Matt Sheffield has made the point here several times that the Left is much quicker to be profane on the Web than the Right. Pardon me for pointing this out on a Sunday, but this made me laugh when a friend sent it along. Firedoglake was complaining about the congressional testimony of Cheney aide David Addington, who was a "dick" for being combative with Rep. William Delahunt. When Addington said he wouldn't discuss waterboarding because al-Qaeda could be watching, Delahunt snapped back, "I'm glad they finally have a chance to see you." RedState demanded conservatives protest, and FDL replied:
Which makes this from the Red State "directors" pretty pathetic:
It is no secret that public discourse in this country has become very shrill. Blogs on the left regularly feature vulgar diatribes against the right.
Only because you have it coming, you gang of sociopath a--holes. (For extra fun, Red State believes that "liberalism kills babies." This of course elevates the discourse.)
It should go without saying that the Firedoglake bloggers shouldn't be allowed to lecture about elevating the discourse for fear of causing a wave of laughter-based asphyxiation.
RedState's article under that baby headline was much calmer than the inflammatory headline. Perhaps we need a button: Liberalism doesn't kill babies. People do.
That said, Addington was a very hostile witness, which doesn't really play well when the Congress is asking about the public's business. (The question here, obviously, is how much disclosure is healthy for the country.) Luckily for Addington, the Democrats were so hostile in reply that it would make the average uncommitted voter wish a pox on both houses.
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Tim: To an extent I agree
June 29, 2008 - 09:12 ET by BDTim:
To an extent I agree that Adington was a hostile witness in that he was a bit snarky.
I have not seen his entire testimony, but the short part I did confimred this. Why this actual testimony was not taken at the Secret level I am unsure. Perhaps the libs cannot gain clearances (Leahy, Kennedy, etc)
I think he would have been much better served if he had embarrassed De La Hunt using fact and example. WHen asked why the administration was persuing a particular course of action in gaining intelligence information, he could rightfully claim that the enemy watches the US news and collects what information they can out of just such testimony so they can use it against us in the future.
He could have asked to present the page out of the AQ handbook that discusses counter-interrogation techniques and then walked right over to Delahunt and ceremoniously dropped it on his desk.
THen said, "Sir, do you have any further questions, if so, I refer you to the manual in front of you."
Back at you.
June 29, 2008 - 09:30 ET by pbthinkerI agree with both sides of this, to a certain extent. The problem is that Democrats have been playing this game for years. In the lead up to the 2006 elections and since, they've been trying to embarrass people from the administration, who are only trying to keep us safe.
I wonder what's going to happen if we elect Mr. Inexperience and we put all the information, the Democrats are asking about, out in the open, for Al Qaeda to use? To me, this administration has had one goal in mind, to keep this country from being attacked. If the Democrats are constantly finding fault with the methods, I certainly wish them success, but have to doubt their committment.
Democrats: Stuck on Stupid since 2000.
I agree that it is easy to
June 29, 2008 - 09:50 ET by BDI agree that it is easy to grow weary of being hung out to dry by supposed "Patriotic Citizens" from the left who would not know true patriotism if it attacked them with a meat cleaver.
From a historical standpoint, all we have to do is look back upon the damage created in the early to mid 1970's by those great legal minds who created the Church Commision and hearings into other aspects of intelligence.
Wea re still trying to overcome the hurdles to nationl security that were placed in our way by the libs in COngress and later James Earl Carter who gave away sources and methods like no one else.
All anyone had to do back then was watch a presidential briefing to occasionally see Jimmuh give away all of our methods of Intelligence Collection in all its forms, HUMINT, SIGINT, and IMINT.
Hell, I still wonder how the run of the mill democrat can justify GETTING a clearance in todays world, particularly those in congress.
If the Democrats are constantly finding fault with the methods, I certainly wish them success, but have to doubt their committment.
They may not want us there,
June 29, 2008 - 10:02 ET by motherbeltThey may not want us there, but I don't believe that is why they hate us. I also don't agree with President Bush when he says they hate us for our freedom.
