Just Damn II

Just Damn II

Will the administration EVER stop allowing itself to be blackmailed by BIG MEDIA?

FOXNews.com - Politics - Presidential Brief to Go Public

MSNBC - Does Rice really know her role?

Howard Fineman v. The Rock

KNOW YOUR ROLE!

That's the famous taunt that pro wrestler The Rock (Dwayne Johnson) screams at opponents when they overstep their bounds.

It's a play on the old misogynistic attitude of a he-man telling the lowly woman that she should be barefoot and pregnant . . . she should "know her role" and not get such high falutin' ideas about things off-limits like reading, having friends, and making what SHE would prefer for dinner.

But The Rock can say it to anyone he wants because he's the ultimate bad-a** and can show contempt for anyone (or so the scenario goes).

Today, Howard Fineman, Newsweek’s chief political correspondent and an NBC News analyst, tells Dr. Condileeza Rice to "KNOW HER ROLE"; Apparently in his mind has overstepped her rightful place by becoming one of the most powerful women in the world with the ear of the President of the United States . . . and not doing it the way Mr. Fineman would have her do it.

At one point her says of Dr. Rice that she is "[a] self-proclaimed expert at understanding 'structural' change in large institutions . . . ."

How condescending can you get?

What are her credentials in this area? I don't know. Does he? He might want to make a note of her actual experience and thus prove that she does not have any in the concept of "change" in a large institution. Instead, like so many leading Libs nowadays, he simply makes the accusation and does nothing to back it up. (cf. Howard Dean to Diane Rehm, John Kerry on Foreign Leaders, Edward Kennedy on a War made up in Texas)

MSNBC - Does Rice really know her role?
Let's look at that non-biased portray of Dr. Rice in this article:

• "A self-proclaimed expert . . . ."
  
• "Rice wasn't aware — may still not be aware — . . . ."
  
• "The student of bureaucratic change didn't really attempt to foment any, at least not with the kind of urgency we know she needed to have." Gotta love hindsight, eh Libs?
  
• "And Rice's tone was perhaps too steely: The response to terrorism over the years had been "insufficient," she said. What a bland word when a soothing sense of regret was required. She was a bureaucrat explaining "structure" to a national audience (and a chamber full of family members) that yearned for blunt talk."
  
• "Rice . . . is just a cog in a machine."
  
• "The president was given the now-famous PDB of Aug. 6, 2001, which suggested not only that Osama bin Laden was "determined " to attack inside the United States, but that the FBI had picked up a pattern that suggested the possibility of hijackings here." According to testimony, that's incorrect. The PDB talked of PAST threats made in the PAST but not NOW . . . PAST. This was NOT a warning that "planes a acomin' . . . ."
  
• "Already on the defensive for his leadership in the post 9/11 world . . . ." Being attacked, yes. "On the defensive"? No.

Finally, we have this wonderful bit toward the end of the piece:

Remember the picture of the president in the classroom being told by Andy Card of the attack? The American people thought they were seeing a man suddenly thrust into a grave challenge no one could have anticipated. That won him enormous sympathy and patience from the voters. But what if he was literally on vacation — at the ranch in Crawford — when he should have been making sure that someone was ringing alarm bells throughout the bureaucracy?

So you mean Bush WASN'T "thrust into a grave challenge no one could have anticipated"? Then what exactly DID happen, Mr. Fineman?

What a weird conspiracy theory twist to an otherwise unexceptional piece of non-biased media.

Thank god we don't have any bias in the press.

Kerry on Clarke: He's Wrong

Kerry on Clarke: He's Wrong

Bob Kerrey, president of New School University in New York and a former Democratic senator from Nebraska, is a member of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (the "9/11" Commission).

The Search for Answers: Richard Clarke is wrong about Iraq.

Mr. Clarke's most startling statement was that there have been more terrorist attacks against the United States in the 30 months since 9/11 than in the 30 months prior to the attack. You could almost hear a clap of thunder when he went on to say that this happened because we substantially reduced our efforts in Afghanistan and went to war in Iraq, causing a loss of momentum in the war against al Qaeda.

That's his argument. I think he's wrong, but I don't think he is being duplicitous. He is wrong because most if not all of the terrorism since 9/11 has occurred because al Qaeda and other radical Islamists have an even dimmer view of a free and independent Iraq than they do a free and independent United States. A democracy in Iraq that embraces modernism, pluralism, tolerance and the plebiscite is a greater sacrilege than anything we are doing here at home.

