it great the way anti-war Liberals point out the crimes of other anti-war Liberals, like the missing (or not) guns to make their case? Would a pro-war Conservative sell arms or give them to the enemy? Only an anti-war America-hating Leftist like BarneyG or FreedomFries would do that. They are condemning the actions of one of their own co-scumbags to make their point. Idiots.

Where'd BaghdadBarney go? He didn't stick around to defend his truthful ads comments.

Bueller? Bueller? (crickets)

Maybe BaghdadBarney was crushed under the weight of contrary evidence.

We can only hope.

Jim A:

Barney's nonsense is not going unnoticed by The Powers That Be, btw . . .

Barney is tolerable, barely. At least he makes a wrong headed attempt at something resembling debate.

FreedomFRIED is the one that needs to go. And should have been gone within 24 hours after showing up.

marc ~ Have you been reading our emails?

Rove mind rays buddy.

Who needs emails.

The glaring fact from our liberal lefty trolls here is they don't want to win. They were the students in school who never competed in sports. They do not know the importance of planning and winning. They do not know there are consequences to losing in anything. They do not know how demoralized for life these troops would be if we made them lose. Bottom line, lefties are losers. ww

CCG

Oh my god I'm rolling on the floor laughing. You quoted Spiro Agnew!!!! Is he a hero of yours?

Why, JFO, you nattering nabob of negativity. You agonal minority.
=====

Re: Barney's comment at #73 and his Second? Third? Fourth? attempt to derail the conversation with charges against the other side without comment on the initial charge when he can't continue to defend the previous attempt to derail the conversation with other counter-charges. Not to mention every single one of these attempts provides NO supporting links to the quotes he cherry picks from all about the web. The only thing Alito was guilty of was discrimination in the wrong direction. And look who put the ad together: People for the American Way, the American Civil Liberties Union, the AFL-CIO, Moveon PAC, NARAL Pro-Choice America and others. (There, Barney, I'll help you with those links you're so loathe to provide and then out of the other side of your mouth consistently demanding links and proof of anyone else's points)

Alito was right in his decision, but it did not make it easier to discriminate. It held up "existing" standards of proof of racial discrimination. Those standards were not met.

Let me make it clear for Barney because his reading comprehension level doesn't even measure on any scale: That one person on the panel making the decision on who they would hire told her at a private lunch that at one point she was the top candidate and the fact that they did not inform her "officially" (that is, per Marriott SOP) that she had been rejected before they interviewed another is not proof of racial discrimination.

That was her entire argument. They didn't follow their own rules. Rules which had nothing to do with why a candidate is accepted or rejected, but how they are informed of their acceptance or rejection.

All this group did was reiterate MSM garbage which had already twisted the entire issue into something it was not.

The rest of the FactCheck.org piece gives plenty of context on the other two issues as well. The ad was clearly misleading, without context and at one point factually false.

This comment has been removed for violation of our terms of service, as specified at http://wizbangblog.com/tos/tos.php

And the United States Navy and Air Force flat out OWN the airspace.

Yeah, it's not just air superiority, but air supremacy.

"Where'd BaghdadBarney go? He didn't stick around to defend his truthful ads comments."

I'm still here john. I have not read one bit of evidence to say the Ad was not accurate. Was it misleading? Maybe, but most political Ads including the pro war Ads, as pointed out by several, are. As an example Fox ran swift boat Ads (another attempt to hijack the tread).

As far as the alleged missing weapons. There are 190,000 missing AKs and pistols. That is a fact. It is also a fact that two of those missing weapons have ended up in Turkey and used in crimes including murder. Turkey also stated in the full (Newsweek) article that that 1,000 or more weapons have entered the country through the black market.

I see that none of you are disputing the facts only the messenger.

Whoa, JFO makes himself look good. Now, how about making yourself FEEL good?
==

BG2. Some people prefer to die defending their community rather than disappearing en masse in the middle of the night, as happened with Saddam. Do you support the 2nd Amendment?
========================

Two out of two hundred thousand? Wow, BG2, you really know how to seize a small bone and shake the life out of it.
====

Hey BG2, there is a recent Swiftie thread notable for your conspicuous absence. Care to join us?
==========================

"I have not read one bit of evidence to say the Ad was not accurate."

Um, Barney....it was not accurate to say that Alito "made it easier for corporations to discriminate". It was flat out false. I've given you the proof. Deny reality all you want. It just makes it easier to prove you wrong every time you do it.

Furthermore, I know several lawyers who have told me, unequivocally, that even their liberal con law professors who are "pro-choice" admit that Doe was based on horrible law. But hey, far be it for Alito to say 20 years ago and under circumstances far from holding a position of judge that he basically agreed.

Oyster, I do not know what Ad you are talking about, but apparently your example was not why Fox refused to run the Ad:

"Fox News told IndependentCourt.org that it would not run the ad because it uses the words "ruling" and "voted" in reference to a dissenting opinion issued by Alito as a federal circuit judge. Using "voted" and "ruled" or "ruling" to apply to judges' actions - both in the majority and in dissent - are commonplace in the media and across the political spectrum, as the examples below make clear."

BG2, read Jeff Jacoby in the Boston Globe, today. Freefrie, learn to read with understanding.
=============================

Barney, his dissenting opinion was what I cited to make it clear to you that the ad was false. Fox's lawyers just took it a step further.

From the link I provided:
"Alito did dissent from a 1997 ruling that allowed an African-American woman to sue Marriott Corp. for discrimination because a white woman got the supervisor's job she wanted and thought she had been promised at a hotel in New Jersey.

Notice that? Alito was the only dissenter and provided a written dissent. The ad says he "made it easier for corporations to discriminate". How? It was NOT a ruling that decided guilt on one side or the other. It was merely whether or the case merited going to court at all. If anything, the majority decision to let the case go to court made it easier to sue corporations because it lowered the standard of proof of discrimination.

You really need to learn to read.

Barney learning to read? Not going to happen.

And again you provide no links for anyone to read the full piece you clip from. I'll do it here since you're so damn determined to make it hard for others to read the full text. You'll find it here and here.

Notice the headline in the first link:
Bush Nominee Gets An Assist from the "Fair & Balanced" Network

not NARAL Gets An Assist from CNN.

And the second one mocks the "Fair and Balanced" title as well, without telling their readers what the "national coalition of public interest organizations" consists of.

Oyster:

You really need to learn to read.

Baghdad barney knows how to read, it's how he processes the words that is sadly lacking in coherence and honesty.

What's worse is his inability to admit when he's holding his own ass that has been handed to him rather than admit the mistake and move on.

Marc: I firmly believe Barney couldn't even find his ass with both hands and an ass-map.

That's cold Oyster, in all probability that places his intellect on par or below Miss Teen S Carolina.

On second thought it is below, at least she recovered in following days by giving a coherent answer in other venues.

In Baghdad barney's case all he can do is change to thread topic, quote (unlinked) some other dubious source, do the Kerry Parse Word Shuffle (tm) or abandon the discussion entirely.

In Baghdad barney's case all he can do is change to thread topic, quote (unlinked) some other dubious source, do the Kerry Parse Word Shuffle (tm) or abandon the discussion entirely.

Or, as seems to be his M.O. in most cases, all of the above, not necessarily in that order.