Showing posts with label attacks. Show all posts
Showing posts with label attacks. Show all posts

Tuesday, November 18, 2008

Forgettable Chuck Hagel: Senator WHO Attacks Rush Limbaugh



Your Ad Here


Chuck Hagel:
Most Known For







For the complete version of this article, plus updates:

Chuck Hagel Attacks Rush Limbaugh: Senator WHO Retires Gracelessly

at DBKP - Death By 1000 Papercuts.com - DBKP




Chuck Who?


Chuck Hagel celebrated the end of a Washington career by attacking Rush Limbaugh and others in Congress who disagreed with him.

"We are educated by the great entertainers like Rush Limbaugh," Hagel said Tuesday during a speech in Washington, according to the Huffington Post.

"You know, I wish Rush Limbaugh and others like that would run for office," a sarcastic Hagel continued. "They have so much to contribute and so much leadership and they have an answer for everything. And they would be elected overwhelmingly. [The truth is] they try to rip everyone down and make fools of everybody but they don't have any answers."

"The American people don't like what is going on… they want us to start doing what leaders are expected to do, address the problems, find some consensus to governing. Get along. There will be disagreements, sure… but in the end we can't hold ourselves captives to this raw, partisan, political paralysis."





The Wit and Wisdom of Chuck Hagel

Hagel has compiled quite a record during his 12-year tenure in the U.S. Senate.




Hagel was initially elected in 1996 in a stunning upset that might be called "ethically-challenged".

[Hagel] also served as a Chairman and was CEO of American Information Systems Inc. (AIS), a voting machine manufacturer, this same company electronically counted 80% of the votes in the state in the very same election that he had his stunning upset. He did not disclose his position as CEO of the company in his mandated disclosures, until its name-change to Election Systems & Software (ES&S) in 1997. He had ownership interest in ES&S through its parent company The McCarthy Group as of January 29, 2003, when The Hill reported that, due to his ownership interest, “Hagel’s ethics filings pose disclosure issue”.


Hagel has been mentioned--most notably by his staff--as a cabinet possibility in the upcoming Obama administration. Failing that, he may return to lobbying.

Hagel will most be remembered for




Friends of the Senator, who wished to remain off-the-record, did say that "he works and plays well with others".

by Mondo Frazier
image: CNN-Getty




Wednesday, November 5, 2008

Sarah Palin, McCain Campaign: Scapegoating Sarah Palin



Your Ad Here


The McCain Campaign:
Mistakes, But Hampered Ultimately By Both the Candidate and his Campaign Advisers--Not by Sarah Palin

McCain Campaign is Responsible for McCain's Defeat




Palin Was Attacked from the Inside from Almost the Moment She gave the McCain Campaign their First Realistic Chance at Victory

The McCain Campaign Rats vs. Sarah Palin





FROM GOSSIP TO GOSPEL

The McCain campaign made some shrewd moves, but it also was guilty of some moves that ultimately doomed its unlikely candidate--with the most momentous misstep coming from John McCain himself.

Like any losing campaign, those in charge of the campaign seek to lay the blame for losing on factors beyond their control. In this regard, the long knives came out from various unnamed aides and advisers in the McCain campaign, who are anxious to run from their responsibility for the Election 2008 loss.

Most of those knives appear to have Sarah Palin's name on them--and they were unsheathed before the race for the presidency was even over.

In what can be most charitably described as "resume-polishing", various aides in the John McCain campaign have continued their practice of leaking uncomplimentary "anecdotal" information detrimental to Sarah Palin.

Understand: these "aides", "advisers" and "sources" from "within the McCain campaign", as they're labeled, bear much responsibility for a campaign that, like its candidate, was somewhat unconventional and ultimately failed to win McCain the presidency.

These staffers--most of whom will soon be in the job-hunting market--apparently feel that there's a wider market for an aide from a losing campaign that was sabotaged from within. Stories of an "uncooperative" VP pick inoculates them against any bad decisions made by such "aides" and "advisers".

These aides-gone-rogue merely have to pick up their cellphone or hit "send" on their email--anonymously, by the way--and a waiting press eagerly elevates such grousing and sour grapes from gossip to gospel.




THE McCAIN CAMPAIGN



There is much for which the McCain campaign can be proud.