Mr. Clarke's views on Iraq notwithstanding, after 9/11 we could not afford either to run the risk that Saddam Hussein would be deterred by our military efforts to contain him or that these military deployments would become attractive targets for further acts of terrorism. I supported President Bush's efforts to persuade the United Nations Security Council to change a 10-year-old resolution that authorized force to contain Saddam Hussein to one that authorized force to replace his dictatorship. And I believe the president did the right thing to press ahead even without the Security Council's support. Remember, the June 25, 1996, attack on Khobar Towers that left 19 American airmen dead happened because of our containment efforts. Sailors had also died enforcing the Security Council's embargo and our pilots were risking their lives every day flying missions over northern and southern Iraq to protect Iraqi Kurds and Shiites. . . .

This debate becomes all the more important since the work of this commission--to examine an attack against the U.S. that occurred nearly three years ago--has been overshadowed by the events taking place in Iraq. The war there is not over. Twelve marines were killed in Ramadi Tuesday night in what has become a dramatic escalation of violence against coalition forces. I believe this escalation is taking place precisely because the country is about to be handed over to the Iraqi people to run themselves.

Sowell on Hidden Costs of Gov't

Sowell on Hidden Costs of Gov't

Two excellent articles from Thomas Sowell, award-winning economist, on the hidden costs of Gov't regs.

Counting the costs

Government restrictions are attractive to people who want to impose their pet notions without having to count the costs. There may be estimated costs -- often disputed estimates -- but there is nothing to force those estimates to include all the things that will become more costly because of a given policy.

Nor is there anything to force the original estimates to bear any resemblance to the actual costs that end up being paid by the taxpayers and others.

In the marketplace, you can believe that every additional cost your decision creates is likely to show up in the price tag. . . .

The government can overlook all sorts of costs -- but those costs do not go away. There is no free lunch.

Counting the costs: Part II

Not so when it is the taxpayers' money or -- better yet -- money that business is forced to spend, which does not even show up on the government's budget.

One of the reasons costs do not get counted is that costs are often confused with prices. All the political noises being made about importing pharmaceutical drugs from Canada, or other schemes to reduce drug prices, do not face up to the 800-pound gorilla staring us in the face -- the $800 million it costs to develop a new drug.

You can control the price of drugs all you want, whether by imports from Canada or in numerous other ways, but if that $800 million is not covered, you are not going to keep getting new drugs created at the same pace. That's when sick people will pay the real cost in needless pain and preventable deaths.

But the politicians do not have to count any such costs, especially if those costs materialize only after the next election.

Volokh on Condi Rxns

Volokh on Dr. Rice Rxns

Eugene Volokh has a great post on expected reactions to Rice's testimony.

"Hardball" Bingo:

I'm sufficiently confident about this that I think I can write up the scripts. Here are the buzzwords I expect from both sides. Play bingo at home (or, if you want, make it into a drinking game: one drink for each iteration of one of these words).

Of her demeanor, Rice supporters will say she was: "poised," "confident," "authoritative," and/or "polished."
Of her demeanor, Rice detractors will say she was: "defensive," "visibly annoyed," and/or "brusque" ; bonus (if they feel strongly) "petulant" and/or "schoolmarmish"

On the quality of her arguments, Rice supporters will say: "persuasive," "convincing," "firm," and/or "powerful"; bonus (if they feel strongly) "overpowering"
On the quality of her arguments, Rice detractors will say: "unpersuasive," "weak," "vacillating," and/or "shaky,"; bonus (if they feel strongly) "incoherent"

Overall, Rice supporters will describe her performance as: "a home run," "putting doubts to rest," "answering all the questions," "showing Clarke to be a liar," and/or "letting us get on to the people's business"; bonus (if they are really partisan) "refuting the demagogues on the other side"
Overall, Rice detractors will describe her performance as: "raising more questions than it answers," "a missed opportunity to inform the American people," "vindicating Richard Clarke," and/or "raising troubling questions about this Administration"; bonus (if they are really partisan) "you're the demagogue" (followed by: "am not!"; "are too!"; "am not!"; etc.)

Dodd on the KKK

Dodd on the KKK

UPDATE:

The Washington Times has a damning piece which included the following quote from Sen. Dodd commenting on the Trent Lott kerfuffle in 2002:

Mr. Dodd was among the Democrats who called for Mr. Lott to lose his leadership post and said his party would deal with such comments differently.

