Combs Spouts Off

"It's my opinion and it's very true."

  • Calendar

    September 2007
    S M T W T F S
     1
    2345678
    9101112131415
    16171819202122
    23242526272829
    30  
  • Recent Posts

  • Tag Cloud

  • Archives

Archive for September, 2007

BDS worsens in Seattle

Posted by Richard on September 7, 2007

Bush Derangement Syndrome just keeps getting worse, with sufferers exhibiting increasingly disturbing symptoms. Seattle Post-Intelligencer columnist Jim Moore describes Seattle's King County as "deep, deep Democratic blue" (and a P-I columnist probably says that like it's a good thing). So it's no surprise that Seattle has more than its share of the BDS-afflicted. Apparently, quite a few of them are so far gone that the thought of a Seattle Seahawk supporting Bush and the Republicans is almost intolerable.

It seems that quarterback Matt Hasselbeck and fullback Mack Strong recently attended a fundraising dinner in Bellevue for Republican Rep. Dave Reichert, along with President Bush. They presented Bush with a Seahawks jersey that had his name and the number 43 on it. (UPDATE: Gateway Pundit has a picture.) Uh oh. Incensed liberals inundated the players and the team with hate-filled calls, emails, and text messages (emphasis added):

"I had no idea," Hasselbeck said.

One guy told him: "I hate you, I'll never wear your jersey, I'll never like the Seahawks again."

"Huh?" Hasselbeck thought. "Seriously?"

"Politics can be very mean and dirty," he said. "The things politicians say about each other, and what activists say, I had a brief glimpse of that for a couple of days.

"If I ever had any questions about whether I wanted to run for office, I now know the answer — I don't."

As a quarterback, he's used to getting booed. "But this was a whole new level," he said. "I was very surprised how mean (they were)."

As evidence were these responses to Angelo Bruscas' blog posting on seattlepi.com:

"How dare Hasselbeck declare Bush an honorary Seahawk," wrote one. "Who is Matt speaking for? Bush is no Seahawk. He is the worst president of my lifetime, and I'm almost 60. Shame on you, Matt."

"To learn that two of the most popular Seahawks are strong (Bush) supporters ruins the season for me and my family," wrote another.

This is pathological. There must be some sort of drug therapy that can let these people return to some semblance of a normal life. I mean, imagine what they go through day after day — wondering if the Channel 4 meteorologist is a Rethuglican and can't be trusted, worrying that their fast food lunch might have been prepared by a neocon, suspecting their bank branch manager of being a Cheney/Halliburton stooge. 

Rush handed out some tough love to these fans on today's show (that link will probably quit working in a few days):

You people need to get lives! For crying out loud, do you know how many NFL players I know that love Democrats? It hasn't destroyed my love for the game. You people are just nuts. You people on the left are lunatics. You are certifiably insane. You can't really be fans of the Seattle Seahawks if your fandom can be shaken and destroyed. What kind of emotional midgets are you? The new castrati, you don't have any business being football fans. You're not tough enough to be football fans. If you can't handle your quarterback liking a certain president without having to destroy your season, go see a shrink. Tell you what, you people need help. …

Emotional midgets. I like that. 

Subscribe To Site:

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Schumer slanders Marines

Posted by Richard on September 6, 2007

The Democrats have long insisted that they really do support the troops, that they have nothing but respect and admiration for the troops. Oh, yeah? Wednesday on the Senate floor, Sen. Charles Schumer labeled the Marines in Anbar province incompetent and said they're part of the problem, not the solution. And he insulted Iraqis, too, dubbing the tribal sheiks who are cooperating with us — the men President Bush met with on Labor Day — "warlords."

Duane Patterson has a 5-minute clip from Schumer's speech, but here's the money quote (emphasis added):

And let me be clear, the violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge. The inability of American soldiers to protect these tribes from al Qaeda said to these tribes we have to fight al Qaeda ourselves. It wasn't that the surge brought peace here. It was that the warlords took peace here, created a temporary peace here. And that is because there was no one else there protecting.

Patterson observed that "Not only is Schumer calling the American military incompetent, he's calling them liars, as well," and offered relevant quotes from Generals Petraeus and Simmons.

