Flopping Aces - 6 new articles

 

Here are the latest updates for hunthunt2006.search2055@blogger.com "Flopping Aces" - 6 new articles Same "News" Media that Pounced on McCain Love Affair Rumors Won't Touch John Edwards Caught in Hotel With Mistress/Love Child Story Everything You Know About the War in Iraq is Wrong [Reader Post] Obama-NYTs honeymoon ends Campaign press office "irked" over reporting Osama bin-Laden's Driver Complains He Wasn't Read Miranda Rights Congressional Dems Refuse to Debate or Vote on New Energy for America Republicans Prevent Democrat Energy Bill From Passing More Recent Articles Search Flopping Aces Same "News" Media that Pounced on McCain Love Affair Rumors Won't Touch John Edwards Caught in Hotel With Mistress/Love Child Story Rule One of the mainstream “news” media: One set of standards for reporting on Republicans, another for Democrats! When the National Enquirer broke the story that former presidential candidate John Edwards was caught in a Beverly Hills hotel with what was described as his mistress and their love child the mainstream “news” media looked the other way. Even when Fox News confirmed that a security guard summoned by John Edwards to rescue him from reporters as he as besieged in a hotel bathroom confirms that Edwards was at the scene and reportedly turned “totally white” when he learned the story reporters were following; the media still remained silent. No report from: The New York Times Time Magazine Washington Post Associated Press Newsweek The New Republic And yet, when the NY Times broke the story of rumors of an affair John McCain was rumored to have had with a lobbyist, the media pile on was instant: Time Magazine Newsweek Washington Post The New Republic The Associated Press went so far as to run an article featuring the words of Cindy McCain and comparing her reaction to that of other political spouses with cheating husbands. No one is suggesting that the media push a microphone in the face of Elizabeth Edwards, who is terminally ill. But that doesn’t mean that the same standard of reporting shouldn’t apply to John Edwards that was applied to McCain. After all, Edwards had vehemently denied rumors of the affair on previous occasions: “The story is false. It’s completely untrue, ridiculous” Edwards said. Writing at Slate.com Jack Schafer points out that 24 hours after the news broke of Senator Larry Craig’s (R-Idaho) arrest for footsie in an airport restroom the media pounced on him for hypocrisy and at least 36 daily newspapers in the U.S. had published the story. Citing Craig’s hypocrisy was their justification. Edwards hypocrisy and lies doesn’t seem to faze the media at all. Liberal Editor at LA Times Covers It Up for Edwards Not only did the story not appear in the main print editions of newspapers or magazines, Mickey Kaus writing at Slate.com finds the email that the editor of the Los Angeles Times sent to the newspaper’s online bloggers directing them to hush it up: From: “Pierce, Tony” Date: July 24, 2008 10:54:41 AM PDT To: [XXX] Subject: john edwards Hey bloggers, There has been a little buzz surrounding John Edwards and his alleged affair. Because the only source has been the National Enquirer we have decided not to cover the rumors or salacious speculations. So I am asking you all not to blog about this topic until further notified. If you have any questions or are ever in need of story ideas that would best fit your blog, please don’t hesitate to ask Keep rockin, Tony Frankly, the revelations about Edwards are less interesting than the media’s reaction to the news. I’d have no problem if they treated all such stories with the delicacy and tact that they are currently treating the Edwards’ story. But that’s just not the case now is it? If the subject here was Mitt Romney or any other Republican the story would be entirely different. • Email to a friend • Article Search • Related • View comments • Track comments • • Everything You Know About the War in Iraq is Wrong [Reader Post] I heard it just as recently as this weekend, when a local conservative blogger on my favorite radio station said something to the effect that "we now know there weren't any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq." And every time I hear that I always wonder do we? So much becomes considered common knowledge without the slightest bit of of investigation. Think about all the things like trans fat, WMDs in Iraq, anthropogenic global warming, the goodness of "organic" food…all of these things we take our knowledge of for granted. But in every case there are issues with what is perceived to be true, with what those talking heads on tv believe to be true. And these talking heads or whoever writes their material never bother to look at these issues or bother to apply the tiniest bit of skepticism to their story. If they did, they would find out what Ken Timmerman, author of Shadow Warriors discovered: credible sources with no agenda believe that WMDs were removed from Iraq to Syria, sometimes on a stripped down 747 or 727 othertimes by unmarked trucks. Eyewitnesses to these programs are quoted in his book. Also there is evidence that there is an as yet unexplored underground uranium enrichment facility, called site 555 or the al Fajr facility. There is no need to change what the Iraq war was fought about. We didn't go there to free the Iraqi people, though our mission was titled "Iraqi Freedom." This was about national security, and for good reason: Iraq had WMDs and even if they wouldn't use them against us, they certainly wouldn't balk at terrorists using them