They hate us because we are infidels, and because they see our entire culture as decadent and a disgrace. They see it as their duty to bring the entire world to Islam.
That's why there is no talking to them. We know what their side of the argument is: You come into Islam and live under Sharia law, and we will stop attacking you. 'Nuff said.
What could we possibly negotiate?
Shoot 'em all; let God sort 'em out! - Marge Simpson
They may not want us there,
June 29, 2008 - 10:19 ET by BDThey may not want us there, but I don't believe that is why they hate us. I also don't agree with President Bush when he says they hate us for our freedom.
What could we possibly negotiate?
I think we're on the same
June 29, 2008 - 12:10 ET by motherbeltI think we're on the same page. I guess I would have to say they hate us for our freedom, since our freedom to live outside of Sharia law is what they see as the cause of our decadence.
PS Speaking of decadence, isn't it funny that some of the 9/11 hijackers, good Muslims all, frequented strip clubs?
Shoot 'em all; let God sort 'em out! - Marge Simpson
Speaking of decadence,
June 29, 2008 - 16:07 ET by BDSpeaking of decadence, isn't it funny that some of the 9/11 hijackers, good Muslims all, frequented strip clubs?
Thanks for the very
June 29, 2008 - 16:11 ET by bigtimerThanks for the very interesting info BD...as usual.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
An interesting side note is
June 29, 2008 - 16:54 ET by BDAn interesting side note is that there is a row of hotels in Manama Bahrain that the international airlines used to put their aircrews in who were not allowed to bunk in the KSA.
These young pious individuals used to drive their convertibles up and down that row holding up signboards saing saomething like "BA $5000, KAL $2000, MA $500"
Essentailly they were offering flight attendents from British Air $5000, Korean Airlines $2000, and Malaysian Air $500 for an evening of which the nature is quite evident.
The only highlights of my time over there were the two times I saw US women take on Saudi Men, they pummeled the Saudi men with ease for "Being inappropriate" lets say.
LOL BD... Hooray for the
June 29, 2008 - 17:14 ET by bigtimerLOL BD...
Hooray for the USA women!
Like I said long ago...you should write a book someday friend.
Seriously...
This is all so interesting..to me anyway.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
Can you imagine
June 29, 2008 - 09:18 ET by 10ksnookerHow mad the left will be, how deep the tantrum, how severe the depression, when they lose the next election?
You mean when we steal it for the 3rd time in a row? MAUHAHAHA!
June 29, 2008 - 09:38 ET by ArchConservativeIn the end it doesn't matter. McCain (D) believes in global warming, wants to control the oil industry, doesn't truly believe in keeping taxes low, wants to close down Gitmo, thinks sunshine blows out of Ted Kennedy's ass, and hates conservatives. Like I've said before, I'll just stay home that Tuesday in November and watch the world end.
You support the troops by supporting the mission! If you don't support the mission, have the guts to say you don't support the troops.
McCain (D)
June 29, 2008 - 09:45 ET by UpwaySad but true, Arch.
sigh.....................
June 29, 2008 - 10:19 ET by ArchConservativeIt's enough to depress anyone. But considering we are not his base, he doesn't want to hear from us. So, my vote will stay home.
I would LOVE to vote for
June 29, 2008 - 10:24 ET by BDI would LOVE to vote for someone this year, but having had McCain serve as "Senator from the Media" for the past 14 years, I just CANNOT fill the oval for him. And I live in his homestate of Arizona and do not believe I am alone.
I will likely constrain my voting to the Congressional and local issues and leave the presidential ovals open.
Although I cannot disagree
June 29, 2008 - 11:06 ET by mulerider24Although I cannot disagree with anything said, I still will grudgingly cast my vote (in very light pencil) for McCain. The cyclical laws of politics mean we have a long wait until a Reagan-esque candidate makes it back to primetime. The herd mentality of voters will try this liberal pasture out to see if the grass truly is greener, only to figure out that things can actually get worse. Therefore, I choose the devil on the right under the "Lesser Party."
