Obama Crude

The consequences of the Dimocratic establishment gifting Barack Obama the nomination are coming home to roost. We mocked George W. Bush when he was wholly unprepared, regardless of all the warnings and strategy memoranda, for the attacks of September 11, 2001. We held Bush accountable. We mocked and held George W. Bush in contempt for the incompetents hired and the failure of agencies, such as FEMA, under his watch.

The Bush government noted at the time that the September 11 attacks came only eight months into his watch. We Democrats vilified George W. Bush for his excuses. Now it is more than past time for the American people to hold Barack Obama to account. Hillary Clinton and those of us who supported her knew that we needed a president who would be ready on Day 1. Barack Obama was not ready on Day 1. Barack Obama is not ready on Year 2.

Barack Obama is not ready on Year 2 and never will be ready because the elemental fact about Barack Obama is that he is NOT qualified to be president. Barack Obama plays a president on TV, but he is not qualified to lead the United States. Obama knows it. He himself as said it. He is NOT qualified.



The latest evidence, the latest consequences of a gifted nomination, come from the Gulf of Mexico.



Barack Obama terrified of Grizzly Momma Sarah Palin squeaked out a “Drill, Baby, Drill”. But unqualified Barack Obama did not bother with inspections to make sure the “Drill, Baby, Drill” endangered the Gulf. Barack Obama ordered the drill, but excused away the inspections. Maybe it is because Obama is in hock to the owners of the Deepwater Horizon, British Petroleum.

During the campaigns of 2008 Barack Obama and his DailyKooks attacked Hillary Clinton on the question of lobbyists. “Lobbyists corrupt” said Chicago Obama and his DailyKook clown posse. We take Chicago Obama at his word that “lobbyists” corrupt him and note how his campaign from the very beginning relied on British Petroleum.

In December of 2007 we noted Barack Obama’s British Petroleum lip-lock. Obama political aides were on the payroll of British Petroleum even as they worked for Barack Obama. Big Media will not now mention Cheney’s Halliburton Obama’s British Petroleum history. But indeed the Obama British Petroleum history is long and crude.

Have you seen Obama’s British Petroleum connections featured in any Big Media outlet lately? Of course not.

A few random mentions of responsible officials gifting safety awards to the owners of the Deepwater Horizon rig have surfaced. But thus far no connect the dots blaring headlines of Obama’s British Petroleum lip-lock.

Also NOT featured in Big Media headlines is the remarkable Barack Obama statement, a few weeks before the fires in the Gulf, before mile thick oil slicks. Obama said:

It turns out the oil rigs today generally don’t cause oil spills. They are technologically very advanced.”

Perhaps very advanced at avoiding inspections but clearly something went wrong. As with most machinery you have to keep your eye on it, not go golfing – as Obama has done. You have to have repeated inspections not go golfing. Instead of Gulfing, Obama has been golfing.

Caught with his golf shoes on, Barack Obama once again resorted to publicity stunts. The message for the publicity stunts was coordinated but the actual emergency response was near non-existent. The publicity stunts propagandized “we were ready”, but the reality was a Katrina response.



Competence was on the links with Brownie:

“The ferocious oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico is threatening President Barack Obama’s reputation for competence, just as surely as it endangers the Gulf ecosystem.

So White House aides are escalating their efforts to reassure Congress and the public in the face of a slow-motion catastrophe, even though it’s not clear they can bring it under control anytime soon.[snip]

The promise of rational, responsive and efficient government is Obama’s brand, his justification for bigger and bolder federal interventions and, ultimately, his rationale for a second term.

So there was a “little bit of panic,” according to one administration official, when White House aides sensed the oil spill narrative getting away from them last week. The White House was particularly alarmed by the rash of stories comparing the Obama administration’s initial response with President George W. Bush’s sluggish response in the wake of Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

Katrina was one of the first issues Obama seized upon after his election to the Senate in 2004 — and he made a highly publicized visit to New Orleans during the campaign, using the Bush administration response as a metaphor for incompetent and uncaring government.

The excuses and publicity stunts have been many. But the incompetent and uncaring facts remain:

“On Sunday, one day after keeping his date at the annual Washington insider laugh fest known as the White House Correspondents’ Dinner and two days after appearing with rock star Bono at the White House, Mr. Obama got to the Gulf Coast. He flew into New Orleans, held a few private meetings and issued a statement that first referred to the bomb scare in New York City. He acted way too much like George Bush after Katrina.

In the first crucial days after British Petroleum’s Deepwater Horizon rig exploded on April 20, the Obama administration wrongly let BP control the response. There was every reason for the company to minimize the severity of the leak and the potential for a catastrophic spill, and BP also had to deal with the 11 workers missing and presumed dead from the explosion.

If BP had public relations issues to consider, so did the Obama administration. [snip]

At first, the White House response lacked an sense of urgency. As The New York Times reported Sunday, the administration initially discounted the likelihood of a major spill. The platform sank on April 22. At first, Coast Guard officials speculated that there might not even be a leak. Not until nine days after the explosion did the Obama administration acknowledge the possibility of “a spill of national significance.” That hope-for-the-best response delayed an official request for help from the Defense Department.”

Oh, that misguided HOPE. “Hope-for-the-best” is not a strategy. But as we know, HOPE is opiate of the clown posse.

The publicity stunt government of Barack Obama finally figured out the environmental disaster in the Gulf would not be good publicity:

“The rapidly expanding environmental catastrophe caused by the oil spill off the coast of Louisiana is presenting a growing political challenge to the Obama White House, with Mr. Obama and his aides at pains to defend the response and forestall comparisons to the Hurricane Katrina crisis.[snip]

Failure to get control of the relief effort and contain the environmental challenge could pose the same kind of political threat to Mr. Obama’s popular standing that the much-criticized handling of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina did for former President George W. Bush. And unlike Katrina, it is likely the federal government will be the clear lead authority in dealing with the BP spill.

But Mr. Obama only Thursday dispatched Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and Environmental Protection Agency administrator Lisa Jackson to help coordinate the federal response to the potential environmental disaster.[snip]

Mr. Obama’s response to the disaster will be closely scrutinized for parallels to the response of Mr. Bush to the devastating Hurricane Katrina that blew into New Orleans in August 2005, destroying levies and damaging the below-sea-level city. [snip]

Then, the federal government was critcized for not taking over the local effort by state and local agencies. So far, no one has complained that the federal government has not taken over the operation now led by BP.”

George W. Bush was accused of not caring for the black people of New Orleans. Now we have the Bush mirror image in Barack. It was the white working class suffering in the Gulf, so Obama did not care (and let’s not forget the Tennessee floods). Those are not “his” voters.

His voters are the “situation comedy” bloc. And of course, British Petroleum. So no inspections for his pals.

“The federal agency responsible for ensuring that the Deepwater Horizon was operating safely before it exploded last month fell well short of its own policy that the rig be inspected at least once per month, an Associated Press investigation shows.

In fact, the agency’s inspection frequency on the Deepwater Horizon fell dramatically over the past five years, according to federal Minerals Management Service records. The rig blew up April 20, killing 11 people before sinking and triggering a massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Since January 2005, inspectors issued just one minor infraction for the rig. That strong track record led the agency last year to herald the Deepwater Horizon as an industry model for safety.

The inspection gaps are the latest in a series of questions raised about the agency’s oversight of the oil drilling industry. Members of Congress and President Barack Obama have criticized what they call the cozy relationship between regulators and oil companies and vowed to reform MMS, which both regulates the industry and collects billions in royalties from it.”

What about the cozy relationship between Obama and British Petroleum? It’s another “see no Rezko evil, hear no Rezko evil, speak no Rezko evil”.

Obama’s palms were greased, or should we say “oiled”:

“Earlier AP investigations have shown that the doomed rig was allowed to operate without safety documentation required by MMS regulations for the exact disaster scenario that occurred; that the cutoff valve which failed has repeatedly broken down at other wells in the years since regulators weakened testing requirements; and that regulation is so lax that some key safety aspects on rigs are decided almost entirely by the companies doing the work.

The AP sought to find out how many times government safety inspectors visited the Deepwater Horizon, and what they found. In response, MMS officials offered a changing series of numbers. The MMS has had long-standing issues with its data management.”

We suppose Obama will blame Bush, or blame the staff. Obama surely will not blame the lobbyists from British Petroleum that worked, or is it work, for him. Whatever happened to those lobbyists? Has Obama been in contact with them lately? Have they been in contact with Obama lately? Obama denounced Billy Tauzin of Big Pharma while secretly meeting with him and cutting deals with the very same Billy he ran campaign ads against. Is Obama meeting with his British Petroleum lobbyist friends?

What we do know is that inspectors were not bothering with inspections of Obama’s British Petroleum lobbyist friends’ oil rigs:

“In response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed by AP, the agency has released copies of only three inspection reports — those conducted in January, February and April. According to the documents, inspectors spent two hours or less each time they visited the massive rig. Some information appeared to be “whited out,” without explanation.

Since the explosion, the agency has reiterated several times the inspection-once-per-month assertion, which appeared on its website at least as early as 1999.

In an e-mail to AP, an Interior Department official emphasized with italics that the MMS inspects rigs “at least once a month” when drilling is under way. Monthly inspections of offshore drilling rigs are an agency policy, though not required by regulation, said David Dykes, chief of the agency’s office of safety management for the Gulf region.

Last week, at a joint Coast Guard-MMS investigatory hearing in Kenner, La., MMS official Jason Mathews asked Michael Saucier, MMS’s regional supervisor for field operations in the Gulf, “And how often do we perform drilling inspections in the Gulf of Mexico?”

“We perform them at a minimum once a month, but we can do more if need be,” Saucier said.

The job falls to the 55 inspectors in the Gulf who are supposed to visit the 90 drilling rigs once per month and the approximately 3,500 oil production platforms once per year.

The Deepwater Horizon’s inspection frequency numbers struck Kenneth Arnold, a veteran offshore drilling consultant and engineer.

I’d certainly question it,” he said. “I’d ask, ‘Why aren’t you doing it?‘” [snip]

A summary of the inspection history that the MMS officials provided AP said the Deepwater Horizon received six “incidents of noncompliance” — the agency’s term for citations.”

The problems were with the blowout preventer. The device that failed. There once were inspections and citations. But apparently since Obama has been in charge, or golfing, some inspections have gone missing. Under the despised Bush, inspections occurred and major citations served. As late as 2007, under George W. Bush, there were inspections and citations served. Last year, under Obama’s watch, the Deepwater Horizon was awarded a safety prize.

The damage to the Gulf is growing, just like the damage to America is growing:

“Energy giant BP’s latest desperate attempt to siphon gushing oil from a broken pipe in the Gulf of Mexico has failed as the toxic slick grows to 10 miles long.

As BP struggled to contain the environmental disaster, scientists have found enormous oil plumes lurking beneath the surface of the water, including one as large as 10 miles long, three miles wide and 300ft thick.

The discovery suggests that the leak could be ‘substantially worse’ than estimates given previously by BP and the government.”

British Petroleum was in charge. Obama was golfing. Sixty Minutes interviewed the workers on the rig. Those that survived. British Petroleum, Obama’s pals were in charge.


Watch CBS News Videos Online
Watch CBS News Videos Online

No mention of Obama and his British Petroleum campaign aides appears on Big Media. Obama’s pals at British Petroleum, his lobbyist campaign aides from and of British Petroleum, were in charge. That’s the unvarnished, unrefined truth. It’s Obama Crude.

Share

109 thoughts on “Obama Crude

  1. nypost.com/p/news/local/families_blast_kagan_HG8Y7rJksGy6HjlEuhmUpM

    9/11 families blast Kagan
    ======================

    By SUSAN EDELMAN
    Posted: 2:30 AM, May 17, 2010

    Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan has gotten an angry thumbs-down from 9/11 family members who say she played a key role in quashing a lawsuit that accused the Saudi kingdom of helping finance the terror attacks.

