Crush Liberalism

Liberalism: Why think when you can “feel”?

Another phony "Iraq veteran" exposed, but not by the MSM

Chalk up another fraud in the growing list of leftards who think that lying about service would give them credibility that they think they deserve but might not otherwise receive. From Gateway Pundit:

After they ran a military/war-bashing piece on women in war, the New York Times Magazine found out one of the women in their expose did not in fact serve in Iraq as she said she had!
…
This is what she told the NYT reporter:
Amorita Randall lives across the state from Christensen, in a small town outside of Grand Junction. She is 27, a former naval construction worker who served in Iraq in 2004. Over the course of several phone conversations before visiting her in January, I grew accustomed to the way Randall coexisted with her memories. Mostly she inched up to them.

On days she was feeling stable, she would want to talk, calling me up and abruptly jumping into stories about her six years in the Navy, describing how she was raped twice – the second rape supposedly taking place just a matter of weeks before she arrived in Iraq. Her experience in Iraq, she said, included one notable combat incident, in which her Humvee was hit by an I.E.D., killing the soldier who was driving and leaving her with a brain injury. “I don’t remember all of it,” she told me when I met her in the sparsely furnished apartment she shares with her fiance?. “I don’t know if I passed out or what, but it was pretty gruesome.”

Complete rubbish!
Although, it is now confirmed that Amorita Randall is indeed a fraudster, The New York Times Magazine still is running an interactive that includes Miss Randall.

And, get this…

“Saying something was looked down upon,” says Amorita Randall a naval construction worker who served in Iraq in 2004. She says she was raped.

Here is the crazy correction:

CORRECTION: On March 12, three days after the article had gone to press, the Navy called The Times to say that it had found that Ms. Randall had never received imminent-danger pay or a combat-zone tax exemption, indicating that she was never in Iraq. Only part of her unit was sent there; Ms. Randall served with another part of it in Guam. The Navy also said that Ms. Randall was given the medal with the insignia because of a clerical error.

Based on the information that came to light after the article was printed, it is now clear that Ms. Randall did not serve in Iraq, but may have become convinced she did. Since the article appeared, Ms. Randall herself has questioned another member of her unit, who told Ms. Randall that she was not deployed to Iraq. If The Times had learned these facts before publication, it would not have included Ms. Randall in the article.

Oh, if I had a dime for every time I was “convinced” that I had been somewhere I’ve never been, I’d…um…well, I wouldn’t have a dime.

Seriously, that has got to be one of the lamest and most absurd attempts at spinning and face-saving that I have come across in a very long time! I mean, I can understand if she came from Detroit and thought she had been in a war zone. Short of that, I have no idea how someone can be “convinced” that they’ve been anywhere when they actually haven’t been there. Naturally, the NYT willingly went along with it, not bothering to check the credentials ahead of time. Nope…no liberal media bias!

As Gateway Pundit points out, “I’m convinced I played for the Houston Rockets! Where’s my cash, jack?”

March 26, 2007 Posted by | media bias, moonbats | Leave a Comment

Night & Day

Today’s N&D brought to you by the letters “A” and “S”, for Andrew Sullivan. For those of you who don’t know, Sully is a gay blogger who sometimes leans left and sometimes leans right. As a matter of fact, he is known as being consistently inconsistent, more so than even (dare I say it?)…Jean-François Heinz-Kerry (who is rumored to have served in Vietnam)!

Anywho, Jonah Goldberg catches Sully in one of his more obvious flip-flops:

I think I’ve been pretty good about not posting much about Andrew Sullivan, but I think this is just too funny.

First he posts:

“Edwards Suspends Campaign
22 Mar 2007 12:17 pm

He does it because his wife has a recurrence of cancer in some degree to be further explored. It is of a piece with his character to do this; and a simple testament that he has the right priorities and values to be a president of the United States. Sorry, Ms Coulter. But this man will be remembered for a character you do not even want to possess.

And then, immediately afterwards when the news changes, he writes:

“Edwards Forges On
22 Mar 2007 12:39 pm

So, despite earlier reports, Edwards will not suspend his campaign. Good for him. And if anyone did not know of Elizabeth Edwards’ extraordinary character before, they do now. What I saw in this press conference was the reality of family values – not the rhetoric, not the divisiveness, not the politics, just the reality of an actual family dealing with real issues. We all face such issues. Cancer survivors and their families know it all too well. So do those of us who live with HIV, diabetes, Parkinsons and many other diseases that patients can now live with, rather than die from. In this, John Edwards is doing a public service. He was admirably candid about his wife’s cancer being treatable, if not curable. That paradigm is increasingly common – and it’s affirming to see someone in public life live through it so positively, so admirably and so passionately. She shouldn’t give in to it. One key to surviving serious illness is to live positively and candidly while you treat it. With HIV, I learned to repeat to myself a triad that was essential to surviving any serious medical condition: Own it, face it, beat it. That’s what the Edwardses did today, and they will help a lot of people through their example.

The campaign should go on, as life goes on. It should neither help nor hurt it. But I will say this: Elizabeth Edwards is a truly remarkable human being. And her marriage is an inspiration to all of us.