  • John McCain garnered the fourth-largest vote total for any candidate in history.
    His total of 56,497,501 votes were more than any previous losing Republican candidate. It was also the fourth-highest popular vote total in U.S. history.
  • McCain won 21 states with 174 electoral votes.
    Included in this total were wins in states in which McCain was outspent by a wide margin. McCain was also competitive in the "battleground" states, losing several by close margins, while winning others.
  • The McCain campaign produced these numbers with a not-unimpressive ground game.
    Republicans in general however, voted in less numbers than they did in 2004. Also, there were paticular groups who came down on the side of Obama: wealthy voters across the USA voted for Obama, for instance.
  • John McCain was never a favorite of conservatives--this site included. McCain's "maverick" image was achieved by attacking conservatives and Republicans.
    Still, McCain's naming of Palin as his running mate energized conservatives.
  • McCain took a risk and named Sarah Palin as his running mate.
    McCain's campaign was staffed with many non-conservatives. The campaign's failure to excite the Republican base was evident prior to the naming of Palin. After Palin, contributions and volunteers came into the McCain camapign from conservatives--many who were prepared to "sit out" this election.


That being said, John McCain was a Republican candidate that the New York Times could love--and indeed, the NYT did endorse the Arizona Senator in the primary election. Of course, after the election, the NYT and the rest of the Mainstream Media deserted McCain, just as many predicted would happen.




JOHN McCAIN: LIB-LITE



Even, the Times' Elizabeth Bumiller is skeptical about the unnamed aides involved in the McCain leaks. From
Internal Battles Divided McCain and Palin Camps
:

As a top adviser in Senator John McCain’s now-imploded campaign tells the story, it was bad enough that Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska unwittingly scheduled, and then took, a prank telephone call from a Canadian comedian posing as the president of France. Far worse, the adviser said, she failed to inform her ticketmate about her rogue diplomacy.

As a senior adviser in the Palin campaign tells the story, the charge is absurd. The call had been on Ms. Palin’s schedule for three days and she should not have been faulted if the McCain campaign was too clueless to notice.


All of the McCain rats prefer to stomp their sour grapes in the darkness.

“I think it was a difficult relationship,” said one top McCain campaign official, who, like almost all others interviewed, asked to remain anonymous.

For her part, Palin has "refused to address the strife within the campaigns. “I have absolutely no intention of engaging in any of the negativity because this has been all positive for me.”"

So the it's the "unnamed McCain advisers" talking to Big Media on one side.

On the other side, there is Sarah Palin--and the millions of like-minded Americans who attended McCain rallies for the sole reason of hearing her speak.

Ann Coulter may be a polemicist, but she distills one of the main problems with John McCain as the Republican messenger: his message was crafted to enhance his credentials among non-Republicans. Every time it was discovered that Obama took an outrageous stand on an issue, more likely than not, John McCain stood beside him.

Republicans lost this presidential election, and I don't blame the messenger; I blame the message. How could Republicans go after B. Hussein Obama (as he is now known) on planning to bankrupt the coal companies when McCain supports the exact same cap and trade policies and earnestly believes in global warming?

How could we go after Obama for his illegal alien aunt and for supporting driver's licenses for illegal aliens when McCain fanatically pushed amnesty along with his good friend Teddy Kennedy?

How could we go after Obama for Jeremiah Wright when McCain denounced any Republicans who did so?

How could we go after Obama for planning to hike taxes on the "rich," when McCain was the only Republican to vote against both of Bush's tax cuts on the grounds that they were tax cuts for the rich?

And why should Republican activists slave away working for McCain when he has personally, viciously attacked: John O'Neill and the Swift Boat Veterans, National Right to Life director Doug Johnson, evangelical pastors Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and John Hagee, various conservative talk radio hosts, the Tennessee Republican Party and on and on and on?


The problem with John McCain's message ultimately was: on most issues, John McCain was Lib-Lite. His foreign policy stands were the most notable differences with Barack Obama.

Otherwise, there was little to choose among the candidates, especially after Obama tacked hard right on taxes and a host of other issues.

The McCain campaign is not responsible for McCain's past stands on the issues: it's the hand they were dealt. But, they are responsible for their candidate and his message.