    “Kagan is the main reason why the Supreme Court ruled against the 9/11 families,” said William Doyle, who lost his son in the Twin Towers.

    Doyle and thousands of other 9/11 relatives had joined in a suit that traced funding for the 19 hijackers to certain Saudi royals, along with banks, corporations and Islamic charities.

    The royals were let off the hook last year at the urging of Kagan, the US solicitor general.

    Kagan protected them,” Doyle said. “I think it’s a huge issue, and I hope it comes up in her confirmation hearings.”

    She filed a brief to the Supreme Court last May, arguing that the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act shielded Saudi princes from the suit’s claims that they gave money to Osama bin Laden and other terrorist leaders or to charities that funneled funds to al Qaeda.

    Kagan cited “the potentially significant foreign-relations consequences of subjecting another sovereign state to suit.”

    The Supreme Court declined to hear the case.

  2. Admin:

    There’s SOOO much wrong, soooo much corruption.

    How can you possibly choose the topic of the day???

  3. Heh.. There’s an article on DailyKook styled “BP, Progress or PR?”. Some of the comments are starting to !@#$% at teh won: “where is Obama?!?!?”

  4. All just a simple misunderstanding. The tactics were not quite what O would have hoped for but his motives were sublime. He is not anti-semitic. He just liked the cut of Reverend Wright’s jib sail. Another simple misunderstanding. And letting Bibi cool his heels while he had dinner with his family ? Oh Bibi looked tired, and O thought it would be good to let him take a rest. The relationship is unshakable. Five months from now everyone will just forgive and forget.

    And Mein Kamf was just another book.

    Let us hope those who supported Obama in the general election based on his statement of support for Israel do not fall for this newest line of bullshit. They would do well to listen to Jackie Mason. They would do well to listen to the people of Israel because they are the ones who are most likely to pay the price for Obama’s errors of omission and commission.

    Top News
    ——————————————————————————–

    Schieffer: Obama Bracing for Specter Loss

    Home > InsideCover Print Page | Forward Page | E-mail Us
    Rahm: We ‘Screwed Up’ on Message
    Sunday, 16 May 2010 09:30 PM Article Font Size

    White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel says the Obama administration had “screwed up” in demonstrating its support of Israel over the last year, and acknowledges it will probably take months before it can win back Jewish support.

    “During the elections there were doubts about President Obama’s support for Israel, and now they have resurfaced,” Emanuel told a group of prominent rabbis who visited the White House Thursday, according to The Jerusalem Post. “But concerning policy, we have done everything that we can that is in Israel’s security – and long-range interests. Watch what the administration does.”

    Backing Emanuel was veteran Mideast envoy Dennis Ross, who now runs the administration’s Iran policy. He tried to assure the rabbis that the United States had no plans to pressure Israel to reveal its own alleged nuclear stockpiles by calling for a nuclear-free Middle East.

    Emanuel said that the administration’s priorities in the Middle East center around three issues: isolating Iran, “removing America’s footprint in Iraq,” which is perceived as an intrusion into Arab and Muslim lands, and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, which he said is key to Israel’s security and also helps both Israel and the U.S.

  5. I was wondering when the admin was going to write about Obama’s non-effort concerning his lackadaisical response to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.  This situation is indeed Obama’s Katrina, but in fact, it’s much worse since it WILL be affecting millions of people, PLUS it has the potential to adversely affect the environment beyond a local area.  Since the boobs at BP Oil have not stopped this massive leak, and the boob leading our government seemed not to have very much concern in his initial response to this TRAGEDY, this spill will be in the news for years.  Obama’s reputation will erode further as people learn more about his cozy BP connections, the lax safety measures of HIS administration with regards to oil drilling, and also when people start seeing oil washing ashore from Louisinia to eastern Canada, thus affecting millions of people lives from work to play.  Anyone who tries to downplay Obama’s disgraceful response to this national emergency, especially when compared to George Bush’s Katrina saga, is being intellectually dishonest.  George Bush was rightfully scorned for his Katrina response.  I would expect that the current gulf tragedy at least result in Obama being criticized in the same manner, but when one considers the scope of this tragedy, Obama should actually be impeached for his criminal negligence causing economic, and environmental catastrophies throughout the country.

  6. and then you have a death-defying moment for bambi as he forged his way through a bee swarm this moment for something so nationally important…golfing. Then he spent his precious time welcoming another sports team to the WH.

    When or when will this tired old man have time to clean up his messes?

  7. This oil gusher just makes me sick. I parents home in which I grew in was on Nueces Bay…The Gulf of Mexico was our front yard…this is just soooo sick! They can cap this well, but are trying to save it because of the money they spend drilling it.

  8. “racist bees”. oh my! That’s hilarious. I think redstate is calling them the “first of 9 plagues”

  9. I have to give Gov. Palin a lot of credit, the woman, before she opened up contracts for oil fields in AK created a new office within her administration that would independently check the oil rigs on the North Slope before any contracts were awarded, she did not want to rely on the Interior dept’s opinion, she wanted strict local control to inspect those oil drilling places.
    I am more and more impressed with this woman.

    The fool in the WH is more interested in making sure he is not blamed more than making sure to accept blame and then figure out how to avoid this for the future.

  10. sadly, this oil slick will be affect more states on the eastern shore, mainly because it will be carried through the currents to the eastern shore. The whole thing is so sad.

  11. The Freedom of the Press Act signing marks yet another milestone in the path to Utopia. Obama has been most magnanimous. He has bestowed on the benighted press the unequivocal right to ask questions, and upon himself the the reciprocal right to refuse to answer them. This is an extension of the Miranda Rule favored by his legal brain Holder–who was last seen Mirandizing sharks in a swimming pool. But Obama is a merciful god. He will answer their questions when it is a press day. But he alone decides whether today is a press day. If big media has been printing enough puff pieces for him, then by god, today is a press day, and if not then not. Put differently, the right hand giveth and the left hand taketh away.
    ——————————————————————–

    Obama doesn’t take questions at Freedom of Press Act signing

    Washington (CNN) – After the signing of the Freedom of Press Act on Monday, President Obama declined to take any questions from the press.

    During a pooled press event in the Oval Office, President Obama was asked if he would take a couple questions.

    “You’re certainly free to ask the question,” Obama told the reporters in the room. “I won’t be answering, I’m not doing a press conference today, but we’ll be seeing you in the course of the week.”

    From CNN, via Memeorandum.

    The actual full name of this act is the “Daniel Pearl Freedom of the Press Act.”

    Danny Pearl was a passionate and true journalist who, I can’t help but believe, would have been as angry as his fellow journalists at Obama’s decree that he would refuse all questions at the ceremony for the bill bearing his name.

    It would seem that the Obama administration cares more about the protection of the “rule of law” for the likes of Khalid Sheik Mohammed — who brags that he personally beheaded Danny Pearl — than for the sacred, heretofore constitutionally protected rights of the Fourth Estate (our press).

  12. @ wbboei

    Danny Pearl was a passionate and true journalist who, I can’t help but believe, would have been as angry as his fellow journalists at Obama’s decree that he would refuse all questions at the ceremony for the bill bearing his name.

    __________________________________________________

    I’ve yet to see any sort of “anger” from the MFM lapdogs. The only thing they appear to be the slightest bit upset about is that pResident jackass disseminates info through exclusive interviews with NYT and WaPo rather than throw the crumbs their way.

    Stated differently, I’ve seen nothing that would indicate they would do anything other than propogate multitudinous blowjob “articles” were he to give them a presser every afternoon. They abandoned even the pretense of investigating anything regarding the blamer-in-chief in 08, or at least publishing anything they found if they did investigate.

  13. Napolitano too:

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/05/17/napolitano_admits_she_hasnt_read_arizona_law_but_says_she_wouldnt_sign_it.html

    Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano admits she hasn’t read the Arizona immigration law, but passed judgment on it anyway. “That’s not the kind of law I would have signed,” she declared.

    “I believe it’s a bad law enforcement law. I believe it mandates and requires local enforcement and puts them in a position many do not want to be placed in,” Napolitano said.

    “When I was dealing with laws of that ilk, most of the law enforcement agencies in Arizona at that time were opposed to such legislation,” she claimed.

    video at link

  14. There are no words:

    http://entertainment.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/05/17/woody-allen-president-obama-dictator/

    Woody Allen has a strange take on the democracy that allowed him to become rich and famous.

    The “Scoop” director said it would be a cool idea for President Barack Obama to be dictator for for a few years.

    Why?

    So he could get things done without all the hassle of opposing views getting in the way.

    In an interview published by Spanish language newspaper La Vanguardia (that we translated), Allen says “I am pleased with Obama. I think he’s brilliant. The Republican Party should get out of his way and stop trying to hurt him.”

    But wait – there’s more!

    The director said “it would be good…if he could be a dictator for a few years because he could do a lot of good things quickly.

    Of course, Allen has a famously strange relationship with reality. The director took nude photos of his lover Mia Farrow’s teen-age adopted daughter Soon-Yi Previn, and then ended up marrying her after separating from Farrow.

    Farrow also said he molested their seven-year-old adopted daugther, Dylan. A judge refused to act on the charges, but called his relationship with Soon-Yi “grossly inappropriate.”

    Perhaps that judge has an opinion on Allen’s “dictator” comments?

  15. Another “sure thing” Dimocratic seat in trouble. Can we say “dead duck” yet?:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/18/nyregion/18blumenthal.html

    At a ceremony honoring veterans and senior citizens who sent presents to soldiers overseas, Attorney General Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut rose and spoke of an earlier time in his life.

    “We have learned something important since the days that I served in Vietnam,” Mr. Blumenthal said to the group gathered in Norwalk in March 2008. “And you exemplify it. Whatever we think about the war, whatever we call it — Afghanistan or Iraq — we owe our military men and women unconditional support.”

    There was one problem: Mr. Blumenthal, a Democrat now running for the United States Senate, never served in Vietnam. He obtained at least five military deferments from 1965 to 1970 and took repeated steps that enabled him to avoid going to war, according to records.

    The deferments allowed Mr. Blumenthal to complete his studies at Harvard; pursue a graduate fellowship in England; serve as a special assistant to The Washington Post’s publisher, Katharine Graham; and ultimately take a job in the Nixon White House.

    In 1970, with his last deferment in jeopardy, he landed a coveted spot in the Marine Reserve, which virtually guaranteed that he would not be sent to Vietnam. He joined a unit in Washington that conducted drills and other exercises and focused on local projects, like fixing a campground and organizing a Toys for Tots drive.

    Many politicians have faced questions over their decisions during the Vietnam War, and Mr. Blumenthal, who is seeking the seat being vacated by Senator Christopher J. Dodd, is not alone in staying out of the war.

    But what is striking about Mr. Blumenthal’s record is the contrast between the many steps he took that allowed him to avoid Vietnam, and the misleading way he often speaks about that period of his life now, especially when he is speaking at veterans’ ceremonies or other patriotic events.

    Sometimes his remarks have been plainly untrue, as in his speech to the group in Norwalk. At other times, he has used more ambiguous language, but the impression left on audiences can be similar.

    In an interview on Monday, the attorney general said that he had misspoken about his service during the Norwalk event and might have misspoken on other occasions. “My intention has always been to be completely clear and accurate and straightforward, out of respect to the veterans who served in Vietnam,” he said.

    But an examination of his remarks at the ceremonies shows that he does not volunteer that his service never took him overseas. And he describes the hostile reaction directed at veterans coming back from Vietnam, intimating that he was among them.

