You are currently browsing the category archive for the 'George Dienhart' category.
Welcome to ‘Inside Baseball’ (or should I say ‘Inside the Boxing Ring’)
So now pointing out facts which dispel Mr. Dienhart’s lies are considered “personal attacks” and “diatribes” and “lies” in and of themselves…
No wonder Sen. Obama’s suggestion that we Americans ought to ignore these distractions and instead focus on actually solving the weighty matters before us has led him to a consistent and evermore substantial lead over Sen. McCain since the Democratic nomination process ended.
And little wonder too that Mr. Dienhart’s own updates and comments have devolved into the very things he and his supporters claim of my fact-based presentations: diatribes full of personal attacks on my integrity and lies about both what I’ve written and what Sen. Obama has said.
As if his first post in this debate wasn’t fibbing enough, George Dienhart has updated his most recent, very carefully parsed post and — again — cherry-picks out only the parts which fit his narrow, bizarro alternate reality all while continuing to falsely claim that somehow my pointing out facts which negate his fibs are “lies” in and of themselves.
Does Mr. Dienhart not know how to read the entire proposal Sen. Obama originally put forth in January of 2007? Does he not understand that taking only a few bullet points out of my own posts (post 1 and post 2) debunking his junk while ignoring the conclusions thereof doesn’t make his fibs any more true than before?
Sadly for his readers, this appears to be the case.
Perhaps Mr. Dienhart will bother to actually link to these posts and quotes of which he whines instead of cherry-picking a few lines from them as he fabricates his misinformation.
Only then would his readers be able to judge for themselves who is referring to fact-based info — such as the actual contents of Obama’s plan from 2007 which included references to the residual forces Mr. Dienhart now lies about being a “flip” — and who is, quite frankly, acting like an irritable troll by clipping quotes in convenient places.
Then again, in his partisan fog, perhaps Mr. Dienhart really thinks that Obama is somehow flipping his consistent positions simply because he’s not repeating every single line item of every single policy proposal every single time he mentions said proposals during 30 second debate points and soundbyte interviews… (Of course if he did do that then partisan Obama-haters would start complaining that Obama is overanalytical and elitist… Oh, wait, they’re saying that too. Hard to believe, I know.)
That said, the hypocritical Mr. Dienhart may want to discontinue crying about “partisan talking points”. Everything I’ve linked to was pre-existing information which I simply (and all too easily) referred to shine the light of truth on Mr. Dienhart’s lies.
On the other hand, several points Mr. Dienhart makes come straight from GOP talking points. Here’s but one example… Mr. Dienhart quotes something from what he calls a “Democrat” National Committee meeting (not sure what that is since the actual meeting on that day was the Democratic National Committee).
So right off the bat we know he’s using a unique misspelling. A quick Google search including that typo reveals that Mr. Dienhart pulled “his” talking point from an equally half-witted July 5th Republican talking point memo PDF hosted at GOP.com. GOP.com is, of course, the website of the Republican National Committee (or is it the “Republic” National Committee?).
In attempting to defend his lies about Sen. Obama, Illinois Review whiner George Dienhart continues to parse the finest of lines and blatantly make up baloney. He complains that my earlier post pointing out the facts behind his fibs claiming Sen. Obama has somehow “flipped” his Iraq position missed his intended point and that I should get reading lessons. It seems he needs to look in the mirror.
Readers should know Mr. Deinhart is so enamored with me he once called my office just to check on my whereabouts. I suppose he probably made the trip from beautiful Bull Valley one day and knows all about my ugly green kitchen countertops (a la conservative stalker extraordinaire Michelle Malkin) and he probably even looked up my DMV records and knows all about that junky old green Mazda Protege I got rid of years ago (my first new car, ah memories).
–
First, the Dienhart parsing…
Here’s what he originally wrote:
[...] The latest flip was on the war. It seems that Obama will not pull the troops out . Liberals can now collectively whine about how this isn’t a flip. All done now? Here is the quote from Sen. Obama.
“I have put forward a plan that will get our troops out by the end of 2009. We already saw today reports that the Iraqi minister suggests that we’re going to be in there at least until 2018, a decade-long commitment. Currently, we are spending $9 to $10 billion a month. The notion is that we are going to sustain that at the same time as we’re neglecting what we see happening in Afghanistan right now, where you have a luxury hotel in Kabul blown up by militants and the situation continues to worsen.”