against us. Furthermore, everyone knows that Iraq didn't have ties with al Qaeda. Of course, "everyone" is wrong. While Saddam Hussein might not have been directly involved in the 9/11 attacks, it appears he was a supporter of al Qaeda, this also from Shadow Warriors. On page 260, Timmerman notes "Another document, dated January 18, 1993 transmitted Saddam Hussein's order, delivered through his personal secretary, 'to hunt the Americans that are in Arab lands, especially Somalia, by using Arab elements or Asian [Muslims] or friends.'" Timmerman continues, "In response, the head of the Iraqi Intelligence Service informed Hussein that Iraq already had ties with a large number of international terrorist groups, including 'the Islamist Arab elements that were fighting in Afghanistan and [currently] have no place to base and are physically present in Somalia, Sudan, and Egypt.' In other words al Qaeda." (emphasis his) In George W. Bush's speech shortly after the attacks of September 11, 2001, George W. Bush laid down the gauntlet: you're either with us or against us in the war on terrorism, a declaration of such honest and profound objectivity it no doubt still gives mealy-mouthed liberals and wishy-washy moderates nightmares. There can be no debate on which side Saddam Hussein fell. And because of his own hubris he brought on his own destruction. If liberals had their way (though many would have to go back in time to change the way they felt before the invasion of Iraq) Saddam would still be charge in Iraq and Iran, Iraq, North Korea, and terrorists in general would know that the USA didn't have the will to enforce their demands. Liberalism has destroyed the United States' ability to defend itself, not through disarmament (though the Clinton administration certainly did a significant amount of disarmament) but through the destruction of the political will of the people of the United States. It is only through politics, the peace movement and the resulting loss of morale that the United States has ever lost a war, it is only through military strength that we can ensure peace. More posts from this author can be found here. • Email to a friend • Article Search • Related • View comments • Track comments • • Obama-NYTs honeymoon ends Campaign press office "irked" over reporting Well now… it appears the BHO campaign press office is going after the NYTs writer, Adam Nagourney, over his July 17th piece, “Poll Finds Obama Isn’t Closing Divide on Race”. The New Republic’s Gabriel Sherman had a little ditty yesterday, “End of the Affair”, documenting the BHO press offices rather terse emails to Nagourney, complaining about the Times conclusions of a poll showing Obama’s not making much headway against JSM in closing the divide between Americans, based on the constituents’ race. The email text is not provided, and we do not know what the BHO press types were attempting to accomplish with their complaints specifically. Around midnight on July 16, New York Times chief political correspondent Adam Nagourney received a terse e-mail from Barack Obama’s press office. The campaign was irked by the Times’ latest poll and Nagourney and Megan Thee’s accompanying front-page piece titled “Poll Finds Obama Isn’t Closing Divide on Race,” which was running in the morning’s paper. Nagourney answered the query, the substance of which he says was minor, and went to bed, thinking the matter resolved. But, the next morning, Nagourney awoke to an e-mail from Talking Points Memo writer Greg Sargent asking him to comment on an eight-point rebuttal trashing his piece that the Obama campaign had released to reporters and bloggers like The Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder and Politico’s Ben Smith. Nagourney had not heard the complaints from the Obama camp and had no idea they were so steamed. “I’m looking at this thing, and I’m like, ‘What the hell is this?’ ” Nagourney recently recalled. “I really flipped out.” Later that afternoon, Nagourney got permission from Times editors to e-mail Sargent a response to the Obama memo. But the episode still grates. “I’ve never had an experience like this, with this campaign or others,” Nagourney tells me. “I thought they crossed the line. If you have a problem with a story I write, call me first. I’m a big boy. I can handle it. But they never called. They attacked me like I’m a political opponent.” Apparently, Talking Points decided to act as the campaign’s mouthpiece, publishing a rebuttal in their words, and on their behalf, in a piece with the Greg Sargent byline story, “Obama Campaign Criticizes New York Times Story On Poll”. “The NYT story about their poll ignores multiple and significant pieces of data that actually indicate a trend much different from that which the story suggests,” the critique reads. It goes on to list “some straightforward points from their data that are omitted from the story.”