    In 2003, he addressed a rally in Bridgeport, where about 100 military families gathered to express support for American troops overseas. “When we returned, we saw nothing like this,” Mr. Blumenthal said. “Let us do better by this generation of men and women.”

    At a 2008 ceremony in front of the Veterans War Memorial Building in Shelton, he praised the audience for paying tribute to troops fighting abroad, noting that America had not always done so.

    “I served during the Vietnam era,” he said. “I remember the taunts, the insults, sometimes even physical abuse.”

    Mr. Blumenthal, 64, is known as a brilliant lawyer who likes to argue cases in court and uses language with power and precision. He is also savvy about the news media, and attentive to how he is portrayed in the press.

    But the way he speaks about his military service has led to confusion and frequent mischaracterizations of his biography in his home state newspapers. In at least eight newspaper articles published in Connecticut from 2003 to 2009, he is described as having served in Vietnam.

    The New Haven Register on July 20, 2006, described him as “a veteran of the Vietnam War,” and on April 6, 2007, said that the attorney general had “served in the Marines in Vietnam.” On May 26, 2009, The Connecticut Post, a Bridgeport newspaper that is the state’s third-largest daily, described Mr. Blumenthal as “a Vietnam veteran.” And The Shelton Weekly reported on May 23, 2008, that Mr. Blumenthal “was met with applause when he spoke about his experience as a Marine sergeant in Vietnam.”

    And the idea that he served in Vietnam has become such an accepted part of his public biography that when a national outlet, Slate magazine, produced a profile of Mr. Blumenthal in 2006, it said he had “enlisted in the Marines rather than duck the Vietnam draft.

    It does not appear that Mr. Blumenthal ever sought to correct those mistakes.[snip]

    On a less serious matter, another flattering but untrue description of Mr. Blumenthal’s history has appeared in profiles about him. In two largely favorable profiles, the Slate article and a magazine article in The Hartford Courant in 2004 with which he cooperated, Mr. Blumenthal is described prominently as having served as captain of the swim team at Harvard. Records at the college show that he was never on the team.[snip]

    In an interview, Jean Risley, the chairwoman of the Connecticut Vietnam Veterans Memorial Inc., recalled listening to an emotional Mr. Blumenthal offering remarks at the dedication of the memorial. She remembered him describing the indignities that he and other veterans faced when they returned from Vietnam.

    “It was a sad moment,” she recalled. “He said, ‘When we came back, we were spat on; we couldn’t wear our uniforms.’ It looked like he was sad to me when he said it.”

    Ms. Risley later telephoned the reporter to say she had checked into Mr. Blumenthal’s military background and learned that he had not, in fact, served in Vietnam.

    The Vietnam chapter in Mr. Blumenthal’s biography has received little attention despite his nearly three decades in Connecticut politics.

    But now, after repeatedly shunning opportunities for higher office, Mr. Blumenthal is the man Democrats nationally are depending on to retain the seat they controlled for 30 years under Mr. Dodd, and he is likely to face more intense scrutiny.

    After obtaining Mr. Blumenthal’s Selective Service records through a Freedom of Information Act request, The New York Times asked David Curry, a professor at the University of Missouri — St. Louis and an expert on the Vietnam draft, to examine them.

    Mr. Curry said the records showed that Mr. Blumenthal had received at least five deferments. Mr. Blumenthal did not dispute that but said he did not know how many deferments he had received.[snip]

    But in early 1968, President Lyndon B. Johnson, under pressure over criticism that wealthier young men were avoiding the draft through graduate school, abolished nearly all graduate deferments and sharply increased the number of troops sent to Southeast Asia.

    That summer, Mr. Blumenthal’s draft classification changed from 2-S, an educational deferment, to 2-A, an occupational deferment — a rare exemption from military service for men who contended that it was in the “national health, safety and interest” for them to remain in their civilian jobs. At the time, he was working as a special assistant to Ms. Graham, whose son Donald he had befriended at Harvard. About six months later, following the election of President Richard M. Nixon, Mr. Blumenthal went to work in the White House as a senior staff assistant to Mr. Moynihan, who was then Nixon’s urban affairs adviser.

    But at the end of that year, he became eligible for induction after he drew a low number in a draft lottery held on Dec. 1, 1969. His number was 152, and people with numbers as high as 195 were being drafted in his group, according to the Selective Service.

    Two months after the lottery, in February 1970, Mr. Blumenthal obtained a second occupational deferment, according to the records. The status of people with occupational deferments, however, was growing increasingly shaky, with the war raging and the Nixon administration increasingly uncomfortable with them.

    In April 1970, Mr. Blumenthal secured a spot in the Marine Corps Reserve, which was regarded as a safe harbor for those who did not want to go to war.[snip]

    Mr. Blumenthal landed in the 4th Civil Affairs Group in Washington, whose members included the well-connected in Washington.

  16. Although it is nothing we ALL don’t already know, Hannity is vile, vile, vile.

    He is talking about BO’s aunt who was deported but never left, has been on public assistance and is now apparently going to get to stay. Hannity is equating BO with Bill Clinton because Bill’s brother’s daughter is supposedly on assistance although we are never told the circumstances. Hannity continually tries to trash Clinton because he says he the great Hannity would never allow his niece to be on the gov. dole and Bill Clinton is selfish not to help her.

    Hannity tries to push this story about Clinton often. Apparently he is not getting the feed back he wants against Bill.

    Anything Hannity can do to trash the Clintons, he does and often.

    Hannity is pure evil.

    Just needed to get that said!

  17. admin
    May 17th, 2010 at 9:59 pm
    **********

    I can’t believe he has gotten this far on this most horrible of lies! Swim team captain? Shame….

    Money really does buy happiness I guess….and delusions of grandeur. Where is the VFW one might ask?

  18. Admin:

    I am disgusted beyond words. I have friends who have served in Vietnam, what the hell has happened to this disgusting party that used to be a proud party of JFK?

    I am disgusted! throughly disgusted that a man would lie, outright lie about his nonexistant service, when thousands went and served and thousands died.

    I used to make fun of Cheney for his defferrents, but at least he didnt outright lie that he served in Vietnam.
    I have no words anymore for this disgusting “Democratic” party. Not Anymore. Everyday they reveal something even more disgusting.

  19. I don’t listen to the news anymore, just what I get in , so I don’t know if anyone is even talking about the oil spill on the networks. At work, and I live in Texas, and this appears that it will have a major, life changing impact here, no one is talking about it. I do work in obot land. Actually I was told, in so many words last week that I was not considered for a job because of my passionate political views. I was told this by a bot that i have worked with on and off for 25 years. Amazing. She was a big time supporter, but really we had only one conversation about “him”. Guess it was a good one. I usually don’t mix politics and work so I am amazed at poisonous delusions that remain sadly as strong as ever.

  20. From ACE…

    UPDATE: Blumenthal remembers the last mission.

    “Hartford… shit; I’m still only in Hartford… Every time I think I’m gonna wake up back in the jungle. ”
    Posted by: Richard Blumenthal at May 17, 2010 09:31 PM (asRwH)

  21. THE POLITICAL CORRECTNESS OF THE MISS USA PAGEANT CONTINUES…
    *****************

    A gaffetastic new Miss USA
    By Michelle Malkin • May 16, 2010 11:19 PM

    She nearly tripped over her gown.

    She called birth control a “controlled substance.”

    She argued that contraceptives should be covered by health insurers because they are “expensive” — and then said you could get them for “free” from your OB/GYN’s office.

    And now she is the new Miss USA:

    Rima Fakih of Dearborn, Mich., won the pageant at the Planet Hollywood Resort & Casino on the Las Vegas Strip after swimsuit, evening gown and interview competitions. When asked how she felt about winning the crown, she said, “Ask me after I’ve had a pizza.”

    Fakih nearly fell while finishing her walk in a long, strapless gown because of the length of its train, but she made it without a spill and went on to win.

    During the interview portion, Fakih was asked whether she thought birth control should be paid for by health insurance, and she said she believed it should because it’s costly.

    “I believe that birth control is just like every other medication even though it’s a controlled substance,” Fakih said.
    Imagine if those words had come out of the mouth of Carrie Prejean or Sarah Palin.

    Between the NYTimes, MSNBC, Jon Stewart, and the late night talkers, we wouldn’t hear the end of it.

    Does this woman know what a “controlled substance” is?

    More importantly: Does she even comprehend the concept of insurance? The purpose of insurance isn’t to cover every last medical expense. It’s supposed to cover events that are beyond your control. Should auto insurers now cover oil changes and satellite radio installations? I mean, hey, they’re “expensive,” too!

    Fakih’s cheerleaders are too busy tooting the identity politics horn to care what comes out of her mouth:

    Arab Americans across metro Detroit cheered as Rima Fakih of Dearborn was crowned Miss USA tonight in Las Vegas.

    “This is unbelievable,” said Rami Haddad, 26 of Livonia, one of Fakih’s biggest supporters. “It’s a dream come true. I can’t express my feelings.”

    Fakih, of Lebanese descent, is believed to be the first Arab American and Muslim to become Miss USA.
    ***

    Meanwhile, Miss Oklahoma lost out after expressing support for Arizona’s immigration enforcement law and celebrating states’ rights:

    Miss Oklahoma USA Morgan Elizabeth Woolard was named first runner-up after handling a question about Arizona’s new immigration law. Woolard said she supports the law, which requires police enforcing another law to verify a person’s immigration status if there’s “reasonable suspicion” that the person is in the country illegally.

    She said she’s against illegal immigration but is also against racial profiling.

    “I’m a huge believer in states’ rights. I think that’s what’s so wonderful about America. So I think it’s perfectly fine for Arizona to create that law.
    Looks like the Miss USA pageant didn’t want to risk the wrath of the open-borders mob.

    Or of that ranting, conservative woman-bashing nutball and former Miss USA judge, Perez Hilton.

  22. Netanyahu Acts Like A Dhimmi

    Incensed at the treatment Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu received at the hands of Barack Hussein Obama, Janet Porter of Faith2Action decided to send the prime minister of gift of roses. It was to show how American Christians support Israel, despite the buffoon occupying the White House.

    Anyway, Netanyahu, who was petrified of offending his master Obama refused the gift.

    Has the fight between US President Barack Obama and Israel become so fetid that it can overcome the fragrance of nearly 10,000 roses?

    That appeared to be the case on Thursday, when officials in the Prime Minister’s Office made clear that they cannot accept a donation of 800 dozen yellow roses from American Christians who were upset by reports of Obama’s treatment of Binyamin Netanyahu in the White House last week.

    Florida-based radio host and author Janet Porter was so incensed by what she thought was Obama’s inappropriate behavior that she called upon her listeners to give Netanyahu yellow roses to symbolize friendship, with each bouquet costing a symbolic price of $19.48.

    The response was overwhelming as Christian supporters of Israel went online to the Web site of Porter’s Faith2action organization and ordered the flowers, which were to be accompanied by a card with the words, “Be encouraged, Americans stand with you,” along with a quote from a psalm: “The Lord builds up Jerusalem.”

    Porter contacted respected Beit Shemesh-based florist Richard Kovler, who would be ready to deliver the huge amount of flowers after Pessah ends next week. But he needs someone inthe Prime Minister’s Office to receive them.

    When Kovler contacted the appropriate Netanyahu adviser, he was told that the Prime Minister’s Office could not get involved, because Netanyahu must be very careful to avoid anything that smacks of disrespect for the president at such a sensitive time.

    Kovler said it would be a shame if he went to Netanyahu’s official residence in Jerusalem’s Rehavia neighborhood and was forced to leave the flowers in the street.

    “I understand the politics of why the prime minister cannot publicly support this effort, but on the other hand if these flowers are rejected, it could also cause a lot of anger among the literally thousands of American Christians who are just trying to showIsrael some very much needed goodwill,” Kovler said.