Notice that first sentence? “I have put forward a plan that will get our troops out by the end of 2009.” What did Sen. Obama say in his recent Op/Ed piece in the New York Times? “’We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 - two years from now, and more than seven years after the war began. After this redeployment, a residual force in Iraq would perform limited missions: going after any remnants of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, protecting American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress, training Iraqi security forces.”
I’ll leave the bizarre, yet historically correct reference to Mesopotamia alone for the moment. Let’s call this what it is- a flip. Oh, and lets just be honest about what he is proposing- the same “residual force” that John McCain was crucified on earlier in the campaign. [...]
(emphasis added for clarity)
Now, my post called Dienhart out on the “Notice that first sentence” bit… not the “Oh, and” bit which took up a much smaller portion of his post.
Again, there is no “flip” here.
Obama’s Plan for Iraq is the same 16 month strategy he first proposed as binding legisltion in the Senate in January 2007.
- January 2007 (when it was first introduced) + Obama’s 16 Month Strategic Redeployment = March 2008
- January 2008 (when Obama again mentioned it in a Dem debate) + Obama’s 16 Month Strategic Redeployment = March 2009
- January 2009 (when the next president is sworn in) + Obama’s 16 Month Strategic Redeployment (should it be Obama who is elected) = March 2010
…In other words, the Obama Plan for Iraq is exactly the same. The only thing changing is the timing and the obstructionist Republicans — from the filibustering Senate GOP to the veto-ready Republican president — are the ones causing the delays in implementation.
Heck, even the Iraqi leadership is now essentially agreeing with Obama on the concept of a strategic timetable.
But, Dienhart’s second post goes on and on about how he wasn’t really talking about the timing (despite what he wrote about 2009 vs 2010). No, instead he now says he was really emphasizing the last few sentences so ignore all the other stuff. To wit, he now writes:
“Ahh, that’s not what the piece was addressed. Quite clearly, I stated that the flip occurred when Obama went from advocating a total pullout from Iraq to leaving behind sixty thousand troops as a “reaction force”.”
As I demonstrated above, Mr. Dienhart wrote about the 2009 vs 2010 timing for the majority of that first diatribe and didn’t really get into discussing the point about residual forces until after he says “Oh, and…”
Bizarre, but it leads to…
–
Second, the Dienhart baloney…
Mr. Dienhart originally wrote, “It seems that Obama will not pull the troops out” and “Oh, and lets just be honest about what he is proposing- the same “residual force” that John McCain was crucified on earlier in the campaign.” (Again, emphasis added.)
This too is not a flip, despite Mr. Dienhart’s deepest partisan wishes.
You see, from the get-go Sen. Obama has said the same thing about having a limited number of troops in country after the strategic redeployment of the combat brigades. Surely Mr. Dienhart, as a military man himself, knows the difference in forces. Obama has never said he would pull out every single GI (our embassies are guarded by Marines after all, would Mr. Dienhart complain about that too?) but that we do need to focus on redeploying the bulk of our battle forces, a point on which the majority of Americans agree with him.
Recall that Sen. Obama first introduced his plan to the Senate in January of 2007. From his Senate website, dated January 30, 2007:
“The plan allows for a limited number of U.S. troops to remain as basic force protection, to engage in counter-terrorism, and to continue the training of Iraqi security forces. If the Iraqis are successful in meeting the thirteen benchmarks for progress laid out by the Bush Administration, this plan also allows for the temporary suspension of the redeployment, provided Congress agrees that the benchmarks have been met and that the suspension is in the national security interest of the United States.”
In other words, there is no “flip” and Dienhart flops again.
Perhaps it is Mr. Dienhart who needs that reading lesson. Or, perhaps he’d like that thinking lesson instead since both his first and second post merely mimic the bogus and hollow yelps of “Flip!” from other partisan conservatives.
–
And some miscellany…
By the by, Dienhart complains that the trackback on the original posts appeared twice. Horrors.
I hadn’t realized the trackback popped up twice on the original Dienhart screed. I’m not sure why that would’ve happened other than I was thinking about posting an update about other cons writing about non-flips so I stopped in on that post’s edit feature later in the day (I ended up not doing the update). I suppose those darn Internets may have taken that as a double-post.