But you don't have to take the generals' word for it. Over at the Outside the Wire blog, JD Johannes has a short clip of LTC Valery Keaveny, one of those inept Marines in Anbar who actually talks with and fights alongside the tribesmen Schumer claims we couldn't protect. Johannes, a former Marine, director of the Iraq war documentary Outside the Wire, and independent war correspondent, added his own observations:

I've been on missions with tribal fighters. I've broken bread with them. I've asked them why they started standing up against Al Qaida and the insurgents.

The answer always involves the brutality of Al Qaida. Never once have I heard an Iraqi say they turned on Al Qaida because the coalition could not protect them from Al Qaida.

Which brings us back to LTC Keaveny's point. If a former insurgent is now working with the coalition–how is it possible the joined he joined the Awakening for protection from Al Qaida.

The second major error in Schumer's revisionist history is that he is trying to rewrite a claim no one should be making–that the surge caused the Anbar Awakening.

The Awakening started around this time last year–way before the surge was ever announced.

Schumer isn't just lying about Anbar and the Marines, though. He claimed that we've just been "pushing on a balloon" and that the improvement in Anbar was offset by a worsening situation in "many other provinces." Bunk. Check out the metrics at The Victory Caucus, especially the map showing attacks per day per province. One, Baghdad, has 51. Three others are in the low 20s and one averages 15. Another six range from 1 to 7. The remaining seven provinces average zero (0) attacks. So Baghdad accounts for a third of the violence, and four of the eighteen provinces account for fully three-quarters of it.

While you're at TVC, check out the Info and News links for more stuff you won't hear on the evening news. Then sign the Stand by the Mission petition.

UPDATE: There is no coherent theme underlying Schumer's opposition to the mission, it's just gainsaying — throwing out whatever comes to mind and hoping some of it sticks. The U.S. failed to protect the Sunni tribes from al Qaeda, he now claims. But until very recently, he and his pals insisted strenuously that al Qaeda wasn't present or was an insignificant factor in Iraq, an administration fiction to divert attention from the "civil war" between Sunni and Shia. And since these Sunni tribesmen were previously fighting us, not al Qaeda, the idea that we let them down is just nonsense. 

UPDATE 2: Rush made a good point today (Thurs.): Since forever, Schumer and other Democrats have argued that the Iraqis need to step forward and take responsibility for their own security. So when the Iraqis in Anbar successfully do that, Schumer sees it as a bad thing. This nonsense on stilts.  

Subscribe To Site:

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Working vacation

Posted by Richard on September 5, 2007

On Labor Day, President Bush paid a surprise visit to Iraq. Not just any part of Iraq, but Anbar province, which a few months ago, critics of the war held up as the poster child of U.S. failure in Iraq. Now it's safe enough for a presidential visit, complete with a meeting with local Sunni tribal leaders.

I first learned of the visit when I heard an NBC reporterette describing it as a "working vacation." A friend of mine was taken aback, and noted that Bush's trip to Iraq and then to Australia for an APAC summit is more properly described as a "business trip." There is nothing about it that approximates a "vacation."

Of course, the mainstream media routinely describe every visit to the Crawford ranch as a "vacation," regardless of what he does while there, so calling this business trip a "working vacation" is actually a concession of sorts. At least they used the adjective "working."

Bush was joined by Lieutenant General Raymond Odierno, Commanding General, Multi-National Corps, General David Petraeus, Commander, Multi-National Force Iraq, Admiral William Fallon, Commander US Central Command, General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and Secretary State Condoleezza Rice. Wow.

Since what I've stated above plus a 10-second sound bite is probably all that (or more than) you've learned from the mainstream media, I thought I'd provide the text of his address to the troops (at least, most of it), from the White House site: 

As you know, today is Labor Day back home — (hooah) — so I thought I'd come by to thank you for all your hard work. (Hooah.) Every day — every day — you show bravery under incredibly difficult circumstances. Every day you're doing work on the sands of Anbar that is making it safer in the streets of America. And every day the United States of America is grateful for what you're doing. I want you to tell your families the Commander-in-Chief stopped by to say hello, and he said, I'm incredibly proud to be the Commander-in-Chief of such a great group of men and women. (Applause.)