"If Tom Daschle or another Democratic leader were to have made similar statements, the reaction would have been very swift," he said on CNN's "Late Edition" on Dec. 15, 2002. "I don't think several hours would have gone by without there being an almost unanimous call for the leader to step aside."

Many, if not most, conservative pundits called Lott on the carpet for his statements.

Most Dems cannot seem to bring themselves to do the same to analogous comments made by Dodd.

Typical do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do Dem reaction.


Original post:

Sen. Christopher Dodd wishes that the KKK's views had held sway during the Civil War. No really. I mean he DID praise Robert "KKK" Byrd as a "man for all seasons" and one which would be appropriate in all times of our great history. Therefore he must think that Byrd would have been appropriate during the civil war.

No one REALLY thought Lott wanted the segregationist version of Strom Thurmond to make policies.

No one truly believes that Dodd wants the KKK version of Byrd to make policies.

But Lott was railroaded and no one has said hardly a WORD about Dodd.

Poor Little Soldiers?

Poor Little Soldiers?

An excellent vetting of a Progressive screed about how the American military is a dumping ground for poor kids and how they all live in poverty.

If you believe this sort of thing, or know someone who does, point them here for a correction.

Thanks to Instapundit for the heads up.

Jason: The Progressive Disorder

But between the glaring factual errors, the total misunderstanding of military pay and benefit structures, and the condescending cultural elitism built into her prose, it's clear that Ehrenreich has no idea how to report on the military community. Neither does the editorial staff at The Progressive.

My Impression of the Hare

My Impression of the Hare

I know, I know. I am terribly late in picking up on this.

In a fit of self-absorption, I was Googling for "The Art of The Blog" and "TAoTB" and came acrose Glenn Reynolds article about what makes a blog good. It linked to an old Lileks piece deconstructing an article in Britain's far-left Guardian.

Damned funny stuff.

The best part?

Here's the deal: we don?t need your support. But understand that if Iraqis had flown planes into Big Ben, we?d take out Saddam, because we understand that an attack on you is an attack on us. The West is not defined by Belgian edicts on acceptable levels of tomato sauce viscosity. The West is a set of ideas that need defending. Forgive us our passable wines; forgive our standardized veal. Forgive us our simple-mindedness, for we - from Alabama on outward to outer, distant Alabama and beyond - have a gut feeling that ?quarrels? usually boil down to two sides. Forgive us for believing that fascism's side ought to lose.

Enjoy! =)

Clarke Lied and the Lying Liar who Lied Lying Lied

Clarke Lied and the Lying Liar who Lied Lying Lied

Boortz brings up a GREAT bit to use in an discussion of Dick Clarke's claims.

Neal Boortz on Clarke's Claims

(BTW - after today, 4-06-04, you can click the original link and find the archive of today for the post.)

You are former president Bill Clinton. Your chief anti-terrorism guy, Richard Clarke, says that Al Qaeda was an absolute top priority during the final years of your term. In fact, Richard Clarke writes a book and testifies under oath telling everyone who will listen how focused you were on Al Qaeda while you were president.

So .. it's the end of your eight years in the White House. December, 2000. You are writing a report detailing your views on the major security threats facing the United States as you leave office. The report, which Richard Clarke helped you write, is 45,000 words long. That would be 168 pages using Microsoft Word, and if published as a book it would be about 220 pages long. Now that's quite a lot of words describing what you think are the major security concerns the next president needs to be aware of. And guess what? In all of those 45,000 words you don't mention the name "Al Qaeda" even one time. The greatest security concern facing America; isn't that what Richard Clarke said? And you don't even mention it one time in your report? Richard Clarke says that Condi Rice looked confused when he mentioned Al Qaeda ... but he didn't manage to get any reference to Al Qaeda included in your final report on security threats?

UPDATE: Here's a link to the Washington Times article on the subject: Al Qaeda absent from final Clinton report - The Washington Times: Nation/Politics

Free Speech v. Boycotts

Free Speech v. Boycotts

A blogger wieghs in on the Kos kerfuffle.

Someday people will learn that FREE SPEECH and any violation thereof applies ONLY to the GOV'T and NEVER to PRIVATE CITIZENS who call someone on the carpet for saying (or doing) something stupid, wrong, reprehensible, evil, what have you.

What follows is the text of my comment on his post.

Why I don't raise money for politicians

I think no one should boycott anyone.

