Friday, April 18, 2008

For those who follow WEP, you no doubt have noticed that my opinion of Barack Obama has evolved a good deal over the past year. After reading "The Audacity of Hope" I came away thinking that Obama was an honest, wholesome family man with very different political views from myself. I would never vote for him, but I could see myself being friends with him. But this campaign has soured my opinion of him and it seems with each passing day my initial impression of him was way off. The way he has composed himself during this campaign has been horribly disappointing. To put it simple, I now see Obama as elitist, smug, arrogant and pompous. Despite how he characterizes himself, I don't think he has a clue about mainstream American life, and his behavior seems to reinforce that description. Most recently in North Carolina:

Just when you thought the Democratic race couldn’t get uglier, Barack Obama is being accused of giving Hillary Clinton the finger at a town hall meeting in North Carolina. The gesture — which may have been an innocent scratch of the face or, according to some, something more mischievous — came as Obama was complaining Thursday about the debate in Philadelphia the night before...Obama started his address in Raleigh, N.C., by complaining that the debate on ABC “set a new record because it took us 45 minutes before we even started talking about a single issue that matters to the American people.”....“And I’d say Senator Clinton looked in her element,” he said. He paused. Then he raised his right hand and scratched his cheek with his middle finger. He smiled slightly, and the crowd cheered. FULL STORY

First, the middle finger. He can and will claim that it was innocent. I viewed it on youtube and can't say for sure whether that's true, you can decide for yourself. Obviously, if he meant to give Hillary the "bird" then it would be quite tacky. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, mainly because I can hardly fault someone for wanting to give Hillary the finger. But there is something else at play that does bother me. It has to do with what he said.

" took us 45 minutes before we even started talking about a single issue that matters to the American people..."

This is what I mean by pompous and arrogant. You see, attending a church for 20 years headed by a preacher that spews hatred, racism and anti-American sentiment while allowing Hamas to publish its terrorist manifesto in the church bulletin matters to the American people. Consorting with known terrorists like William Ayers matters to the American people. Characterizing someone's religious beliefs as a crutch matters to the American people.

That's what the debate questions were about, yet Obama feels compelled to dismiss it as politics, unimportant to the American people, a non-issue. Out of touch? I'd say so. I don't think Obama cares if these things matter to Americans. I don't think he feels obligated to explain himself and is obviously aggravated that it keeps coming up. Well, Senator, it keeps coming up because it matters to the American people. Giving an impertinent speech that makes the Obama lemmings swoon isn't going to change that.

Besides, I wonder what Obama expected the debate to be about. His record? That's a 15 minute conversation. They had to fill the extra time somehow. The issues? There's basically no difference between the two candidates in that regard, which means there's no debate to be had. The only real difference between the two is character, one candidate lacks it and the other doesn't seem to be completely honest about it. So, that's something to be debated and I think the moderators did an okay job.

As for Obama, he either doesn't know or doesn't care that a candidate's past, his friends, his words matter to Americans. And he obviously takes offense when people want to talk about these things, to the point of belittling those who bring it up. Pompous? You decide.


Dan Trabue said...

Are we REALLY concerned about whether a presidential candidate gave someone the bird?

So, let's see...

So far those opposed to Obama have these three strikes against him:

1. They don't like five minutes' worth of what his pastor has to say (out of thousands of hours of sermons).

2. They don't like the way he described (accurately but not PC) some people as bitter and "clinging" to their personal values.

3. That MAYBE he gave someone the finger...

You're RIGHT! I could NEVER vote for such a fiend!

Dan Trabue said...

(And yes, John, I know you're actually concerned about his policies, but that's not what anyone talks about much, is it?)


We now know a bit about Reverand Jeremiah Wright's and Rev Louie Farrakhan's bitter notions of Jews
and "white folks", but far too little of Senator Obama's sentiments, and how he might impact U.S. Policy toward Israel if he becomes Commander In Chief of our military establishment.

The childish gesture of giving the finger to Hillary in a debate has small consequence; putting a knife
in the back of a powerful ally in the middle east, be it Israel or Pakistan, is far more serious.

Jimmy Carter's unauthorized meddling in Syria and Palestine is a bit troubling, but an inexperienced junior senator's amatuerish manipulation of delicate matters involving Foreign Affairs and Strategic Military Deployment, or dealing with a Vladimir Putin or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, or suddenly finding oneself in command of Senior Offficers at the Pentagon is quite frankly, a mind-numbing possibility.