    “It looks like [Netanyahu’s advisers] are spitting in the face of these friends, even though Obama could be out of office in less than three years while these friends will be with us for a long time.”

    Kovler said he would donate a portion of the proceeds from the flowers to charity. One possible solution for where the flowers could go was Jerusalem’s two Hadassah hospitals. But hospital officials turned down the gift, because they were worried about the impact of that many flowers on patients with allergies.

    Porter told The Jerusalem Post that she believes Netanyahu could still be persuaded to receive the flowers, despite the anti-Obama message that she is not trying to hide. The quantity of flowers donated was expected to rise after Porter spoke at an anti-Obama rally at Washington’s Lincoln Memorial on Thursday.

    “We are sending a message in a beautiful way that Obama needs to learn how to treat friends,” Porter said. “The prime minister needs to know that the Obama administration doesn’t speak for Americans. I want his office to be covered with flowers. All ofIsrael should know that the US people stand for Israel with the sweet aroma of encouragement.”

    She went further in a column for the Web site WorldNetDaily, in which she expressed outrage that after US Vice President Joe Biden came an hour and a half late to a dinner in Jerusalem hosted by Netanyahu, whenthe prime minister came to the White House, Obama left the meeting in the middle to go have dinner with his family.

    “I never heard whether Prime Minister Netanyahu was at least offered table scraps from Obama’s table,” she wrote. “No, those, I’m sure, went to the dog, who was treated far better than the leader ofIsrael.”

    Porter is the president and founder of Faith2Action, which aims to turn people of faith into people of action to win what she calls the cultural war for life, liberty and the family. She has a nationally syndicated daily radio program, is a correspondent for Christian networks, and is the author of the book The Criminalization of Christianity.

    Netanyahu’s spokesman responded by promising that the issue would be dealt with in a professional manner.

  23. Jews against obama site
    ****************

    Another Surprise – Obama Has Refused All Military Requests From Israel Since Taking Office in November 2009

    Hey all you liberal Jews who voted for Obama!!!! How do you feel about this????

    Now let me just remind all my readers that JTF is against ALL foreign aid, even to tiny Israel. However, the fact that Obama has refused all of Israel’s weapons requests since taking office should prove, once and for all, that our Black Supremacist Muslim in Chief supports the fakestinians over the only Western democracy in the Middle East.

    Via Gateway Pundit

    Officials said the U.S. Defense Department and Israeli Defense Ministry concluded an agreement that would enable the sale of at least three C-130J Super Hercules aircraft to Israel.

    They said the agreement was signed in Washington on March 24 but has not been announced.

    “There is a signed agreement,” an official said. “The announcement requires a political decision.”

    Under the accord, Israel would be able to purchase three C-130Js from manufacturer Lockheed Martin. The agreement called for an option of another six air transports for a total value of $1.9 billion. The Israeli request for the Super Hercules had been approved by the administration of then-President George W. Bush in 2007.

    The administration of President Barack Obama has refused to approve any of Israel’s military requests since it entered office in January 2009. The Pentagon did not announce any weapons contracts to Israel over the last 14 months.

    Israel was expected to receive its first C-130J in 2013, officials said. They said the next step would be to sign a contract with Lockheed Martin, which has been processing requests from such Middle East countries as Iraq, Oman and Tunisia.

  24. just thought I would add this as the above article shows the Frauds illigetimate gov refuses to arm Israel but massive arms deals with Arabs?….
    **********

    Obama Administration Approves Massive Arms Deals With Arab Countries

    First off, let me just remind everyone here that JTF is against all foreign aid, especially aid to Israel. Such “aid” hurts more than it helps. With this money, Israel is required to buy American weapons and other products, which is a good deal for the manufacturers.

    The Israeli made Merkava battle tank is known for its excellence. Yet with American foreign aid, there’s no incentive for Israeli companies to make weapons. Also, they’re not allowed to sell their domestic weapons to other countries under this arrangement.

    But most importantly, when Israel receives foreign aid, it means she must do whatever America says, such as giving up land, or being soft on terrorists. Unfortunately, many American Jews are brainwashed into falsely believing that Israel *must* have foreign aid, and that the country will not survive without it.

    Furthermore, giving Israel foreign aid only causes anti-semitism in the US. Most people don’t realize that the aid is given in the form of loan guarantees which goes to buying American made weapons. The only thing that comes to their minds is that their tax dollars are going to those EEEVIL JOOOS! (The fact that Egypt receives 1.5 billion dollars a year in aid clearly doesn’t bother them.)

    But now, the Obama administration is going to be arming the Arab countries surrounding Israel.

    (IsraelNN.com) US airplane manufacturer Lockheed Martin has been given permission by the US government to sell 24 F-16 jet fighters to Egypt in a $3.2 billion deal. Congress was notified of the deal in October, according to a spokesperson for Lockheed Martin.

    A Pentagon report released by Haaretz newspaper says the Egyptian F-16 deal is aimed at making Egypt a “more valuable partner in the Middle East” in addition to supporting “Egypt’s own self-defense needs,” according to the UPI news agency. Additionally, Israel’s neighbor will receive four batteries of highly advanced Harpoon Block II anti-ship cruise missiles, four fast missile boats, 450 Hellfire anti-tank missiles (to be sold with restrictions on use and transfer, according to the Pentagon), and 156 jet engines for F-16 aircraft.

    {snip}

    Until June 2009, the United States repeatedly denied Egyptian requests to purchase arms because of Egypt’s record on human rights and democracy, according to website F-16.net. That policy has changed under President Obama.

    More deals worry Israel
    Yet the Egyptian arsenal is not the only military deal okayed by the Obama administration which is worrying Israel. Saudia Arabia, Jordan, Morocco and the United Arab Emirates also have new military acquisition contracts with the United States. The Pentagon has released the details to Congress.

    Some of the purchases will include 2,742 anti-tank missiles for Saudia Arabia, 1,808 anti-tank missiles and 162 launchers with night vision systems for Jordan, 1,600 laser-guided “smart bombs and 800 one-ton and 400 bunker buster bombs for the UAE, and 24 additional F-16s for Morocco, the first owned by that country’s air force,” according to UPI.

    The Department of Defense presentation to Congress stated that the military balance of power would not be impacted in the region as a result of the sale, although no arms deals have been made with Israel since the inception of the Obama administration.
    So although I think Israel can take care of herself, I still think this kind of news is important in that it demostrates that Obama, being that he’s a Muslim, clearly favors the Muslim terrorist rogue states, as opposed to the only Western style democracy in the region.

  25. Even so, his wanting to aid Israel’s enemy is beyond reprehensible. Along with Russia and Iran, what chance will this small but strong nation have?

  26. Jan H
    I profess incredible ignorance with regards to Isreal
    Looking for a read that’ll educate me
    any suggestions

  27. JanH
    I guess a comprehensive pro- Isreal book
    I am one of those people who knows who Mier and Netan(sp?) are understand some but not anything which was ever emphasized in my education

  28. Linda McMahon already has a YouTube on Blumenthal. It’s a speech Blumenthal gave in which he refers to himself as a Vietnam veteran. No embedding. Here’s the link:

  29. hmmm…let me think about it.

    *The Case for Israel
    by Alan Dershowitz

    *Why Israel Can’t Wait: The Coming War Between Israel and Iran
    by Jerome R Corsi

    As well, if you google Charles Krauthammer and Israel, you’ll also get some interesting articles.

    Netanyahu’s speech to the United Nations said it all:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1ozF7uGztc

    —————
    If you want balance, there are books that challenge Israel’s right to exist and occupy Palestine. You can probably find them on Amazon.

  30. Henry,

    For background, there is also a movie that came out many years ago with Ingrid Bergman playing the lead role. It was called “Golda” and is about Golda Meier.

  31. JanH
    The Oath by Elie Weisel is perhaps the most important book I have ever read as it allowed me less than a week after reading it to stop a young man from committing suicide. It was the nineties and the kid was hiv positve and he was done. I spent a night on the staten island ferry making this kid get angry with me and kept him talking, I was a young idiot and all I knew was to keep him talking and I really at the time knew nothing but that book.

  32. admin
    watching link and watching link 306 views not changing
    but a madonna or beiber video changes by the viewing?

  33. Did you see the piece on this loon named Posner. He is one of our Assistant Secretaries of State. And he is complaining the Red China about the Arizona immigration law.

    I doubt that Hillary picked this fool. I am quite sure that he is an Obama appointment. He looks like a drifty, disheveled Harvard schoolboy. Reminds me of Alger Hiss.

    Naturally, the Republicans have seized upon this. They are right to do so. This is about country not party.

    Assistant Secretary Posner needs to resign. That would allow him to spend more time with his family. and less time selling out American interests and prestige in the world.

  34. henry,

    Another great book was…

    The Sunflower: On the Possibilities and Limits of Forgiveness

    by Simon Wiesenthal

  35. Did you see the piece on this loon named Posner. He is one of our Assistant Secretaries of State. And he is complaining the Red China about the Arizona immigration law.
    ————————————–
    WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE TIME HONORED PRINCIPLE THAT POLITICS STOPS AT THE WATER’S EDGE?

  36. What trumps intellect is not more intellect. What trumps intellect is common sense. And the elites in this countr have too much of the former and too little of the latter. Towit:

    Years ago we held a legislative forum in a small town in East Texas. One of the town leaders was a small rancher and she took great pride in her little community, which alas had seen better days.

    The purpose of was to discuss a bill we had introduced in Congress to benefit cattle producers. But during the lunch we honored three youngsters–one boy and two girls who were the pride of the little town. They were going away to college and everyone hoped a better life. One was going to the Naval Academy, one to Steven Austin College and one somewhere else.

    This lady, Mary P. was her name said something profound, which I thought of many times over the years, including now when I read Bob Somerby’s account of the hubris of Harvard Boy Charles Edley:

    “Our children do just fine until we send them away to college and they educate the common sense of them.” The three kids I saw would not have that problem. But Edley is a paradigmatic example of what can happen.
    —————————————————————————————————-

    EDLEY (5/16/10): If Elena Kagan is confirmed, we will have an entire Supreme Court educated at Harvard and Yale law schools, demonstrating again the grip that academic elites have on the levers of power. Some worry this homogeneity is too anti-democratic, even for our most anti-democratic of institutions. I don’t hear a claim that even knuckleheads deserve a spot on the court, but surely some brilliant possibilities attended, say, Berkeley? Or Tulane?

    Since Edley is dean of the law school at Berkeley, you might think that he might spot a potential problem here. But if you thought that, you’d be wrong. On-line, Edley’s underwhelming piece appears beneath this headline: “Why elites do belong on the Supreme Court.” And make no mistake—Christopher Edley sees himself as one of those powdered “elites.”

    As a matter of fact, Christopher Edley thinks he’s one of your “betters.” It’s hard to believe, but that’s the exceptionally low-IQ framework this self-proclaimed member of the elite enunciated in Sunday’s piece. According to Edley, rubes like us should want our “betters” in important posts, like the post in which Kagan will serve:

    EDLEY: The tension between elitism and populism is embedded in our national DNA because America rejected the model of a monarch ruling by divine right in favor of an iffy experiment in democratic self-governance. So now you are responsible for choosing your leader. Do you want someone like you or someone better than you?

    What an astonishing framework! But so it goes when people like Edley spends decades inside institutions like Harvard, convincing themselves that they and their peers are “better” than all the rest of us rubes.

    (In Sunday’s hard-copy Post, this sub-headline appeared: “Do you want someone like you, or someone better than you?:” We assumed the editor must have made mincemeat of Edley’s ideas. No such luck, it turned out.)