When Jesse Jackson calls for a boycott of someone for saying something reprehensible and racist, do you feel that the person who made the racist comment is having their "right to free speech" assaulted? Or do you feel that a private citizen is trying to mobilize people of like mind to convince advertisers (and other monetary supporters) to abandon the cretin?

This is the marketplace at work, guys. Sometimes it goes against the left, sometimes the right, sometimes the center. . . .

This time it was someone on the left who said something reprehensible and he was called on the carpet for it. As it should be.

If a bunch of lefties wanted to block Instapundit or Andy Sullivan, I'd be just as vociferious in defending their right to free speech.

When will people come to understand that FREE SPEECH is about the GOVERNMENT taking away your right to say something.

It has NOTHING to do with a private citizen (e.g. Michael Friedman) calling for what amounts to a boycott of someone else (e.g. Kos). Even if they do so in a particularly public way.

If The Heritage Foundation was truly supporting someone who says nuking Iraq is a good idea (it's not if you read the whole article btw), then I would expect and encourage the left to go after them. It would not be an abridgement of free speech but exactly the opposite - free speech in action.

What I find so silly, or outrageous, is that after a few e-mails . . . Democratic candidates ran like little bitches. . . . Hell, if they had investigated the situation, they would have found out the worst thing about the guy is that he's a Cubs fan . . . .

So saying to these murdered, mutilated veterans "screw 'em" is not as bad as being a Cubs fan? Funny. But not true.

The Dems realized that they did not want to be associated with that sentiment and I applaud them on their quick dissociation from such a vile comment.

Do I count as a right-wing troll or not?

Reacting to Terrorism

Reacting to Terrorism

Three articles about terrorism: the way we should react to Fallujah, the failures of CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations), and the price to non-terrorist Muslims.

David Limbaugh: Iraqi violence should strengthen U.S. resolve

Once again, they'll be off base. The issue isn't simply whether there was a direct connection between Saddam and Osama. The more relevant question is whether military action against Iraq furthered our cause in the War on Terror.

Even if we don't have taped transcripts evidencing collusion between Saddam and Osama, we know beyond doubt that Iraq was a terrorist-sponsoring state and a safe-haven for Islamo-fascists.

Indeed, the terrorists' desperate and persistent efforts to thwart Iraq's transition to democratic self-rule vindicate the Bush Administration's conclusion that Iraq was and remains a pivotal target in the war. The violence fomented by Iraqi Shiite leader Moktada al-Sadr, and his brazen overtures to Hezbollah and Hamas, support President Bush's broader view that there is worldwide solidarity among international terrorists.

Joel Mowbray : Tolerating Terrorism

CAIR’s spokesman was given the opportunity to condemn Hamas and Islamic Jihad by the Washington Post in November 2001. His response was telling: “It’s not our job to go around denouncing.” Asked a similar question about Hamas and Hezbollah by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in February 2002, CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper called such inquiries a “game” and explained, “We’re not in the business of condemning.”

But when Israel is to blame, CAIR seems to be very much “in the business of condemning.”

After Israel recently killed the founder of Hamas—a man responsible for the deaths of 52 mostly young Palestinian suicide bombers and 377 mostly civilian Israelis—CAIR saw fit to “condemn” the Jewish state without a moment’s pause. In its press release, CAIR said it “condemned the assassination of a wheelchair-bound Palestinian Muslim religious leader, calling it an act of ‘state terrorism.’”

CAIR couldn’t bring itself to call the founder of one of the bloodiest terrorist organizations on earth even a “militant,” let alone a “terrorist.” To them, a man with the blood of over 400 people on his hands was a handicapped “religious leader.” Seems awfully instructive about the kind of Islam they must follow if they label terrorist masterminds “religious leaders.”

Dennis Prager: Why no Christian suicide bombers? and other thoughts on Islamic terror

So, to better understand the subject, I offer three conclusions I drew about terror during my week of broadcasting from Israel last month.

First, Islamic terror is caused by Muslims, not, as Islamic and leftist apologists would have it, by the non-Muslims against whom it is directed. In our morally confused world, Spain, Israel and America are blamed for having their men, women and children blown up: What did these countries do to arouse such enmity among otherwise tolerant Arabs and Muslims?

Palestinian terror provides the answer. About 25 percent of Palestinians are Christian, yet if there are any Palestinian Christian suicide bombers, I am unaware of them. Now why is that? Don't Muslim and leftist apologists incessantly tell us that the reason for Palestinian terror is "Israeli occupation and oppression"? Why, then, are there no Palestinian Christian terrorists? Are Christian Palestinians less occupied? . . .