Barack Obama's resum'e is weak, paper- thin, without experience or substance in matters of world importance. Even his very brief Legislative Record is unimpressive.

It would be a tragic error to elect
anyone such as this simply because of his glib smoothness, graciousness and poise before the Tv Camera. He is woefully unqualified to command the most powerful nation in history, in the Nuclear Age.

We have been in a State of War with Iran since November 4, 1979, although most of our citizens are unaware of this fact, and child-like notions should have no place in selecting this nation's future leadership. reb

Anonymous said...

Well Danny, you've asked for it.

Here we have Policy, Personality, and Substance.
Now we await your response. -Greybeard-

Dan Trabue said...

I'm not sure what you're saying, Greybeard, but if you're saying Obama's got the Policy, Personality and Substance that we have been sorely lacking in presidents for nearly three decades now, I agree.

Dan Trabue said...

He is woefully unqualified to command the most powerful nation in history, in the Nuclear Age.

I would stack up Obama's years of experience and wisdom up against the Buffoon King who is on his way out now ANY day. If Bubba Bush couldn't destroy our nation (and as much as he's damaged it, he hasn't destroyed it), then certainly President Obama won't, either.

Anonymous said...


Surely you are not equating Obama's
term in the Illinois State Senate, or listening to 20 years of Black Liberation Theology Rant in Chicago's Trinity Church as an adequate set of qualifications to
the Oval Office. Or are you?

You might find a more appreciative
audience with your own kind on the Huffington Post, DailyKos, or MoveOnDtOrg blogs.

The carbonated hot-air bubbles in your Kool-Aid is having a clearly degenerative effect on judgement,

and four or five years of sucking up the Hate-Bush Mantra is both unhealthy, and leads you into formulating these intemperate and imprudent remarks. (If you're on the bottle, get some help).


Dan Trabue said...

Greybeard, my name is Dan, I'm Danny to my mother but you ain't her.

And I'm not a kool-aid drinker. I'd appreciate having a conversation like an adult, if that is what you're interested in. Thanks.

I'm equating Obama's whole life - his rearing, his college days, his training work as an organizer (especially helpful for a presidential type and one of the reasons he's done so well), his lawyer work, his blessed church life, his State Senate career and his federal Senate years, ALL of this is plenty of credentials to be president, IF one has learned correctly during those years. Most of us think he has.

Conversely, it doesn't matter how many years of experience you have if you've learned NOTHING positive from it. Bush had how many years as a CEO of a failing baseball team? (Yeah, that's helpful on your presidential resume).

How many years of driving an oil company (given to him by a friend of his Daddy) into the ground did he have and how was that any great preparation?

How exactly did his experience help? I'll tell you: It helped prepare him to try to run the country into the ground like he did the businesses he ran.

I don't hate Bush and I honestly hope that, like John here, you can have adult-level conversations with someone who disagrees with you instead of resorting to childish name-calling and strawman building.

Dan Trabue said...

Greybeard, how do you feel about Lincoln?

He served in a state legislature and then served a single term in the U.S. House. Even less experience than Obama. I reckon you think his was a failed presidency?

Anonymous said...

Hmmmm. Greybeard? As in Pappy?

Odd that you would cry for experience if you voted for George W. Bush whose sole ploitical experience, other than dodging duty in the reserves to work on a senatorial campaign in Alabama, was that of governor of Texas, a largely position that is largely a figurehead one.

Of course the lack of experience is all too obvious given the current state of our foreign policy.



Anonymous said...


From the tenor of the three comments, I rather suspect that from Mr Trabue and friend TLGK, I cannot help but imagine from these twin tirades that you are college classmates, perhaps Sophomore or Junior, on the same campus? Both left-of-center politically, and equally enured in your disapproval of G.W. Bush. Is that correct?

That is not entirely negative; in fact, broad political awereness is only to be encouraged in younger people.

I would suggest for now, that both of you judge less, for others may one day sit in a tribunal to judge you, as you may soon enough accept the responsibility for others!

Abraham Lincoln was unique, and much admired today. In his time however, he suffered a great deal of bitter hatred by most of the population during that dreadful
Civil War.

