Citing the example (the go-to complaint of neo-Nazis such as David Irving, by the way) of Curtis LeMay's firebombing of Axis cities*, Rauf asserts that the West has always engaged in terrorism.

He then attempts to claim that continues to the present day by quoting Madeleine Albright saying that civilian casualties due to sanctions against Iraq (not warfare) were unfortunate but necessary. He seems to ignore the part where sanctions are not in fact warfare at all, and can be legitimate, which is not even remotely true in the case of terrorism -- in that case, civilian casualties are not an unfortunate, unavoidable consequence of a military action, but in fact the whole point.

His claim that 1,000,000 Iraqis died due to sanctions is, of course, purely crank, the product of overheated leftist imaginations and Muslim eagerness for any grievances that can justify their murderous terrorism.

He then goes on to claim that the US is using a double-standard in defining terrorism, and urges a "neutral" definition which would bind "both sides."

So his claim is, once again, that Islam isn't doing anything the US isn't doing, and that it's unfair to make a big deal out of Islam's terror.

Once again he makes the same offer that Obama did, just with less threatening language: Never, ever challenge an Islamic state militarily -- or even with steps short of military action such as sanctions -- and we'll see about calling ixnay on the errorism-tay. Deal?

No deal.

This is the exact same defense of terrorism offered by every single one of its supporters.

This won't do.

A man who continues to drone on and on with his apologias for terror is a "moderate" whose plans for a trimphal victory mosque we must not frustrate.

* I wrote he said "Dresden" but he spoke of firebombing "over 60 Japanese cities." I have corrected to the vaguer "Axis cities" in order to note that all neo-Nazis ever want to talk about is the horror of Dresden.

Thanks to OlafK. for pointing the error out.

More Corrections: I also cleared up/cleaned up the part about Madelein Albright.

Posted by: Ace at 07:05 AM | Comments (207)
Post contains 394 words, total size 3 kb.

Not an unfamiliar story in the "public works" setting. Florida politicians decided that the Marlins absolutely must have a new stadium or they'd leave the state. And since the Marlins couldn't pay for it...well, it's for the taxpayers' own good.

Wait, did I say the Marlins couldn't pay for it?

A look at the leak of the MarlinsÂ’ financial information to Deadspin confirmed the long-held belief that the team takes a healthy chunk of MLB-distributed money for profit. Owner Jeffrey Loria and president David Samson for years have contended the Marlins break even financially, the centerpiece fiscal argument that resulted in local governments gifting them a new stadium that will cost generations of taxpayers an estimated $2.4 billion. They said they had no money to do it alone and intimated they would have to move the team without public assistance.

In fact, documents show, the Marlins could have paid for a significant amount of the new stadiumÂ’s construction themselves and still turned an annual operating profit. Instead, they cried poor to con feckless politicians that sold out their constituents.

The ugliness of the Marlins’ ballpark situation is already apparent, and the building doesn’t open for another 18 months. Somehow a team that listed its operating income as a healthy $37.8 million in 2008 alone swung a deal in which it would pay only $155 million of the $634 million stadium complex. Meanwhile, Miami-Dade County agreed – without the consent of taxpayers – to take $409 million in loans loaded with balloon payments and long grace periods. By 2049, when the debt is due, the county will have paid billions.

Read the whole thing.

Although, as I said, this is a familiar story. Politicians and other "public servants" aren't spending their own money when they make the deals for this kind of thing (or for light-rail or a new wireless infrastructure or for underwater bike trails or whatever). So they've got much less incentive to really bargain or to keep costs down.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 06:34 AM | Comments (99)
Post contains 349 words, total size 2 kb.

Sorry for starting the day with a poll post, but the possibility that I may have to eat my words (predicting a Boxer win) cannot be ignored.

Other polls have had Fiorina ahead of Boxer, but not Rasmussen. Okay, Rasmussen isn't quite there yet, but it's close:

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Voters in California shows Boxer with 44% support, while Fiorina picks up 43% of the vote. Five percent (5%) like another candidate in the race, and eight percent (8%) are undecided.

[...]

When leaners are included in the new totals, Boxer moves ahead by five points – 49% to 44%. Leaners are those who initially indicate no preference for either of the candidates but answer a follow-up question and say they are leaning towards a particular candidate.