If I could fix the quirk to soothe Mr. Dienhart’s poor feelings I would but really it’s nothing he should worry his pretty little head about though.
As for why I write about Illinois Review contributors… they keep posting malarkey and rational folks like me will keep debunking it. If the Reviewers don’t like that, it’s well within their means to stop writing their spurious essays and start writing honestly. (It’s funny how the non-Ill Review peeps I debunk have the same complaints, as if I’m hurting their egos instead of pointing out facts. Go figure.)
I get that Mr. Dienhart apparently loathes what Sen. Obama has proposed and all the values for which he stands. But does he really need to continue to make up such claptrap? Apparently doing so, just like calling random people just to check in on them, fulfills some sort of desire for him.
To each their own.
PS: Mr. Dienhart may consider the 63% of Americans who say the Iraq War was not worth it as “anti-war” (ABC News Poll, 7/10-13, 2008). But, really, most of us rational Americans are simply anti-lying our way into war and, more importantly, anti-bungled war. Same goes for Democrats or Republicans who worm their way into needless wars — they both tend to get clobbered at the ballot box.
He says the pain is in his neck, but it’s apparently really just a brain cramp from cherry-picking those darn facts.
In his too-cute-by-half post “Flip!” George Dienhart squeals that Sen. Obama has somehow “flipped” on strategic withdrawal from Iraq. The problem for George is that he pulls a quote from January 2008 and removes all context of time from it.
Why does the timing matter? Because Sen. Obama said at the January 15, 2008 Democratic debate in Las Vegas: “I have put forward a plan that will get our troops out by the end of 2009.” (The full quote, which to his credit George picked up directly, is half-way through this debate transcript.)
The Obama Plan on Iraq is based on redeploying one to two brigades out of Iraq every month, which would take about 16 months to get the bulk of our forces out…
Makes sense: 16 months from January 2008 would be in 2009.
George now whines that Obama has flipped because he is — get this — still saying his plan would take about 16 months.
Where’s the flip?
George has to make it up by gurgling that Obama is now stating the redeployment wouldn’t be complete until 2010. That year, 2010, is of course 16 months after Obama would be sworn into the Presidency if he is elected. In fact, his actual plan was introduced to the Senate in early 2007 — with 16 months actually falling in March of 2008 at that point — and was unfortunately DOA given the obstructionist Senate Republicans’ 24/7 filibustering. I wonder why George didn’t get the brilliant idea to make up baloney about that date.
Sen. Obama’s 16 month strategy is still a 16 month strategy — the Republicans’ obstinance keeps pushing the actual implementation date further away.
Why is the Obama Plan on Iraq important and just what is so “strategic” about it? Just read the news reports about Afghanistan and what Obama has to say about concentrating on the real war on terror (in Afghanistan against the Taliban) and focusing on the real culprits behind 9/11 (Osama bin Forgotten and al Qaida).
Now consider that George’s cherry-picked essay is designed to denigrate Obama’s common sense foreign policy and, more importantly, military policy while also essentially promoting John McCain’s presidential ambitions and his desire to stay in Iraq for 100 years or more. (And yes, McCain did say he’d like our troops to stay for 50… 100… 1,000… even a million years after peace has broken out — as if the Taliban and al Qaida did not exist and we had endless numbers of GIs.)
Is this sort of cherry-picked partisan proselytizing what John McCain’s economic adviser (and architect of the current mortgage crisis with his Gramm Act) Phil Gramm had in mind when he complained Americans are whiners? Did he mean to reference criers like George who have to cherry-pick facts and ignore context in order to promote their alternate realities?
Sadly for George his post “Flip!” is nothing but a flop.
Did you know that if you put unpopped popcorn kernels in the turkey they’ll pop while it’s roasting and you’ll have instant popcorn stuffing?
Hilariously, that apparently was one of the few goofball remarks that Illinois Review contributors failed to post in their Day of Doody.
Archpundit takes the Review gang to task by highlighting such gems as Jill Stanek linking (in all seriousness) to kooky claims that Terry Schiavo was fully aware despite having nearly half her brain literally and sadly being liquified and George Dienhart rambling on about what he believes are qualifications for being considered anti-American, including opposing Pres. Bush’s failing NCLB of all things. (Arch also points out Fran Eaton’s two-faced regurgitation of anti-Bob Creamer points. I’ll have more on that in a bit.)
