USpolitical.com

McCain was asked recently what he thought of some comments that Romney had made at a fund raiser. The following is my own transcript with emphasis added taken directly from this video.

Reporter: Senator can I ask you about some comments that Governor Romney made? I don’t want to mischaracterize him because I’m not sure exactly what he said. But it seems that he said that he would not appoint a Muslim to his cabinet OR that he said it was not necessary to have a Muslim in the cabinet to better conduct the war on Islamic extremism.

The reporter then asks a couple of questions:

Reporter: Would you want to appoint someone in your cabinet for that reason and what do you make of his comments?

McCain proceeds to only answer the latter question under the context that Romney only said he would never appoint a Muslim.

McCain: I think his comment is indicative of how he might govern and I think its absolutely wrong. You appoint the most qualified people for the job.

Someone there with McCain then mentions that there are Muslims currently serving in the US Military.

McCain takes it to another level and throws in a “Romney never served” jabs.

McCain: I wonder if Governor Romney who has never served in the military would allow Muslims to serve in our military.

McCain basically showed his willingness to take something completely out of context and misrepresent another candidate.

In responding to questions about his comments Romney said the following in this video.

Reporter: There was a report today that a businessman says that at a closed fundraiser in Vegas a couple of weeks ago he asked you a question about having an Islamic person in your cabinet and you said that based on the population of Muslims in the United States you don’t think it would be justified. First of all, we weren’t there, is that what you said?

Romney: No, no. Thats not. His question was did I NEED to have to have a Muslim in my cabinet to be able to confront radical jihad and would it be important to have a Muslim in my cabinet? And I said no, I don’t think that you have to have a Muslim in the cabinet to take on radical jihad anymore than during the Second World War we needed to have a Japanese American to help us understand the threat that was coming from Japan or something of that nature. I just rejected that argument number 1.

Then number 2 I point out that the people who would be part of my cabinet is something that I really haven’t given a lot of thought to at this point. But I don’t have boxes that I check off as to their ethnicity and its not that I have to have a certain number of each different ethnic group. Instead I would choose people based upon their merits and capabilities.

Reporter: So you would be open to having a Muslim person in your cabinet?

Romney: I’m open to having people of any faith and ethnic group but they would be selected based on their capacity and capabilities and the values and skills that they could bring to the administration. But I don’t choose people based on checking off a box.

Whew! After all that…I come away with a couple of things. Romney is just as reasonable as ever and McCain seems foolish. I wonder if the media would now press McCain for his accusation and presumption of knowing exactly what Romney meant.

I glanced at msNBC.com and noticed an AP article about some recent riots in France. In a repeat from the 2005 riots, it is minorities, Muslim and African immigrants, that are the perpetrators.

Despite the fact that this entire episode, like the one in 2005 is perpetrated in the name of race, the AP journalist thought that fact, the one about it being Muslim and African minorities, was only worthy of the 5th paragraph.

I read an article that touches on this weird question I have only heard asked of Mitt Romney.  Did his sons serve in the military?

Mitt Romney has five strapping sons, and not one of them has ever served in the military.

No.  What is the assumption here?  At least one of them should have served?  Apparently none of them serving bothers some people, particularly Froma Harrop. So…if at least one had served then we’re talking about 20%.  Are we seriously expecting 20% of males to serve in the military, or just 1 per family which greatly increases the percentage nationwide.  And then what? That somehow qualifies their fathers to form foreign policy in wartime as it relates to the United States?  Can you imagine, out of my graduating senior class of high school, out of 200-250 males, 40-50 of them eventually serving in the military?

The article then goes on to paint a picture of wealth and ease that these sons enjoy, as if they alone ride stationary bicycles for exercise, participate in bike rides in Iowa, boat in New Hampshire and play volleyball with their family.  All the while unaccustomed to the hardship of war in Iraq.  The vast majority of people are non-military families.  Is this fact hard to swallow along with the pleasures of civilian life?

Throughout the campaign, Romney has showcased his athletic boys, ages 26 to 37, as all that is good about America and himself. It apparently never occurred to him that anyone in the audience would place his five princes in the same thought as Sadr City.