… … followed by why they felt the conclusions were in error. Or perhaps more aptly put in Seinfeld-eses….yada yada… Nagourney came up with his own retort to the Obama press office retort (that masqueraded as a Greg Sargent article), published as a counterpoint on TPM. The New York Times’s Adam Nagourney has sent me a long and detailed response to the Obama campaign’s complaint that his story today on the paper’s big poll on race omitted key info that would have been more favorable to Obama. While Nagourney says he is “comfortable” with the story, he does concede that he left out one key data point about Michelle Obama that he should have included. He allows that headline was imperfect, in that it implied some sort of failure on Obama’s point to close the racial divide: This was a long and detailed poll that yielded a lot of interesting results. We could have chosen to focus on any number of themes; we decided to focus mainly on what we could learn from the poll about how blacks, whites and Hispanics view politics and society at the critical moment. The critique from the Obama campaign seems to be directed at findings from the poll that we did not address in much depth in the story, particularly the head to head matchups between the two candidates. We make our polls public in the spirit of transparency and so that others can take a look and draw their own conclusions. In this case, there’s plenty of data to consider on about questions we did not include in our story, and there are other valid ways of framing the results. But we are comfortable that our story accurately captured the results on the questions that most struck us, those that sought to illuminate how blacks, whites and Hispanics see the United States at a moment when Senator Obama’s candidacy is putting race front and center in a new way. One last point: I do think there is room for discussion about the headline - “Poll Finds Obama Candidacy Isn’t Closing Divide on Race”. The point of the story is that black respondents apparently do not see the fact of Mr. Obama’s candidacy as evidence of significant improvement in race relations. The story does not suggest that there is some onus on Mr. Obama himself to be closing this divide. I also, on a smaller matter - and the one matter the Obama campaign did raise with me - should have included, in saying that 20 percent of white voters had a favorable view of Michelle Obama, the fact that 72 percent either have no opinion about Mrs. Obama or hadn’t heard enough about her, to avoid any suggestion that 80 percent had an unfavorable view of her. If this is to be their response to what little criticism BHO receives from the MSM… busy following up and emailing reporters who give less than glowing reviews… just what will he do to the press corps if he wins the Oval Office? And I guess we have now determined what TPM is…. a press outlet for BHO propaganda and complaints. • Email to a friend • Article Search • Related • View comments • Track comments • • Osama bin-Laden's Driver Complains He Wasn't Read Miranda Rights This is what the War on Terror has come to after the Boumediene ruling: The driver for Osama bin Laden was not told of any rights against self-incrimination under years of interrogation, FBI agents told the Guantanamo war crimes court on Thursday. ~~~ The military commission trying Hamdan has ruled he has no rights against self-incrimination. Hamdan, a Yemeni father of two with a fourth-grade education, is the first Guantanamo prisoner to face trial before the controversial tribunal at the remote base on Cuba. He faces life in prison if convicted. His trial is the first U.S. war crimes trial since World War II. Prosecutors are seeking to portray Hamdan as a close associate of bin Laden who was aware of plotting for the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks and supported them with his efforts. Defense attorneys have characterized Hamdan as a simple employee. Seven agents, six from the FBI and one from the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, testified on Thursday about questioning Hamdan in sessions from shortly after his capture in November 2001 to 2003 at Guantanamo. Just unbelievable. It’s like a bad dream. Just utterly ridiculous. Imagine our soldiers on the battlefield readin Miranda rights to a captured terrorist to extract time sensitive information. Its like a bad Ben Stiller movie. Andy McCarthy: I hate to say I told you so, but this has been coming for three years — ever since the McCain amendment. Everybody pooh-poohed it because it sounds too absurd. Alien combatants having constitutional rights used to sound absurd too. So did al Qaeda having Geneva Convention rights. So did the U.S. courts entertaining lawsuits by the enemy against the officials Congress authorized to fight the war. It all sounds crazy … until it happens. Our fighting men and women are not law enforcement and this is not a law enforcement issue. The Supreme Court and the liberals in this country our forcing us to act like it is which can only lead to bad, bad consequences. • Email to a friend • Article Search • Related • View comments • Track comments • • Congressional Dems Refuse to Debate or Vote on New Energy for America Govt. report estimates massive energy find in Alaska and Democrats won’t let us touch it! The U.S. Geological Survey just released a summary of a new report showing an estimated 90 billion barrels of oil to be found above the Arctic Circle. That is enough oil to fuel the entire American economy for 12 years. Along with the oil, an estimated 1,669 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, and 44 billion barrels of natural gas liquids are available for the taking. But taking it is the problem. The technology is there to safely extract these resources with little to no risk to the environment or wildlife. What stands in the way is the U.S. Congress. Meanwhile, the Canadians, the Russians, the Norweigans and anyone else with a valid territorial claim is rushing to the Arctic to drill, drill, drill. But the largest pot of gold in Alaska sits there untapped while the price of gas in the United States go up, up and up. For months now, Republicans in both the House and Senate have been trying to get a vote on a variety of energy legislation that would increase