They are also responsible for John McCain's single cause for defeat.




JOHN McCAIN FINANCIAL MELTDOWN MAVERICK FAILURE



John McCain billed himself as a "maverick", who would fight established interests.

Palin, who had attacked her own Republican Party and entrenched interests in her run to the Alaskan governor's office, could rightly lay claim to the label, "maverick".

During the financial crisis, John McCain had the single example to prove that he was indeed a maverick.

Instead, he suspended his campaign, flew to Washington and voted for an unpopular bailout bill--that will saddle American citizens, their children and grandchildren with a tremendous tax burden for generations to come--that squarely originated from the Bush administration.

When John McCain had the opportunity to walk the walk, he chose--like Barack Obama--to talk the talk.

Instead of calling for investigations into wrong-doers and those responsible, he chose to side with his colleagues in the Senate and House. McCain had been on the right side of reform when he called for the reform of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae in 2006.

His bailout vote relegated that vote to the memory hole. He also lined up with Barack Obama on this particular issue. The siren song of "Bipartisanship" caught the Arizona Senator's ear at a most inopportune moment.

McCain was at that point leading in the polls. Afterwards, his campaign never recovered from John McCain's retreat from maverick to establishment pol.





As Rush Limbaugh observed, "John McCain's campaign staff has spent more time attacking Sarah Palin than it did attacking Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers...and Obama himself."

Among some of the gossip elevated to "news" by the sinking McCain ship mates were claims that Palin was:

  • A shopaholic;
  • Threw tantrums;
  • Didn't know about American exceptionalism;
  • Didn't know Africa was a continent;
  • Just one of the "Wasilla hillbillies looting Neiman-Marcus coast-to-coast".


Big Media has proved to be a mouthpiece for all things anti-Republican and anti-conservative. This latest Palin bashing is no different.




THE NUTTY PROFESSOR



Julian E. Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School, rehashes Big Media's talking points on how it covered the McCain campaign. Zelizer does so in the guise of listing five "mistakes" the McCain campaign made.

After listing what he considers historical presidential campaign errors, Zelizer reveals more about his point of view than he does about the McCain campaign. In case readers mistake the Newsweek piece for journalism, the second page title reads, "Worst Campaign Ever?" From John McCain's chaotic operation may well rank among recent history's least successful efforts:

But Team McCain ran a campaign that ranks on the bottom of this list. This was an aimless and chaotic operation made worse by poor choices at key moments. Their first mistake was picking Gov. Sarah Palin.


Zelizer's list of other McCain "mistakes":

  • McCain missed the biggest lesson of the Reagan Revolution: conservatives usually do best when they appeal to America's optimism and develop a positive campaign around a vision for the country.
  • The third mistake was the "no-state" strategy. In contrast to Obama's "50-state" strategy whereby Democrats hoped to win support in red states, the Republican ticket moved from one state to the next without any clear rationale.
  • The fourth mistake was the way McCain handled the crisis on Wall Street.
  • McCain's final mistake was to leave his most politically powerful argument until it was too late. While there were many problems with Joe the Plumber, the argument could have been used much more effectively against Senator Obama: that the Democratic ticket was too left of center, especially on the issue of taxes.




Zelizer winds up by giving one last Newsweek touch: "Now, the McCain-Palin campaign will be added to the list of devastated losers." The author also empirically observes, "In contrast, Obama's decisions and performance seemed presidential."




Losing campaigns point fingers. Winning campaigns congratulate each other.

2008 is no different.

However, Election 2008 heralds a year in which the losing campaign's aides and advisers acted like losers--with the leaking of anti-Palin gossip months before the election took place--from almost the very moment that John McCain's naming of Sarah Palin gave them a realistic chance to hope for victory.


by Mondo Frazier





Thursday, September 11, 2008



Barack Obama & Joe Biden
The Democrat Foreign Policy Team:
Their Judgment One Year Ago



“I opposed this war from the beginning. I opposed the war in 2002. I opposed the war in 2003. I opposed it in 2004, and 2005 and 2006. I introduced the plan in January to remove all of our combat brigades out of Iraq by next March. And I am here to say that we have to begin to end this war now – not tomorrow, not the next day, not six months from now, but now."
--Barack Obama, September 12 2007

“It's time to turn the corner in my view, gentlemen. We should stop the surge and start bringing our troops home. We should end a political strategy in Iraq that cannot succeed and begin one that can.”
--Joe Biden, September 11 2007



[Click images to enlarge]


September 11, 2007: General David Petraeus was in Washington, DC to present his report to a Democrat-controlled Congress on how the surge of troops in Iraq was working.