Another great mind was Thomas Jefferson. He also had the gift of uncommon foresight in his visualization of a great nation, spreading across the wilderness from sea to shining sea! A true visionary. Ah, if only such men as these were available today!

Given another 10 - 20 short years, perhaps young Obama might develop into a great statesman, who can say? If the fruit is picked too soon, bitterness is the reward.

Indeed, as you gentlemen mature into a more suitable posture, your obvious biases will slowly dissolve, and a broader perspective must and will develop. In the interval, reject the ever-present activist; he is poisonous. Strive to develop independent thought!

Goodbye, gentlemen. -Greybeard-

Dan Trabue said...

I rather suspect that from Mr Trabue and friend TLGK, I cannot help but imagine from these twin tirades that you are college classmates, perhaps Sophomore or Junior, on the same campus? Both left-of-center politically, and equally enured in your disapproval of G.W. Bush. Is that correct?

I rather suspect that your powers of prognostication appear to exceed your ability to have a polite conversation. Which is to say that they are both terribly lacking.

I am 45 years old. Raised conservative and embraced it until, as a young man, I was turned off what passes as conservatism by Reagan's immoral, despicable policy.

It's not a matter of being a commie liberal who hated conservatives and Reagan especially. No, I was quite traditional (and still am in most ways) but not stupid enough to follow someone merely because he says he's conservative and Christian.

The Reagans/Bushes of the world have policies that are lacking basic human decency, fiscal responsibility, morality, coherency and efficacy.

"Obvious biases?" No. But apparently your obvious biases have made you blind to anything but what your warlords tell you to see.

And you? Judging by your behavior, I'd suspect you're in grade school, but unfortunately, adolescent behavior appears to be rampant amongst a certain subset of so-called conservatives.

But thanks for playing, just the same. Come back anytime you'd like to have an adult conversation that is reality-based.

Anonymous said...

Well, Dan and I would have been strange college roommates inasmuch as he was 12 years old when I graduated.

Meanwhile, let's run w/ the fruit metaphor. How about Thomas Carew?

"Thou shalt confess the vain pursuit,
Of human glory yields no fruit,
But an untimely grave."


"Fruit from the Bush that was never edible,
Produces policies quite incredible,
And the berry that seemed fair and salubrious,
Has rendered our nation quite lugubrious."

Hey, Greybeard, ever read Ishmael Reed? Check out "From the Files of Agent 22"

"a black banana
can make you high
bad apples can get
you wasted
the wrong kind of
grapes tore up
for days
and a rancid orange

know you spirits
before entering
strange orchards."



Anonymous said...


two bad apples, know ye not

before entering strange orchards

behold, ye two already wasted

sucking on rancid oranges

and black bananas

has rendered ye both...plastered!


Anonymous said...

Two Little Monkeys
See & Hear No Evil
Should Write No Evil

In Jousting With
A Wisened Old Greyback
He'll Spank You Both!


Dan Trabue said...

Spanked with an appalling lack of reason and abysmally poor insight?

Oh no!

Anonymous said...

He's a politician. Of course he's pompous. I trust very few of them. Whether or not he flipped someone off is a moot point, but I agree that he's not exactly as nice as he might pretend to be. He wants to get elected. That's all.



"Reagan's immoral, despicable policy". Now, that's pretty strong; which one of these policies prompted such outrage?

Perhaps his friendly confrontation
with Mikhail Gorbachev, with "Bring Down This Wall!", or perhaps "Star Wars", or Breaking the Air Traffic-Controller's Strike...What's your favorite lament on Reagan? You didn't say.

Three decades of mal-content can add up to a great deal of frustration and unhappiness.

Also, which of our past presidential policies, or Chief Executives do you most admire in the 20th century? This may give us a hint as to the positive side of your reasoning. reb

Dan Trabue said...

War crimes (for which we were convicted), for one. His administration sold WMDs to Iraq (Saddam, who we were supporting then) in their war against Iran and THEN ALSO sold WMDs to Iran SO THAT he could fund terrorists in Nicaragua despite being told that he could not do so.

His CIA planted mines in the harbors and otherwise supported those who were trying to overthrow a Democratically-elected gov't in Nicaragua. We were eventually convicted of this and Reagan/Bush refused to pay heed to this lawful conviction.

We broke our OWN LAWS as well as international laws and refused to pay the consequences.