But while you’re passing the popcorn and cracking up over the Ill Reviewers’ inanities, don’t forget to read their best Alfred E. Neuman impression in the whiney comments from Ms. Stanek and Mr. Dienhart who, unfortunately for them, don’t read what they write and link to…
These people want to be considered serious? (Worse, anyone actually takes them seriously?)
It’s ok, though. I hear Bill Clinton made them do it… perhaps by using his sax appeal.
(As an aside, good thing Ron Paul fan C-Rock hasn’t tracked down George Dienhart’s anti-Paul squeel. He might find a new blog to enjoy. 
…I do find it really bizarre that Paul supporters were calling uber-conservative Mr. Dienhart “lefty”. So much in-fighting, so many kilobytes in which to do it.)
George Dienhart, a conservative Catholic, is upset that a public school district with a 30% Muslim minority (a significant minority by any measure) is going to include Ramadan references in a public school.
And here we thought that conserv-o-partisan Christians wanted everyone to celebrate religion in public schools. Oh the hypocrisy…
Mr. Dienhart’s money quote, wherein he foresees the end of civilization because of a suburban school district:
We are not looking at the implications of what appears to be the little things. This is seemingly little thing, but it needs to be put in perspective. What does it mean to the Islamic extremist in Kandahar? For him, it’s a victory. His faith is spreading in Chicagoland. What does it mean to the Al Qaida leadership? It is one more reason that we are weak. It’s one more sign that they can bring Sharia law to the infidels. It’s one more sign from Allah that they can win.
Funny thing is, if Mr. Dienhart’s exalted commander-in-chief had actually bothered to capture or kill Osama bin Forgotten the clearly fretful George Dienhart wouldn’t have to worry about thinking that Osama is actually concerned with the goings-on in Ridgeland School District 122.
Mr. Dienhart keeps digging his myopic hole deeper:
The mainstreaming and acceptance of this [Muslim] culture, at this time is counter productive to the war effort. Freedom of Religion is one of our most cherished rights. In no way am I saying that Muslims religious freedom should be violated. I am saying that Christian children should not be celebrating Ramadan…
Who’s celebrating Ramadan if they’re not Muslim? You can talk about Ramadan without actually fasting (which is what the “celebration” is in the first place). The “holiday” is meant to honor and have compassion for the less fortunate — ie, the hungry and poor — which is why Muslims fast during Ramadan (sounds like Franciscans, a group with which I’m sure Mr. Dienhart is familiar). Why is not acceptable to discuss this in a public school as a method of teaching students about the world (among other concepts)?
Actually the mainstreaming of a “foreign” culture is quite productive to this “war” effort. Just as Japanese-Americans fought bravely for the US in WWII (even if under squalid conditions and questionable command), our nation needs Arab translators to help decipher the intel we do receive about terrorist activity.
Yet Mr. Dienhart whines that he thinks the Council on American-Islamic Relations is silent when it comes to finding Arabic translators, etc. Did he ever stop to think with conservative claptraps like himself running around badmouthing Muslims out of their own ignorance that it might serve as disincentive for Arab speakers to step up to the plate?
That said, Muslims clearly are stepping up to the task at hand anyway but this hyper-paranoid xenophobia being fomented by conserv-o-partisans is still nipping them in the butt as a group of Arabic-speaking Muslim Americans found out when a paranoid woman feared for her life and had an entire plane grounded before it left San Diego. Those Muslim Americans she was so worried about were actually returning home after training Marines at Camp Pendleton. (And note that that Arab American News article has National Guard recruiting ads on the website.)
To be fair, Mr. Dienhart goes through the motions of saying we shouldn’t violate Muslims’ freedom of religion … but the entire tone of his article — like so many others from conservatives lately — belies those few words he types in his lengthy polemic against a religion other than his own. If he truly believes in freedom of religion, he ought to (on principle) believe in it for all — and try to understand why his words fly in the face of such a concept (which is likely hard to do while he’s busy reading so much revisionist history about our Founding Fathers).
Dear Mr. Deinhart,
The problem the American people have with the “Global War on Terror” is not the name. It is the fact that our commander-in-chief allowed the enemy to escape into the caves of Pakistani mountains and then lied his way into another war that is completely unnecessary, unrelated, and obscenely costly (in terms of both lives lost and dollars wasted).