Second, despite the Spanish cave-in to terror, in the long run, terror doesn't work. By any rational calculation, to take the Palestinian example, it has become the most self-destructive policy Palestinians could pursue. Palestinian terror has convinced almost all Israelis outside of academia that the moral gulf between them and the Palestinians is so wide that there is presently no hope for peace. . . .

Third, there is a terrible long-term price that Muslims, Arabs and Palestinians in particular are paying for the minority that engages in terror and for the majority that says nothing about it or supports it. . . .

Just as the German nation, fairly or not, has had to grapple with the moral legacy of Nazism, and the name of Christianity still suffers (unfairly) because of medieval persecutions of non-Christians, so, too, Islam, Arabs and Palestinians will have to struggle for generations to shed their identification with murdering innocents.

While it is Americans, Israelis and other targets of terror who most suffer individually from Palestinian and other Muslim terror, those with the most to lose are Palestinians, Arabs and Islam.

Sowell on Fixing the Jury System

Sowell on Fixing the Jury System

Thomas Sowell: Fixing the jury system

If we are serious about wanting justice in our courts, then we need to start getting serious about preventing witnesses and jurors from being intimidated. We might start by getting all cameras out of the courtroom.

There is no reason why the identity of the jurors has to be known by the media. The whole jury could be put behind one-way glass, so that they can see the proceedings but cannot be seen. It can be made a felony to publish their names.

The requirement for unanimous jury verdicts is long overdue for reconsideration. One pig-headed juror can cause not only a costly mistrial but also verdicts that do not reflect the seriousness of the crime. . . .

The time is also long overdue to reconsider the current practice of having jurors selected with vetoes by the lawyers in the case. When prospective jurors are given 30-page questionnaires made up by lawyers, asking intrusive questions about their personal lives and beliefs, the situation has gotten completely out of hand. . . .

Anonymous jurors, selected by lottery, and not restricted to unanimous verdicts, should be good enough for anyone in an inherently imperfect world. In such a system, cranks and ideologues would not have nearly the leverage that they do now.

There could also be professional jurors, trained in the law, for cases involving complex legal issues. That would cost more -- or rather, the cost would be visible in money, rather than hidden in the corruption of the legal system, the way it is now.

Bartlett on Relative Taxation

Bartlett on Relative Taxation

Bruce Bartlett: Who pays the taxes?

Looking at the share of taxes paid shows a similar pattern. From 1984 to 2001, those in the bottom quintile reduced their share of the total tax burden from 2.4 percent to 1.1 percent. Those in the top quintile saw their share rise from 55.6 percent to 65.3 percent. Among the ultra wealthy, the top 10 percent increased their share from 39.3 percent to 50 percent, the top 5 percent raised their share from 28.2 percent to 38.5 percent, and that of those in the top 1 percent went up from 14.7 percent to 22.7 percent.

In short, the poor paid half as much of the federal tax burden in 2001 as they did in 1984, while the rich paid about 50 percent more. Those in the middle paid about a third less.

One would think that those on the left would be happy about this trend. Instead, they constantly demagogue the wealthy as deadbeats unwilling to bear their "fair share" of the tax burden, and berate the Bush tax cuts for having "slashed" taxes for the wealthy, while the rest of us pay more. As is so often the case, the truth is exactly the opposite of that portrayed in the liberal worldview.

PC EU Anti-Semitism Report

PC EU Anti-Semitism Report

The summery of a major EU report on Anti-Semitism is redacted to show that disaffected white youths commit the majority of the anti-Semitic crimes in the EU - despite that fact that the body of the report contradicts that assertion.

EU 'covered up' attacks on Jews by young Muslims

But most of the report focuses on Jew-baiting by Muslim youths. It paints an alarming picture of daily life for France's 600,000 Jews, the EU's biggest community.

In schools, Jewish children are beaten with impunity, and teachers dare not talk about the Holocaust for fear of provoking Muslim pupils, it said.

Britain, which saw a 75 per cent rise in incidents last year, was gently rebuked for hesitating to take "politically awkward" measures against Islamic radicals.

"The government is very anxious not to upset the Muslim community," the report said.

Kos Kerfuffle and Stoller's Comments

Kos Kerfuffle and Stoller's Comments

Blogger Matt Stoller has some interesting thoughts on the whole Daily Kos "Screw 'Em" kerfuffle.