Democrats already knew: the war was lost, the surge was a hoax and Patraeus was "not believable". Democrat after Democrat attacked Petraeus before he spoke a word, both professionally and personally.

According to Kevin Mooney, CNS, "On Sept. 11th of last year, when Gen. David Petraeus, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, chaired by Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.), that the U.S. troop surge in Iraq was working, he was met by a hail of criticism from members of Congress who believed it was failing."

On September 10, MoveOn.org ran its infamous full-age "General Betray Us" ad in the New York Times. The NY Times cut the price of the ad 60%, in effect, co-sponsotomh this ad, in a blatant attempt to influence the political debate on the issue.

But then, that last item does not really qualify as "news".



Petraeus' report, and the notion that the surge was working, was attacked throughout the day by a Murderer's Row of Democrats: Hillary Clinton, Harry Ried, Rahm Emanuel and the Democrat presidential ticket of 2008, Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

How have the Democrats' predictions of 'retreat and defeat' played out? Was General Petraeus the puppet or the prophet?


In the intervening year, according to a CNSNews.com database, U.S. casualties in Iraq have dropped to the lowest level since the start of the war six years ago. The Iraqi government, meanwhile, has made real, if faltering, progress toward political reconciliation between Iraq’s Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds.





Just what did General Petraeus report that set off the Democrat Congressional policy poobahs?

What in his report was deceitful? It might be helpful to recall what Petraeus said one year ago today.


As a bottom line up front, the military objectives of the surge are in large measure being met. In recent months, in the face of tough enemies and the brutal summer heat of Iraq, coalition and Iraqi security forces have achieved progress in the security arena.

Though improvements have been uneven across Iraq, the overall number of security incidents in Iraq, for example, has declined in eight of the past 12 weeks. During this time, ethnosectarian violence has also been reduced and the number of overall civilian deaths has declined, though both are clearly still at troubling levels.

The progress is a result of many factors. Coalition and Iraqi forces have dealt significant blows to al Qaeda-Iraq and have disrupted Shi'a militia extremists. Additionally in a very significant development, we and our Iraqi partners are being assisted by tribes and local citizens who are rejecting extremism and choosing to help secure Iraq.

Iraqi security forces have also continued to grow and to shoulder more of the load albeit slowly and amid continuing concerns about the sectarian tendencies of some elements in their ranks.

“Innumerable challenges lie ahead, however, coalition and Iraqi security forces have made progress toward achieving sustainable security.


The BBC noted the Democrat attacks: "Sen Obama - one of the Democratic nomination frontrunners - called the war a "disastrous foreign policy mistake" and said the impact of the surge had been modest given the resources."

According the CNS, "Passage of Year Makes Petraeus Look Good, Congressional Critics Look Bad":

“I opposed this war from the beginning,” Obama told the crowd in Clinton on Sept. 12, 2007. “I opposed the war in 2002. I opposed the war in 2003. I opposed it in 2004, and 2005 and 2006. I introduced the plan in January to remove all of our combat brigades out of Iraq by next March. And I am here to say that we have to begin to end this war now – not tomorrow, not the next day, not six months from now, but now.

“The administration points to selective statistics to make the case for staying the course. Killings and mortar attacks and car bombs in certain districts are down from the highest level that we've seen. But they're still at the same horrible levels that they were 18 months ago or two years ago. Let me repeat that,” Obama said.

“Yesterday, General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Senate Armed Services Committee pointing to this reduction in violence,” Obama added.

“We are at the same levels of violence now that we were back in June of 2006. That is the improvement that's been made after an additional 30,000 troops and billion dollars have been spent in Iraq,” he said.




Your Ad Here


Obama's running mate, Joe Biden, supposedly picked as vice-president for the 'foreign policy experience' he added to the Democrat ticket exhibited that experience one year ago.