I'm keeping pretty good company, as you can see. I brought out the A Team so they could be with the folks who are making a significant difference in this war against these radicals and extremists. In Anbar you're seeing firsthand the dramatic differences that can come when the Iraqis are more secure. In other words, you're seeing success.

You see Sunnis who once fought side by side with al Qaeda against coalition troops now fighting side by side with coalition troops against al Qaeda. Anbar is a huge province. It was once written off as lost. It is now one of the safest places in Iraq. (Hooah.) …

The surge of operations that began in June is improving security throughout Iraq. The military successes are paving the way for the political reconciliation and economic progress the Iraqis need to transform their country. When Iraqis feel safe in their own homes and neighborhoods, they can focus their efforts on building a stable, civil society with functioning government structures at the local and provincial and national levels. …

Earlier today I met with some of the tribal sheiks here in Anbar. It was a really interesting meeting. And at the table were the leaders of the central government, as well. They told me that the kind of bottom-up progress that your efforts are bringing to Anbar is vital to the success and stability of a free Iraq. See, Iraqis need this stability to build a more peaceful future. And America needs this stability to prevent the chaos that allows the terrorists to set up bases from which they can plot and plan attacks on our homeland.

The very people that you helped the Iraqis defeat in Anbar swore allegiance to the man that ordered the attack on the United States of America. What happens here in Anbar matters to the security of the United States.

And so I thank you for your sacrifice. I thank you for volunteering in the face of danger. I thank you for your courage and your bravery. Every day you are successful here in Iraq draws nearer to the day when America can begin calling you and your fellow servicemen and women home.

But I want to tell you this about the decision — about my decision about troop levels. Those decisions will be based on a calm assessment by our military commanders on the conditions on the ground — not a nervous reaction by Washington politicians to poll results in the media. (Hooah.) In other words, when we begin to draw down troops from Iraq, it will be from a position of strength and success, not from a position of fear and failure. To do otherwise would embolden our enemies and make it more likely that they would attack us at home. If we let our enemies back us out of Iraq, we will more likely face them in America. If we don't want to hear their footsteps back home, we have to keep them on their heels over here. And that's exactly what you're doing, and America is safer for it.

In Anbar you're doing this hard work every day. We've all come to say thank you. We've come to tell you the American people are standing with you. They're grateful for your sacrifice. As Commander-in-Chief, I'm proud to be in your presence on this Labor Day. I ask for God's blessings on you and your family, and may God continue to bless America. Thank you. (Applause.)

In case the "hooah" and "applause" notations in the transcript above don't make it clear, the troops loved him. And if you routinely rely on the mainstream media for your news about what's happening in Iraq, this may be news to you, too: Troops in Iraq exceeded their reenlistment goals for the year last month.

Screw Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. The people who know best what's happening on the ground and how important it is are backing this effort in the most important way possible — they're committing their lives and their honor. Dammit, treat their commitment with respect.

 

Subscribe To Site:

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

‘Duh’ study of the week

Posted by Richard on September 4, 2007

I'm shocked, simply shocked. Cutting-edge social science research (probably federally funded) has uncovered a couple of astonishing facts. These findings further confirm the disturbing recent news that men and women are different. The groundbreaking study determined that (1) men prefer good-looking women, and (2) women are choosier than men.

Researchers questioned men and women prior to a speed-dating session about their preferences in a mate, and then compared those with their actual choices of people they'd like to meet with again. In another shocker, it seems that men and women both lie:

Men's choices did not reflect their stated preferences, the researchers concluded. Instead, men appeared to base their decisions mostly on the women's physical attractiveness.

The men also appeared to be much less choosy. Men tended to select nearly every woman above a certain minimum attractiveness threshold, Todd said.

Women's actual choices, like men's, did not reflect their stated preferences, but they made more discriminating choices, the researchers found.

The scientists said women were aware of the importance of their own attractiveness to men, and adjusted their expectations to select the more desirable guys.

I can't wait to see what valuable insights into human nature science will reveal next.
 

Subscribe To Site:

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »