Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

FixCam: Obama's Burma-Shave Campaign

Note: Please upgrade your Flash plug-in to view our enhanced content.


We're always on the lookout for creative ways campaigns are trying to sell their candidates. Highlighted above is Sen. Barack Obama's takeoff on the famous Burma Shave ad campaign. Created by Iowa campaign staffers, the signs are all over the state.

Seen other innovative (or just plain interesting) ads? Send them along to chris.cillizza@washingtonpost.com and I'll try to highlight one a week in FixCam.

By Chris Cillizza  |  October 5, 2007; 4:45 PM ET
Categories:  FixCam  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Giuliani, Romney and the Tax Fight
Next: FixCam: Week In Preview

Comments

When I was attending high school in California in the early 1950s, acquaintance with Burma-Shave ads was part of the presumed cultural background of alert young readers of a new magazine called "Mad." But even then, the ads themselves were visible only on slow back roads. And of course, teenagers then were more literate.

Posted by: iyenori | October 9, 2007 3:34 PM | Report abuse

Judge, I expected you to be of the older generation with that posting name.

I think that it's a great one, if the reference is what I think it is.

[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_F._Crater ]

Posted by: Nor'Easter | October 9, 2007 11:09 AM | Report abuse

The Fix is a LITTLE hokey?

Gee, that Burma Shave idea is a good one... wish I'd thought of it.

Posted by: JEP | October 9, 2007 9:40 AM | Report abuse

Another Burma Shave data point. I'm 53 and remember the signs on family car trips between Phoenix and Boise...pretty sure in the late 50's (I was precocious) on long lonely two-lane highways. I couldn't remember any, but then recognized several from Mark's URL (thanks Mark!)

Posted by: malis | October 8, 2007 2:49 PM | Report abuse

traipsing, traipsing.... Perhaps. As in 'your mother had me traipsing all around town looking for an xyz.'

Speaking of roadtrips, the inevitable jokes were, upon driving past a cemetary,

"You know, people living in this town can't be buried in that cemetary."

Why not?

"They aren't dead yet."

And

"You know why there's a fence around that cemetary?"

No, why?

"People are dying to get in there..."

Groan.

Posted by: bsimon | October 8, 2007 2:15 PM | Report abuse

Drindl: we did the cross-country trips to CA as well. Not sure how much of that was on I-10. Seems to me we went stuck to it as much as we could; I'm sure the family "got their kicks" on Route 66 when I was still a wee thing in diapers. No Burma Shave ads on I-10, however.

bsimon, your dad sounds like mine. Did he use phrases like "traipsing all over town" in normal conversation?

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | October 8, 2007 1:42 PM | Report abuse

Happy Birthday Truth Hunter...


eeek, I'm old enough to be your mom, bsimon..but hey, I have, like, all this 'wisdom' and crap...

Posted by: drindl | October 8, 2007 12:18 PM | Report abuse

Judge C writes
"Just to add another data point through the noise, so far I'm the baby here at 48 and I can only vaguely recall seeing BurmaShave signs during family vacations."

Yer honor, you got 11 years on me. I can recall seeing a few, though not many. Only on 2 lane roads. Its been a long time; I probably wouldn't have noticed them, except the old man would take note & start reciting the old burma-shave poems...

Posted by: bsimon | October 8, 2007 12:13 PM | Report abuse

Happy birthday, Truth Hunter!

Posted by: Bokonon | October 8, 2007 11:42 AM | Report abuse

I, being of the older persuasion actually remember reading the 'Buma Shaves' along the highway as a kid. Works for me. But if Obama makes some more blunders like he did this weekend in SC the cute campaign tricks are all for naught. A couple of pics tell the sad tale....

http://www.flickr.com/photos/12461951@N03/
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2137/1515979588_3685435342_o.jpg

...

Posted by: Didereaux | October 8, 2007 11:06 AM | Report abuse

I' m 57, Judge, so I remember them pretty well frm when I was a kid. {I might have posted this earlier, I am getting a tad, umm, senile]. We used to drive cross country from California to Oklahoma every year on Rt. 66-- that iconic highway-- and there were still lots of them.

Posted by: drindl | October 8, 2007 11:06 AM | Report abuse

I saw a video on youtube of Ron Paul supporters doing that a couple of months ago. They were standing by the road holding the signs.

Posted by: jdadson | October 8, 2007 11:05 AM | Report abuse

Just to add another data point through the noise, so far I'm the baby here at 48 and I can only vaguely recall seeing BurmaShave signs during family vacations. Seems to me they were pretty rare and could only be spotted away from the major roads where tearing them down was probably more trouble than it was worth. Like JimD, the folks made a big fuss about them at the time. More than the ubiquitous Mail Pouch Tobacco- and See Rock City-painted buildings.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | October 8, 2007 10:37 AM | Report abuse

Great article. If you want to watch an impressive report on internet web campaigns, go on this new website www.ipolinamerica.com.

Posted by: Odrey | October 8, 2007 5:27 AM | Report abuse

Love it!!!!!

Posted by: Mary | October 7, 2007 8:34 PM | Report abuse

'O'REILLY: You know what you can do with all respect? You can combine how I deal with cancer with how I deal with the White House press corps. Because they're both insidious, invasive. They both have to be wiped out.'

yep, he says, just kill them all.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 7, 2007 3:26 PM | Report abuse

'But, Petraeus added, there was "no question" that Iranian arms were ending up in the hands of the Iraqi militias and there was "no debate" that six Iranians detained by the U.S. military in northern Iraq are Iranian Quds force members, the Iranian unit accused by the United States of training and arming insurgents.

"There's no question, absolutely no question that Iran is providing advanced RPGs [rocket-propelled grenades], RPG 29s," Petraeus said.'

"No question," he said, just like there was 'no question' that Saddam had WMD or nukes. 'No question' -- but no proof. This entire article quotes Petreus credulously, without asking for a second source, without questioning his agenda, without asking for a shred of proof. Hey kids, we've seen this movie before. Looks like we're gonna see it again.

I really thought our naive, childlike national media might have learned something from the disasters of Iraq, but apparently not. We all knew from various DC insiders that right after Labor Day [when you roll out a new product, as Andrew Cards says] we would be hearing an all out push to bomb Iran. People weren't going for the stop-them-from getting nuclear weapons, so they switched to 'providing IEDs in Iraq.'

Same war for oil and cronies, same lies, different country.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/10/07/petraeus.iran/index.html

Posted by: Anonymous | October 7, 2007 3:17 PM | Report abuse

'But, Petraeus added, there was "no question" that Iranian arms were ending up in the hands of the Iraqi militias and there was "no debate" that six Iranians detained by the U.S. military in northern Iraq are Iranian Quds force members, the Iranian unit accused by the United States of training and arming insurgents.

"There's no question, absolutely no question that Iran is providing advanced RPGs [rocket-propelled grenades], RPG 29s," Petraeus said.'

"No question," he said, just like there was 'no question' that Saddam had WMD or nukes. 'No question' -- but no proof. This entire article quote Petreus credulously, without asking for a second source, without questioning his agenda, without asking for a shred of proof. Hey kids, we've seen this movie before. Looks like we're gonna see it again.

I really thought our naive, childlike national media might have learned something from the disasters of Iraq, but apparently now. We all knew from various DC insiders that right after Labor Day [when you roll out a new product, as Andrew Cards says] we would be hearing an out push to bomb Iran. People weren't going for the stop-them-from getting nuclear weapons, so they switched to 'providing IEDs'.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/10/07/petraeus.iran/index.html

Posted by: Anonymous | October 7, 2007 3:14 PM | Report abuse

Happy Birthday, Truth!