supply, encourage conservation and assist in the development of alternative energy supplies. Their requests have been refused. Instead, Harry Reid in the Senate and Nancy Pelosi in the House have shut off debate on any plan that would include more drilling of American energy resources. Senator Reid offers a bill that would reign in oil speculators. That’s it. Not one drop of new oil brought to market. Speaker Pelosi demands that President Bush release 70 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and refill it at a later time. Her cry is “Free our oil” yet she won’t let American companies drill for American oil to free the American consumer from the daily negative impact of high gas prices. Earlier this month, we highlighted efforts that the GOP Senate has undertaken to force the issue and bring a vote on their plan the Gas Price Reduction Act of 2008. It would lift much of the ban on offshore drilling, remove the ban on oil shale development, tighten regulation of oil speculation and foster development of electric cars and trucks. Led by House Republican Leader John Boehner, House GOP members gathered to show support for the “all of the above” plan to help lower gas prices for the American consumer. The House GOP unveiled it’s comprehensive “all of the above” plan called The American Energy Act on July 23, 2008. House Republicans gathered on the steps of the U.S. Capitol in a show of support for a plan that goes one better than the Senate GOP bill and permits drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and offshore in the Gulf of Mexico near Florida. Compare the Democrat’s “no drill” plan with the “all of the above” GOP plan: House Republicans Energy Fact Finding Trip While Barack Obama was beginning his whirlwind global campaign rally, nine house GOP members led by House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) embarked on the American Energy Tour. Beginning in Golden, Colorado they first visited the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) to highlight developments in cutting-edge solar, wind, fuel cell, biomass, and other emerging energy technologies. From Colorado they ventured north to Alasaka where they toured the Prudhoe Bay oil production facilities and the area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Congress set aside for oil exploration when it ititially set up the wildlife refuge. For readers who are interested, a photoset of the entire trip is here. Jim Angle of Fox News went along for a portion of the trip and filed this report from ANWR: Is one environmentalist standing on a mountaintop peering dozens of miles into the distance and seeing a tiny building on the shore pumping oil enough to force the American people to pay $4 or more for a gallon of gasoline? Leader Boehner Demands a Vote! House Republican Leader John Boehner has been very out front in demanding that Democrats permit a vote on energy alternatives that are not solely dictated to the Congress by the environmental lobby. If you have missed his noble efforts, here’s a rundown. And the effort seems to be paying off. This editorial in the Washington Post says it all: No Drilling, No Vote Speaker Pelosi won’t let the House debate the merits of offshore drilling. Washington Post Friday, July 25, 2008; Page A20 WHY NOT have a vote on offshore drilling? There’s a serious debate to be had over whether Congress should lift the ban on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf that has been in place since 1981. Unfortunately, you won’t be hearing it in the House of Representatives — certainly, you won’t find lawmakers voting on it — anytime soon. Instead of dealing with the issue on the merits, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), a staunch opponent of offshore drilling, has simply decreed that she will not allow a drilling vote to take place on the House floor. Why not? “What the president would like to do is to have validation for his failed policy,” she said yesterday when asked that very question. “What we’re saying is, ‘Exhaust other remedies, Mr. President.’ . . . It is the economic life of America’s families, and to suggest that drilling offshore is going to make a difference to them paycheck to paycheck now is a frivolous contention. The president has even admitted that. So what we’re saying is, ‘What can we do that is constructive?’ ” If there is an explanation buried in there about why that makes offshore drilling off-limits for a vote, we missed it. Ms. Pelosi is correct that drilling is no panacea for the nation’s energy woes. The short-term effect of lifting the moratorium, if there were any, would be minimal. That doesn’t mean the country shouldn’t consider expanded drilling as one of many alternatives. There are legitimate concerns about the environmental impact of such drilling — environmental concerns that, we would note, exist in other regions whose oil Americans are perfectly happy to consume. But have technological improvements made such drilling less risky? Why not have that debate? When they took the majority, House Democrats proclaimed that “bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full and fair debate consisting of a full amendment process that grants the Minority the right to offer its alternatives.” Why not on drilling? Meanwhile, the dispute has snarled progress on spending bills for fear of having drilling amendments attached. Citing “the uncertainty in how the oil and gas drilling issue is currently playing out on the Senate floor,” Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) called off committee