Still, we wouldn't say we "deny" that the birthers are racist. Some of them may be. Our position is simply that IT IS WRONG TO THROW AROUND SUCH ACCUSATIONS WITHOUT EVIDENCE.http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703922804576301162877959524.html
Yet prominent liberals have been doing just that. Last week in an interview with NPR, DAVID REMNICK, EDITOR OF THE NEW YORKER AND AUTHOR OF THE OBAMA HAGIOGRAPHY "THE BRIDGE," had this to say about Donald Trump's birtherian antics:
He's race-baiting. He's hatemongering. It's very clear what he's doing. HE'S TRYING TO AROUSE HALF-BURIED FEELINGS IN MANY PEOPLE THAT ARE UNFORTUNATELY STILL THERE. . . . Just as everybody thinks that they have a sense of humor, no one ever thinks that they're a racist. But I--my concern here, my fiercest words are for the people who do the active arousing of these feelings, THAT THERE ARE LATENT RACIAL ANXIETIES OR FEELINGS ABOUT OTHERNESS, or whatever they may--we know that.
"NO ONE EVER THINKS THEY'RE A RACIST"--INCLUDING, IT IS SAFE TO SURMISE, DAVID REMNICK. FOR HIM, WHITE GUILT IS DIRECTED OUTWARD; he is certain that other people are racist. His "evidence" is the assertion that they have "feelings" that are "half buried" and "latent." Could we get The New Yorker's storied fact-checking department to confirm that, please?
BASELESSLY ACCUSING THEIR POLITICAL FOES OF RACISM IS A WAY IN WHICH TODAY'S LIBERALS ATTEMPT TO INCITE FEAR AND LOATHING OF "THE OTHER." As we argued last year, this serves a political purpose in that it helps persuade blacks not to consider voting Republican. But IT SERVES A PSYCHOLOGICAL PURPOSE AS WELL. IT REINFORCES WHITE LIBERALS' SENSE OF THEIR OWN SUPERIORITY.
Actually it doesn’t stop at the charge of racism. There is also sexism, homophobia, bigotry, etc. I think it is more deep seated than the author states. The left is the political movement of intention. Since their intentions are good, people who oppose them must either be stupid or “bad.” And what is worse than being racists, homophobes, sexists, etc,?
7 Minutes Vs. 16 Hours: How The Media Reports Delay
GEORGE BUSH WAS RELENTLESSLY MOCKED FOR WAITING SEVEN MINUTES (actually waiting for his security detail to ready the exit and for his vehicle to be readied) BEFORE LEAVING THE SCHOOL HE WAS VISITING. He calmly finished reading My Pet Goat for the kids before going to his now-ready helicopter.
On the other hand, after Obama was told (most likely for the fifteenth time) that the CIA was really, really, really quite confident that Osama bin Ladin was at that compound in Abbottabad, HE DECIDED HE NEEDED TO SLEEP ON IT.
Sixteen hours later (hours during which Osama might have fled-- bear in mind, his courier's name had just been outed by WikiLeaks), he made up his mind.
HOW DOES THE MEDIA REPORT THIS? Well, relying upon those in Obama's inner circle (that is to say, his political flunkies and spinners), we're told this:
"But the next morning after 16 hours, Obama summoned four top aides to the White House Diplomatic Room. Before they could speak, THE PRESIDENT PUT HIS FIST ON THE TABLE AND DECLARED 'IT'S A GO'."
I’ll give credit to Obama for his decision. But this story is legitimate in demonstrating the bias of the press.
A kill operation
WHATEVER CREDIT PRESIDENT OBAMA DESERVES FOR AUTHORISING THE MILITARY OPERATION THAT RESULTED IN OSAMA BIN LADEN’S DEATH – AND HE DESERVES A GREAT DEAL – has been seriously eroded by the incompetent way in which his administration has handled the subsequent questions about it. John Brennan, Obama’s chief anti-terrorism advisor, should never have said that bin Laden was armed when he was shot and killed or claimed that bin Laden would have been taken alive if there had been an opportunity to do so.
THESE CLAIMS IMPLY THAT IF BIN LADEN WASN’T ARMED (WHICH WE NOW KNOW HE WASN’T) AND IF THERE WAS NEVER ANY SERIOUS INTENTION TO CAPTURE HIM, WHICH SEEMS HIGHLY DOUBTFUL, THE KILLING WAS INDEFENSIBLE. Not only is that politically moronic, it shifts the responsibility for killing bin Laden away from the White House and on to the Navy Seal who pulled the trigger. Brennan was effectively saying this was an operational decision, made by a member of the special forces team on the spot, and not a decision that was taken long in advance by the President.
LET’S BE CLEAR: THE OBJECT OF THIS OPERATION WAS TO KILL OSAMA BIN LADEN. Had he put his hands up and offered to come quietly, the likelihood is he still would have been shot in the head. THE REASON OBAMA DECIDED TO SEND IN THE NAVY SEALS, RATHER THAN DESTROY THE COMPOUND WITH A MISSILE STRIKE FROM A DRONE, WAS BECAUSE HE WANTED PROOF THAT BIN LADEN HAD BEEN KILLED. It also had the added benefit of minimising the collateral damage, sparing the lives of bin Laden’s wives and all but one of his children. It was patently not because Obama wanted to give the leader of al-Qaeda a chance to surrender.
The Obama Administration has upped the killing of terrorists. I don’t have a problem with this, but those on the left might.
What went on in the situation room while UBL was taken down
This is a very good synopsis of what went on before and during the attack on UBL
Obama: I won’t release the photos
In an interview with Steve Kroft for this Sunday's "60 Minutes" conducted today, President Obama said he won't release post-mortem images of Osama bin Laden taken to prove his death.
"It is important to make sure that very graphic photos of somebody who was shot in the head are not floating around as an incitement to additional violence or as a propaganda tool," said the president.
"We don't trot out this stuff as trophies," Mr. Obama added. "The fact of the matter is, this is somebody who was deserving of the justice that he received."
Didn’t he learn anything from not releasing his birth certificate?
Dalai Lama suggests Osama bin Laden's death was justified
As the leader of Tibetan Buddhism, the 14th Dalai Lama says he practices compassion to such an extent that HE TRIES TO AVOID SWATTING MOSQUITOES "when my mood is good and there is no danger of malaria," sometimes watching with interest as they swell with his blood.
Yet, in an appearance Tuesday at USC, HE APPEARED TO SUGGEST THAT THE UNITED STATES WAS JUSTIFIED IN KILLING OSAMA BIN LADEN.
As a human being, Bin Laden may have deserved compassion and even forgiveness, the Dalai Lama said in answer to a question about the assassination of the Al Qaeda leader. But, he said, "FORGIVENESS DOESN'T MEAN FORGET WHAT HAPPENED. … IF SOMETHING IS SERIOUS AND IT IS NECESSARY TO TAKE COUNTER-MEASURES, YOU HAVE TO TAKE COUNTER-MEASURES."