It didn’t occur to Froma Harrop that America is not a militarized nation with mandatory service.  Indeed we laud those that serve, but what are the rest of us to do?  Bemoan our not serving the military and delegitimize our family’s ability to analyze world affairs?

It simply strikes me as a poor jab at Romney that simply isn’t reasonable. Perhaps we should make some sort of law requiring those that vote to have a familial military connection…perhaps that would make those like Froma Harrop think twice.

This article really hit me when I read:

Now, imagine the scenario flipped: What if a soldier had attempted to murder a peace activist over the holidays in order to “make a statement”?

Boom.  Just like those stories about Homosexuals being tortured and strung up on a fence to die…but then silence when the situation is flipped.

If there is such a thing as “hate crime” or “deranged military murder” (as evidenced by the blanket coverage of the Marines in Haditha and elsewhere in Iraq), there most certainly is “hate reporting” and yes, “deranged journalistic irresponsibility.”

Screen capture minutes after making my last post.

Apparently the warmest winter on record and Polar Bears aren’t enjoying it.

Amazing video.

All-encompassingly has a video stream.

Prominently featured as the main article on yahoo!, this article consists of an interview with Ehren Watada.

First Lieutenant Ehren Watada still refuses Iraq deployment orders, calling the war illegal. A six-year prison term could result. Preliminary hearings are set for Thursday.

Some of his unimpressive answers were silimar to the following:

SITES (journalist): Tell me how those views evolved. How did you come to that conclusion?

WATADA: I think the facts are out there, they’re not difficult to find, they just take a little bit of willingness and interest on behalf of anyone who is willing to seek out the truth and find the facts. All of it is in the mainstream media. But it is quickly buried and it is quickly hidden by other events that come and go. And all it takes is a little bit of logical reasoning.

Indeed, it is so available to the seekers of truth that even you, Watada, cannot give a tangible description of the “facts.”

All I can say is, “Great job Democrats! You got this guy hook, line and sinker!”

In a brief visit to CNN this morning, I find a video prominently featured on the homepage labeled, “Active duty troops speak out against Iraq war.”

A glimpse at the World section has an article titled, “Iraqi leader disputes U.S. account of raid on militia.”

And a quick visit to the Politics page features, “Bush acknowledges setbacks in Iraq.”

Nowhere on these main pages of CNN.com did I see anything indicating that the United States Military is accomplishing military objectives.

Most hurtful and lopsided in my mind is the coverage of a minority of servicemen who don’t have the sense to leave the military when they disagree with a conflict. Rather, they use their service in the conflict to lend credibility to their opinions of National Security policy and propel them into the national spotlight. At least CNN obliges in doing this for them. Perhaps I should tell them I am going to write Congress and explain I support the war. Maybe I’ll be featured on a video on CNN.com’s home page! Then again, they probably wouldn’t be caught dead with pro-war coverage, not even from US Soldiers who have served there.

Something that I would have expected to be big news was buried behind an unflattering title and first paragraph.

Bush’s job approval among registered voters is up two points — giving him his highest rating in the poll since November — and his handling of Iraq is up three…

Title of the Article: Dems seem likely to pick up midterm seats

Of course the election is coming and Democrats are favored, but there was a lot of media chatter about Bush’s numbers falling, why such dismal chatter about a rebound?

And, its a good thing that NBC news helps us realize that this 2 point change could simply be some sort of strange anomaly, clarifying that the change falls within “the margin of error.” What is a margin of error then? Could we not argue that the poll should be up a possible 5 points? Apparently 2% more answered favorably since the last poll and there is a margin of error +/- 3 points.

http://www.securitywatchtower.com/archives/003958seven_iedas_that_didnat_go_off.html

This blog illuminated my understanding about what has happened in Iraq, what is happening and what will probably happen in the future. Before reading stuff they were writing, I thought Iraq was as terrible as it seemed on TV. There is a serious disparity in the amount of good vs. bad news coming out of Iraq in the MSM, and I think most of it is due to President Bush’s political affiliation. It seems only things the magnitude of bombing Zarqawi make it to the American people. Otherwise, just bad news.

Take heart! The US is making progress.