“It's time to turn the corner in my view, gentlemen. We should stop the surge and start bringing our troops home. We should end a political strategy in Iraq that cannot succeed and begin one that can.”
--Joe Biden, September 11 2007

What did John McCain say in September 2007? According to the BBC:

"Republican Senator John McCain, a contender for his party's presidential nomination, defended the US strategy in Iraq, saying: "Congress must not choose to lose in Iraq and I will do everything in my power to ensure that we do not."

He said failure in Iraq would turn that country into a haven for terrorists and would let Iran come to dominate the Middle East."

Harry Reid, who had declared the war "lost" in April 2007, questioned General Petraeus' honesty before even hearing the General's report.
On Friday, Reid went so far as to question not only the true source of the report but also the four-star general's honesty.

"He has made a number of statements over the years that have not proven to be factual," Reid said.


Harry Reid also led the charge to the rear for the Democrats, beginning in April.

“Now, I believe myself that the secretary of State, the secretary of Defense – and you have to make your own decision as to what the president knows – that this war is lost and that the surge is not accomplishing anything, as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday.”
--Harry Reid, April 19, 2007 press conference.

Four days later, Reid was even more explicit about his mistrust of Patraeus and his report in a CNN interview with Dana Bash.

“No, I don't believe him, because it's not happening,” said Reid. “All you have to do is look at the facts. The factors are this has been going on for three months. American deaths are at the highest they've been in two years. We have – it's like a balloon. Things have quieted down a little in Baghdad, but just a little bit.

“They've even moved up in the Kurdish area now. Have tremendous explosions up there, killing two dozen people today. The situation in Iraq is not getting better, and it won't until we change course,” he said.


The other senator from Illinois, majority whip Richard Durbin, was even more insistent that he had a clue.

"President Bush is preparing to tell the nation, once again, that his strategy in Iraq is succeeding. We know what the Bush-Petraeus report will say: The surge is working. Be patient. The reality is despite heroic efforts by U.S. troops, the Bush surge is not working."

"By carefully manipulating the statistics, the Bush-Petraeus report will try to persuade us that violence in Iraq is decreasing and thus the surge is working," he said. "Even if the figures were right, the conclusion is wrong."


Illinois had the honor of having a foreign policy three-fer: Rep. Rahm Emanuel joined Obama and Durbin in piling on Petraeus.

"We don't need a report that wins the Nobel Prize for creative statistics or the Pulitzer for fiction."


"Time will tell" is the smart rejoinder when arguing about future events. It is one that the Democrats may have used to their advantage on September 11, 2007. It would have meant a lot less time spinning on September 11, 2008.

However, Congressional Democrats had their talking points already written before they had heard the Petraeus Report.

They chose to attack the man in charge of winning the war in Iraq, General Patraeus, because what he had to say did not support their own views and agendas.

One year later, time has told its tale.

To the exoneration of General Petraeus--and the chagrin of Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

The two Democrats now trying to convince the country, on September 11, 2008, that they have the foreign policy judgment to lead the USA forward through a dangerous world.

by Mondoreb
chart: cybercast news service

Wednesday, September 3, 2008

Sarah Palin: Fear and Loathing in the Mainstream Media



Your Ad Here


"McCain and Palin are currently close in the polls, but they face an even tougher job of selling this combination than does the history-shattering ticket of Obama-Biden."
--John Mashek, US News & World Report



USN&WR's John Mashek is a MSM Meme Poster Child


What time is it again?

It's Beat-on-the-Girl Time!--at least in the Mainstream Media.


The MSM spent much of the Democrat primary season shilling for Barack Obama, their 'Chosen One' candidate. In the process, the MSM, in an about-face from their 1990s' coverage, published a stream of unflattering attacks on the Clintons in general, and Hillary Clinton, in particular.

The MSM "coverage" of the Democrat primary tussle at times resembled a journalistic "Whack-a-Mole" game--with Hillary the target of hundreds of MSM mallets. Big Media is substituting Palin for Clinton and the beat goes on.

NOW, the MSM thinks that Hillary Clinton supporters won't notice they're using much the same tactics against Sarah Palin, John McCain's VP pick. Either that, or Big Media figures that Hillary supporters will get in line and shut up, since Palin carries the "Scarlet 'R'" behind her name.