This bit, however, caught my attention.

When Mainstream Political Kibitzing Comes Online

Because normal political speech is now part and parcel of the pseudo-scandal industry, we are currently in political crisis mode where communications is becoming impossible. It's not that there's too much information; it's that there's too much spin with too much ammo. Just as an increasing amount of cultural product is becoming regulable because it's moving online, so too is there now an unlimited amount of information that you can connect to any political movement. No doubt, three clicks away from GeorgeWBush.com lies some nutty neo-Nazi site, and the same goes for JohnKerry.com. A media that won't differentiate between what the candidate says and who the candidate is near can't effectively describe modern democracy, because in the online political world, everyone is three clicks away. The only check upon the political pseudo-scandal industry, the inability to find damaging information to link to a candidate, is now gone.

Stoller seems to be implying that there is something wrong with having information, and the ability to comment on it, adding your own opinion and analysis (pejoratively referred to as "spinning"). Or maybe it is just that too many have the opportunity to do so ("it's that there's too much spin with too much ammo")? Or is it that a few people express their opinion and analysis too often or with too large an audience? Or even that it's too easy to "spin" info in such a way that it connects to a campaign?

Would he think it wrong of someone to say that Bush is wrong for linking to a site that harbors Neo-Nazi sentiments? Of course the Bush campaign would not do so directly, but what if it were second or third hand? Wouldn't Stoller expect, rightfully so, the Bush campaign to either

1. delink from the further referring site or
2. convince the site they link to to delink the offending site?

Seems only natural to hold them accountable for this sort of thing. As a conservative who finds such sentiments reprehensible and wrong, I would be in the front of the parade to convince Bush to repudiate the attachment.

Just as I would find Bush absent malice if his campaign did delink from such a site, I do not think for a moment that Kerry's campaign supports Kos' statements based on their immediate renunciation upon hearing what Kos had said. Bravo on them!

Stoller is right that the MEDIA should differentiate between the candidate and sites linked to linked to linked to sites. But websites on which the candidate DIRECTLY ADVERTISES must be held accountable by the candidate.

The candidate should be given a chance to repudiate statements with which he or she disagrees. If the candidate refuses to do so and continues to advertise despite the content therein, the candidate should be held accountable for all the content on those sites.

Given a chance to repudiate incorrect, wrong, even evil sentiments, candidates who refuse to do so implicitly (or worse, explicitly) support those ideas.

In the end, it is not the blogsphere that would sully a campaign, but rather a campaign that sullies itself by not disavowing comments made by sites on which they chose to advertise.

Dean - J'Accuse

Dean - J'Accuse

Dean, the man behind the Watergate problems if you believe a different conspiracy theory (Silent Coup), accuses the Bush administration of being lying liars who lie and are secret.

Telegraph | News | Bush's administration is worse than Nixon's, says Watergate aide

"Bush and [Vice-President Richard] Cheney are a throwback to the Nixon time," Mr Dean, 65, told The Telegraph last night. "All government business is filtered through a political process at this White House, which is the most secretive ever to run the United States.

"This is not in the public's interest. It's in the White House's interest, and the interest of Bush's re-election. The White House is being run like a private business, with the difference that it is not accountable to the shareholders - in this case the voters."

Libs Can't Read?

Libs Can't Read?

I was listening briefly to Air America just now, approx. 1:40 PM 4-04-04. The host, I think it's "Randi Rhodes" (I think that's what they said, if someone knows differently, please let me know and I'll correct this attribution) has just said, in essence: this book (American Dynasty) might be a bit high-level for her listeners to read. They haven't read a book, you see. So maybe this might be too much for them to understand when starting to read about the Bush family. (Everything after the colon is her direct sentiment - not in quotes because I could not get the exact wording, but this is pretty close to what she said.)

Pretty funny - a liberal who believes that the Left's constituency is ignorant, unread, and cannot even understand the concepts of the Far Left's whacky conspiracy theories if they did not have far-left-wing conspiracy theorists to explain it to them in simple words (and had to read it for themselves).

Also, as I have been typing this out, in the background the host and her guest have kept talking. Seems like they are discussing the Bush's plans to create chaos in the Middle East so as to bring about the end times demanded by their (the Bush's) fundamentalist faith.

Click the link at the top of this page and you can listen to this stuff for yourself.

KEEP TALKING AIR AMERICA - you're the most potent force the right has found yet to convert people to conservative views. ;-)