    Is Elena Kagan “better than you?” Let’s start by answering the highlighted question from the passaged we’ve quoted above. When it comes to Supreme Court positions, do we want someone like us—or do we want someone better than us?

    Please. Ideally, we’d like someone whose basic values resembled our own, while being expert in the law. (We are not legal experts.) In the minds of pampered people like Edley, that latter stipulation turns into the thought that these people are “better” than us! In this way, the brains of our pompous Harvard “elites” get turned into mush over time.

    Do you want some one “better than you?” An Edley-defender might claim that The Dean was just speaking ironically. But there’s little in Edley’s piece that makes us think any such thing. And there’s little in Edley’s piece that makes us think he remains truly “elite” after decades of being praised and puffed by his own self-impressed kind.

    You see, Edley may be at Berkeley today, but it wasn’t ever thus. As he informs us in his piece, he went to Harvard Law School himself, then became a professor at Harvard Law, serving for 23 years. During those years, he voted to have Kagan join the Harvard faculty, he says.

    There’s nothing “wrong” with that life history—until you see the frame of mind such history can leave among the “elites” who live such cosseted lives.

    Is Christopher Edley “better than you?” So it seems the great man thinks. Is this inflated opinion justified? Not if you’ve read his Outlook piece, which reflects the rot of brain created by decades in high places. Consider the most comical part of his piece—the part where Edley explains the way our great law schools provide diversity among the ranks of their elites. At Berkeley, the campus community is almost as exciting and diverse as our nation, Edley says. Here’s why:

    EDLEY: The gatekeeper power of such institutions is why it was so important to desegregate them (using affirmative action, among other tools) and why virtually all leaders of great universities talk about diversity and access.

    For about 40 years now, all the top law schools have tried to pick students who are not just brilliant but who have the potential to be outstanding leaders from and for all of America’s communities. Today, “elite” doesn’t carry the old-boy, classist, midcentury sense.

    In fact, law schools strive for an elitism that is quite democratic in comparison with many other fields. As at Yale and Harvard, we at Berkeley seek to build a campus community that is as exciting and diverse as our nation. That means a New Jersey physics major who models underwear. A single-parent firefighter medievalist from Denver. A former Navy Seal, a software designer, a late-blooming high school dropout, a dancer with published poetry. And when they are here, they teach each other, they learn to understand each other, and then they remember each other.

    I write this just hours after our law school graduation ceremony. Elite? You bet. These graduates are exactly what our toughest problems demand. But beyond the paper credentials and the academic pedigree, they are more diverse in aspirations and passions than can be imagined.

    In that highlighted passage, you see the clownish work our “elites” produce, after spending decades hearing their brilliance vouched for by other club members.

    According to Edley, citizens shouldn’t worry if the whole Supreme Court comes from two elite law schools. We shouldn’t worry because schools like Harvard and Yale work so hard to enroll the nation’s entire elite population. When it comes to the nature of their diversity, Edley does manage to note that such schools have been desegregated. Beyond that, his idea of what makes a class diverse is recorded in that highlighted passage. Is Edley a dean, or is he a clown? Edley, who is better than you, lists six examples of the kind of diversity great men like him recruit to Berkeley. According to this brilliant mind, “a campus community as exciting and diverse as our nation” includes such people as these:

    Can be found at Berkeley law school:
    A New Jersey physics major who models underwear.
    A single-parent firefighter medievalist from Denver.
    A former Navy Seal.
    A software designer.
    A late-blooming high school dropout.
    A dancer with published poetry.

    It takes a very weak mind to offer that list as the model of modern diversity. But people tend to end up silly when they spend their adult lives in the ways to which Edley admits—pandering hard to cloistered “elites” while being praised in turn.

    Sorry, but this is a weakly-reasoned article, written by a weak, elitist mind. How do good brains get turned into mush over the course of many years? In this passage, Edley describes the way brilliant people like him end up in elite institutions:

    EDLEY: At the Supreme Court level, it’s all about finding oracles for Olympus. While it’s frowned upon when judges fire spitballs at colleagues, what matters is intellectual horsepower, not office-chat charm. It is wisdom and analysis, not personal experiences. If a judge’s life is elite in the sense of excellence, that’s fine. In fact, that may be the point. At every turn the nominee has excelled in a meritocratic system, one that is selective yet far more open than in generations past. But if a judge is elite in an exclusive and exclusionary sense, then we have a problem that’s both political and jurisprudential.

    Here at THE HOWLER, we have no idea what most of that paragraph means. For a person who is “better than us,” Edley writes rather unclearly. But the highlighted passage describes the potential problem with a world run by a narrow sampling of Harvard/Yale Law School types. “At every turn the nominee has excelled in a meritocratic system?” Let us translate this self-pimping pap, describing life in the real world:

    EDLEY REWRITTEN: In many cases, the nominee has excelled in a world built around ass-kissing, respect for authority and careful coloring within prescribed lines. The Harvard Law professor, like his kissing cousin the Rhodes Scholar, will often be the kind of self-promoter who keeps his head down and keeps his mouth shut until it is safe to speak. He or she will behave in the manner of Kagan—failing to speak even during the years when American norms are being torn limb from limb. Her friends and associates will then write letters to major newspapers, explaining this silence away. She would have spoken, they will explain, but she wanted to get the big job.

    “Elites” like Edley will come along and tell us such people are “better.”

    Alas! Self-proclaimed “elites” have served you poorly over the past several decades. In particular, they have refused to speak, again and again—about the ugly war against Clinton; about the uglier war against Gore; about the move toward war in Iraq; about the dismantling of legal norms. And then, when it’s time to claim the good jobs, along will come the Edleys. Don’t worry your pretty little heads, they’ll proclaim. Our class is “better” than yours.

    For our money, Edley’s piece was poorly reasoned and poorly written—the work of a mind which has gone to seed. So why is such silly piffle published? Of course! Because Edley is an “elite!” In the passage we’ve quoted above, Edley explains the process by which people like him, once bright and promising, end up serving poorly, for life:

    EDLEY: And when they are here [at our “elite” institutions], they teach each other, they learn to understand each other, and then they remember each other.

    Let’s say that in a less polite way: At Harvard and Yale, they become a self-promoting clan—a clan which has been utterly useless, again and again, over the past thirty years.

    David Brooks described this class in that column last week about Kagan (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 5/12/10). Kagan may turn out to a be great Justice. But as a group, the class of which Edley speaks simply isn’t very impressive. Their one great skill is group self-promotion. In all other relevant ways, they’re another D-plus elite.

    Concerning modern diversity: To Edley’s dumbed-down mind, “diversity” is somehow addressed by bringing in an underwear model—even a softwear designer! In fact, one diversity problem which threatens the nation involves the nation’s diverse political cultures, which are increasingly coming into active conflict. In any large continental nation, different cultures will always be in play. A nation’s ability to grow and prosper will turn, in large part, on the skill with which its leaders can engineer understanding and compromise between those dueling cultures.

    Unfortunately, our nation is getting dumber—and more dysfunctional—as pseudo-elites from the left and the right train their followers to hate The Other. People like Edley don’t know about that, or so it seems in this piece.

    How can you write such low-grade twaddle while staying “elite?” Darlings! It’s done the way it has always been done! Being “elite” is still a matter of membership. In modern times, you join the club in new, different ways. But the club remains strikingly dumb.

  37. wbboei, The Posner’s I knew were jewish and owned half of Baroid and Magobar…drilling mud companies,and the other half were Doctors.

  38. If you read that article I posted yesterday…maybe they are allowing the arming to the teeth of the whole middle east, hoping they’ll kill each other off. I am sure that the middle east situation is not good for the implemenation of the NWO….so if you let them kill each other off,then go in for the spoils.

  39. THis “freedom of Press act”, everyone needs to read…we already have this in an admendment, who do we need another one??? I think this one has something along the lines that makes it against the law to publish anything against the government.

  40. I read over at CW that someone has spotted military vehicles with personal with blue hats in Pennsylvania today. I don’t know but I find that suspicious. Fox & friends are still talking about the State dept. apologizing to the Chinese for the Arizona problem….I guess we’ve already been sold to the Chinese and they want all that cheap labor here…

  41. So how long will it take them to shut down the other platform in the Gulf which according to sources on 60 minutes is in worse safety shape than the one that blew?????? I watch 60 minutes, and the whisle blower has to be commended. He probably will never work in that field again.

  42. An exerpt taken from something I just read. Tar balls are already appearing in the Florida Keys. Although inconclusive as to where they are coming from, I think we all know.

    HOUSTON/COCODRIE, La. (Reuters) – Energy giant BP said Tuesday it was now able to siphon off about 40 percent of the oil gushing from a ruptured well in the Gulf of Mexico but has not been able to stop the leak, as President Barack Obama said he will create a commission to probe the spill.

    BP’s progress in capturing more oil through a tube inserted by undersea robots into the mangled “riser” pipe of the well came amid new evidence that a powerful sea current in the Gulf was pushing the crude closer to the U.S. Eastern seaboard.

    BP estimated the bill for the clean-up at $625 million, $175 million higher than a few days ago, with analysts saying costs could reach into the billions. The spill has threatened economic and environmental calamity to the U.S. Gulf Coast.

    The U.S. Coast Guard said on Monday that state park rangers at Fort Zachary Taylor State Park on the island of Key West, Florida, found tar balls washing ashore throughout the day, marking the first appearance of oil debris reported in Florida since BP’s deepsea well rupture on April 20.

    The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has previously said the southern edge of the spill could make its way into the so-called Loop Current current, which could carry oil eastward toward the Florida Keys, out of the Gulf and up the East Coast of the United States.

    Samples of the tar balls were collected and will be shipped to a laboratory for analysis to determine the origin of the source, the Coast Guard said.

    Officials have stressed the spill has so far had minimal impact on the shoreline and wildlife along the Gulf Coast, but oil debris and tar balls had been reported earlier in Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi.

    A mile-long tube is now siphoning off oil at the rate of 2,000 barrels per day, about 40 percent of the 5,000 barrels (210,000 gallons/795,000 liters) BP has estimated to be leaking daily. Initially, half that amount was being suctioned off to a collection vessel at the surface.

  43. I woke up thinking about the reaction of the elites to this action by the state of arizona to protect its citizens from the influx of undesirables, where the federal government has failed to act. In essence you have the Hollywood elites all up in arms over this preening before a mirror as only they can til hell wont have it anymore, an attorney general who appears before congress to testify against the bill who confesses that he has not read it, and an Ass. Secretary of State who decides to violate the time honored custom that politics stops at the waters edge and confesses the sins of the American people as he perceives them to be embodied in this law to the people who orchestrated the massacre at Red Square.

    Good stuff–but only to an idiot.

    On the assumption that they are not idiots per se, what gives?

    What this law represents is what the elites in this country have always feared since the day of Hamilton and that is a populist backlash against them and their policies. Why do you think they revel in the issue of race? CNN particularly. Not a week goes past that they do not mention it and do a story about it. And when they are feeling really frisky they do a whole fucking documentary on it–in an effort to divide the Jacksonian Democrats, and turn them against each other, rather than having them focus on the elites and the mal-distribution of wealth in this society. As Somersby points out their performance over the years has been self serving to them and lack luster to us. Who would have thought that over the course of sixty years, they would squander most of the competitive advantage we held over the rest of the world at the end of World War II, inflated the dollar to 1/7 of its value as of then, repeated the colonialist mistakes of the Brits, and let this led this country away from the ideals of the old republic and into the Kafkaesque world of the national security state which undermines our liberties and fails to protect our security.

    And Edley has the audacity to write an article in WashPo posing the question who would you rather have on the Supreme Court–you or your betters? If I were to venture a guess, mindful of how well the elites–our supposed betters have screwed thing up for the rest of us, I would have to say the answer is self evident.