Here's wishes for many more.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | October 7, 2007 11:59 AM | Report abuse

New poll just out from Iowa, and it has Clinton and Romney leading their respective nomination races. Poll link:
http://www.campaigndiaries.com/2007/10/clintons-good-day-in-iowa-she-leads-in.html

Posted by: Daniel | October 7, 2007 11:48 AM | Report abuse

link around Washington, D.C. The Iraq War has given the neoconservatives--who favor the assertive use of American power abroad to spread American values--something of a bad name, and several of the Republican candidates seem less than eager to hire them as advisers. But Rudy Giuliani apparently never got that memo. One of the top foreign-policy consultants to the leading GOP candidate is Norman Podhoretz, a founding father of the neocon movement.

Podhoretz is in favor of bombing Iran because of the country's unwillingness to suspend its uranium-enrichment program. He also believes America is engaged in a "world war" with "Islamofascism" and that Giuliani is the only man who can win it. "I decided to join Giuliani's team because his view of the war--what I call World War IV--is very close to my own," Podhoretz tells NEWSWEEK. (World War III, in his view, was the cold war.) "And also because he has the qualities of a wartime leader, including a fighting spirit and a determination to win."

Posted by: RUDY=BUSH | October 7, 2007 11:06 AM | Report abuse

The Post off-leads on word that the planned U.S. embassy in Baghdad could cost $144 million more than projected and looks set to open months behind schedule thanks to poor planning, shoddy workmanship, and infighting at the State Department. The price tag for the massive 21-building complex, set to be the largest U.S. diplomatic mission in the world, has now spiraled to nearly three quarters of a billion dollars; it won't be finished until early 2009.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 7, 2007 11:03 AM | Report abuse

'A survey of 91 audit reports reveals widespread violations of patients' rights by the insurance companies responsible for administering Medicare's new drug benefits program; some companies improperly denied coverage to patients with HIV or AIDS, while others left patients facing unnecessary and potentially dangerous delays. '

The inenitable result of privatization -- corruption in the name of profits.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 7, 2007 11:02 AM | Report abuse

Sounds heavenly... and, you certainly did it smart! Cheers....

Posted by: Truth Hunter | October 6, 2007 6:42 PM | Report abuse

Truth,

We leave in a week. Fortunately, I have pre-paid for a lot of the trip - Railpass, Danube River cruise, booked most hotels through hotel.com and paid in advance under an earlier, more favorable rate.

Posted by: JimD in FL | October 6, 2007 6:25 PM | Report abuse

Thanks Mark in Austin and Jim D in FL....
I'll check out the limericks. I agree about Fred, unless the fix is in and he knows it there is no other explanation for his malaise other than he expects popular acclaim. (Or his heart isn't in it, just his wife's.)

Jim D... I am running behind on my reading of the posts, but think you are headed across the big pond. Hope you don't get dollar-shock. But then, just soak up the good times and what the heck.... have fun! We'll look for your return.

Posted by: Truth Hunter | October 6, 2007 4:54 PM | Report abuse

Happy birthday, Truth

I think Fred Thompson was expecting to be nominated by acclamation soon after he announced.

Posted by: JimD in FL | October 6, 2007 4:11 PM | Report abuse

There are a lot more nonsensical posts in here today than usual.

I am 55 and cannot remember actually seeing any Burma Shave signs growing up in New England. I do remember hearing lots of references to them made by adults.

Posted by: JimD in FL | October 6, 2007 3:41 PM | Report abuse

polemicals not original. belong to John Cole, former conservative, who has one of the best blogs out there, in may ways. really smart guy... he can deconstruct what happened to his party because he was once a leader of the movement, and he watched it all happened from the inside.

http://www.balloon-juice.com/

Posted by: Anonymous | October 6, 2007 3:02 PM | Report abuse

Happy Birthday, Truth.

Hope you got to look at some of the limericks at the link I posted.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | October 6, 2007 2:37 PM | Report abuse

Mark in Austin and Drindl.... Since we're confessing... I'm going to be 70 tomorrow (egad!) and of course I remember the signs.

I think the signs are a stroke of genius because the Obama campaign already has the younger crowd revved, this targets "seasoned" voters.

Obama is doing other things right in Iowa too, a must win for him. Before his pitch at a rally, he asks for people to support him in the caucuses, and has an army of people to hand out volunteer sign-up cards. Even when working the crowds, shaking hands and having photos taken, someone is right behind him with the cards.

Fred Thompson, on the other hand, has no cards, doesn't ask for the vote.... just rambles along in a fog.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | October 6, 2007 1:06 PM | Report abuse

I used to know a fellow named John Cole who was the President of the Texas Classroom Teachers' Association, associated with the AFL-CIO. Is that you, | [from 10:16A - 10:23A]?

Posted by: Mark in Austin | October 6, 2007 11:00 AM | Report abuse

These responsa to David Brooks are interesting polemicals.

I am sure that | can get them published if s/he desires to disclose her/his identity.

Surely they are original with|?

Posted by: Mark in Austin | October 6, 2007 10:47 AM | Report abuse

This "America is a conservative country" thing has got to stop, and the current collapse of the GOP shows it is not true. The reason the GOP has been so successful, and the reason the party can manage to convince most folks that the USofA is God's Country is because the Fundies VOTE. they meet at their megachurches and get literally bussed to the polls. They have been the most loyal and well-organized base in all of American politics.

But, now, it is coming to an end. Why? Because they voted and gave their party what they wanted: control of each branch of government but what did it get them? The Terry Schiavo Vote...but, abortion is still legal, gay marriage hasn't been banned, you can still say "sh*t" on late night TV, Planned Parenthood is still around, the Mexican's are still here, etc., etc.

The 28percenters are simply the Cult of Bush members who never question anything. But, the fact that Dobson and his ilk are questioning whether they'll continue to support the party really shows you all you need to know what happened to the GOP:

They promised their base the world, but never delivered.
And now they have Rudy Guiliani as a possible nominee.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 6, 2007 10:33 AM | Report abuse

Today's conservatism isn't creedal, it's tribal. Extend corruption and incompetence into every aspect of governance, and do whatever you want. When criticized, engage in ad hominem attacks against anyone voicing criticism.

It has nothing to do with ideology. It's about picking a side, and hating your enemy. And your enemy is half this country, and pretty much the whole rest of the world.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 6, 2007 10:24 AM | Report abuse

Big picture of Obama on Foxnews.com right now with a little circle on his lapel pointing out that he doesn't have an american flag on his lapel, and the headline "Space Available."
Jeebus christ.

This is just insane. I guess for "those" people, you're only a patriot if you spend 1.99 on a Chinese pin. And if you don't, you're a pinko commie terrorist.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 6, 2007 10:21 AM | Report abuse

That is why the Republican party is in shambles. The majority of us have decided that the movers and shakers in the GOP and the blogospheric right are certified lunatics who, in a decent and sane society, we would have in controlled environments in rocking chairs under shade trees for most of the day, wheeled in at night for tapioca pudding and some karaoke.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 6, 2007 10:20 AM | Report abuse

Seriously- what does the current Republican party stand for? Permanent war, fear, the nanny state, big spending, torture, execution on demand, complete paranoia regarding the media, control over your body, denial of evolution and outright rejection of science, AND ZOMG THEY ARE GONNA MAKE US WEAR BURKHAS, all the while demanding that in order to be a good American I have to spend most of every damned day condemning half my fellow Americans as terrorist appeasers.

And that isn't even getting into the COMPLETE and TOTAL corruption of our political processes at every level. The sh*t is really going to hit the fan after we vote these jackasses out of power in 2008.

Screw them. I got out. They can have their party. I will vote for Democrats and little L libertarians and isolationists until the crazy people aren't running the GOP. The threat of higher taxes in the short term isn't enough to keep me from voting out crazy people and voting for sane people with whom I merely disagree regarding policy. Hillarycare doesn't scare me as much as Frank Gaffney having a line to the person with the nuclear football or Dobson and company crafting domestic policy.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 6, 2007 10:18 AM | Report abuse

If you want to know why the Republican party is in shambles, read this:

Yesterday, in response to a question from a reporter suspicious of why he wasn't wearing an American flag pin on his lapel, Barack Obama explained his belief that for some, the pins became a substitute for "true patriotism." The senator said he would instead "try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great, and hopefully that will be a testimony to my patriotism."
I didn't expect leading conservative voices to understand, but I was a little surprised at the ferocity of the response. Jonah Goldberg described Obama's perspective as "staggeringly stupid," and "the single dumbest thing I've ever heard of him doing." Another prominent far-right blogger responded this way:

Seriously, you want this for President of these great United States.This is how he catches the attention of a media aligned with the terror force? This useful tool won't wear an American flag pin? Talk about pandering to the radical base, he ought to run against Ahmadinejad. He is scoring points with Georgie Soros, won't be waiting long for his on his Soros stipend, I'm sure. What's Obama Hussein's new campaign slogan, "America Sucks!" ?
For starters, people got tired of being associated with these drooling retards. Then, when they realized that these drooling retards had ideological allies running the show in the Bush administration and then began to experience their idiotic policies, they moved from disgusted to outright hostile.

Like me. It had nothing to do with Burke, and everything to do with what the party had become. A bunch of bedwetting, loudmouth, corrupt, hypocritical, and incompetent boobs with a mean streak a mile long and no sense of fair play or proportion.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 6, 2007 10:16 AM | Report abuse


For those of you keeping score, I predicted that:

1.) "in a week or so" - It only took three days.

2.) "some a*shole (take your pick- Ace, Michelle, Hugh Hewitt, Rush Limbaugh)" - It was Michelle, Fox news, Jonah Goldberg, and assorted others.

3.) "will make up some bullsh*t lie about a Democrat (take your pick- Harry Reid, Obama, Hillary, Nancy Pelosi)" - It was Obama

4.) "in which their (again, take your pick- integrity, honesty, sexuality, patriotism) is questioned or smeared" - Ding! Patriotism. -- over a LAPEL PIN. apparently there is nothing so dumb or trivial that the drooling base won't get in a lather about.

Posted by: former republican | October 6, 2007 10:13 AM | Report abuse

When they came home from Iraq, 2,600 members of the Minnesota National Guard had been deployed longer than any other ground combat unit. The tour lasted 22 months and had been extended as part of President Bush's surge.
1st Lt. Jon Anderson said he never expected to come home to this: A government refusing to pay education benefits he says he should have earned under the GI bill.

"It's pretty much a slap in the face," Anderson said. "I think it was a scheme to save money, personally. I think it was a leadership failure by the senior Washington leadership... once again failing the soldiers."

Anderson's orders, and the orders of 1,161 other Minnesota guard members, were written purposefully for 729 days.

Had they been written for 730 days, just one day more, the soldiers would receive those benefits to pay for school.

"Which would be allowing the soldiers an extra $500 to $800 a month," Anderson said.

Posted by: evil | October 6, 2007 10:08 AM | Report abuse

5.) The Guardian tells us what to expect in the next few months as the Bush Admin tries to sell war with Iran:

What is becoming clearer is that the likely pretext for aggression against Iran has shifted from the possibility that Tehran might develop nuclear weapons to its role in supporting and allegedly arming the resistance in neighbouring Iraq and Afghanistan.

The administration is increasingly convinced that it will be far easier to convince the American public of the case for war on Iran if it's seen as being about the protection of US troops rather than nuclear scaremongering from the people who brought you Saddam Hussein's WMD. So the focus of the military plans has changed accordingly: from a wide-ranging bombing assault on Iran's known and suspected nuclear sites to "surgical" strikes on the Revolutionary Guards, who the US claims are backing armed attacks on its occupation forces.

I have not seen any credible evidence that Iran actually is involved, and no detailed information to what level they are involved. All I have seen is anonymous military officers asserting that Iran is involved, and I have seen it become accepted conventional wisdom among some of the media elite and the wingnut blogosphere right. Clearly it is time to invade.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 6, 2007 10:05 AM | Report abuse

2.) You know how the right-wing blabosphere spends every day comparing Iraq to WWII? It's silly and overstated, of course, but they like to make the comparison to Hussein and nazis and so forth. At any rate, some vets speak up on how we treated Nazis and how we interrogated:

When about two dozen veterans got together yesterday for the first time since the 1940s, many of the proud men lamented the chasm between the way they conducted interrogations during the war and the harsh measures used today in questioning terrorism suspects.
Back then, they and their commanders wrestled with the morality of bugging prisoners' cells with listening devices. They felt bad about censoring letters. They took prisoners out for steak dinners to soften them up. They played games with them.

"We got more information out of a German general with a game of chess or Ping-Pong than they do today, with their torture," said Henry Kolm, 90, an MIT physicist who had been assigned to play chess in Germany with Hitler's deputy, Rudolf Hess.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 6, 2007 10:01 AM | Report abuse

Amid an ongoing brawl that erupted today with Rudy Giuliani over fiscal policy, Mitt Romney has just gone up on the air today in New Hampshire with an ad attacking Republicans that will also go up in Iowa in a few days:

In the ad, Romney lambastes the Republican Party, saying that if GOPers want to win the White House, Republicans need to "put our own house in order." The backstory here is that Rudy went out there earlier today and did the same thing, bashing the GOP in similar terms. That prompted Romney spokesman Kevin Madden to slam Rudy today, pointing out that this has been Romney's mantra for some time: "Where did we hear this first? Oh, that's right...thanks for agreeing with Governor Romney's message!"

The broader context here is that a battle over fiscal policy erupted today between Mitt and Rudy. Mitt is arguing that Rudy is a tax-hiker, pointing to his embrace of the commuter tax as New York Mayor. Rudy is responding by blasting Mitt's fiscal record as governor of Massachusetts.

As Jonathan Martin notes, Romney's imperative here is to get Rudy to stop spending all his time attacking Hillary, which has earned him huge amounts of attention from a gullible media, and drag him into a battle with, you know, a GOP primary opponent.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 6, 2007 9:57 AM | Report abuse

Richard Viguerie, a top conservative leader who was at the gathering of conservatives that pledged to support a third-party candidate should Rudy or another pro-choicer win the GOP nomination, is now upping the pressure on Rudy by launching an email petition campaign against him.

In an email blasted out to Viguerie's conservative supporters moments ago, the conservative leader asked his followers to sign a petition upping the pressure on the mainstream GOP establishment not to embrace a pro-choice candidate. "It will be a powerful warning to those in a position of influence that, if the GOP turns against unborn children, a significant portion of its base will not vote for Republican candidates," Viguerie vows.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 6, 2007 9:52 AM | Report abuse

GOP Grand Unified Bamboozlement Theory
Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA): "We have right now a real danger of people that are illegally in the country being rounded up, herded into the polls, we've seen that in California, voting illegally. That disenfranchises everybody in that community."

Posted by: Anonymous | October 6, 2007 9:51 AM | Report abuse

TEMECULA, California (AP) -- He was one of America's first defenders on September 11, 2001, a Marine who pulled burned bodies from the ruins of the Pentagon. He saw more horrors in Kuwait and Iraq.


Retired Marine Ma.j Gamal Awad crys out while exercising at his home in Temecula, California.

1 of 2


Today, he can't keep a job, pay his bills, or chase thoughts of suicide from his tortured brain. In a few weeks, he may lose his house, too.

Gamal Awad, the American son of a Sudanese immigrant, exemplifies an emerging group of war veterans: the economic casualties.

More than in past wars, many wounded troops are coming home alive from the Middle East. That's a triumph for military medicine.

But they often return hobbled by prolonged physical and mental injuries from homemade bombs and the unremitting anxiety of fighting a hidden enemy along blurred battle lines. Treatment, recovery and retraining often can't be assured quickly or cheaply.