That in and of itself makes Reagan one of the worse villains in US history - WAR CRIMES! Supporting Terrorists! What does it take to make the Right outraged?

Well, that did it for me. This then-conservative would have nothing to do with THAT sort of "conservatism" again.

And that's only the worse of his problems, of which there were many.

He grew the gov't (not a conservative value) almost as much as Bush II has. He sold out US interests to corporations. He appointed ANTI-environmental people to "safeguard" the environment (again, not a conservative value). He mistreated veterans and the homeless and mentally ill (yet again, not especially conservative). The nauseating list goes on and on.

Dan Trabue said...

Actually, since giving up that sort of "conservatism" and "patriotism," I've never been happier or more content, reb. Give it a try. Come to the Bright Side.

As to your question about presidents, they've all had problems but many have had some good points.

I sort of like Teddy Roosevelt in many of his policies. FDR was pretty good in many ways.

In my lifetime, it may not surprise you that I like Carter the best, but then, that's setting the bar pretty low, in looking at who's been president in the past 40 years. Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush - it's like a rogue gallery of awful presidents.

Actually, the others make Nixon not look so bad, even...

Dan Trabue said...

I know that Carter's one of the Right's favorite targets, but his problem was not that he was a bad president (a la Johnson, Nixon, Reaganbushbush and, to a lesser degree, Clinton) but that he was an ineffective president.

He came bringing honesty, honor and change to gov't and the gov't was having none of it. Our representatives didn't receive the message that we, the people were ready for change and so fought Carter and stopped him from making some effective changes.

If nothing else, if subsequent administrations followed Carter's lead, we may have had something resembling a sustainable, self-sufficient, appropriately-sized energy policy now and there wouldn't be the likelihood of mass starvation and riots and wars.

The current food problems (which are sadly only going to get worse) can be laid at the feet of each subsequent administration, along with the rest of wealthy world, who preferred to cling to the illusion of artificially cheap oil and ignore the predictable (and predicted) catastrophe awaiting the world today.

God bless Carter!

(Further, if nothing else, he is easily the best EX-president we've had in my lifetime. He's devoted his post-presidency to making the world a better place - working with the poor and on behalf of peace - whereas the others devoted themselves to making themselves richer.)


Dan, Thank you for your honest, albeit grossly distorted viewpoint.

In the real world, individual nations always deal in their own self-interest. To ignore this fundamental, is to place yourself
in the lofty idealist camp of the misinformed.

A president's first obligation is to protect its citizens from catastrophic harm from Suicidal Theocracies and ever-present Brute Dictatorships, with their dreams of world conquest.

To fulfill this solemn leadership obligation requires a superior military, loyal and aware allies, and at home, a majority of
our own people to fairly see the truth of our (mostly) noble history after 1776, without biased over-emphasis on the negatives.

The USA has been the most generous
and decent nation in world history. Our paradigms of Law and Government are unequalled among nations.

Only partisan politics, and absence
of American history in high school curriculum permits us to flounder,
and create flubs, fictions, and gross distortions such as those in
evidence in your comments.

Future Historians will place Jimmy Carter's single term in office in its proper catagory. His peaceful mishandling of the Gr Ayatollah in 1979, emboldened the Radicals of Islam to move in suicidal directions that has led the free world, in the wake of Carter's failure, to the brink of WWIII, and the prophesied Armeggedon of Revelations.

Curiously, we see not a word of condemnation of Kennedy, Johnson, Robert S. McNamara 10 year, No-Win
Vietnam Quagmire, w/ 58,000 dead troopers. Compare w/Bush 5 Year, 4,000 dead in Iraq/Afganistan.

In 1991, Robt McNamara admitted in his book, 'In Retrospect'..."We Were Wrong (Vietnam), Terribly Wrong!" (A different war, the "other" political party).

(No Dan, I am neither a bible-thumper or a Neo-con, which is probably your next flawed reaction to an on-going reality). reb

Dan Trabue said...

Curiously, we see not a word of condemnation of Kennedy, Johnson, Robert S. McNamara 10 year, No-Win

You'll have to learn to read closer, brother reb:

"Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush - it's like a rogue gallery of awful presidents.",

I left out Kennedy because he died when I was a baby and I was speaking in terms of my lifetime.

Dan Trabue said...

