Recently in Orcosphere Category

Cue Conspiracy Theorists

| No Comments | No TrackBacks
I'm surprised we haven't already heard banshee cries of cyber-terrorism over this crash from the 101 Keyboard Brigade.

Of course, if it turns out to have been a case of cyber-sabotage, I'm going to be busy chewing up my shoes......
No, not leaning left, but restoring balance.

This whole interview rocks.

Hat tip to Spontaneous Arising
The All Spin Zone has a nugget of a post up suggesting a whisper campaign has been started against John Edwards. Now, the wing nuts basically make shit up all the time. So, on any given day, some asshole located in their parent's basement will make some claim, then demand proof it's not true.

However, should this particular "meme" develop legs, then no doubt, it's a campaign. So, let's sit tight, and just wait and see if these idiots start screeching uncontrollably.

Oh, wait, They screech uncontrollably on a daily basis. My bad.

Anyway, I think Richard is working towards the right point. But it's not so much about who's afraid of John Edwards as much as why are they afraid of John Edwards. Just like Howard Dean seemed to worry the Republicans (especially Rove) back in 2004 (as we now see why with the 2006 election) there seems to be a serious strain among the Mighty Wurlitzer mouth pieces to blow bad steam about John Edwards.

I can't help but suspect the Republican planners are well aware of their party's decline. More importantly, I think they know they are no longer a representative cross section of the American electorate. With more and more populous ideas taking root, without the stigma of "dirty fucking hippies," they are desperate, and will go to any length in stirring up controversies to distract people from this truth.

Somehow, thought, I think this whole John Edwards whisper campaign is going to blow up in their face. For one thing, I find Elizabeth Edwards to be much more scrappy, and feisty, then Hillary ever was back during the Blue Dress affair, and she will not take any of this in a cool, calculating manner. She's going to lash out, with anger, with passion, and without regard to the sensibilities of the Beltway bums. Now, the Beltway bums may go all a twitter, condemning and criticizing her, but the majority of Americans will look up to her, and see what a strong woman she is, and how she is standing by her man.

And let's hope they wing nuts failed to learn from the past. Because when they were going all out to smear and besmirch a sitting president, his approval ratings went through the roof. So, I figure, if they try to do the same thing, the results will be the same.

"I don't think it. I know it," Carter told CNN's Wolf Blitzer.

"Our country for the first time in my life time has abandoned the basic principle of human rights," Carter said. "We've said that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to those people in Abu Ghraib prison and Guantanamo, and we've said we can torture prisoners and deprive them of an accusation of a crime to which they are accused."

Carter also said President Bush creates his own definition of human rights.

Carter's comments come on the heels of an October 4 article in The New York Times disclosing the existence of secret Justice Department memorandums supporting the use of "harsh interrogation techniques." These include "head-slapping, simulated drowning and frigid temperatures," according to the Times.

Oh boy! The wing nut banshees are going to be out in full force on this one. Cries of "treason," "traitor," and all other sorts of mind numbing shrillness will commence forth with. I think they should be careful, though, because Carter seems to be a pretty spry old man. He's not some youngster of 12, you know. He's still out there building houses. Which seems a lot more constructive than mindlessly clearing away more brush.
Think Progress

On September 20, 72 Senators voted for the highly politicized, “bait and switch” resolution that condemned a newspaper ad by The amendment, offered by Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), expressly stated that the Senate would condemn “any effort to attack the honor and integrity” of “all members of the United States Armed Forces“:

(b) Sense of Senate.–It is the sense of the Senate–

(1) to reaffirm its support for all the men and women of the United States Armed Forces, including General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq;

(2) to strongly condemn any effort to attack the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all the members of the United States Armed Forces; and

(3) to specifically repudiate the unwarranted personal attack on General Petraeus by the liberal activist group

On his radio show yesterday, right-wing radio host Rush Limbaugh attacked the “honor and integrity” of some members of the Armed Forces. Limbaugh attacked troops who hold a different viewpoint than his own as “phony soldiers.” Iraq war vet Jon Soltz writes that Limbaugh’s comments are directed at “the majority of troops on the ground in Iraq” because they “do not back the President’s failed policy.”