So, your attempt to avoid grammatical correctness (must be right up there next to “common courtesy political correctness”) by paraphrasing “GWOT” with “World War T (the T is for Terrorism, don’t ya know)” is an exercise in futility. But thanks for trying to play the New Slogan Same as the Old One Game, apparently a favorite parlor game among conserv-o-partisans who must have have a lot of free time.
Cordially, Me
PS: The old canard about Iraq being merely a “campaign” in a larger war, a bogus claim you repeat, is belied by the many admissions from retired Administration officials stating that oil reserves had much more to do with the invasion of Iraq than any terrorist. Add to that the many actions of our Administration related to oil (not terrorism) such as defending the Oil Ministry in Baghdad while the museums, banks, infrastructure, etc. were plundered and pressing the Iraqi Parliament to agree to an oil distribution law with unprecedented built-in benefits for foreign (ie, U.S.) oil companies. But you just go ahead and keep telling yourself that bedtime story about being greeted with roses or whatever helps you sleep better at night, after you’re done playing your parlor games.
Illinois Reason’s most obsessed fan has a new post up over at good ol’ Illinois Review and he displays that trait which makes partisans oh so famous — listening to what people say and then telling everyone what you want them to hear instead of what was actually said.
Huh? Come along with me for a moment as I explain.
His post is mainly about a gabfest he had with conservative pundit Bay Buchanan and her new book rehashing old baloney about the Clintons (Mrs. Clinton to be exact). While most conservatives have grown tired of their constant game of Hillary Hate, not so Ms. Buchanan and her avid reader, Mr. Dienhart who apparently like to dig in old dirt.
But buried within his post, smackdab in the middle, Mr. Dienhart goes a step further to tie Sen. Clinton in with what he considers to be an A-1 Genu-Ine Blame America Firster…
You probably remember him [Clinton adviser Michael Lerner] from this quote made shortly after 9/11: “We need to ask ourselves, ‘What is it in the way that we are living, organizing our societies, and treating each other that makes violence seem plausible to so many people?”
Think of that for a moment. One of Hillary’s closest advisor’s blames the United States for 9/11. Is Michael Lerner someone that should be advising the president? (emphasis added)
…Yes, let’s think of that for a moment, shall we? What Mr. Lerner said was that, gee, maybe in the wake of the 9/11 tragedy we ought to take a look at those things we as a leader among nations may be doing to piss people around the world off. In fact, piss them off enough to hijack planes and ram them into buildings on suicide missions.
He’s not blaming America for anything. He’s suggesting we modify behaviors (ie, change course — something partisan conservatives seem loathe to do) to head off the insane al Qaida types before they wreak their terror. Maybe one thing such Blame-Clinton types like Mr. Dienhart ought to consider is something like not propping up dictators who keep their people trapped in poverty and subhuman conditions.
Ya think?
Maybe another thing Mr. Dienhart could think about doing is actually trying to get past his partisanship to honestly evaluate what other folks have to say, instead of dismissing them and calling them names simply because he disagrees with them. Maybe then our political leaders (left and right) could actually work out a common sense approach to combatting terrorism on a global scale instead of inciting an ever-growing number of terrorist acts.
Maybe.
At that same post in which George Dienhart dances a little jig over the delayed news release of the capture of al-Iraqi, he also makes a point to again blame President Clinton for 17-year cicadas 9/11 despite the fact the man hadn’t been in office for 9 months and National Security Advisor Condi Rice ignored every single warning she was given.
He calls it the “Clinton Doctrine” — which is apparently a reference to Clinton’s retaliatory strike in Syria, etc. I seem to recall that at the time Republicans went bonkers that Clinton was wasting time and missiles, just putting on a show, and wagging the dog — essentially that he did too much for little reason. But now those strikes are considered to be not enough.
Maybe all conservatives are forced to take a Hypocritical Oath before they can join their little club.
Mr. Dienhart continues on with a heckuva whopper:
If anything, President Bush’s administration has proved that the best defense is a good offense. There have been no domestic attacks since 2001. If we had just bombed some aspirin factories in retaliation, we would have been hit again. (emphasis added)
Mr. Dienhart, I know Londoners who were steps away from the bus that exploded on that bloody Thursday in 2005. And perhaps you’d care to explain your claim to the families in Madrid who lost loved ones in 2004. While you’re at it, talk to the Jordanians, Australians and others who have also had to bury loved ones (if their bodies were found) as a results of other terrorist attacks since 2001.