These troops are just starting to seek help in large numbers, more than 185,000 so far. But the cost of their benefits is already testing resources set aside by government and threatening the future of these wounded veterans for decades to come, say economists and veterans' groups.

Posted by: the cost | October 6, 2007 9:30 AM | Report abuse

The World Health Organization said cholera has reached half of Iraq's 18 provinces since first being detected in the north two months ago. WHO said 3,315 cases have been confirmed.

Posted by: cholera epidemic | October 6, 2007 9:28 AM | Report abuse

The burma shave ads are taught to young republicans by political training schools except they teach youth coordinators to have high-school / college kids hold the signs up because then you have an old ad idea combined with youthful energy for a campaign - gets good coverage and photo ops.

Not a new idea or strategy.

Posted by: Aaron | October 6, 2007 2:30 AM | Report abuse

I found a web site with many of the limericks:

http://fiftiesweb.com/burma1.htm

enjoy.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | October 5, 2007 11:19 PM | Report abuse

vwcat, are you among the elderly with me?

I regaled my wife with 'Burma Shave" limericks from my childhood over dinner.

She remembered reading the signs, but is just enough younger than I am that they were beyond memorization for her.

lyle will remember these, too.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | October 5, 2007 11:13 PM | Report abuse

I wonder if the brain dead who keep posting annoying articles when we are discussing a topic know how annoying they are or care.
Maybe they need to be told that they can exchange emails and send this stuff to each other all day while the rest of us can discuss the topics on the fix for a change.

Posted by: vwcat | October 5, 2007 11:02 PM | Report abuse

I hope and wish the campaign would do a video of them. just for fun. I would love to see some.
On thing with Obama, he is creative and original. However, knowing how Clinton never does anything original and is always copying (what better way to say follower and not leader) she will probably do the exact same thing.
However, for now it's cute and fun.

Posted by: vwcat | October 5, 2007 10:58 PM | Report abuse

'Mark in Austin/drindl, In spite of my "free speech" position yesterday, I found it necessary to e-mail Chris about the repulsive posts using rufus' name above.'

I really think it's that freak zouk -- the guy is obssesive and off the wall, really creeps me out. Registration now! Can't come soon enough...

Posted by: drindl | October 5, 2007 9:06 PM | Report abuse

One last comment, Mark. Last night you spoke positively about Santa Fe. One of its drawbacks is that it is 650 from the nearest ocean; 750 miles from the closest point in the Gulf.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | October 5, 2007 8:05 PM | Report abuse

BTW - why stop with Burma Shave? Campaigning in Iowa would just the spot for reviving the old Mail Pouch and Red Man type of advertsiing on barns.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | October 5, 2007 8:01 PM | Report abuse

Mark in Austin/drindl, In spite of my "free speech" position yesterday, I found it necessary to e-mail Chris about the repulsive posts using rufus' name above.

I told Chris that my believe in free speech is not absolute; it is my preference to keep as close to it as possible. I believe that deceny standards have been violated here in the past few hours, and felt that corrective action (removing the offensive posts) is certainly appropriate.

It's amazing that it only took two posters to ruin what had been a great blog for almost two years. I can't say that I wish you luck with your campaign, but I can certainly appreciate why you are doing it.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | October 5, 2007 7:57 PM | Report abuse

i am my own grandpa

Posted by: rufus | October 5, 2007 7:44 PM | Report abuse

your papers, please

Posted by: registration is fascist | October 5, 2007 7:41 PM | Report abuse

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad condemned "the atrocities of the Zionist regime against the oppressed Palestinian people," the IRNA news agency reported Friday.

According to the regime's mouthpiece, the president suggested holding a referendum on the transfer of Israel's Jews to Europe, Canada or Alaska.

Posted by: KRIsh | October 5, 2007 7:40 PM | Report abuse

drindl, I nearly missed your post in the barrage of flak, some of it quite outside the boundaries of the rules of this web log.

I sense you enjoyed those signs on Rte. 66, too. I wonder if campaign workers above age 50 thought of the Obama signs.

Thanks for your participation in the campaign to save "The Fix" and as roo said on a previous thread, hpe we have registration soon.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | October 5, 2007 7:31 PM | Report abuse

zouk zouk zouk zouk zouk
I can't get this word out of my mind

Posted by: rufus | October 5, 2007 7:15 PM | Report abuse

"zouk is nothing but spite personified, rufus. he exists only to hate -- and to try to break your spirit. he tries to torment you like the devil he is. don't let him -- go play with your baby boy, he needs you.

concentrate on the love -- let go of the haters like zouk.
"


Your right. Remember what I said ghost writer. Ignore the peanut gallery. Keep up the good fight agaisnt teh fascists as I will. I'm just changing my medium. This site had promise. But the cowards and fascists ruined it. Peace.

I'm writing a book. Look for it. You will know when it hits. I'm the young blonde handsome man :), talking about real issue. I think I'm going to authoer it as RUFUS1133.. That will really piss these people off won't it :)

God Bless.

God will be your judges. Anyone enabling the fascists for profit or party have the blood of thousands on their hands. God is watching, whether you believe or not. You will get your. I hope soon rather than later. Peace out all

Remember me.

Read my boy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiddu_Krishnamurti

Don't forget about Pat TIllman and what he represents. A PAtriot. A REAL PATriot. Not like these fascists making money of REAL patriots blood.

Oh yeah, zouk is a coward and a fascist.

Posted by: rufus (KRIsh) | October 5, 2007 7:12 PM | Report abuse

i love digby feel the love feel it!


facsists

Posted by: rufus | October 5, 2007 7:09 PM | Report abuse

i love zouk its the love that dare not speak its name

Posted by: rufus | October 5, 2007 7:08 PM | Report abuse

digby

"""And I Used To Walk On The Moon"

by digby


I don't know if you've heard the latest on Rush's scramble to dig himself out from under his nasty comments about phony soldiers and suicide bombers, but it's pathetic. (Via Media Matters, of course.)


LIMBAUGH: All right, anybody care what I actually said about this? Would you like to hear what I actually said? This was Tuesday on the program, and I was talking about the ad that they are running.

[begin audio clip]

LIMBAUGH: You know, this is such a blatant use of a valiant combat veteran, lying to him about what I said, then strapping those lies to his belt, sending him out via the media in a TV ad to walk into as many people as he can walk into. This man will always be a hero to this country with everyone. Whoever pumped him full of these lies about what I said and embarrassed him with this ad has betrayed him. They're not hurting me, they're betraying this soldier. Now, unless he actually believes what he's saying, in which case it's just so unfortunate and sad when the truth of what I said is right out there to be learned.

[end audio clip]

LIMBAUGH: I called him a hero. I called him a hero. The other reference is to where the drive-by media runs in, blows things up, creates all these messes, and then heads on down the road to create another one. I called him a suicide bomber -- you see how this works. I didn't call anybody who legitimately serves a "phony soldier." I didn't call this guy a suicide bomber. That's out there -- I called him a suicide bomber. [laughter] Here's McGough. He was on MSNBC last night talking about the fact that I called him a suicide bomber.

McGOUGH [audio clip]: My reaction is disgust, how someone can sit in that chair and say that I am a car bomber, or excuse me, a suicide bomber, is disgusting. I've seen the aftereffects of a suicide bomb. I've had friends that were hurt in suicide bombs. It makes me mad down to a place where I can't even think to describe. It's just repugnant.


I suppose Limbaugh's mouth breathing fans will buy that. They'll buy anything, obviously, since they listen to Rush and vote for George W. Bush. But it's quite clear that he was using the metaphor of a suicide bomber to describe this soldier. Even George W. Bush could see that.

But I think the smear is even more insidious than that. He was describing someone who didn't know his own mind, couldn't think for himself, had these "lies" strapped on him and was "sent out" to "walk into as many people as he can walk into." The image is of a brain damaged person --- or a child --- who was sent out with explosives strapped to him, not knowing what they were asking him to do. Why, even if the poor deluded fellow actually "believes" what he's saying, it's sad and unfortunate.