In the real world, individual nations always deal in their own self-interest. To ignore this fundamental, is to place yourself
in the lofty idealist camp of the misinformed.

To choose to break laws and commit war crimes is to place yourself in the camp of war criminals and that, in most American minds, is anti-American and it is certainly anti-Christian.

I ask again: What does it take to get the Right outraged when we're talking US behavior?

You know, "My country, right or wrong," is a recipe for Hell.


Dan, I see that you are in now-way
prepared to say "My country, more
often right than wrong, even when confronting ancient cruelties of head-chopping, women-stoning religious nations that have zero christian values or concience."

Even Sen Obama remarks concede the Prez Bush policy of generously helping w/the African continents battle w/ AIDS is an importent humane thing, and that Oil-rich OPEC nations ignore. These nations seem more intent on extending Saudi/Sunni Wahhabism, or Shia/Persian Empire building on the backs of their gullible suicide
bombers, as Palestinian Hamas &
Fatah murder each other for control of a tiny piece of land that never in history was ever under a Palestine Governance.

Jimmy Carter favors Hamas, the Iranian puppet; and they enrich U-235...which some day your family may live to regret. Extremism, in The Defense of Our Liberty, yours & hardly a vice!

Your partisan rhetoric rings hollow in logical ears. But again,
thank you for being publicly, so obvious.

Are you preparing for UFPJ's Rally & 'Peace' Parade next August 6th? You know, it's "Hiroshima Days" again; I'll be there too, Dan... with "Remember Pearl Harbor", and acknowledging the 450,000 plus wounded that died in WWII, also before you were born.

Did you wince, when Rev Jeremiah Wright said, "chickens coming home to roost" after 9/11? I wonder. reb

Dan Trabue said...

Your partisan rhetoric rings hollow in logical ears. But again,
thank you for being publicly, so obvious.

My "partisan" politics? Oh, like when I rejected Johnson and Clinton's administrations as unpraiseworthy and part of the problem, just as the Nixon, Reaganbushbush administrations were?

I mean, I'm truly sorry that their administrations weren't as horrible as Reagan and Bush's (although Johnson's was pretty bad), but how is that partisan?

And, oh yeah, my first "favorite" president I mentioned when asked by you was Teddy Roosevelt who was, let's see, oh! that's right! A Republican.

Sorry, but your goofy comments are sort of in spite of the facts, not in support of them.

I love my country, and we do many things well. Mostly, I love our ideals and I will abide by our just laws and ideals and oppose those - even you, reb - who say that sometimes, it's okay to commit war crimes. Sometimes, it's okay to target civilians. Sometimes, it's okay to wipe out whole cities of people. Sometimes, it's alright to overthrow democratically elected gov'ts.

I will oppose those ideals whether they're coming from the terrorists or fellow US citizens. Because it is the same reasoning and, as noted, a recipe for Hell on Earth and the destruction of our great nation.

Shame on you.

Dan Trabue said...

"Extremism, in The Defense of Our hardly a vice!"


Wanna attack some Great Satan, there, big fella?

Dan Trabue said...

How 'bout it, reb: You have any Republican presidents in your lifetime that you think were truly horrible, or are you merely a partisan complainer? You have some praise for some Dems?

Anonymous said...

Snake Hunters Final,

Dan, do you get up early in the A.M. feeling cranky?

Lyndon Baines Johnson...

UNPRAISEWORTY? that's like handing Jack-the-Ripper a scented blue rose, and a chocolate-dipped strawberry!

L.B.J. and Robert S. McNamara were responsible for THE 10 yr, no-win quagmire that still tarnishes the favorable image we once enjoyed among nations...UNTIL THAT WAR!

We had NO National Interest there, no useful strategic purpose there...and I lost a personal family friend in that stupid war...

and L.B.J. escalated Kennedy's Folly into the 550,000 man deployment that haunts us to this day! That's 58,000 dead troopers, Dan Trabue. It was the True Beginning of Sorrows for a great nation. Dan says, "unpraiseworthy".

Further discussion appears useless. Whether you're just another hard-core partisan, or a contrarian, it seems that we've a totally different perspective on politics and war that cannot find resolution, so let's both give John
Washburn's blogsite a break.

My apologies, John. reb

Dan Trabue said...

Further discussion appears useless. Whether you're just another hard-core partisan...