  44. Nobama–I believe in summing things up in a word or two where you can. And you have given me an idea:

    1. Obama’s environmental policy: tar balls

    2. Obama’s foreign policy: surrender monkey

    3. Obama’s economic policy: willie sutton

  45. Getting out while the getting’s good:
    www dot foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/17/interior-departments-oil-gas-official-quits-wake-gulf-oil-spill/

  46. A perfect example of this elite mindset was the statement of Howard Dean when he characterized the dimocratic victory in the general election in the following terms: “It is our turn to RULE”. (Emphasis added). Monarchs rule, representatives of the people serve. To quote the great bamboozler himself: words matter–unless they are his words, his promises in which case they are as Lenin said–pie crusts to be broken.

  47. Thank you Gonzotx and JanH for those articles. Unfortunately, Jews, and liberal in general, are willing to give Obama a pass for virtually anything. To be fair and balanced, Bush also screwed Israel in the end by denying them bunker busters as these are needed to reach the underground nuclear fascilities…Bush started the wrong war, and dropped the ball on Iran. Obama just can’t stand Israel. By the way, what’s up with that arab winning Miss USA??? Is that permitted?

  48. Bill Clinton Joins U.S. World Cup Bid Team

    May 18, 2010
    Paul Maidment

    Nothing unusual about countries bidding to host a FIFA World Cup bringing in the bid names to boost their bids. The USA is latest to hop on that bandwagon by appointing former President Bill Clinton as honorary chairman of its bid committee.

    He joins a 22-strong power-studded committee that already includes billionaires investor Philip Anschutz, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft, Walt Disney chief executive Robert Iger, former U.S. Secretary of State Dr. Henry Kissinger, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and director Spike Lee.

    The U.S. formally handed over its bid to host the 2018 or 2022 tournament to FIFA last Friday. The other contenders are England, Netherlands-Belgium, Russia, Spain-Portugal, Australia and Japan, while Qatar and South Korea are bidding for 2022 only. FIFA’s executive committee will decide on Dec. 2.

    At the press conference announcing his appointment, Clinton said that staging a World Cup could provide an economic boost of $400 million-600 million to each U.S. host city.

    http://blogs.forbes.com/sportsmoney/2010/05/bill-clinton-joins-u-s-world-cup-bid-team/

  49. By the way, last night the Alb city council had two critical actions.

    1. One to place restrictions and sanctions against Arizona, which they defeated.

    2. to overturn the Mayor’s decision to ask for the papers of all people who have been arrested, and to co habitate the immigration office at the booking station, also defeated.

  50. For got the point. That is if these actions had been passed, we would have heard about them on national news. Otherwise you only hear about them here.

  51. Obama and his mindless followers make George W seem like Einstein these days.

    Not ready in year two, smartest man EVAH has come out smelling like a fool.

  52. Just when you thought the drama couldn’t get any funnier…

    Jeremiah Wright: Obama ‘Threw Me Under The Bus’

    NEW YORK — The Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama’s controversial former pastor, said in a letter obtained by The Associated Press that he is “toxic” to the Obama administration and that the president “threw me under the bus.”

    In his strongest language to date about the administration’s 2-year-old rift with the Chicago pastor, Wright told a group raising money for African relief that his pleas to release frozen funds for use in earthquake-ravaged Haiti would likely be ignored.

    “No one in the Obama administration will respond to me, listen to me, talk to me or read anything that I write to them. I am ‘toxic’ in terms of the Obama administration,” Wright wrote the president of Africa 6000 International earlier this year.

    “I am ‘radioactive,’ Sir. When Obama threw me under the bus, he threw me under the bus literally!” he wrote. “Any advice that I offer is going to be taken as something to be avoided. Please understand that!”

    The White House didn’t respond to requests for comment Monday about Wright’s remarks.

    HuffPuff: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/18/jeremiah-wright-obama-thr_n_579800.html

  53. OBAMA TAKES IT ON THE CHIN AGAIN; THIS TIME ON HIS NUKE SHIELD.

    Can this guy do ANYTHING right?

    nytimes.com/2010/05/18/world/18missile.html?hp

    Review Cites Flaws in U.S. Antimissile Program
    By WILLIAM J. BROAD and DAVID E. SANGER
    Published: May 17, 2010

    President Obama’s plans for reducing America’s nuclear arsenal and defeating Iran’s missiles rely heavily on a new generation of antimissile defenses, which last year he called “proven and effective.”

    His confidence in the heart of the system, a rocket-powered interceptor known as the SM-3, was particularly notable because as a senator and presidential candidate he had previously criticized antimissile arms. But now, a new analysis being published by two antimissile critics, at M.I.T. and Cornell, casts doubt on the reliability of the new weapon.

    Mr. Obama’s announcement of his new antimissile plan in September was based on the Pentagon’s assessment that the SM-3, or Standard Missile 3, had intercepted 84 percent of incoming targets in tests. But a re-examination of results from 10 of those apparently successful tests by Theodore A. Postol and George N. Lewis, being published this month, finds only one or two successful intercepts — for a success rate of 10 to 20 percent.

    Most of the approaching warheads, they say, would have been knocked off course but not destroyed. While that might work against a conventionally armed missile, it suggests that a nuclear warhead might still detonate. At issue is whether the SM-3 needs to strike and destroy the warhead of a missile — as the Pentagon says on its Web site.

    “The system is highly fragile and brittle and will intercept warheads only by accident, if ever,” said Dr. Postol, a former Pentagon science adviser who forcefully criticized the performance of the Patriot antimissile system in the 1991 Persian Gulf war.

    In interviews and a statement, the Pentagon’s Missile Defense Agency strongly defended the SM-3s testing record, and said that the analysis by Dr. Postol, an M.I.T. physicist, and Dr. Lewis, a Cornell physicist, was fundamentally mistaken.

    “The allegation is wrong,” Richard Lehner, an agency spokesman, said Wednesday. He said the SM-3 is “attaining test scores that many other Defense Department programs aspire to attain.”

    Even so, the Pentagon later admitted that 4 of the 10 analyzed flight tests carried no mock warheads at all.

    The White House declined to comment on the critique of the SM-3 and referred questions to the Pentagon.

    The political implications of the critique are potentially large. Democrats, traditional critics of missile defense, have been largely silent about Mr. Obama’s enthusiasm for this new generation, which for the moment is aimed only at shorter- and mid-range missiles, rather than ones that fly between continents.

    During the campaign, Mr. Obama repeatedly criticized what he called President George W. Bush’s haste to deploy unproven antimissile arms. He vowed that as president, he would assure that any defensive shield would meet rigorous standards of testing and effectiveness.

    Since last fall, Mr. Obama’s antimissile goals have expanded to include not only countering Iranian missiles, but creating a rationale for deep cuts in the nation’s nuclear arsenal and ultimately for prompting foes to abandon their missile programs.

    The deployment of the SM-3 is also seen as essential to convincing Israel that the United States has an effective technology to contain Iran, even if the Iranians obtain a nuclear weapon.

    The dispute between the academics and the Pentagon centers on whether it is enough for a speeding interceptor to hit the body of a spent rocket moving through outer space or whether it must hit the attached warhead. Dr. Postol says the SM-3 interceptor must shatter the warhead directly, and public statements of the Pentagon agency seem to suggest that it agrees.

    “The interceptors,” the agency Web site says in its basic explanation of antimissile goals, “ram the warhead at a very high closing speed, destroying the target.”

    Skeptics generally hold that the antimissile job is so daunting — what the Pentagon calls hitting a bullet with a bullet — that managers and contractors easily fall prey to exaggerating test results.

    But technologists call it increasingly doable. Compared with the Bush administration’s land-based system, the SM-3 is fairly small, quickly deployable on ships and has a better reputation.

    The interceptor holds what the Pentagon calls an exoatmospheric kill vehicle. In space, it peers through a telescope to guide itself toward the target, sensing telltale heat emanations and using a computer brain to fire thruster jets. The kill vehicle slams into the target and destroys it by force of impact.

    Dr. Postol’s critics see him as a pessimist blind to antimissile progress, and his defenders view him as a seer of technical oversight.

    His confidence in the heart of the system, a rocket-powered interceptor known as the SM-3, was particularly notable because as a senator and presidential candidate he had previously criticized antimissile arms. But now, a new analysis being published by two antimissile critics, at M.I.T. and Cornell, casts doubt on the reliability of the new weapon.

    Mr. Obama’s announcement of his new antimissile plan in September was based on the Pentagon’s assessment that the SM-3, or Standard Missile 3, had intercepted 84 percent of incoming targets in tests. But a re-examination of results from 10 of those apparently successful tests by Theodore A. Postol and George N. Lewis, being published this month, finds only one or two successful intercepts — for a success rate of 10 to 20 percent.

    Most of the approaching warheads, they say, would have been knocked off course but not destroyed. While that might work against a conventionally armed missile, it suggests that a nuclear warhead might still detonate. At issue is whether the SM-3 needs to strike and destroy the warhead of a missile — as the Pentagon says on its Web site.

    “The system is highly fragile and brittle and will intercept warheads only by accident, if ever,” said Dr. Postol, a former Pentagon science adviser who forcefully criticized the performance of the Patriot antimissile system in the 1991 Persian Gulf war.

    In interviews and a statement, the Pentagon’s Missile Defense Agency strongly defended the SM-3s testing record, and said that the analysis by Dr. Postol, an M.I.T. physicist, and Dr. Lewis, a Cornell physicist, was fundamentally mistaken.

    “The allegation is wrong,” Richard Lehner, an agency spokesman, said Wednesday. He said the SM-3 is “attaining test scores that many other Defense Department programs aspire to attain.”

    Even so, the Pentagon later admitted that 4 of the 10 analyzed flight tests carried no mock warheads at all.

    The White House declined to comment on the critique of the SM-3 and referred questions to the Pentagon.

    The political implications of the critique are potentially large. Democrats, traditional critics of missile defense, have been largely silent about Mr. Obama’s enthusiasm for this new generation, which for the moment is aimed only at shorter- and mid-range missiles, rather than ones that fly between continents.

    During the campaign, Mr. Obama repeatedly criticized what he called President George W. Bush’s haste to deploy unproven antimissile arms. He vowed that as president, he would assure that any defensive shield would meet rigorous standards of testing and effectiveness.

    Since last fall, Mr. Obama’s antimissile goals have expanded to include not only countering Iranian missiles, but creating a rationale for deep cuts in the nation’s nuclear arsenal and ultimately for prompting foes to abandon their missile programs.

    The deployment of the SM-3 is also seen as essential to convincing Israel that the United States has an effective technology to contain Iran, even if the Iranians obtain a nuclear weapon.

    The dispute between the academics and the Pentagon centers on whether it is enough for a speeding interceptor to hit the body of a spent rocket moving through outer space or whether it must hit the attached warhead. Dr. Postol says the SM-3 interceptor must shatter the warhead directly, and public statements of the Pentagon agency seem to suggest that it agrees.

    “The interceptors,” the agency Web site says in its basic explanation of antimissile goals, “ram the warhead at a very high closing speed, destroying the target.”

    Skeptics generally hold that the antimissile job is so daunting — what the Pentagon calls hitting a bullet with a bullet — that managers and contractors easily fall prey to exaggerating test results.

    But technologists call it increasingly doable. Compared with the Bush administration’s land-based system, the SM-3 is fairly small, quickly deployable on ships and has a better reputation.

    The interceptor holds what the Pentagon calls an exoatmospheric kill vehicle. In space, it peers through a telescope to guide itself toward the target, sensing telltale heat emanations and using a computer brain to fire thruster jets. The kill vehicle slams into the target and destroys it by force of impact.