We are 68 days out from the election and Boxer hasn't really made her move yet. I haven't seen her ads much on TV or radio, except for the news when the President comes out to fundraise. Her short internet ads aren't interesting enough to be passed around much.

So she's just marking time right now. Probably until the first (the only?) primetime debate, which will be September 1. After that, both campaigns will unleash the barrage of televised half-truths that Californians are used to.

The other thing she has to look forward to is the President coming back to help her. Unlike the rest of the country, Californians haven't wised up. They like him and they like that she's tied to him, according to this Reuters guy.

Fiorina-side: An independent group just launched a week-long TV blitz here in L.A. against Boxer for trashing Medicare as part of the ObamaCare package. That's a smart move. Aim at seniors, you get more reliable bang for your buck. Hook it to ObamaCare, which even out here doesn't poll that well, and it's got even more oomph.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:53 AM | Comments (81)
Post contains 332 words, total size 2 kb.

Brand Democrat™ from Slublog.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:21 AM | Comments (112)
Post contains 12 words, total size 1 kb.

Just as the reality starts to hit Democrats that this year is going to be a massacre for them, they have to confront a new fact...it's likely to be worse than they thought.

“Democrats kept thinking: ‘We’re going to get better. We’re going to get well before the election,’” said one of Washington’s best-connected Democrats. “But as of this week, you now have people saying that Republicans are going to win the House. And now it’s starting to look like the Senate is going to be a lot closer than people thought.”

A Democratic pollster working on several key races said, “The reality is that [the House majority] is probably gone.” His data shows the Democrats’ problems are only getting worse. “It’s spreading,” the pollster said

...Yet Democratic concern continues to manifest itself in a variety of ways, including the purchasing of ads in districts – like that of veteran Ike Skelton of Missouri -- that historically are only in play in miserable political years and were not considered at risk several months ago. And then there are more subtle hints that professional Democrats are worried -- lobbyists are reporting a noticeable uptick in House committee staffers looking for jobs.

...In some races, endangered Democrats are trying to carve out their own separate identities from the national party – even if that means bashing Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Check the whole thing out. Aside from a few attempts to cheer up Democrats reading the story, it's pretty tasty.

Jake Tapper has a post along these same lines...Democrats turning against their leadership. He illustrates the point nicely with a bunch of Democratic ads.

There's definitely a theme running through them....

Old and Busted: Yes We Can! We're Democrats.

New Hotness: Independent!

This is my favorite (so far) from the new genre.

"Independent conservative"? Dude you're a DEMOCRAT, own it.

Now you may think, he's from Alabama, what else do you expect him to say? Well, take a look at the one from the guy in Ohio. It's all about illegal immigration. Ohio!

In less than two years we've gone from the idea that Republicans may never be a force in national elections again to Democrats turning on their leadership in order to save their own seats.

Added: Like the good lapdogs they are, the AP chimes in with this report, "As GOP civil war rages, Democrats look to benefit".

Talk about your bitter clingers.

This Democrat Is Running as a Mental Patient [ace]: A Democrat, Chris Young, is running for Providence's mayor. A local station has a feature called "Coffee with the Candidates" in which they give candidates five minutes to talk with the hostess, to introduce themselves to the city.

This guy used his time unexpectedly.
more...

Posted by: DrewM at 06:33 PM | Comments (242)
Post contains 502 words, total size 4 kb.

Welcome to tonight's semi-half-assed ONT. You'll take it and you'll like it.

The 20 Worst Fast Food Commercials

In China even your final meal before being executed for political crimes can be extra crispy KFC. Well actually probably not - just some kind of Chinese knock-off that could have some chicken in it.

Posted by: Maetenloch at 05:53 PM | Comments (808)
Post contains 423 words, total size 5 kb.

Who was the best Star Trek Enterprise captain/science officer combo?

I gotta go with Archer/T'pal.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at 05:05 PM | Comments (273)
Post contains 25 words, total size 1 kb.

Drew wrote the Libertarian Party candidate, this guy, asking for comment/confirmation, etc.

This is what he got back. Put aside the 2nd-grade-level grammatical errors ("would of") and, in between splitting atoms, he's saying that the door is open to her, if only she'll walk through.