Yes, discussion can be not helpful, seeing as how you can't read my own words and twist the ones that you DO read.

My own words give testimony to disprove I'm partisan. I asked you for any suggestion you could show the same and not one bit of evidence was forthcoming.

Anyone can see who is acting in a partisan manner and who is not.

Further, you have identified, by YOUR words, that you are on the side of extremism and ANTI-Americanism in which our own laws and ideals are vomit if the situation is right.

Well, I say, "No." America's ideals are too precious to spit upon.

Still - even though you appear to be willing to defend and embrace terrorism - like Carter, I am willing to talk to you.

I am always glad to talk to you and reason as adults. But we can only do so if you stick to my actual words and you attempt to offer up some reasonable arguments for your side.

My apologies, John, for straying from the post.


Dan's one-word description of Lyndon Baines Johnson's presidency was a feather's needed no twisting. UNPRAISEWORTHY!

This adjective is woefully, nay miserably inadequate to describe the worst military blunder in our 230 year history. J.F. Kennedy, Johnson, and McNamara equally share
this bloody stain. In 1971, Senator John Kerry attempted to drag into that foul-smelling mud, another president, with the label "Nixon's War". If it were not for the efforts of the "Swift-boaters", and their book, 'Unfit For Command', that Massachusetts jack-ass would have easily defeated G.W. Bush in 2004, after suffering an unprecedented Tsunami of Hate Bush/Cheney/Halliburton Campaigns funded by George Soros and his blind-eyed "Peace Minions"
like "Code Pink", "United For Peace & Justice, and MoveOnDotOrg, et al...after 9/11. A Huge-Money Effort To Diminish Our Courageous
Confrontation With Radical Islam.

That's all easily verifiable fact, without a lemon twist! This is why this old man rejects political labels, and supports our military families. reb

Anonymous said...


What do you think President Carter could or should have done in 1979? 29 years ago this country, at least in its overt operations, was more concerned about acting under color of law. Any preemptive move against the Ayatollah in 1979 would have been at least as damaging as our preemptive invasion of Iraq.

Meanwhile, there is no point in defending our policy in Vietnam, a war that I opposed at the time and now. Whereas 55,000 dead in ten years as compared to 4,000 in five makes Iraq seem like a bargain until you start to count the actual cost of the invasion of Iraq in terms other than KIA. By way of example bt not limitation, which country in 2002 was responsible for fomenting more trouble beyond its borders:a) Iran or b) Iraq? Which country posed a greater threat to our interests and the interests of our allies: a) Iran or b) Iraq? Which country ovewr the past five years has gained most from our invasion of Iraq: a) Iran or b) Iraq?

It is a shame that W, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz failed to learn the lessons of their predecessors whom you decry.



Anonymous said...

Snake Hunters To Loop Garoo,

a) It is my personal view that an "Act of War" (grabbing our embassy) REQUIRED AN IMMEDIATE, FORCEFUL DIPLOMATIC U.S. RESPONSE TO COUNTER THE BOLD PLAY OF KHOMEINI,


b) Calling in The JCS for military
consultantion, in the event of an inappropriate response from the ambitious Ayatollah.
Example: In 1962, JFK did exactly that when our U-2 spotted a USSR IRBM (nuke) missile on the deck of a Russian freighter headed for Cuba...

Gen Max Taylor, when asked by JFK for his advise, Taylor responded thusly, "Mr.President, you have a fine navy, use it...turn that ship around!" The President did just exactly that.

Ayatollah Khomeini humiliated not just Carter, but the most powerful nation in the world. He got away w/
the bluff! It was not just a minor
incident. It fired the imagination
of Radical Islam, emboldening them to behave in similar fashion in many countries, many "incidents' over many years...

Hezbollah hit the Marine Barracks,
1983, 241 U.S. Marines died; dozens of highjackings, diplomats murdered; Cruise ships taken hostage, bombs in various nations; more smaller bombing incidents, three more embassies bombed, a Berlin Discoteque Bombed;

Kidnapping and murder of Marine Lt. Col Bill Higgins, A Naples USO bomb, 1988; Pan Am 103, Lockerbe, 259 dead; WTC bomb, Feb 26, 1993;

Attempt to Assassinate Prez Bush by Iraqi Agents Apr 14, 1993; Khobar Towers S/Arabia killing 19 U.S., wounding 240 U.S personnel; Empire State Building, Feb 23, 1997. (Dozens more).