McCain
June 29, 2008 - 12:51 ET by ahusserOk he fails as a conservative. But the other side of the coin he may save the republican party from becoming a white elephant (no pun intended) to win the election middle of the road folks have to be swayed to vote Republican. We are really a minority party and we need the swing vote to suceed. We have had 70 odd years of socialist government starting with FDR and even thought it has been morphing for the last 20 into hardcore lefty socialism it was more or less benign in the early years. For some reason, and I really don't know why, conservativism is viewed with a jaundiced eye. You can blame the media and the schools and that may be the reason. But recently a Supreme Court affirmed our 2nd amendment rights over all the lefty lies, hyperbole, lawsuits over the years. I shudder to think of Obama picking a Supreme. That will be the true loss if Obama is elected. If Obama wins and is the abomination we think he is who is to say that all will be righted in the next election, that a shining Reaganesque knight will come along and save us and this nation from the encroaching and smothering socialism/red nanny state which is nearing reality. I submit that history does teach us some things. That sometimes evil can last a long time when it comes to governments and there are no guarantees. A McCain presidency, as I have blogged before, will be no picnic. He will probably have a Democratic congress (both houses to deal with) and will only be able to counteract it with the veto and the bully pulpit. We know the media will excoriate him with an unbridled, drooling frenzy as their messiah lost and another hated Republican (even if you don't think he is one, they do) is in office. So all of you who are going to sit home in a principled snit and not vote, think about what is at stake here. Some conservatives on this website (I don't think they were trolls) said they would even vote for Obama I imagine for the hope (forlorn?) that his Presidency would be so evil and bad that the Democrat Party would be utterly destroyed in the conservative backlash. Again think about what is at stake. I believe this is a watershed election.
ahusser, I agree. If
June 30, 2008 - 16:29 ET by mulerider24ahusser, I agree. If nothing else, the last two weeks have taught us that the SCOTUS is a HUGE issue this November. That alone will (grudgingly) get my arse to the voting booth. Yes, that may label me a man of weak principles in the eyes of my conservative brethren, but it is a risk I am willing to take.
Onward ye spineless knuckle draggers!
exactly mule
July 1, 2008 - 00:01 ET by botgwe can not allow BHO to appoint Ruth Bader clones.
Gad McCains moderates will be bad enough
Yes, you are even more annoying than Blonde. the EYE
→ Liberalism kills babies?
June 29, 2008 - 09:25 ET by Cool ArrowHow is such an observation the least provoctive.
I have never heard a woman say "I have a fetus growing inside of me".
Did Obama say he didnt want his daughters "punished with a fetus"? Did he mean they could be "rewarded with an abortion"?
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
Cool...did you read the link?
June 29, 2008 - 09:38 ET by BlondeLiberalism kills babies...from the diaries of Leon!!!
The first paragraph sounded terribly familiar...blah, blah, blah "the terror the young girl felt"....blah, blah, blah.
Liberalism does kill babies.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
→ Sure did Blonde
June 29, 2008 - 09:53 ET by Cool ArrowI've read these sob sories before. It's the underlying liberal justification for legalized abortion. (returning to the back alleys and coathangers).
Obama took it a step beyond with his opposition to BAIPA in the Illinois Legislature. Really, a woman's and her Doctor's right to kill a born alive infant s the only issue he ever really fought to protect.
Yes, every so often the "prom birth" story comes up and we are enraged by it, as we should be.
I agree, liberalism does kill babies. I only take issue with the concept that there could be one thinking American who would disagree with such a statement.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
Believe it
June 29, 2008 - 09:58 ET by BlondeIf you want to see the liberalism on disgusting display...click on the Firedoglake link.
Sheesh! They are seriously whacked.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Those on the left have
June 29, 2008 - 10:08 ET by motherbeltThose on the left have become masters of "projection."
Shoot 'em all; let God sort 'em out! - Marge Simpson
→ A conservative headline
June 29, 2008 - 10:22 ET by Cool ArrowA conservative headline might read: Delahunt calls on Al Qaeda to terminate Addinton.
But where would one find the medium for a "conservative headline"?
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
"Conservatism kills
June 29, 2008 - 09:47 ET by JasonC"Conservatism kills Iraqis."
