White House meets with Terrorist who Lauded the Deaths of US Troops in Iraq

Via Thinkprogress:

So the White House recently met with and hosted Walid Jumblatt, a Lebanese Racist, anti-semite, and for all intents and purposes, a terrorist who cheers the death's of American troops in Iraq. He was at the White House asking for US led regime change in Syria. Terrible ideas such as that aside, the White House needs to answer for consorting with this complete POS.

Some of Mr. Jumblatt's greatest hits:

– “We are all happy when U.S. soldiers are killed [in Iraq] week in and week out. The killing of U.S. soldiers in Iraq is legitimate and obligatory.”

– “The oil axis is present in most of the U.S. administration, beginning with its president, vice-president and top advisers, including (Condoleezza) Rice, who is oil-colored, while the axis of Jews is present with Paul Wolfowitz, the leading hawk who is inciting (America) to occupy and destroy Iraq.”

– “In November 2003, the United States revoked Jumblatt’s diplomatic visa for wishing out loud that Wolfowitz had been killed in a Baghdad rocket attack.”

This man received a standing ovation from the conservative American Enterprise Institute. This man sat comfortably in the White House prescribing strategy to our Commander in Chief. Disgusting.

Bush Makes Horrible Racist Comment About Obama

Oh dear, the President seems to be taking after super-racist # 1 Joe Biden.

CAVUTO: How do you think the troops would feel about a President Obama?

BUSH: Oh, I don’t know. He, let’s — he hasn’t gotten elected yet. He hasn’t even gotten the party’s nomination either. He’s an attractive guy. He’s articulate. I’ve been impressed with him when I’ve seen him in person. But he’s got a long way to go to be president.

Emphasis mine.

Just like Joe Biden, the President's political career is now effectively over. I expect Republican outrage over this to be even more intense than it was over Biden's comment, after all, Bush is the figurehead of the GOP.

I must say though, if I knew that catching the President describing a black man as "articulate" was all that was necessary to finally convince everyone that he is a horrible racist, I would have been searching harder.

President Bush is a huge bigot. Debate over.

UPDATE: Let me clarify my point here. Democrats have let the Biden story spin out of control. Once again, Republicans have won the media battle. While blatant racists such as Tom Tancredo advocate abolishing the Black, Hispanic, and Asian-American Caucus', we instead hear stories in the media about Biden's flub.

The Democratic Response to a story about a Democrat with race problems:

"Oh my, that sure is terrible. I better be outraged as much as possible so the Republicans don't accuse me of being racist too. Its not enough to just condemn Biden's words, I have to go overboard and really lay into him."

The Republican Response to a story about a Republican with race problems:

"What? He's not racist, its just the Liberal media on a witch hunt again. Have you dems forgotten about Joe Biden?"

Now, I am not advocating the Republican response, but we need to be measured so we don't destroy our brand. For every Democrat that says something with racial overtones, there are about 10 Republicans advocating the abolition of the Black Caucus or the elimination of Black History month. For every Democratic Presidential candidate who makes bad comment about Obama, there is one REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT saying the exact same thing. Just keep that in mind and lets try to move forward keeping in mind the media climate we exist in.

Update 2:More evidence of my point. Biden makes a stupid comment, FOX News responds on their new late night infotainment show:

HOST 1: Sen. Joe Biden, who is now, I think, my favorite person in the world, he’s declared his run for the presidency, but at the same time had some amazing words, which I have here on this card, for Barack Obama, describing him as the first mainstream African-American who is articulate, bright, and clean.

HOST 2: Oh. Well, I think Oprah’s clean.

HOST 1: Yeah, but no, running for president. Oprah’s not running for president. But Jesse Jackson is clean.

HOST 3: She does douche. (Laughter) I was told I was allowed to say the D-word!

HOST: Alright.

HOST 3: You will continue to roll, my friend.

HOST 1: Ok, the thing about what Joe Biden says is, isn’t he saying what every liberal is thinking? That Obama is acceptable because he’s basically like Lionel Jefferson, and he’s not threatening — that’s the son.

HOST 4: Is he the one who sang “All Night Long”?

HOST 1: No, no, that was Lionel Richie, also a non-threatening black man. Liberals have this secret racism about blacks. They’ve got to be light-skinned in order to be acceptable.

After reading that, the term "douche" definitely comes to mind.

Hot Topic of the Day: The Death Penalty

Wonderful news for Maryland: executions in the state have been suspended. I won't go into the decision, mostly because I have very little legal expertise and I am inspired by Stephanie Dray's opinion on the issue. However, if you want a quick legal rundown of the decision, head over to Crablaw.

Mrs. Dray takes the "make the death penalty safe and rare" position, certainly one of the most respectable ones to have in this debate. I agree with Dray on her point that there are some crimes which are so heinous, they should require the death penalty. She mentions John Allen Muhammad, the adult suspect in the DC sniper killings, as an example of such a crime and criminal. Indeed, Mr. Muhammad is a terrible man. He deserves no mercy. Some would say he deserves nothing more than the same death he and Malvo inflicted on their victims. These people may be right, and they are mostly driven by righteous anger.

The problem is, our justice system doesn't run on righteous anger. And though Mr. Muhammad does not deserve our mercy, we would reduce ourselves to his level were we not to give it.

I do not believe, as Dray assumes that many death penalty opponents do, that killing is wrong in every case or instance. Revenge killing by the State IS wrong in every instance, and that is what the death penalty boils down to.

There is no proof that the death penalty is an effective deterrent for violent crime. In fact, States with the death penalty have higher murder rates than states without it. It is solely reserved for those who murder in ways that revolt us.

In Maryland (and many other states I would assume) the death penalty has been proven to be applied by juries and prosecutors in a racist manner. Black males (particularly those who murder whites), to this day, are still more likely to be sentenced to death than whites in Maryland.

To argue that the death penalty is some sort of "criminal extermination service" is disturbing to me. If it isn't a deterrent, and it isn't revenge (can I assume state sanctioned revenge killing is wrong?), then it must be some sort societal fix. Killing serial killers as if these men are congenitally diseased when they are simply products of severe abuse in their childhood is insanity. Any argument that assumes there is some sort of genetic code or trigger for criminality is bunk anyway, but death penalty supporters continue to use these arguments to this day.

There is also the desire by death penalty proponents to separate society into "the criminals" and "the rest of us". This is a terrible and false dichotomy. Human beings are all capable of barbarity, of anger, of lust. We are all capable of losing control and we are all able to see the error of our ways and make positive changes in our lives. I believe the number one priority of the justice system must first be protection of the innocent. After that however, its next function must not be revenge, but instead rehabilitation.

I am a progressive, and I trust the government to do many things. I would trust them with my health care. I trust them with my defense, with my education (state schools, k-College).
I suppose that I trust the state to tax me equitably. I guess I trust them to not take corporate money in exchange for votes, but not really.

I certainly don't trust the state when it comes to going to war. In fact, if you want the best reason not to support the death penalty, based purely on the fact that it requires the state to carry it out?



As Governor, George W. Bush signed off on 152 executions. Now I ask you, can we really trust the State to kill people "correctly"?