You've seen the ad by now I'm sure. (If not, watch it here at C&L.) Brian McGough was wounded in Iraq and suffered a traumatic brain injury. It did not affect his ability to think or speak, as is obvious from the video and his subsequent appearance on Keith Olbermann. But the subtext of Rush's suicide bomber statement is that he is some sort of automaton whose brain isn't functioning properly or he would never have made that video. It's extremely insulting.

We know Rush thinks this way. He's done it before. You'll all recall that he disgustingly went after Michael J. Fox last November, saying that Fox was "acting" or that he was too addled to know what he was doing and was "being used." He knows exactly what he's saying and what his audience hears when he says it.

As I wrote about the Fox insult:

[Rush said:]


This is a script that they have written for years. Senate Democrats used to parade victims of various diseases or social concerns or poverty up before congressional committees and let them testify, and they were infallible. You couldn't criticize them. Same thing with the Jersey Girls after the 9-11 -- and in the period of time when the 9-11 Commission was meeting publicly. Victims -- infallible, whatever they say cannot be challenged. I don't follow the script anymore.


That's absurd, of course. The right holds up all kinds of people as being unassailable, particularly (Republican) [soldiers and]veterans and religious figures. But that's not even the point. Nobody says you can't criticize a "victim's" point of view or disagree with their take on the issue. Rush could have made a straightforward argument that stem cell research is wrong. But the right wing almost never does this on any issue anymore. Virtually every time, they attack the person's character.

They do this for a number of reasons. The first is to give their followers some reason to reject a compelling argument like that set forth by Fox. They send this idea into the ether that Fox is faking it and create a controversy that suddenly makes what seems to be self-evident --- Michael J. Fox is suffering horribly from a dread disease that might be cured with stem cell research --- into a matter of interpretation. It furthers their meme that Democrats are phonies and flip-floppers who don't stand for anything. It helps their base come to terms with their own internal contradictions. They have turned spin into a worldview.

But they also want to advance the idea that the message always depends upon who is delivering it and you can accept or reject it purely on the basis of tribal identification. ("Don't think, meat.") And to do that they've introduced a form of congitive relativism in which there is no such thing as reality. The press's lazy "he said/she said" form of journalism reinforces it.


He went after soldiers this time and it's caused him some grief because it came on the heels of their magnificent Man Called Petraeus pageant, where they trotted out a powerful, political general as being "infallible, whatever they say cannot be challenged." Rush was obviously criticizing veterans who don't agree with him.

Indeed, just prior to the phony soldier comment was this:


LIMBAUGH: Mike in Chicago, welcome to the EIB Network. Hello.

CALLER 1: Hi Rush, how you doing today?

LIMBAUGH: I'm fine sir, thank you.

CALLER 1: Good. Why is it that you always just accuse the Democrats of being against the war and suggest that there are absolutely no Republicans that could possibly be against the war?

LIMBAUGH: Well, who are these Republicans? I can think of Chuck Hagel, and I can think of Gordon Smith, two Republican senators, but they don't want to lose the war like the Democrats do. I can't think of -- who are the Republicans in the anti-war movement?

CALLER 1: I'm just -- I'm not talking about the senators. I'm talking about the general public -- like you accuse the public of all the Democrats of being, you know, wanting to lose, but --

LIMBAUGH: Oh, come on! Here we go again. I uttered a truth, and you can't handle it, so you gotta call here and change the subject. How come I'm not also hitting Republicans? I don't know a single Republican or conservative, Mike, who wants to pull out of Iraq in defeat. The Democrats have made the last four years about that specifically.

[...]

LIMBAUGH: Mike, you can't possibly be a Republican.

CALLER 1: I am.

LIMBAUGH: You are -- you are --

CALLER 1: I am definitely a Republican.

LIMBAUGH: You can't be a Republican. You are --

CALLER 1: Oh, I am definitely a Republican.

LIMBAUGH: You are tarnishing the reputation, 'cause you sound just like a Democrat.

CALLER 1: No, but --

LIMBAUGH: The answer to your question --

CALLER 1: -- seriously, how long do we have to stay there --

LIMBAUGH: As long as it takes!

CALLER 1: -- to win it? How long?

LIMBAUGH: As long as it takes! It is very serious.

CALLER 1: And that is what?

LIMBAUGH: This is the United States of America at war with Islamofascists. We stay as long -- just like your job. You do everything you have to do, whatever it takes to get it done, if you take it seriously.

CALLER 1: So then you say we need to stay there forever --

LIMBAUGH: I -- it won't --

CALLER 1: -- because that's what it'll take.

LIMBAUGH: No, Bill, or Mike -- I'm sorry. I'm confusing you with the guy from Texas.

CALLER 1: See, I -- I've used to be military, OK? And I am a Republican.

LIMBAUGH: Yeah. Yeah.

CALLER 1: And I do live [inaudible] but --

LIMBAUGH: Right. Right. Right, I know.

CALLER 1: -- you know, really -- I want you to be saying how long it's gonna take.

LIMBAUGH: And I, by the way, used to walk on the moon!

CALLER 1: How long do we have to stay there?

LIMBAUGH: You're not listening to what I say. You can't possibly be a Republican. I'm answering every question. That's not what you want to hear, so it's not even penetrating your little wall of armor you've got built up.


Rush believes that anyone who disagrees with him must be a Democrat in sheep's clothing and that Democrats all want to "wave the white flag." And he doesn't believe that anyone who holds the views that this caller holds could possibly have been in the military. ("And I, by the way, used to walk on the moon.")

When confronted with undisputed veterans who disagree with him he implies they have been brainwashed or brain damaged and are being used by others. He simply refuses to acknowledge that the military is not an adjunct of the Republican Party and that there are many people in it who disagree with what he's saying. (He can't even admit that there are civilian Republicans who disagree with what he's saying.)

The Republicans have so fetishized the troops that it causes severe cognitive dissonance (and a potential fracture with their base) for Rush to come right out and say what he wants to say, which is that veterans and soldiers who disagree with the president on the war are traitors. But it slips out in little ways: "staff puke" and "phony soldier" and his insistence that you can't be a good "Republican" (soldier) and be critical of the war. This time he got caught in the middle of a political firestorm about criticizing the military and so had to defend his comments. But it's not unusual. It's what he thinks. It's what a lot of Republicans think.

It's all wrapped in the warped worldview I described above, in which the Democratic party is not just wrong, it's fundamentally illegitimate. And anyone who disagrees is a traitor, including, apparently, the vast majority of Americans who do not support this war.

And that is why I truly resent my tax dollars being spent to help this man spread extremist, ultra partisan lies about Democrats and liberals all day, every day, to American troops overseas on Armed Forces Radio. He can do it all he wants in the free market here in the states. And if Clear Channel wants to start a radio network in Iraq and feature him 24 hours a day, they can have at it. But this man's only purpose is to spread lies about me and lies about soldiers like Brian McGough and spew rank partisan propaganda on behalf of the Republican Party on my dime.

I'm with Wes Clark on this. Rush can say what he wants on the air, and if he thinks I'm a traitor he has the right. He can operate as an arm of the Republican party, take his orders from the white house and spread GOP propaganda far and wide. We have free speech in America. But there's nothing in the constitution that says I have to pay for it to be piped to troops on the battlefield.
"

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/
"

Posted by: to drown out the children | October 5, 2007 7:07 PM | Report abuse

zouk is nothing but spite personified, rufus. he exists only to hate -- and to try to break your spirit. he tries to torment you like the devil he is. don't let him -- go play with your baby boy, he needs you.

concentrate on the love -- let go of the haters like zouk.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 5, 2007 7:06 PM | Report abuse

zouk zouk zouk

Posted by: rufus | October 5, 2007 7:04 PM | Report abuse

john kerry was a jew

Posted by: jkRISH | October 5, 2007 7:03 PM | Report abuse

wHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM ZOUK. wHY SUCH HATRED of the jewish people? Jesus was a jew. Release your racism and hate, buddy. god is watching you

Posted by: jkRISH | October 5, 2007 6:59 PM | Report abuse

is rush a jew?