Not really, but the process of logic is identical.
And I'm on my last day of vacation out at the beach, so I'll respond to the inevitable flamings tomorrow.
Il y a la merde quel remort produit quand il a mange trop stupidite.
But, you are right,
June 29, 2008 - 09:55 ET by ArchConservativeConservatism DOES kill Iraqis : the insurgents, the terrorists, the homicide bombers, the would-be-martyrs for global jihad, and it also kills Iranians and any other group belonging to Al-queda. Yes, thank goodness conservatism kills Iraqis.
Liberalism kills the unborn, protects terrorists, and loves child rapists. Hmm I might get that on a bumper sticker.
You support the troops by supporting the mission! If you don't support the mission, have the guts to say you don't support the troops.
progressives??/
June 29, 2008 - 10:36 ET by misterbillWent to FDL--read a couple of items--these articles and other left wing blogs I have read makes me ask myself, every time, how do they get to be called progressives???
I see nothing "progressive" in the thoughts they express. Is this a title misapplied years ago and through regular usage, it is accepted without thought??
Mr Delahunt needs to be careful-- I finally saw what he looks like ......
What's more troubling? Repubs are wussypants!
June 29, 2008 - 11:07 ET by jefflebowskiI've come to expect the America hating left in Congress to make the outright treasonous statements by Comrade Delahunt.
What really gets my goat is that not ONE Republican said a word to defend Addington or take Delahunt to task. What a bunch of wimps the Republican party has. I pity them.
Jeff Lebowski
www.angrywhitedude.c...
Perhaps you've noticed that
June 29, 2008 - 11:19 ET by NL207Perhaps you've noticed that MSM makes great efforts to drive all leading conservatives from office with trumped up scandals and smear campaigns?
DeLay. George Allen. Jack Ryan. Michael Steele. Randy Kuhl.
Of this group, only Kuhl is still in office, but the theft and publication of his divorce records has permamently crippled him as a congressman
Do you want to be a leading conservative in this climate?
Delahunt is not even on the committee
June 29, 2008 - 11:12 ET by kch50428And the only reason he got to do his little inquisition was Steve King, the only Republican to object to the unanimous consent request that Delahunt be allowed to even flap his gums - left the room, and no other Repblican objected. Gutless wonders they.
Damn Tim! I made the
June 29, 2008 - 12:27 ET by RukusDamn Tim! I made the mistake of clicking on the fdl link! I couldn't get back here fast enough! I gotta go wash my eyes out with soap now! They be nasty over there!
"Nuke 'em 'til they... oh hell, just shoot 'em!"
If you can't say anything nice...
June 29, 2008 - 14:46 ET by RackieI emailed Mr. Delahunt yesterday. Just 5 words questioning his intelligence, his morals, his patriotism and his species. To my surprise, it was returned as "address unknown". Send it again. Same result. Then I sent him a "high five". No problem. Seems they don't want to know what you really think of them.
Gee, why am I not surprised
June 29, 2008 - 15:25 ET by Indiana JoeGee, why am I not surprised at that?
Actually, I am. Do you suppose someone actually screens the mail, and refuses those with content they dislike? How would one do that?
Have you tried to send the "questioning" one since having "no problem" with the "high five?"
rackie maybe you need to send a
June 29, 2008 - 15:33 ET by botg"high five..... to an ijit"
↑subject ↑body
Yes, you are even more annoying than Blonde. the EYE
Liberalism kills people.
June 29, 2008 - 17:01 ET by JWFDDT. Millions.
Liberals complain we are 3% of the earth's population but use 25% of the world's energy, conveniently forgetting we produce 25% of the world's GDP. When we act, it has consequences on the world's stage. We start converting massive amounts of cropland over to biofuel production. I think I read like 600,000 acres of rice land was converted over to corn in California. I don't eat rice. No one I know eats rice. WE EXPORT RICE! This has created a world shortage of rice.
People in true poverty, not the rich poverty in the U.S, but true poverty in other countries are hungry and cannot afford paying double, triple what they used to pay for food. This is a direct consequence of liberalism.