consideration of spending bills on which Republicans were threatening to offer drilling amendments. The result threatens to be the first time since at least 1950 that lawmakers will go home for the August recess without either chamber having passed a single appropriations bill. If drilling opponents really have the better of this argument, why are they so worried about letting it come to a vote? Democrats know that if the Republican energy plans in both the House and Senate came to an up or down vote they would pass. But do the voter’s know that Democrats are still blocking ANY plan that would increase supply? More Energy News: • Email to a friend • Article Search • Related • View comments • Track comments • • Republicans Prevent Democrat Energy Bill From Passing Harry Reid lost it with reporters today after their failed attempt to produce a energy bill without legislation that would end a Congressional moratorium on off-shore drilling. Republicans vowed to defeat any bill that did not include this, and they did. Which sent Reid into a bit of a tizzy: At a "pen and pad" — a more casual, off-camera chat with reporters — Reid attacked and scolded correspondents in attendance, telling them he's "really disappointed" in how they have been writing his energy plans, which include a bill to reign in speculation in the energy futures markets. According to two Senate Democratic aides, Reid and other Democratic leaders were particularly stung by an article Thursday in The New York Times. It followed on several other reports that have highlighted Democrats' attempts to fend off defections from their ranks to GOP-sponsored amendments, measures that would permit new drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf and in the West for oil shale. ~~~ Reporters tried to pin Reid down Thursday on the amendment issue. In the exchange, Reid told one reporter she should "watch the [Senate] floor more often. … You might learn something." Another reporter explained she had watched the Senate proceedings and said it was not clear he was … offereing separate amendments, to which Reid asked the reporter if she "spoke English." "Turn up your Miracle Ear," Reid added. Democrats have become so used to the MSM fawning over everything they do that they don’t know what to do with this. This issue will be a huge loser for them if they do not listen to American people and increase oil production inside our borders, the Republicans know this, and so does the MSM: Instead of dealing with the issue on the merits, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), a staunch opponent of offshore drilling, has simply decreed that she will not allow a drilling vote to take place on the House floor. Why not? “What the president would like to do is to have validation for his failed policy,” she said yesterday when asked that very question. “What we’re saying is, ‘Exhaust other remedies, Mr. President.’ . . . It is the economic life of America’s families, and to suggest that drilling offshore is going to make a difference to them paycheck to paycheck now is a frivolous contention. The president has even admitted that. So what we’re saying is, ‘What can we do that is constructive?’ If there is an explanation buried in there about why that makes offshore drilling off-limits for a vote, we missed it. Ms. Pelosi is correct that drilling is no panacea for the nation’s energy woes. The short-term effect of lifting the moratorium, if there were any, would be minimal. That doesn’t mean the country shouldn’t consider expanded drilling as one of many alternatives. There are legitimate concerns about the environmental impact of such drilling — environmental concerns that, we would note, exist in other regions whose oil Americans are perfectly happy to consume. But have technological improvements made such drilling less risky? Why not have that debate? When they took the majority, House Democrats proclaimed that “bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full and fair debate consisting of a full amendment process that grants the Minority the right to offer its alternatives.” Why not on drilling? Senate Republicans want to have that debate. On everything from offshore drilling to nuclear power to plug-in hybrids. The Democrats? They stamp their feet and yell no, no, no! Mitch McConnell described the Democrats plans for fixing this problem like so: The Ranking Member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, my good friend from New Mexico, put it this way: He said that in his 37 years of service in the Senate, he has never seen a bigger problem met with a smaller solution. I'd put it this way: Americans are saying the house is on fire, and the Democrat Leadership is showing up at the scene with squirt guns. Keep it up Dem’s….this issue will definitely come back to bite you in the ass. • Email to a friend • Article Search • Related • View comments • Track comments • • More Recent Articles The chutzpah continues… Obama replaces Old Glory with "Obama O" symbol on tail of jet Oil prices due to rise again? Nigeria under threat by MEND, GOP under threat by Pelosi About That Non-Political Speech In Germany The surge worked! But The Jr. Senator Refuses To Accept That Fact. [Reader Post] Polls Show No Bounce For Obama Post-Maliki Comments On Withdrawal

---

Click here to safely unsubscribe now from "Flopping Aces" or change subscription settings

---

 

---

Unsubscribe from all current and future newsletters powered by FeedBlitz

---

Your requested content delivery powered by FeedBlitz, LLC, 9 Thoreau Way, Sudbury, MA 01776, USA. +1.978.776.9498