These bombings may not have happened here in the “domestic” US… but they have happened. Qualifying your phrases to gloss over reality doesn’t change that fact.
Our good pal George Dienhart is excitedly wagging his finger over at Illinois Review on the occasion of a news release about another terrorist capture. This time, it is one Abd al-Hadi al-Iraqi (aka Abu Abdallah). I agree — good for the CIA for reeling in this monster.
Interestingly enough, al-Iraqi (as his name implies) was an Iraqi before becoming an international outlaw. In fact, he left Saddam Hussein’s army (al-Iraqi was a major at one time) in order to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan back in the 80s. But to conservative partisans, this retroactively proves that Hussein again had direct ties to bin Laden because… they say so. (Actually, it proves that Presidents Carter and Reagan made a strategic blunder in funding and training the pre-born al Quaida in Afghanistan in order to “get back” at the Soviets. Very short-sighted given Middle Eastern fundamentalists’ acts of terror even before that point. Hindsight’s always 20/20.)
Al-Iraqi went on to become a director for al Quaida training camps that were destroyed in the invasion of Afghanistan. News reports indicate he was most recently coordinating terrorist activity at least in Iraq if not also in Europe and that he was the one who, after the US invaded Iraq, eventually convinced now-killed Zarqawi (a Jordanian terrorist who set up operations in Iraq after the US invaded) to join forces with al Quaida. Again, all this after the US invaded Iraq.
Not to discount the significance of any capture of actual terrorists, but it appears as though al-Iraqi had been captured previously in Afghanistan in 2001 or 2002 after our initial invasion to retaliate for 9/11, remove the Taliban and al Quaida, and capture bin Laden. If he was so important, how did he get out that we had to then capture him again?
Further, the man has apparently been in custody since last year (caught by the CIA in late ‘06). Why spill the bean’s of his capture now and possibly imperil on-going stings or other counter-terror ops? Of course, as many conservatives have already noted, there was that vote in the Senate yesterday…
It’s odd and not the least bit disturbing that conservatives such as Mr. Dienhart and others would hold up the news of a single individual’s capture (even though the capture apparently happened last year) as proof that our troops must continue to act as target and training practice for terrorists in Iraq, whether afiiliated with al Quaida or not. This flypaper strategy does just as much to draw out terrorists as it does to create them (let alone give them live-action training that they are now exporting out of Iraq). Why can’t the few partisans still supporting this war that was based on lies from the start comprehend this?
The Iraq War is spawning an ever-growing number of al-Iraqis… not killing them off.
As for al-Iraqi himself, put the guy on trial and, if found guilty (likely), hang him from the nearest gallows — but don’t let him out again as apparently happened at some point a few years ago. And all this again begs the question, where is bin Laden?
And Now… Heeerre’s Geeoorrggiiee: George W. Bush Wet My Bed
Since George Dienhart didn’t bother to link to an actual report or make any cites to anything in print, it’s unclear why Mr. Dienhart’s panties are in a bunch, other than he apparently doesn’t like that the shock and awe of war is causing Iraqi children to stutter and wet their beds. Ok… If you can’t take the consequences of a war then don’t be a cheerleader when your president starts one, Mr. Dienhart.
[UPDATE: Mr. Dienhart has now linked to a Fox News transcript of a Harry Reid speech. Sen. Maj. Leader Reid makes note of the fact 70% of Iraqi children are suffering from trauma and that this is the generation of Iraqis we are counting on to bolster democracy there into the future. So essentially Mr. Dienhart is mocking Senate Leader Reid for pointing out the fact Pres. Bush cannot bring himself to face reality. Again, Mr. Dienhart, if you don't like the consequences of a war, don't grab the megaphone and pom-poms to cheerlead for that war. Even the Iraqis want Americans to stop with the president's plans and just leave even while also being almost universally opposed to al-Quaida.]
Mr. Dienhart then blathers on and on, trying to blame Democrats for everything. Maybe he even blames Dems for 17-year cicadas. I’m not sure, I was too busy laughing at his hysterical comedy routine.
Go read it for yourself. It’s kooky at it’s finest.