Attack on USS Cole, Oct 2000, Aden, Yemen, 17 dead sailors, 39 injured; BBC Studios, car bomb on March 4, 2001...and you remember NYC, Sept 11, 2001, 2972 dead.

This is a partial list. It is a fair assessment that we have been
at war with Global Jihad for three decades. The enemy will not be deterred. This is a continuum.

Jimmy Carter's attempt to reason with Hamas, or negotiate with Syria is pathetically naive. These crazies are playing hardball.

Law...What Law? "Our preemptive invasion of Iraq?"

You cannot be serious! You want the whole list? Try this...

Anonymous said...


Again, what specific response do suggest should have been made?

In addition, I think it singularly naive to be believe that all or any of the acts in your list would not have occurred anyway.

I think it is a great stretch to compare the Cuban Missile crisis to the Iranian hostage crisis.




Rev. Jeremiah Wright Adds More Explosive Fuel,
with his incredible...strutting, personal display of gross arrogance,

in referring to his pious rant explaining the monumental tragedy of 9/11/2001...

"Chickens Coming Home To Roost!"

IF Senator Obama Fails Now, in the strongest possible terms, to denounce Black Liberation Hate Theology, Louie Farrakhan's Nation Of Islam, and his controversial friendship with the Unrepentant Terrorist William Charles Ayers,

then Barack Obama's presidential bid for the Oval Office Is Finished...doomed to the political trash-pile of ugly wordiness.

Truly, a defining moment in American Political History. reb

Anonymous said...


From his recent round of speeches and interviews, two things are obvious. The first is that Jeremiah Wright is attempting to cloak himself in the legitimacy of the black church in America which do not adhere to his particular philosophy. Secondly, Jeremiah Wright, as evidenced by his comments over the past several days, has his own agenda which is separate and distinct from that of Barack Obama. Wright said Obama is a politician who will say anything to get elected.

Meanwhile, this morning (Tuesday, April 29, 2008) speaking in Winston-Salem, NC, Barack Obama criticized Wrights remarks stating: "His comments were not only divisive but I beleive they end up giving comfort to those who prey on hate."

I think this comment makes sense only if you change the word "prey" to "pray" inasmuch as someone who "preys" on hate makes hate his victim. I think he meant "foment."

Meanwhile, I take issue w/ the inaccuracies of your comments and their misleading nature.

First. Jeremiah Wright has had dialogues w/ Louis Farrakhan. To the best of my knowledge, Brack Obama has not. Why would Barack Obama, in his roll as a candidate, denounce someone w/ who he has no relationship?

What is unconscionable, however, is that throughout the past several months, you have in your own blog and on others consistantly mischaracterized Barack Obama's relationship w/ William Charles Ayers. Your term is "controversial friendship." The only evidence--a Washington Post article which you cited on SH seemingly w/o having read it--is that the two served on the same board of a non profit organization for several years and that Ayers made a small contribution to Obama's state senate campaign.

Where is the evidence of "friendship?" Do they socialize together? Send each other birthday and holiday greetings? Eat at restaurants together? In other words, do they act as friends act?

I find it unfortunate that you have become a fear mongering smear artist such as you formerly decried.



When Obama Decided To Run for the Illinois State Senate, his first 'strategy meeting' was hosted
at the home of William Ayers (and his terrorist wife) where the Ayers couple made a gesture of support with a $200 endorsement of Barack Obama.

When a candidate has a 20 year relationship
with a Hate-Merchant,

and a several year friendship with an Unrepentant, Admitted Bomber, it is to be expected that some questions be asked of that office-seeker.

"A fear-mongering smear-artist"...

Isn't that a bit harsh? But of course, you certainly have a right to exercize your First Amendment your OPINION! reb

Anonymous said...


For months you have been promoting the idea that a conspiracy led by George Soros is responsible for smearing the Bush-Cheney administration. Now you are attempting to do the same thing to Barack Obama.

It turns out that in 1995, State Senator Alice Palmer, who was stepping down, introduced her hand picked successor to a group of influencial party members of her her district. Obama was her successor. The introduction took place at Ayers home.

Ayers remarks about being unrepentent were made to the NYT in 2001.