Posted by: rufus | October 5, 2007 6:54 PM | Report abuse

""And I Used To Walk On The Moon"

by digby


I don't know if you've heard the latest on Rush's scramble to dig himself out from under his nasty comments about phony soldiers and suicide bombers, but it's pathetic. (Via Media Matters, of course.)


LIMBAUGH: All right, anybody care what I actually said about this? Would you like to hear what I actually said? This was Tuesday on the program, and I was talking about the ad that they are running.

[begin audio clip]

LIMBAUGH: You know, this is such a blatant use of a valiant combat veteran, lying to him about what I said, then strapping those lies to his belt, sending him out via the media in a TV ad to walk into as many people as he can walk into. This man will always be a hero to this country with everyone. Whoever pumped him full of these lies about what I said and embarrassed him with this ad has betrayed him. They're not hurting me, they're betraying this soldier. Now, unless he actually believes what he's saying, in which case it's just so unfortunate and sad when the truth of what I said is right out there to be learned.

[end audio clip]

LIMBAUGH: I called him a hero. I called him a hero. The other reference is to where the drive-by media runs in, blows things up, creates all these messes, and then heads on down the road to create another one. I called him a suicide bomber -- you see how this works. I didn't call anybody who legitimately serves a "phony soldier." I didn't call this guy a suicide bomber. That's out there -- I called him a suicide bomber. [laughter] Here's McGough. He was on MSNBC last night talking about the fact that I called him a suicide bomber.

McGOUGH [audio clip]: My reaction is disgust, how someone can sit in that chair and say that I am a car bomber, or excuse me, a suicide bomber, is disgusting. I've seen the aftereffects of a suicide bomb. I've had friends that were hurt in suicide bombs. It makes me mad down to a place where I can't even think to describe. It's just repugnant.


I suppose Limbaugh's mouth breathing fans will buy that. They'll buy anything, obviously, since they listen to Rush and vote for George W. Bush. But it's quite clear that he was using the metaphor of a suicide bomber to describe this soldier. Even George W. Bush could see that.

But I think the smear is even more insidious than that. He was describing someone who didn't know his own mind, couldn't think for himself, had these "lies" strapped on him and was "sent out" to "walk into as many people as he can walk into." The image is of a brain damaged person --- or a child --- who was sent out with explosives strapped to him, not knowing what they were asking him to do. Why, even if the poor deluded fellow actually "believes" what he's saying, it's sad and unfortunate.

You've seen the ad by now I'm sure. (If not, watch it here at C&L.) Brian McGough was wounded in Iraq and suffered a traumatic brain injury. It did not affect his ability to think or speak, as is obvious from the video and his subsequent appearance on Keith Olbermann. But the subtext of Rush's suicide bomber statement is that he is some sort of automaton whose brain isn't functioning properly or he would never have made that video. It's extremely insulting.

We know Rush thinks this way. He's done it before. You'll all recall that he disgustingly went after Michael J. Fox last November, saying that Fox was "acting" or that he was too addled to know what he was doing and was "being used." He knows exactly what he's saying and what his audience hears when he says it.

As I wrote about the Fox insult:

[Rush said:]


This is a script that they have written for years. Senate Democrats used to parade victims of various diseases or social concerns or poverty up before congressional committees and let them testify, and they were infallible. You couldn't criticize them. Same thing with the Jersey Girls after the 9-11 -- and in the period of time when the 9-11 Commission was meeting publicly. Victims -- infallible, whatever they say cannot be challenged. I don't follow the script anymore.


That's absurd, of course. The right holds up all kinds of people as being unassailable, particularly (Republican) [soldiers and]veterans and religious figures. But that's not even the point. Nobody says you can't criticize a "victim's" point of view or disagree with their take on the issue. Rush could have made a straightforward argument that stem cell research is wrong. But the right wing almost never does this on any issue anymore. Virtually every time, they attack the person's character.

They do this for a number of reasons. The first is to give their followers some reason to reject a compelling argument like that set forth by Fox. They send this idea into the ether that Fox is faking it and create a controversy that suddenly makes what seems to be self-evident --- Michael J. Fox is suffering horribly from a dread disease that might be cured with stem cell research --- into a matter of interpretation. It furthers their meme that Democrats are phonies and flip-floppers who don't stand for anything. It helps their base come to terms with their own internal contradictions. They have turned spin into a worldview.

But they also want to advance the idea that the message always depends upon who is delivering it and you can accept or reject it purely on the basis of tribal identification. ("Don't think, meat.") And to do that they've introduced a form of congitive relativism in which there is no such thing as reality. The press's lazy "he said/she said" form of journalism reinforces it.


He went after soldiers this time and it's caused him some grief because it came on the heels of their magnificent Man Called Petraeus pageant, where they trotted out a powerful, political general as being "infallible, whatever they say cannot be challenged." Rush was obviously criticizing veterans who don't agree with him.

Indeed, just prior to the phony soldier comment was this:


LIMBAUGH: Mike in Chicago, welcome to the EIB Network. Hello.

CALLER 1: Hi Rush, how you doing today?

LIMBAUGH: I'm fine sir, thank you.

CALLER 1: Good. Why is it that you always just accuse the Democrats of being against the war and suggest that there are absolutely no Republicans that could possibly be against the war?

LIMBAUGH: Well, who are these Republicans? I can think of Chuck Hagel, and I can think of Gordon Smith, two Republican senators, but they don't want to lose the war like the Democrats do. I can't think of -- who are the Republicans in the anti-war movement?

CALLER 1: I'm just -- I'm not talking about the senators. I'm talking about the general public -- like you accuse the public of all the Democrats of being, you know, wanting to lose, but --

LIMBAUGH: Oh, come on! Here we go again. I uttered a truth, and you can't handle it, so you gotta call here and change the subject. How come I'm not also hitting Republicans? I don't know a single Republican or conservative, Mike, who wants to pull out of Iraq in defeat. The Democrats have made the last four years about that specifically.

[...]

LIMBAUGH: Mike, you can't possibly be a Republican.

CALLER 1: I am.

LIMBAUGH: You are -- you are --

CALLER 1: I am definitely a Republican.

LIMBAUGH: You can't be a Republican. You are --

CALLER 1: Oh, I am definitely a Republican.

LIMBAUGH: You are tarnishing the reputation, 'cause you sound just like a Democrat.

CALLER 1: No, but --

LIMBAUGH: The answer to your question --

CALLER 1: -- seriously, how long do we have to stay there --

LIMBAUGH: As long as it takes!

CALLER 1: -- to win it? How long?

LIMBAUGH: As long as it takes! It is very serious.

CALLER 1: And that is what?

LIMBAUGH: This is the United States of America at war with Islamofascists. We stay as long -- just like your job. You do everything you have to do, whatever it takes to get it done, if you take it seriously.

CALLER 1: So then you say we need to stay there forever --

LIMBAUGH: I -- it won't --

CALLER 1: -- because that's what it'll take.

LIMBAUGH: No, Bill, or Mike -- I'm sorry. I'm confusing you with the guy from Texas.

CALLER 1: See, I -- I've used to be military, OK? And I am a Republican.

LIMBAUGH: Yeah. Yeah.

CALLER 1: And I do live [inaudible] but --

LIMBAUGH: Right. Right. Right, I know.

CALLER 1: -- you know, really -- I want you to be saying how long it's gonna take.

LIMBAUGH: And I, by the way, used to walk on the moon!

CALLER 1: How long do we have to stay there?

LIMBAUGH: You're not listening to what I say. You can't possibly be a Republican. I'm answering every question. That's not what you want to hear, so it's not even penetrating your little wall of armor you've got built up.