US News & World Report's John Mashek, [Sarah Palin and John McCain's Cynical Game] sums up much of the MSM's loathing/fear of Sarah Palin by stating, "It's a cheap political ploy—and any voters who fall for it deserve what they get."

As a bonus, Mashek gets in a dig at the intelligence of women who supported Hillary Clinton ("If Democratic women upset about Clinton's absence from the ticket fall for this transparent appeal to their angry instincts, McCain is entitled to them.")

Taking this another step, Palin is certainly an attractive maverick who has fought scandal—Republican scandal, by the way—from the statehouse in Juneau. But is she prepared to step in and lead the country in case the 72-year-old McCain is stricken? Her record as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska (population of under 7,000), and her two years as governor stand as a stark contrast with Sen. Joe Biden's six terms in the U.S. Senate, much of that time focusing on foreign policy.


Note to Mashek: Americans might put considerably less emphasis on Joe Biden's Senate experience than you and the rest of the MSM do; it's been 48 years since Americans considered Senate experience a plus in a presidential race. John F. Kennedy's 1960 election being the last time Americans voted an inclumbent senator in the White House. Warren G. Harding, in 1920, was the only other incumbent senator elected president in the last 100 years.

While Obama (less than 4 years in the Senate) represents "Change!", Palin (less than 2 years as Governor) does not.

While MSM's meme has been that McCain's selection of Palin somehow undermines his "experience" advantage over Obama--which the MSM considers a non-argument, anyway--Obama's selection of Joe Biden doesn't undermine his "Change" theme.

Now, a MSM who relentlessly attacked Hillary Clinton in the primaries is urging her supporters to "get into line, shut up and support who we tell you".

Our opinion: Politics do indeed make strange bedfellows. Hillary supporters may disagree with Palin on the issues, but they will recognize the MSM attacks on her for what they are: thinly-disguised Obama cheerleading masquerading as probing analysis and "concern".

We think, if comments and emails are any indication, that at least some Hillary supporters see the similarity in the two MSM attack campaigns.

Once again, it's Open Season in the Mainstream Media.

Once again, it's Beat-on-the-Girl Time.


by Mondoreb
image: Heidi from Pittsburgh for DBKP

Sunday, August 3, 2008

Blog Shutdowns: Spam Attacks Came from barackobama.com IP Addresses

Explain this Away
Spam Attack came from barackobama.com

Were There More?



At least one of the attacks in the latest wave of blog shutdowns this past week came from IPs assigned to barackobama.com.

We have reported twice in the last two weeks about the attacks on anti-Obama websites. ["Google, Blogger, Obama: Obamanation Shut Down My Blog!"]] & [BabbaZee's "Anti-Obama Blogs Shut Down by Google, Obamabots"]

Speculation on who was behind the attacks has ranged from "Obama supporters" to "it's no one, just a glitch" "to it's a browser problem".

A few liberal blogs and Instapundit have said there is no connection between this latest wave of blog shutdowns and the Obama camp.

Speculation can now be set aside--at least, in one instance.

We came across this post by MacRanger at MacsMind [Macsmind Hacking UPDATE] yesterday, where Mac presents "one fact that can’t be explained away".


On July 22-25 Macsmind was DOS’d (Denial of Service) that originated from three IP addresses that are assigned to Barack Obama’s website. This isn’t a theory but was confirmed via law enforcement through an inspection of the site logs from those dates. The IP address in question; 66.39.4.254 66.39.143.229 216.146.206.181, are all registered via “Go Daddy” under the name barackobama.com.

On those dates, beginning at At 5:48PM Central on the 22nd, the hosted server that contained our site was hit by a 1.6 gigabyte flood of illegitimate traffic. The attacks never abated and only stopped when our host provider took us off line.


Spam traffic originating from three IPs assigned to the barackobama.com would seem to be compelling evidence to the disinterested reader. We haven't been able to reach MacRanger yet, but the real question isn't "Is the Obama camp involved in this?"

It's "Will this story be publicized?"

MacsMind finishes with

Speculation is one thing, but facts are another. This time however we’ve taken protective measures to prevent this from happening again. Additionally the investigation will continue and appropriate interstate authorities have been notified.