    Dr. Postol’s critics see him as a pessimist blind to antimissile progress, and his defenders view him as a seer of technical oversight.

    His confidence in the heart of the system, a rocket-powered interceptor known as the SM-3, was particularly notable because as a senator and presidential candidate he had previously criticized antimissile arms. But now, a new analysis being published by two antimissile critics, at M.I.T. and Cornell, casts doubt on the reliability of the new weapon.

    Mr. Obama’s announcement of his new antimissile plan in September was based on the Pentagon’s assessment that the SM-3, or Standard Missile 3, had intercepted 84 percent of incoming targets in tests. But a re-examination of results from 10 of those apparently successful tests by Theodore A. Postol and George N. Lewis, being published this month, finds only one or two successful intercepts — for a success rate of 10 to 20 percent.

    Most of the approaching warheads, they say, would have been knocked off course but not destroyed. While that might work against a conventionally armed missile, it suggests that a nuclear warhead might still detonate. At issue is whether the SM-3 needs to strike and destroy the warhead of a missile — as the Pentagon says on its Web site.

    “The system is highly fragile and brittle and will intercept warheads only by accident, if ever,” said Dr. Postol, a former Pentagon science adviser who forcefully criticized the performance of the Patriot antimissile system in the 1991 Persian Gulf war.

    In interviews and a statement, the Pentagon’s Missile Defense Agency strongly defended the SM-3s testing record, and said that the analysis by Dr. Postol, an M.I.T. physicist, and Dr. Lewis, a Cornell physicist, was fundamentally mistaken.

    “The allegation is wrong,” Richard Lehner, an agency spokesman, said Wednesday. He said the SM-3 is “attaining test scores that many other Defense Department programs aspire to attain.”

    Even so, the Pentagon later admitted that 4 of the 10 analyzed flight tests carried no mock warheads at all.

    The White House declined to comment on the critique of the SM-3 and referred questions to the Pentagon.

    The political implications of the critique are potentially large. Democrats, traditional critics of missile defense, have been largely silent about Mr. Obama’s enthusiasm for this new generation, which for the moment is aimed only at shorter- and mid-range missiles, rather than ones that fly between continents.

    During the campaign, Mr. Obama repeatedly criticized what he called President George W. Bush’s haste to deploy unproven antimissile arms. He vowed that as president, he would assure that any defensive shield would meet rigorous standards of testing and effectiveness.

    Since last fall, Mr. Obama’s antimissile goals have expanded to include not only countering Iranian missiles, but creating a rationale for deep cuts in the nation’s nuclear arsenal and ultimately for prompting foes to abandon their missile programs.

    The deployment of the SM-3 is also seen as essential to convincing Israel that the United States has an effective technology to contain Iran, even if the Iranians obtain a nuclear weapon.

    The dispute between the academics and the Pentagon centers on whether it is enough for a speeding interceptor to hit the body of a spent rocket moving through outer space or whether it must hit the attached warhead. Dr. Postol says the SM-3 interceptor must shatter the warhead directly, and public statements of the Pentagon agency seem to suggest that it agrees.

    “The interceptors,” the agency Web site says in its basic explanation of antimissile goals, “ram the warhead at a very high closing speed, destroying the target.”

    Skeptics generally hold that the antimissile job is so daunting — what the Pentagon calls hitting a bullet with a bullet — that managers and contractors easily fall prey to exaggerating test results.

    But technologists call it increasingly doable. Compared with the Bush administration’s land-based system, the SM-3 is fairly small, quickly deployable on ships and has a better reputation.

    The interceptor holds what the Pentagon calls an exoatmospheric kill vehicle. In space, it peers through a telescope to guide itself toward the target, sensing telltale heat emanations and using a computer brain to fire thruster jets. The kill vehicle slams into the target and destroys it by force of impact.

    Dr. Postol’s critics see him as a pessimist blind to antimissile progress, and his defenders view him as a seer of technical oversight.

    During the 1991 Gulf war, the Army put the success rate of the Patriot at over 80 percent in Saudi Arabia and 50 percent in Israel. But Dr. Postol found that brilliant displays of antimissile fire and thunder hid repeated failures of the interceptors to knock out speeding warheads.

    The SM-3 analysis of Dr. Postol and Dr. Lewis, “A Flawed and Dangerous U.S. Missile Defense Plan,” appears in the May issue of Arms Control Today, a publication of the Arms Control Association, a private group in Washington.

    The study examined video images that the SM-3 kill vehicle took a split second before striking the target and that the Missile Defense Agency subsequently made public. The analysis looked at 10 tests between 2002 and 2009 — all of which the agency hailed as successful intercepts.

    But the scientists found that the kill vehicle hit the warhead only once or twice. The rest of the time, the interceptor struck the rocket body — a much larger target.

    In combat, the scientists added, “the warhead would have not been destroyed, but would have continued toward the target.”

    In an interview, Dr. Postol said the antimissile blow might cause a warhead to fall short or give it an added nudge, with the exact site of the weapon’s impact uncertain.

    “It matters if it’s Wall Street or Brooklyn,” he said, “but we won’t know in advance.”

    The Pentagon’s rebuttal included a written one vetted by Lt. Gen. Patrick J. O’Reilly, director of the Missile Defense Agency, as well the office of the secretary of defense. It called the analysis “flawed, inaccurate and misleading” and said the alleged SM-3 failures were all, in fact, successes that “did exactly what was expected” as the kill vehicles hit “within inches of the expected impact point.”

    But it offered little discussion of whether striking the rocket body in flight tests was sufficient grounds to claim overall success — a seemingly important point given that much of the agency’s public testimony centers on the necessity of hitting warheads to ensure their destruction.

    In a series of e-mail messages, Mr. Lehner of the Missile Defense Agency offered more information. On Wednesday, he said the rocket’s violent breakup also demolished the warhead. Asked if the agency had evidence, he replied Thursday that readings from test sensors “prove conclusively” that mock warheads “were destroyed and were no longer a threat.”

    Mr. Lehner added, however, that target missiles in 4 test flights carried no mock warheads, but rather “a nosecone with a weight up front for ballast.” The 4 flights with no warheads — which Dr. Postol and Dr. Lewis included in their analysis of 10 interceptions by the SM-3 — included 3 early ones and a flight last July, the most recent in their analysis.

    Informed of the Pentagon’s response, Dr. Postol said he had no idea about the lack of warheads. He also questioned whether the destroyed warheads represented military designs or frail impostors. Real nuclear warheads streaking through the void of space are extremely rugged objects, designed to withstand the fiery heat of atmospheric re-entry as well as intense buffeting and shaking.

    “A mock warhead may be extremely fragile compared to a real one,” Dr. Postol said.

    Mr. Lehner disagreed. On Friday he called the fragility claim “absolutely not true.”

    Representative John F. Tierney, a Massachusetts Democrat who is chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform national security subcommittee, said in a statement that the SM-3 reanalysis raised serious questions.

    “Congress will need to look into them further,” he said. “The American people deserve to know about the system’s actual capabilities and have a right to expect that their tax dollars are being spent effectively.”

  54. Sorry about the long post above, but here’s a good excerpt:

    During the campaign, Mr. Obama repeatedly criticized what he called President George W. Bush’s haste to deploy unproven antimissile arms. He vowed that as president, he would assure that any defensive shield would meet rigorous standards of testing and effectiveness.

    Since last fall, Mr. Obama’s antimissile goals have expanded to include not only countering Iranian missiles, but creating a rationale for deep cuts in the nation’s nuclear arsenal and ultimately for prompting foes to abandon their missile programs.

    The deployment of the SM-3 is also seen as essential to convincing Israel that the United States has an effective technology to contain Iran, even if the Iranians obtain a nuclear weapon.

  55. @Shadowfox

    You beat me to it. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,593043,00.html

    It should surprise no one. pResident jackass uses anyone around him when it advances his personal agenda, then quickly distances himself when they become a liability.

    When he “disowned” Wright following 20 years in his church, that should have been a huge red flag as to his character to anyone with at least half a brain. Of course, MFM covered for him.

  56. When I posted above that Bill Clinton is going to be the honorary chairman for the committee to get the World Cup, it got me thinking.

    All these stars*** going to bat for barky. Is this to wipe away his failure to lure the Olympics to the U.S.?

    Is it wrong that a part of me wants this to fail as well?

  57. blowme0bama
    May 18th, 2010 at 12:16 pm

    @Shadowfox

    You beat me to it.
    ——
    Happy to oblige. 😆

  58. Interesting comment from a Pennsylvania PUMA on uppity woman’s blog:

    Moderate turnout in my precint- in a torrential downpour- lol-
    The talk I heard was all about bye bye incumbents- Tarp and health care both mentioned.
    Curiously- and very heart warming- the travesty of Hillary’s delegates was much in discussion.
    How’s that gonna work out for ya boyz? Ya think we forgot??? BWAHAHAHAHA! THAT was THE best part of my day so far!

  59. Okay, let’s sum up the oil spill drama:

    Barky’s side =

    Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano acknowledged Monday that the federal government doesn’t have the resources or expertise to deal with an oil spill 5,000 feet below the sea, and must largely depend on oil companies to deal with an incident of such magnitude.

    BP oil thugs side =

    Offshore drilling agency refuses to send witness to Senate oil spill hearing

    The federal agency that regulates offshore oil drilling declined to send a witness to the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee’s hearing Monday on the federal response to the massive Gulf of Mexico oil spill, Committee Chairman Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) said.

    http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/98209-offshore-drilling-agency-refuses-witness-for-senate-oil-spill-hearing

    ————

    Wake up America, this is YOUR disaster while the Empty Suit in the Oval office is out golfing!!!!
    No one will take blame, no one knows how to fix it…and the oil just keeps on gushing!
    Obama isn’t ready for the 3 AM phone call, he isn’t ready any time of the day to help this country.

    Get him out of our White House!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  60. #
    HillaryforTexas
    May 18th, 2010 at 2:03 pm

    Interesting comment from a Pennsylvania PUMA on uppity woman’s blog:

    Moderate turnout in my precint- in a torrential downpour- lol-
    The talk I heard was all about bye bye incumbents- Tarp and health care both mentioned.
    Curiously- and very heart warming- the travesty of Hillary’s delegates was much in discussion.
    How’s that gonna work out for ya boyz? Ya think we forgot??? BWAHAHAHAHA! THAT was THE best part of my day so far!

    ——-
    Awesome, payback time boyz!!!

  61. OBAMA’S TOXIC COATTAILS

    Not just a few weeks ago, Obama was out to prove that he still “had it”, that he was a prez with coattails, when he went to help Specter. Despite the fact that he’s been a negative when campaigning. Soow the WH claims that “he (Obama) isn’t watching that closely”… Cute.

    realclearpolitics.com/news/ap/politics/2010/May/18/white_house_seeks_distance_between_obama__specter.html

    May 18, 2010
    White House seeks distance between Obama, Specter
    ======================

    Julie Pace

    The White House is seeking to distance President Barack Obama from longtime Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter as the Democrat faces shaky election prospects in Tuesday’s Pennsylvania primary.

    On the eve of the election, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said that while the president was following the Pennsylvania race — as well as primaries in Arkansas and Kentucky — he wasn’t watching that closely.

    That’s a far cry from a year ago, when Obama said Specter would have his “full support” after the Republican lawmaker switched to the Democratic party. The president appeared with Specter at a rally in Pennsylvania in September, telling the crowd that Specter came to Washington “to fight for the working men and women of Pennsylvania.”

    That rally would be the last time Obama would make a personal appearance for Specter’s campaign. Though there were reports that Specter aides asked Obama to make an 11th-hour trip to Pennsylvania, the White House made it clear last week that wouldn’t be happening.