For all the Senators who rushed to make political hay over an empty resolution, the spotlight is on them. Will they now enforce their “sense of the Senate” and condemn Rush Limbaugh?

Yesterday, 341 members of the House voted to pass a companion resolution to that of Cornyn’s. They, too, face the same question.

I ain't holding my breath.

Huffington Post

As Media Matters reported today, Rush Limbaugh, on his show said that those troops who come home and want to get America out of the middle of the religious civil war in Iraq are "phony soldiers." I'd love for you, Rush, to have me on your show and tell that to me to my face.
What in God's name is Rush smelling? You don't start calling people who've been in combat in one of the hottest places in the world "phony soldiers." He's got to be popping oxycontin again. And, if he's going to support the troops, then he needs to support their right as American citizens to exercise freedom of speech. Up to, and including, calling for the troops to come home.

Anyway, Jon Soltz has more to say:

First, in what universe is a guy who never served even close to being qualified to judge those who have worn the uniform? Rush Limbaugh has never worn a uniform in his life -- not even one at Mickey D's -- and somehow he's got the moral standing to pass judgment on the men and women who risked their lives for this nation, and his right to blather smears on the airwaves?

Second, maybe Rush doesn't much care, but the majority of troops on the ground in Iraq, and those who have returned, do not back the President's failed policy. If you go to our "Did You Get the Memo" page at, there's a good collection of stories, polls, and surveys, which all show American's troops believe we are on the wrong track, not the right one, in Iraq.

Okay, it's official. He's back to using. Otherwise, he'd understand that pissing off a member of the Armed Forces is a really, really bad idea.

Washington Post

MoveOn, saying it had no reason to believe it was paying "anything other than the normal and usual charge," said yesterday that it would send the Times $77,000 to make up the difference.

The Times also violated its own advertising policy, which bars "attacks of a personal nature," Hoyt reported. He wrote that the episode "gave fresh ammunition to a cottage industry that loves to bash The Times as a bastion of the 'liberal media.' "

Many Republicans have seemed to prefer talking about MoveOn's ad rather than the war itself.

Even the Washington Post notes it's nothing more than a diversion from the war itself.

New York Daily News

The old gray lady has some explaining to do.

Officials at the New York Times have admitted a liberal activist group was permitted to pay half the rate it should have for a provocative ad condemning U.S. Iraq commander Gen. David Petraeus.

The MoveOn ad, which cast Petraeus as "General Betray Us" and attacked his truthfulness, ran on the same day the commander made a highly anticipated appearance before Congress.

But since the liberal group paid the standby rate of $64,575 for the full-page ad, it should not have been guaranteed to run on Sept. 10, the day Petraeus warned Congress against a rapid withdrawal of troops from Iraq, Times personnel said.

"We made a mistake," Catherine Mathis, vice president of corporate communications for The Times, told the newspaper's public editor.

I swear, if there was ever a case of hitting your head against the brick wall because it feels good when you stop, the orcosphere and it's legacy media cohorts are prime examples. This well was dry from the beginning and yet they continue to go back to it time and again.

General Petraeus' testimony had zero affect on the opinion of the American populous. Yet, here they go again, attempting to score some kind of political resurrection by attacking the New York Times' selling of ad space. In truth, all they are doing is making their voices become background noise to be filtered out with the rest.

But what the hell. Go ahead fellas and fillies, keep beating that particular wall. However, I recommend some Ibuprofen, a strong cup of coffee, and maybe a few minute break in between bashes. Oh, and I suggest you don't add cream and sugar to the coffee, it ruins the ability of caffeine to reduce the pain.

Where I occasionally write

Creative Commons License
This blog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Guy Andrew Hall

Create Your Badge


Politics is the control of wealth and power. You are being conditioned to condemn politics as petty and boring, thus granting all the more control to the powers that be. You are either a part of the problem or a part of the solution. The choice is yours.


My Wish List


About this Archive

This page is an archive of recent entries in the Orcosphere category.

Open Thread is the previous category.

Shallow Thought is the next category.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

The Big Roll