(Preamble: As Upper Mississippi River Blog says, “Grab your lunch”… Though I will say the short version of this post is this — If any given person wants to be victorious in what they consider World War 3 then they ought to actually be acting like it.)
Instead of blaming his ambiguous “left” for everything, perhaps George “Mourns the Loss of Civil Discourse, But Has No Problem Contributing to that Loss” Dienhart could actually think of some real solutions instead of passing the buck regarding what he calls World War 3.
In principle, I agree with the tenets central to Mr. Dienhart’s recent tome. If this is truly World War 3 we’re fighting against religious fundamentalists then we ought to do everything we can to ensure national — nay, “free world” — victory, not just “Republican” or “Democratic” victory which appears to be how Mr. Dienhart is framing the issue.
Continue reading ‘Suck It Up’ after the flip…
ArchPundit posted earlier about the ridiculousness of George “Mourns the Loss of Civil Discourse, Even Though He Contributes Quite a Bit To It” Dienhart’s post about Sen. Obama and Speaker Pelosi.
To look at it from a different angle, we find that Mr. Dienhart’s post itself is doubly hypocritical. Not only does he repeat conservatives’ partisan lies about the Speaker’s trip to Syria, but he also may just have done the thing he thinks he has caught Presidential-candidate Obama doing — breaking the law.
Mr. Dienhart complains that candidate Obama is meeting with political consultant David Axelrod in his Senate office. He provides what he claims to be photo evidence of the Axelrod-Obama meeting, calling it “Exhibit 1″.
Nevermind that Mr. Axelrod is an Illinois resident and the two could’ve been discussing farm policies of the Prairie State (or somesuch, you get the idea…).
Nevermind the fact that conservative political consultants Karl Rove, Mark McKinnon, Frank Luntz, etc. are often providing campaign advice throughout the taxpayer-funded White House and Republican offices on Capitol Hill.
And nevermind the fact that nowhere in the original source, the NY Times Magazine, does it say that is what the group is actually doing or discussing (the caption is ambiguous). Yet Mr. Dienhart assumes, “Here is Barrack [sic] Obama, allegedly sitting in his comfy taxpayer provided office talking about his presidential campaign with David Axelrod” (at least Mr. Dienhart added “allegedly”, even though he’s the only one doing the “alleging”).
Wait. What was that about an “original source” … the NY Times Magazine?
It would appear hypocritical for someone who’s playing gotcha about what’s legal or not to simply pluck the copyrighted NY Times photo and drop it onto Illinois Review with neither a reference nor a link to the original. Moreover, that particular photo did not appear to be offered for rent or purchase during quick search of the photos available from the NY Times.
Let’s hope for the best that Mr. Dienhart did obtain permission (even though according to the NY Times automated photo system, NY Times Magazine photos are not available for reproduction). If not, he may want to think about following the law a little more closely before alleging others are breaking it.
Teh Stupid
It’s a bit weird given this and thousands of other examples.
Except for a momentary defection to independent candidate Ross Perot in 1992, Luntz has been a Republican operative who has counseled Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani and Trent Lott. But he often has worked for the media and made comments too harsh for the ears of reclusive Republicans. He has clashed frequently with Rep. John A. Boehner, the Republican leader of the House who stifled ethics legislation last year when he was still majority leader.
Boehner, elected chairman of the House Republican Conference when the party took control in 1995, tried then to keep Luntz from addressing closed-door meetings but was overruled by Speaker Gingrich. When Luntz warned publicly in October 2005 of rejection by voters in 2006, he was forced to deliver an abject apology before he could speak at a retreat of House Republicans held at the Library of Congress. After seven straight years on the program, Luntz was kept off last week’s 2007 session at Cambridge, Md., by Boehner.
More hysterical stupid:
Again, if House Speaker Newt Gingrich had done this to President Bill Clinton, the New York Times would still be covering it. No such coverage is likely in this case, because Speaker Pelosi is a Democrat.
FLASHBACK: Hastert Traveled Abroad, Told Foreign Leaders Not To Listen To Clinton
President Bush yesterday said Speaker Pelosi’s bipartisan delegation to Syria sends “mixed signals,” implying that Pelosi overstepped her bounds by merely visiting Syria.
Bush’s supporters have been repeating the argument:
Former ambassador John Bolton: “I would simply hope that people would understand that, under the Constitution, the president conducts foreign policy, not the speaker of the House.”