Rush believes that anyone who disagrees with him must be a Democrat in sheep's clothing and that Democrats all want to "wave the white flag." And he doesn't believe that anyone who holds the views that this caller holds could possibly have been in the military. ("And I, by the way, used to walk on the moon.")

When confronted with undisputed veterans who disagree with him he implies they have been brainwashed or brain damaged and are being used by others. He simply refuses to acknowledge that the military is not an adjunct of the Republican Party and that there are many people in it who disagree with what he's saying. (He can't even admit that there are civilian Republicans who disagree with what he's saying.)

The Republicans have so fetishized the troops that it causes severe cognitive dissonance (and a potential fracture with their base) for Rush to come right out and say what he wants to say, which is that veterans and soldiers who disagree with the president on the war are traitors. But it slips out in little ways: "staff puke" and "phony soldier" and his insistence that you can't be a good "Republican" (soldier) and be critical of the war. This time he got caught in the middle of a political firestorm about criticizing the military and so had to defend his comments. But it's not unusual. It's what he thinks. It's what a lot of Republicans think.

It's all wrapped in the warped worldview I described above, in which the Democratic party is not just wrong, it's fundamentally illegitimate. And anyone who disagrees is a traitor, including, apparently, the vast majority of Americans who do not support this war.

And that is why I truly resent my tax dollars being spent to help this man spread extremist, ultra partisan lies about Democrats and liberals all day, every day, to American troops overseas on Armed Forces Radio. He can do it all he wants in the free market here in the states. And if Clear Channel wants to start a radio network in Iraq and feature him 24 hours a day, they can have at it. But this man's only purpose is to spread lies about me and lies about soldiers like Brian McGough and spew rank partisan propaganda on behalf of the Republican Party on my dime.

I'm with Wes Clark on this. Rush can say what he wants on the air, and if he thinks I'm a traitor he has the right. He can operate as an arm of the Republican party, take his orders from the white house and spread GOP propaganda far and wide. We have free speech in America. But there's nothing in the constitution that says I have to pay for it to be piped to troops on the battlefield.
"

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/

Posted by: digby (Rufus) | October 5, 2007 6:44 PM | Report abuse

the fascistsare after me beause I am gay but they ar gaytoo

Posted by: rufus | October 5, 2007 6:42 PM | Report abuse

fascists fascists everyhwer

Posted by: rufus | October 5, 2007 6:41 PM | Report abuse

""GI to her family: Ask many questions if I die
By: Nicole Belle @ 10:39 AM - PDT Sadly, after Pat Tillman, this doesn't seem so hard to believe anymore...and if her death was the result of a Blackwater employee, the administration and Department of Defense will likely do everything in their power (and given the news yesterday, a few things technically not in their power) to force this story down the memory hole.

Patriot Ledger (h/t Heather):

Ciara Durkin was home on leave last month and expressed a concern to her family in Quincy: If something happens to me in Afghanistan, don't let it go without an investigation.

Durkin, 30, a specialist with a Massachusetts National Guard finance battalion, was found dead last week near a church at the Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan. She had been shot once in the head, the Army says.

Fiona Canavan, Durkin's older sister, said today that when her sister was home three weeks ago, she told family members that she had come across some things that concerned her and had raised objections to others at the base.

''She was in the finance unit and she said, 'I discovered some things I don't like and I made some enemies because of it.' Then she said, in her light-hearted way, 'If anything happens to me, you guys make sure it gets investigated,"' Canavan said. ''But at the time we thought it was said more as a joke."[..]

Canavan said that her sister was openly gay, but that the family had no specific reasons to think that had anything to do with her death.

Filed Under: Military, War Coverage


"

Posted by: tillamn was not an isolated incident | October 5, 2007 04:51 PM
"

Posted by: the goal behind rush's comments | October 5, 2007 6:40 PM | Report abuse

"Mark Williams says on Fox News: After 9-11, Obama came "out of the closet as the domestic insurgent that he is"
On the October 5 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom, Mark Williams claimed that Barack Obama, "took his flag pin off after 9-11, and he felt, apparently, some sort of an affinity or some sort of a connection, because at that point he felt it OK to come out of the closet as the domestic insurgent he is." Williams went on asking, "What has Obama done to demonstrate the patriotism that he says doesn't belong on his lapel? What's he done to demonstrate that, except get out there, badmouth this country, and help demoralize the troops, and help do his part to undermine this nation?" Read More"

http://mediamatters.org/

They are the fascists. Tehy are the middle school kids saying "I know you are but what am I"

What will you do without your avatars, zouk? that day is fastly approaching. What will you do?

Posted by: the gop are the terrorists | October 5, 2007 6:38 PM | Report abuse

the jews lied us into war, that's all we're saying

Posted by: iheartzouk | October 5, 2007 6:35 PM | Report abuse

(Yo', man) Yo'
(Open up, man) What do you want, man?
(My girl just caught me) You let her catch you?
(I don't know how I let this happen) With who?
(The girl next door, you know) Man
(I don't know what to do) Say it wasn't you
(Alright)

Honey came in and she caught me red-handed
Creeping with the girl next door
Picture this, we were both butt naked, banging on the bathroom floor

How could I forget that I had
Given her an extra key
All this time she was standing there
She never took her eyes off me

How you can grant the woman access to your villa
Trespasser and a witness while you cling to your pillow
You better watch your back before she turn into a killer
Best for you and the situation not to call the beaner
To be a true player you have to know how to play
If she say a night, convince her say a day
Never admit to a word when she say makes a claim
And you tell her baby no way

But she caught me on the counter (It wasn't me)
Saw me bangin' on the sofa (It wasn't me)
I even had her in the shower (It wasn't me)
She even caught me on camera (It wasn't me)

She saw the marks on my shoulder (It wasn't me)
Heard the words that I told her (It wasn't me)
Heard the scream get louder (It wasn't me)
She stayed until it was over

Honey came in and she caught me red-handed
Creeping with the girl next door
Picture this, we were both butt naked, banging on the bathroom floor

I had tried to keep her
From what she was about to see
Why should she believe me
When I told her it wasn't me

Make sure she knows it's not you and lead her on the right prefix
Whenever you should see her make the giggolo flex
As funny as it be by you, it not that complex
Seeing is believing so you better change your specs
You know she not gonna be worrying bout things from the past
Hardly recollecting and then she'll go to noontime mass
Wait for your answer: go over there
But if she pack a gun you know you better run fast

But she caught me on the counter (It wasn't me)
Saw me bangin' on the sofa (It wasn't me)
I even had her in the shower (It wasn't me)
She even caught me on camera (It wasn't me)

She saw the marks on my shoulder (It wasn't me)
Heard the words that I told her (It wasn't me)
Heard the scream get louder (It wasn't me)
She stayed until it was over

Honey came in and she caught me red-handed
Creeping with the girl next door
Picture this, we were both butt naked, banging on the bathroom floor

How could I forget that I had
Given her an extra key
All this time she was standing there
She never took her eyes off me

Gonna tell her that I'm sorry
For the pain that I've caused
I've been listening to your reasoning
It makes no sense at all
We should tell her that I'm sorry
For the pain that I've caused
You may think that you're a player
But you're completely lost
That's why I sing

Honey came in and she caught me red-handed
Creeping with the girl next door
Picture this, we were both butt naked, banging on the bathroom floor

How could I forget that I had
Given her an extra key
All this time she was standing there
She never took her eyes off me

Posted by: rufus | October 5, 2007 6:34 PM | Report abuse

Whoever is doing it, the 6:23PM post wasn't even close to funny. It is sad that you would even think of posting it.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 5, 2007 6:32 PM | Report abuse

Not me. Like I've said. Zouk is a coward and a fascist

Posted by: rufus | October 5, 2007 6:32 PM | Report abuse

Whoever is doing it, the last post wasn't even close to funny. It is sad that you would even think of posting it.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 5, 2007 6:31 PM | Report abuse

zouk zouk zouk

Posted by: rufus | October 5, 2007 6:30 PM | Report abuse

jews are fascists

Posted by: rufus | October 5, 2007 6:23 PM | Report abuse

"Follow-up to the silence from the ADL regarding Fox News and right-wing talk radio
(updated below)

Following up on the post I wrote earlier this week regarding the now-routine use of "Nazi" and "Hitler" political insults by Fox News, Bill O'Reilly and various right-wing pundits generally -- as well as the conspicuous silence from certain Jewish groups which in the past have loudly condemned similar though far less significant episodes -- both the Anti-Defamation League's Abraham Foxman and the Simon Wiesenthal Center have responded to my article.