Texas Hill Country [] makes the comment, "Translation: People using computers at the Barack Obama Campaign are using them to systematically hack, attack and shut down websites that don’t agree with him. This is so messed up. It’s some Orewellian type business and it’s stuff like this that makes Obama scary as hell…"




As DBKP's Blogger site was locked down Thursday night by Blogger for being a spam site, we can attest that it was not a problem with our browser that prevented us from posting there for approximately 36 hours.

It wasn't a browser problem that caused the following message to appear when trying to post at our DBKP Blogger site.




Site Meter didn't post the two messages and lock down our blogs.

One question: "Did the spam messages that shut down DBKP@Blogger originate with the same IPs that shut down MacsMind?"

A second question: "Will Blogger and Google check?"

A final question: "If Google finds the attacks came from the IPs at barrackobama.com, will they let anyone know?"

We're not holding our breaths for answers to the last two.

by Mondoreb
image: sandia; DBKP

Tuesday, July 1, 2008

Iran: Preparing for Attack on Temple, Israeli Nuclear Facilities

Iranian missile?


The anti-war blogosphere has been awash with stories about a frightening, imminent attack by the U.S. and Israel on Iran.

Someone in Iran must be paying attention.

Iran has moved ballistic missiles into launch positions, with Israel’s Dimona nuclear plant among the possible targets, defence sources said last week.

The movement of Shahab-3B missiles, which have an estimated range of more than 1,250 miles, followed a large-scale exercise earlier this month in which the Israeli air force flew en masse over the Mediterranean in an apparent rehearsal for a threatened attack on Iran’s nuclear installations. Israel believes Iran’s nuclear programme is aimed at acquiring nuclear weapons.


Some sources say the Iranian attack on Israel has already begun--in the form of Hizbullah's constant barrage of rockets. As YNetNews puts it, "There is, however, a very serious twist to this war: It is no secret that Iran is using Lebanese territory as a frontline zone for an assault on northern Israel."
Hizbullah's rockets continue to pound Israeli cities, towns, and villages, creating a wave of Israeli refugees fleeing the north.

The displaced northerners can be seen all over Tel Aviv: They are families, young people, and children, all searching for accommodation and a place to rest.

The constant attacks by Hizbullah are creating daily, heart wrenching tragedies. Israelis are being killed and injured after trying to take cover from rocket barrages, or for simply going to work.


Is the missile movement the first warnings of a direct Iranian attack? A defensive move? Or, is it just Middle Eastern bluster and posturing, with Iran content to let Hizbullah do the heavy lifting?

The sources said Iran was preparing to retaliate for any onslaught by firing missiles at Dimona, where Israel’s own nuclear weapons are believed to be made.

Major-General Mohammad Jafari, the commander of the Revolutionary Guard, told a Tehran daily: “This country [Israel] is completely within the range of the Islamic Republic’s missiles. Our missile power and capability are such that the Zionist regime – despite all its abilities – cannot confront it.”

An editorial in a government newspaper, Jomhouri Eslami, said: “Our response will hit right at their temple.”


US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, arrived in Israel Saturday for talks with top Israeli defense officers. There was speculation that this visit was about Israel seeking permission from the U.S. for an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities.

“Although the visit had been planned well in advance, we got the feeling he was coming to make sure we’ll obey the strict timetable agreed with the US,” said an Israeli defense source.

Is it all just saber-rattling? Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has threatened to "wipe Israel off the face of the map", once Iran acquires nuclear weapons.

Are we seeing the prep work of an Israeli response to Ahmadinejad's nuclear threats?

Regardless, one suspects that the anti-war crowd won't be staging any protests about the Hizbullah attacks on Israeli citizens anytime soon.

by Mondoreb
Source/image:
* Iran's attack on Israel has begun
* Iran ready to strike at Israel’s nuclear heart
* civitatensis

Monday, May 12, 2008

Thailand: Forgotten Front in the War on Terror

The Thai Taliban



Things Thailand reminds one of: The King and I, tsunamis, tourists--and battleground in the War on Terror.

If you didn't think of the last one, don't feel bad. Thailand is the "forgotten front" in the WoT. Red Planet Cartoons serves up a timely reminder of the systematic war being waged on other faiths in Thailand by the partisans of the "Religion of Peace".