    Obama aides had been hoping to avoid a repeat of the Massachusetts Senate race earlier this year, when Obama made a last minute trip to campaign for Democrat Martha Coakley, who would go on to lose the seat by Sen. Edward Kennedy. Obama also stumped on behalf of losing candidates in Virginia and New Jersey.

    Specter switched parties after GOP anger over his February 2009 vote for the stimulus bill led him to the conclusion that he was unlikely to win a Republican Party primary. Specter was the only Republican in Congress facing a 2010 re-election to support the stimulus.

    His challenger, U.S. Rep. Joe Sestak, bills himself as the real Democrat in the race, saying Specter left the GOP to preserve his Senate job and can’t be trusted to support Obama.

    While Obama has avoided stumping for Specter, Vice President Joe Biden, who was instrumental in getting Specter to switch to the Democratic party, did headline a campaign rally for his longtime Senate colleague in April. But he didn’t appear with Specter on Monday, the day before the primary, despite being in Philadelphia to deliver a commencement address.

    Obama did appear in a TV ad for Specter that started running in Pennsylvania last week. The 30-second spot shows footage from the September rally, where Obama touts Specter’s “deciding vote in favor of a recovery act that has helped pull us back from the brink.”

    Obama spokesman Gibbs said Monday that the president’s involvement had not become an issue in the primaries.

    “We have supported incumbent Democratic senators and we’ve done a lot on behalf of each campaign,” he added, referring to Specter and Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln, who also faces a primary challenge Tuesday.

    On the eve of the Pennsylvania primary a poll shows the race too close to call, with Sestak claiming 42 percent of support among Democrats likely to vote and Specter with 41 percent, according to the Quinnipiac University survey released Monday.

  62. This broke my heart when I heard it on Rush. There is an audio, but I am not a memeber of his site.Very powerful.

    ******************************
    Uncle of a Fallen Oil Rig Worker on Liberal Glee Over the Disaster

    May 14, 2010

    Listen To It! WMP | RealPlayer

    Audio clips available for Rush 24/7 members only — Join Now!

    BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

    RUSH: Okay, to the phones in Maylene, Alabama, this is Ron, welcome, sir, nice to have you on the program.

    CALLER: Thank you, Rush, and I want to say thank you so much for you representing us and giving us a voice. I’ve been listening to you since I was a policeman back in the New Orleans area in the late seventies and early eighties. What I’m calling about today is my nephew was on that rig that blew up.

    RUSH: Oh, wow.

    CALLER: He was on the last hour and 15 to 20 minutes that he would have left and he was going home, but he didn’t make it. But what upsets me is that when I hear someone say, “God is a Democrat,” and is happy because this rig blew up and can further their political agenda. That just drives me and the family up the wall. This young man was 27 years old. He served in the Air Force, came back home, married his sweetheart — her name is Courtney — and they have a three-year-old daughter and a three-month-old daughter. And this guy was an honest, hardworking, dedicated person. He did everything he could for his family (voice breaking), and he is one of those “little people” that the Democrats always talk about they want to help. Well, they’re trying to shut down the job that he did. He didn’t have anything but a high school education, but he found a job he could do to provide for his family. And he and these other guys that died in these coal mines and in this oil explosion are the little guys the Democrats are always talking about they want to help. Well, they’re trying to shut down their jobs as quick as they can shut ’em down and use them as a political tool to get their agenda passed, which is get cap and trade passed and get their jobs turned down. Now, is that what they’re supposed to be? That’s what they’re supposed to be doing? Helping out, killing jobs for, quote, “the little guys” that they want to help? I hate this. This just drives us crazy. His wife, Courtney, and his mother, Peggy, are just devastated by this. And they want to use it for political advantage? I just… That’s beyond the pale.

    RUSH: The real-world consequences of real-live liberalism. Now, to be fair, as far as my memory is concerned, I think only a female radio talk show host used the term. I don’t think… I haven’t heard an elected Democrat say, “God is a Democrat,” but it is a prevalent view from the radical left. You’re quite correct about that. Just as they’re hoping that this terrorism, domestic terrorism, is committed by people essentially like your nephew who are tea party members. They’re desperately hoping. People like your nephew — and it is understandably infuriating. People like your nephew, people like me, they have no problem drawing a straight line between Oklahoma City and me, for example. But they can’t even see radical Islam as a cause of a potential bomb blast in Times Square. Then in oil rig blows up, and not just your nephew but the other ten that were killed are not even a story because the opportunity for the advancement of a political agenda is just too great.

    CALLER: That’s exactly right. That’s just… It’s driving us crazy because they have no face, they have no name, and I’m trying to give one to him because he deserves it.

    RUSH: Well, you’ve done a great job. Ron, thanks very much for calling, and God bless.

    BREAK TRANSCRIPT

    RUSH: I’ll tell you something else that all this does. It diminishes the deaths of these guys, these people on the oil rig, to pretend that the people that work on these rigs don’t care about safety; to pretend that the people involved in these rigs and the people that work on these rigs, the companies that employ them and know them don’t care about safety. Only the federal government, only the regime cares about safety. Only the federal regime’s agency with more regulation cares. Only a bureaucrat can care about safety. The big, bad oil companies, they don’t care about their employees.

    END TRANSCRIPT

  63. I have also wondered how Democrats can claim to be for the little guy, but then work to destroy the little guy’s job. Additionally, excessive taxation and government intervention (think cap and tax) does NOT help the little guy, nor anyone else for that matter, other than those who have jobs dependent on tax revenues. The Democratic party is full of sh!t anymore. They cannot pretend that they promote and support the little guy when their agenda is to grab as much money from them as they can get away with.

  64. Gonzo,

    Certainly a huge wake-up call. It’s easy to forget the human tragedy in this type of situation, but real lives were lost and their families and friends will be in my prayers.

    I don’t think this is particularly a democratic or republican trait to capitalize on the tragedies of others. Doesn’t make it right though.

  65. My eighteen year old nephew called me today to go with him when he and a few of his friends cast their first vote. Very cool.

  66. JanH
    May 18th, 2010 at 3:36 pm

    Yes Jan, both parties never let a disaster go to waste, but let’s be clear, and I know this in my heart, because I started working on Democratic campaigns at age 9, and bought the party slogan hook line and sinker…the Dem’s ALWAYS put themselves out there for the little guy, not so for the Repubs…You knew business was their number one concern.

  67. From Ace….”ARE YA FEELING LUCKY’

    Meanwhile, a member of the Arizona public utilities board sent a letter to the mayor of LA asking if he’s feeling lucky.

    If an economic boycott is truly what you desire, I will be happy to encourage Arizona utilities to renegotiate your power agreements so Los Angeles no longer receives any power from Arizona-based generation. I am confident that Arizona’s utilities would be happy to take those electrons off your hands. If, however, you find that the City Council lacks the strength of its convictions to turn off the lights in Los Angeles and boycott Arizona power, please reconsider the wisdom of attempting to harm Arizona’s economy.

  68. NewMexicoFan
    May 18th, 2010 at 2:36 pm

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjWOk_jvlmY

    ——–
    The first part made me cry………and, I won’t give up hope for Hillary to bust that %#@5$8* glass ceiling and be my President.

    Just any woman isn’t good enough.

    America still has never had a woman as President nor Vice President…………not good enough yet, America.

    When you hear the dogs, Hillary…keep running. Never give up!!!!!

  69. shadowfax
    seems no one listens
    but they do recognize and report when a youtube video is viral
    as such Damn I wish you were president by Sophie B hawkins needs to be hit and hit and rehit
    catchy song if nothing else

  70. gonzotx
    May 18th, 2010 at 2:46 pm

    This broke my heart when I heard it on Rush.
    ——–

    Personally, I think that transcript with Rush above really twists the words and thoughts of most Democrats.
    Saying the workers on the oil rigs don’t care about safety is spin by Rush. The workers that risk their lives don’t dismiss safety, the oil companies and government that haven’t met/forced rigid safety standards on these rigs, both under Bush and Barry are at fault for that.

    And closing down all rigs that are not safe…should be a crime, risking these peoples lives for the mighty dollar paid for oil.

    Yes, it would end the jobs of the men that make good money working on the rigs, but don’t forget they make good money because of the danger…and the danger is much greater when safety is ignored. Should someone work for a short time for good money, then later being blown to bits…justify the sloppy safety standards that are going on? Is is okay to continue this venture when no one knows how to stop this massive oil leak at this depth?

    I am sick of the spin for both parties, the twisting of a situation to justify each political side. Both lame ass parties and their talking heads should stick to the truth for once.

  71. Clinton to visit Japan on Asia tour

    18 May 2010

    Washington. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will travel to Japan on Friday on the first stop of an Asia tour that will also take her to China and South Korea, her spokesman said Tuesday, AFP reports.
    Clinton will be in Tokyo on May 21, in the Chinese city of Shanghai on May 21-22, and in Beijing on May 23 through May 26 and “will conclude her travel in Seoul also on May 26,” State Department spokesman Philip Crowley said.

    http://www.focus-fen.net/index.php?id=n220103

  72. Shadowfox

    What bothered me was only 17% of our legislative people are women, and we rank 85% in the nation of % of women leaders. That says it all about America.

  73. #
    NewMexicoFan
    May 18th, 2010 at 5:26 pm

    Shadowfox

    What bothered me was only 17% of our legislative people are women, and we rank 85% in the nation of % of women leaders. That says it all about America.
    ——–
    I agree with you and it’s also why I don’t plan to vote out all women that are Dems in the upcoming election. If these women have supported things I believed in, and they didn’t stab Hillary in the back, they get my vote. I am not so generous to Repub women that don’t support women’s rights. For example, Meg Whitman will NEVAH get my vote, she supports trickledown Rayguneconomics. 😉

    My state congress people will all get kicked to the curb because they have all failed in Calif.

  74. Well its all kicking off again it seems.

    Sorry been away again on some work, i’ve been in the UK for the last month, lots of fun with the Uk general election, rather interesting.

    Hows everyone here.

  75. moon
    can speak for no one else but I am in heaven when I see you Okieatty and I dunn make a post

  76. Oh I’m back now, been so so busy that i didnt have time to wipe my nose. Was a lot of fun watching the uk Labour party get turfed out of power, they really did deserve it, you want a lok at how Obama will operate look at the Blair and Brown years and you’ll know.

    Now, this Blumenthal really is a dick of the first order and frankly a very disrespectful one, I just had a nosey over at the blogs that shall not be named and its all “move along, nothing to see here” nothing changes it seems. i find it very offensive if he is claiming to have served in Vietnam when probably the closest he got was serving tea to the boys in hartford.

  77. Yeah right……http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100518/ap_on_re_us/us_blumenthal_vietnam;_ylt=AhvLspSPbiMsz._xapUTXQms0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNtZmJ0MnEwBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwNTE4L3VzX2JsdW1lbnRoYWxfdmlldG5hbQRjY29kZQNtb3N0cG9wdWxhcgRjcG9zAzMEcG9zAzExBHB0A2hvbWVfY29rZQRzZWMDeW5fdG9wX3

    Stop digging before you hit Australia, you moron. You do not mistake the phrase “during Vietnam” instead of “in Vietnam.” It just is not possible.

    WEST HARTFORD, Conn. – Senate candidate Richard Blumenthal on Tuesday said he had “misspoken” in claiming more than once that he served in Vietnam, dismissing the furor that threatened to endanger a seemingly safe Democratic seat as a matter of “a few misplaced words.”

    At a news conference backed by veterans, the popular Connecticut attorney general and front-runner to replace the retiring Sen. Christopher Dodd, said he meant to say he served “during Vietnam” instead of “in Vietnam.” He said the statements were “totally unintentional” errors that occurred only a few times out of hundreds of public appearances.

Comments are closed.