He says, he actually says, the Message (the Libertarian party's message) is more important than the Messenger (himself).

Drew's question:

Good afternoon,

I'm a blogger with the site Ace of Spades HQ (ace.mu.nu) and we've been
covering the Republican Senate Primary. As I'm sure you're well aware, there's speculation Senator Murkowski may try to run on your party's line
should she lose the GOP primary.

Do you have any statement on that speculation and your intentions for your
campaign?

Thank you very much for your time,

DrewM.
Ace of Spades HQ

Less than three bong-hits later:

Hi Drew

The Message is more important than messenger.

If Lisa would of supported "The Peoples Bail Out" she would of over
whelmed Joe Miller so I doubt she would do it now, some people just do
not get it, but it is never to late to see the truth and Lisa is a
smart lady; I voted for her.

David

And he voted for her, too? He voted in the Republican Primary instead of his own, for himself?

The hell kind of stoners' gangbang do they have going on up there?

So all Murkowski has to do, if I'm reading this right, is support a platform he calls "The People's Bailout" (or, as he terms it in his email, "The Peoples Bail Out,"or in the paper itself, "The Peoples Bailout") and she can have his slot?

(Drew emailed me this document but it's too large to upload to the site.)

Well, I think he's talking about the wrong person, then. Because the Lisa Murkowski I know is not at all the sort to suddenly embrace a political position she disagrees with just to further her own personal pecuniary interests. No sir, no thank you, sir!

Posted by: Ace at 02:45 PM | Comments (397)
Post contains 363 words, total size 2 kb.

Hoft says he confirms the guy was "behind the firebomb attack," but that's not right; the confirmation is that yes, an unhinged lefty Carnahan staffer was (and is) a suspect in the attack.

Posted by: Ace at 02:37 PM | Comments (41)
Post contains 73 words, total size 1 kb.

From Politico, via Hot Air's Headlines:

Glenn Beck is a polarizing figure. If he's not catching hell for crying on the air and pointing out the Marxism behind many members of the Obama Administration from the Progs, he's getting flamed by the far-Right for not being sufficiently SoCon in his views.

Now that he has dared to commit the Cardinal Sin of OARIWWHSAWAM (Organizing A Rally In Washington While Having Skin As White As Mayonnaise) on the 47th anniversary of Dr. King's "I Have a Dream" speech, he's not only catching hell from the Sharpton wing of the Democratic Party, he's also getting some "friendly fire"* from the right side of the aisle.

The criticism in this article runs the gamut from "It's all about HIM" to "He refuses to lead the 9/12 Movement that he started".

Regarding the charges of personal aggrandizement: Yeah, so? If a guy's not willing to make a few bucks for his family while he's performing a needed service, I'm not sure he's trustworthy. I'll have to confess to not being a regular listener to his radio show (it comes on while I'm at work, and I can't listen), and I usually work too late to see his Fox show (plus the fact that Glenn Beck can't compete against Curious George or Yo Gabba Gabba for the attention of a cranky two-year old when I AM home), but I've always thought of Glenn as "one of us". If he makes a little federal green off his worthwhile efforts at educating the American public about their history, then good for him.

And the charges that he's not involved enough in 9/12 activities? Isn't that the point? The reason that the Tea Party and the 9/12 groups are getting more traction than Ross Perot's top-down "grassroot" organizations ever dreamed about getting is precisely BECAUSE they're true grassroots organizations. Are the grassroots organizations going to make mistakes? Yeah, sometimes they're going to foul up royally. That's all part of the learning process. Once the multitude of local leaders have sorted through what works and what doesn't work our country will have a deep bench of effective local leaders. When you run it all from the top down, all you build at the local level is functionaries. And why not let local groups set their own priorities? A grassroots group from Arizona is probably going to put more emphasis on border control than a grassroots group in Missouri; and that's perfectly OK by me.

The grassroots movement doesn't need an Evita Peron or a "Lonesome Rhodes". They're doing perfectly well on their own. Glenn Beck should just laugh at this criticism on his way to cashing his next paycheck.

* As the old saying goes, "Friendly Fire........ISN'T!"

Posted by: Russ from Winterset at 01:30 PM | Comments (198)
Post contains 482 words, total size 3 kb.