"The Thai Taliban" has RPC's distinctive cartoon above, an excerpt from "Red Cross fair bombed, attacks in South increase" from the Bangkok Post, and a heapin' helpin' of informative links, with everyone weighing in on the subject from Little Green Footballs to The Jawa Report.

From the Bangkok Post:
* Militants launched a terrorist bomb attack at an annual charity event in Narathiwat province, setting off a bomb that wounded at least 12 persons, police said.

* Extremists also burnt two schools in Rueso district on Sunday night, police said, and six roadside pavilions were torched by suspected insurgents.

* A high voltage electricity transmission tower in Rangae district was blown into two pieces after a bomb was remotely detonated by a cell phone, causing a complete blackout in one village.

* In nearby Pattani province, closed circuit television captured the images of four men wearing knitted ski-masks who stormed into an automobile showroom and burned five cars in an operation that took only three minutes to complete.


Red Planet Cartoons reminds us that no matter what the other faith involved--Buddhist, Hindu, Christian--the Religion of Peace considers adherents to be living in the "House of War" and legitimate fodder for jihad.

Thailand is the latest--but surely not the last--front in, what some have labeled, World War IV.

by Mondoreb
image: Red Planet Cartoons
Sources:
* The Thai Taliban
* Religion of Peace Strikes Again in Thailand

Digg!

DBKP.com - Bigger, Better!.
Back to DBKP at Blogger Front Page
* Mysterious Unnamed "Insurgents" Bomb Female College Students

Saturday, November 3, 2007

Al-Qaida #2 Calls for Holy War:
Gadhafi, Abbas, U.S. Among Those Targeted





Moammar Gadhafi a jihad target?

How soon they forget.

Gadhafi is one of the subjects of a video issued by al-Qaida #2 man, Ayman al-Zawahri. Gadhafi's Libya, which was on the US list of "terror-sponsoring states" for years, is now the target of terror.

View the video here from Yahoo.

al-Zawahri also went after Palestinian leader, Mahmud Abbas, calling for his overthrow. He also called for a Holy War against French, Spanish and U.S. interests in North Africa.

Yahoo News:
Al-Qaida's No. 2 figure harshly criticized Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi in a new audio tape Saturday, accusing him of being an enemy of Islam and threatening a wave of attacks against the North African country because it improved relations with the U.S.

In the 28-minute audio tape called "Unity of the Ranks," Ayman al-Zawahri also announced that the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group was joining ranks with al-Qaida.

From Dow-Jones Newswire:
Al-Qaida number two Ayman al-Zawahiri called for the overthrow of Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas saying he had turned the movement into an " annex of the CIA," in an audiotape message released Saturday.

"I call on those who, among the members of Fatah and the (Fatah-linked armed) Al-Aqsa Brigades, who still have a little dignity, to fight their leadership which has transformed their movement into an annex of the CIA and a division of Mossad," Zawahiri said in the tape posted on the internet.

More from Dow-Jones:
"The Islamic nation is witnessing a blessed step ... The brothers are escalating the confrontation against the enemies of Islam: Gadhafi and his masters, the Washington crusaders," al-Zawahri said in the audio tape. The recording could not be independently verified, but it appeared on a Web site commonly used by insurgents and carried the logo of al-Qaida's media production house, as-Sahab.

The recording also carried a message from Abu Laith al-Libi, a Libyan al-Qaida commander in Afghanistan who accused Gadhafi of decades of tyranny.


Back to YahooNews:
He [al-Zawahri] said Fatah members should "return to their religion and rally to the support of their brothers, the mujahedeen (fighters), in Palestine and elsewhere in the Muslim world," Zawahiri said in the recording, the authenticity of which could not immediately be verified.
As Gateway Pundit puts it, "They've lost the war. Now, they've lost their minds."

al-Zawahri seems a bit out of sorts. Things might not be going all that well for the al-Qaida poobah. Things aren't going well in Iraq or Afghanistan, with al-Qaida taking it on the chin from Coalition and U.S. forces.

al-Qaida's grumpy: wonder if the mainstream media will mention it or the reasons for this latest video.

by Mondoreb & Little Baby Ginn

Digg!

Back to Front Page.