Okay let's see. 1995 was 13 years ago not 20. Obviously, Obama did not chose the venue.

This is your "20 year relationship with a hate merchant" or were you referring to Jeremiah Wright w/ that remark.

No, I do not think that my comments are harsh. Read the stuff you publish nowadays. You have gone from being somewhat objective to being completely unobjective and you consistantly omit or misrepresent the facts to suit your purposes. This is not the SH I once admired.

As for the Bush-Cheney administration, one does not need a conspiracy led by George Soros to conclude that the members of
this administration have for the most part been poor stewards of our country.


Exactly why Loop Garoo is so offended by S/H concentration on George Soros, his 3.2 million devoted MoveOnDotOrg rascals, his
multiple fundings of Far-Left blogs
and 'public interest groups' that have impacted the political landscape with sub-rosa hundreds of millions of dollars...and SOROS was virtually an unknown entity until the Sept 10, 2007 N.Y. Times Full-page Ad assaulted a Four-Star Field General: brilliant and heroic
General David Petraeus! Why him?

Just another left-hand slap, with the bold print BETRAYUS, not really
aimed at the general, was it Loop?

Another huge tactical, expensive mistake...aimed at the Bush Administration. Mean-spirited and quite stupid. Any devise, any opportunity, to demean and ridicule
"DUBYA BUSH"! George Soros Exposed!

A six-year hate campaign; a 71% disapproval rating. A gullible public, left foaming at the mouth,
and not understanding why.

More old-line Democrats are slowly becoming aware of this Soros Effort, and Loop & Snake Hunters are giving Uncle Georgie's Hate Campaign More Solid Exposure! More people are asking...

What Is The SOROS AGENDA REALLY ABOUT? Well, I suspect it's about Power-Politics, and Big Money, and influencing a gullible public, don't ya think?

Psycho-babble! Hot Air; Donkey-talk; Saddle-soap! Anyway, thanks for the assist.
Let's bring it up again in a month or two, Loop Garoo! I'll never tire, ridin' that mule! reb

Anonymous said...


I find it unfortunate that you have bought into the George Soros conspiracy theory hook, line, and sinker.

If you research Soros' contributions to, I think you would find that he did not fund the NYT add.

If you are able to connect dots that no one else can and have them form a coherent picture, you are a brilliant practicioner. But if no one else sees the same picture or if the only ones who do are members of your particular philosophy, you just may be channeling the Grand Lunar through the fillings of your teeth.

Whereas George Soros' has spent millions in an attempt to influence U.S. policy and politics, so have others. Yet you insist that Soros is some kind of arachnoid puppet master, weaving a snare and controlling the rest of us. (sorry to mix metaphors)

Publish the facts and express your opinion based upon them.



Anonymous said...


I rather suspect, but cannot prove,
that the True Soros Agenda is more
on the pattern of Saul Alinsky, the founder of Industrial Areas Foundation, IAF. (Chicago).

Refr: FRONTPAGEMAG.COM, "Democratic Platform For Revolution" by John Perazzo.

It's an interesting read Based on Fact, not supposition, and may give you an intimate peek behind the curtain of Obama's AND Hillary's logic and Intense
Motivations for radical Social CHANGE & 'NEW DIRECTION' w/ those cute Campaign Slogans. It's Pure George Soros methodology, de.ja vu!


Anonymous said...

Loop Garoo,

Thanks for your help, and your advise. My efforts, casting a beam of light into the shadows, where I
find mysterious, cruel, and hate-filled AGENDAS, well-funded but generally overlooked by MSM (that's main-stream-media) it all seems worthwhile to an old blogger blessed with an uncommon curiosity.

Your very bright friend, Port Orchard Emilie, had never heard of George Soros or U.F.P.J.s Leslie Cagan! Two of this nation's most harmful malignancies. Now, Others May Search Them Out, Discuss Them With Family & Friends!


It's The Noble Purpose...for any weblog to search for Facts, dig them out, and keep on digging for the Harmful Intentions, then... Impeach Them, Drag Them Out from behind their Curtains of Anonymity, Expose 'Em To Daylight! Then, let the public decide. That's what Informative Blogs like W.E.P. Do. It's exhilarating!

When "Loop Garoo", and SnakeHunters
MENTION these poisonous vipers, it's like providing the Antidote.

Believe me Loop, I appreciate your help! reb