Me: Edwards is a saint when he drops out. Edwards is a saint when he doesn’t. I don’t have a major problem with the sentiments of either post taken individually, but taken together, we can now see that the intervals between self-contradictory statements by Sullivan has fallen to a mere 22 minutes. Pretty soon the ends of his sentences will contradict the beginnings.

Sully: he actually did support Edwards when he dropped out…before he didn’t.

March 26, 2007 Posted by | Andrew Sullivan, John Edwards, Night and Day | Leave a Comment

"Bush Alone"

Robert Novak’s column is spot on. From RCP:

Two weeks earlier on Capitol Hill, there was a groundswell of Republican demands — public and private — that President Bush pardon the convicted Scooter Libby. Last week, as Alberto Gonzales came under withering Democratic fire, there were no public GOP declarations of support amid private predictions of the attorney general’s demise.

Republican leaders in Congress (asking not to be quoted by name) early last week predicted Gonzales would fall because the Justice Department botched firing eight U.S. attorneys. By week’s end, they stipulated that the president would not sack his longtime aide and that Gonzales would leave only on his own initiative. But there was still an ominous lack of congressional support for the attorney general.

“Gonzales never has developed a base of support for himself up here,” a House Republican leader told me. But this is less a Gonzales problem than a Bush problem. With nearly two years remaining in his presidency, George W. Bush is alone. In half a century, I have not seen a president so isolated from his own party in Congress — not Jimmy Carter, not even Richard Nixon as he faced impeachment. (Ouch! – Ed.)

Republicans in Congress do not trust their president to protect them. That alone is sufficient reason to withhold statements of support for Gonzales, when such a gesture could be quickly followed by his resignation under pressure. Rep. Adam Putnam, the highly regarded young chairman of the House Republican Conference, praised Donald Rumsfeld last November, only to find him sacked shortly thereafter.

But not many Republican lawmakers would speak up for Gonzales even if they were sure Bush would stick with him. He is the least popular Cabinet member on Capitol Hill, even more disliked than Rumsfeld had been. The word most often used by Republicans in describing the management of the Justice Department under Gonzales is “incompetent.”
…
The I-word (for incompetence) is used by Republicans in describing the Bush administration generally. Several of them I talked to described a trifecta of incompetence: the Walter Reed hospital scandal, the FBI’s misuse of the Patriot Act and the U.S. attorneys firing fiasco. “We always have claimed that we were the party of better management,” one House leader told me. “How can we claim that anymore?”

The reconstruction of his government after Bush’s re-election in 2004, though a year late, clearly improved the president’s team. Yet the addition of extraordinary public servants Josh Bolten, Tony Snow and Rob Portman has not changed the image of incompetence.

A few Republicans blame incessant attack from the new Democratic majority in Congress for that image. Many more say today’s problems by the administration derive from yesterday’s mistakes, whose impact persists. The answer that is not entertained by the president’s most severe GOP critics, even when not speaking for quotation, is that this is just the governing style of George W. Bush and never will change while he is in the Oval Office.

Regarding the Libby-Gonzales equation, unofficial word from the White House is not reassuring. One credible source says the president never — not even on the way out of the Oval Office in January 2009 — will pardon Libby. Another equally good source says the president never will ask Gonzales to resign. That exactly reverses the prevailing Republican opinion in Congress. Bush is alone.

Novak is correct. I have stated before that though I have at times been a big fan of Bush (having voted for him twice), I have frequently felt like I and others right-of-center were sold a bill of goods by him. I am definitely looking forward to a new president…someone not named Obama, Edwards, or Shrillary.

March 26, 2007 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a Comment

Plutonic warming?

From Citizens United:

Is global warming now engulfing Mars? Have Jupiter and Pluto caught the cold? Maybe they should adopt the Kyoto Protocol. Click here to listen to Fred Thompson rebut yesterday’s congressional testimony by Al “Planetary Emergency” Gore. Fred’s being hysterical, yet his point is anything but.
…
Some people think that our planet is suffering from a fever. Now scientists are telling us that Mars is experiencing its own planetary warming: Martian warming. It seems scientists have noticed recently that quite a few planets in our solar system seem to be heating up a bit, including Pluto.

NASA says the Martian South Pole’s “ice cap” has been shrinking for three summers in a row. Maybe Mars got its fever from earth. If so, I guess Jupiter’s caught the same cold, because it’s warming up too, like Pluto.

This has led some people, not necessarily scientists, to wonder if Mars and Jupiter, non signatories to the Kyoto Treaty, are actually inhabited by alien SUV-driving industrialists who run their air-conditioning at 60 degrees and refuse to recycle.

Silly, I know, but I wonder what all those planets, dwarf planets and moons in our SOLAR system have in common. Hmmmm. SOLAR system. Hmmmm. Solar? I wonder. Nah, I guess we shouldn’t even be talking about this. The science is absolutely decided. There’s a consensus.

Ask Galileo.

March 26, 2007 Posted by | global warming | Leave a Comment

   

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 25 other followers