Former Gov. Mitt Romney: “It has long been the established principle of this country that the president of the United States leads our foreign policy. And if you don’t like the president, then you change him. But you don’t have the two parties each conducting foreign policy in the way they think it ought to be conducted.”
Speaker Pelosi has done nothing to suggest that she intended to speak on behalf of President Bush or the U.S. Government. But her predecessors haven’t been so respectful.
In 1997, Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) led a delegation to Colombia at a time when U.S. officials were trying to attach human rights conditions to U.S. security assistance programs. Hastert specifically encouraged Colombian military officials to “bypass” President Clinton and “communicate directly with Congress.”
…a congressional delegation led by Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) which met with Colombian military officials, promising to “remove conditions on assistance” and complaining about “leftist-dominated” U.S. congresses of years past that “used human rights as an excuse to aid the left in other countries.” Hastert said he would to correct this situation and expedite aid to countries allied in the war on drugs and also encouraged Colombian military officials to “bypass the U.S. executive branch and communicate directly with Congress.”
Subsequently, U.S. Ambassador to Colombia Myles Frechette sent a cable complaining that Hastert’s actions had undermined his leverage with the Colombian military leadership.
In other instances, Hastert actually guided congressional staff to unilaterally reach deals with Colombian officials:
House Foreign Affairs Committee staff, at the direction of the Hastert group, would fly to Colombia, meet with the nation’s anti-narcotics police and negotiate the levels and terms of assistance, the scope of the program and the kinds of equipment that would be needed. Rarely were the U.S. diplomatic personnel in our embassy in Bogata consulted about the “U.S.” position in these negotiations, and in a number of instances they were excluded from or not even made aware of the meetings.
If the right is looking for members of Congress clearly infringing on the president’s constitutional prerogatives, they should look at Hastert, not Pelosi.
Could we get a better class of morons please?
UPDATE by Rob: Turns out President Bush’s own State Dept. (that’d be the one led by Secretary of State Condi Rice) approved Speaker Pelosi’s trip and there were a number of Republicans on the trip alongside the Speaker; this after a Republicans-only Congressional delegation had previously gone to the region. Could Mr. Dienhart and his fellow partisan hacks have less credibility while simultaneously being so hypocritical? Did you guys think people wouldn’t quickly figure out you’re lying?
Over amongst our friends at Illinois Review, George Dienhart laments that he misses the 80’s. He longs for the days of Ronny Raygun and “Mr. Gorbachev, Tear Down This Wall”. He waxes poetic about how Hollywood’s “uber liberal environment” had to be entertaining in its subversiveness and references M*A*S*H as an example.
Problem is, Mr. Dienhart is ignoring a lot of recent history which makes his point a completely hollow one.
Read more “The Beam in George Dienhart’s Eye” after the flip…
Even that American icon Sears, venerable catalog and department store enterprise, has noticed the odd obsession social conservatives have with sex. Yet when confronted with the obvious, conservative Illinois Review contributor George Deinhart doesn’t jump to the obvious conclusion. Instead, he hops in the conspiracy theory cab with “Jerry Fletcher“.
Mr. Dienhart was on a recent excursion to a Sears Grand location (I’ve never been). While there he took a break from commercial activity to use an Internet kiosk. Let’s go now to read his story:
Ever tried to view the Illinois Review at a Sears Grand Internet kiosk? If you had, you would have found out that the Illinois Review is banned. The blocking software is also kind enough to notify the user that the Illinois Review is banned for sexual content. This doesn’t really seem right. I know that not all typepad accounts are banned- I am at the main web domain now as I type. I also tried the Huffington Post. The liberal blog clearing house was NOT blocked …
Mr. Dienhart, have you ever tried to do a search for “sex” or “pornography” at Illinois Review? A ton of posts come up. Not just from IR Editor Fran Eaton, but from several other contributors and commenters. That conservative site is rife with sex-talk: Technorati finds more than 250 references to sex, porn and pornography at Ill Review.
So, Mr. Deinhart, Sears is simply trying to protect itself from the inevitable conservative backlash if the letters “S-E-X” were ever to appear on one of their public Internet kiosk screens. Conservatives can’t want to both talk about sex ad nauseum and then not want others to even appear to allude to it (coincidentally or not).
If you don’t like the sex talk Mr. Dienhart, stop your fellow conservatives from posting about it.