The ADL's response is here on its website. The Center's response was e-mailed to me, and I have posted it in its entirety here. I have also spoken with Rabbi Abraham Cooper, the Associate Dean of the Center, regarding their statement. And while the ADL committed to arranging an interview for me regarding Foxman's response -- a response which I think raises more questions than it answers -- they have not yet done so. I still intend to pursue that interview and other aspects of this matter, but wanted to post a response to what has been provided thus far.

Most significantly, the first paragraph of Foxman's response says this:

Offensive or inappropriate references to the Holocaust must be loudly condemned at every opportunity. Indeed, many of the examples you cite are deeply offensive and equally repugnant, and certainly worthy of condemnation.
Oddly, Foxman does not identify which are the specific examples I cited that are so "offensive," "repugnant," and "worthy of condemnation." In light of the ADL's prolific practice of condemning statements in the past which it finds repugnant in this regard, one wonders why it has failed to do so.

Indeed, that failure was the central point raised by my post in the first place, and Foxman's letter -- acknowledging that the Right's increasing use of "Nazi" and "Hitler" insults against liberal blogs and anti-war groups is "worthy of condemnation" while still failing to condemn them -- only serves to bolster the original point. Does the ADL plan to issue condemnations of Bill O'Reilly, Mark Levin, Tammy Bruce and their comrades for "trivializing" Nazism and Hitler by repeatedly throwing around those terms to describe the likes of Media Matters, Daily Kos, MoveOn, and Jane Hamsher?

The bulk of Foxman's response is devoted to what he says was my "suggestion that the Anti-Defamation League has been selective in singling out liberals for condemnation, while remaining silent about the abuse of Holocaust imagery by those on the right." He cites past ADL condemnations of people like Glenn Beck, Pastor James Kennedy, James Dobson and Rick Santorum for what the ADL believed to be their reckless use of Nazi insults to make political points.

I think Foxman makes a fair point here as far as it goes. My intent was to focus on the ADL and other groups' relationship with Rupert Murdoch and Fox News -- as well as their political sympathy with those spouting a neoconservative view -- and what appears to be their resulting unwillingness to condemn Fox and neoconservative pundits specifically. Foxman does not really address that, though he persuasively makes the case that the ADL has been more willing to criticize those on the Right than my post may have suggested.

Still, all of this leaves unanswered the central question raised in that post. Bill O'Reilly's show is the highest-rated cable news show in the country, and for months, he and his special guests have been repeatedly -- sometimes on a nightly basis -- casually smearing mainstream liberal groups and blogs as Nazis and Hitler-like. By comparison, most of the other incidents the ADL has stridently condemned are insignificant in terms of both impact and reach. The ADL is now aware of these incidents, which are all documented in my post with links to transcripts or videos. Indeed, Foxman, in his response, said this:

Had you bothered to contact us before writing your piece we would have been glad for the opportunity to condemn the use of Holocaust imagery and those who routinely use Nazi references as a political attack tool, including the recent examples you cite. Many of these individuals you use as examples have been on our radar screen, and we would have been prepared to share with you our file on the subject, which is more than two-inches thick.
The only specific individuals I named in my post were Bill O'Reilly, Mark Levin, Tammy Bruce and Michelle Malkin. I'm glad to hear that "many" of those individuals "have been on [the ADL's] radar screen" and that they are "glad for the opportunity to condemn" them. They ought to do so. Why aren't they?

As for my discussion with Rabbi Cooper, it was not particularly fruitful. In response to every question, he gave long, nonresponsive answers claiming that the Center's primary role is not political. That may be true, but they have issued highly politicized statements in the past, most notably the righteous condemnation of MoveOn -- in the middle of the 2004 presidential campaign -- all because one anonymous person uploaded an ad to its website comparing Bush and Hitler.

Clearly, having Fox News make regular use of that imagery on a nightly basis -- or having Mark Levin spew it to his listeners, or have Jonah Goldberg decorate his allegedly forthcoming book with fun happy faces wearing a Hitler moustache in service of the rancid "argument" that "liberals from Woodrow Wilson to FDR to Hillary Clinton have advocated policies and principles remarkably similar to those of Hitler's National Socialism and Mussolini's Fascism" -- are infinitely more significant than the ad from an anonymous person on the Internet. Other than O'Reilly's use of the term "Nazi" for any group that criticizes him, what could possibly "trivialize" Hitler and Nazis more than this:

"Fascists," "Brownshirts," "jackbooted stormtroopers" -- such are the insults typically hurled at conservatives by their liberal opponents. . . . But who are the real fascists in our midst?

Replacing conveniently manufactured myths with surprising and enlightening research, Jonah Goldberg reminds us that the original fascists were really on the left, and that liberals from Woodrow Wilson to FDR to Hillary Clinton have advocated policies and principles remarkably similar to those of Hitler's National Socialism and Mussolini's Fascism. . . .

The modern heirs of this "friendly fascist" tradition include the New York Times, the Democratic Party, the Ivy League professoriate, and the liberals of Hollywood. The quintessential Liberal Fascist isn't an SS storm trooper; it is a female grade school teacher with an education degree from Brown or Swarthmore.

These assertions may sound strange to modern ears, but that is because we have forgotten what fascism is. In this angry, funny, smart, contentious book, Jonah Goldberg turns our preconceptions inside out and shows us the true meaning of Liberal Fascism.

I asked Rabbi Cooper whether Rupert Murdoch or News Corp. were donors to the Center (a question I'd like to ask the ADL). Cooper stuttered around, eventually telling me that he was not sure if Murdoch was. He did say he would check and would let me know, and also committed to reviewing the material I cited to determine if the Center ought to condemn it. He said that while he does watch the Bill O'Reilly Show, he does not watch every night, but would start being more attentive.

Finally, both the ADL's and the Center's statements both imply or even state explicitly that I agree with them that the use of Nazi and Hitler comparisons are worthy of condemnation. I did not actually make that argument. I was merely taking the standard they have professed to believe in when issuing rather prominent condemnations in the past and asking why that standard has not been applied to the recent, extremely egregious, and rapidly increasing use of such comparisons from Fox News personalities and right-wing radio hosts and pundits. I'm still asking that question.

UPDATE: As sysprog notes in comments, the ADL continues to claim that it is a group devoted to "stop[ing] the defamation of the Jewish people," yet its agenda is clearly broader than that, at least as of late:

ADL Campaign Says "No" to Nuclear Iran

New York, NY, September 5, 2007 -- Over the next few weeks and months, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) will roll out a public awareness and advocacy campaign aimed at focusing attention on the gathering threat of a nuclear-armed Iran to Israel, the Middle East and the world.

With the slogan, "No Nuclear Iran," the campaign focuses on Iran's clear and present threat to Israel, America and the global community through high-profile eye-catching posters, advertisements in national and community newspapers, and other awareness initiatives using e-mail and the Internet to spread the word. . . .

"The message is simple and clear: a nuclear-armed Iran presents a direct threat to Israel, the Middle East, the United States and Europe, and it is imperative to stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear capability," said Glen S. Lewy, ADL National Chair.

As sysprog says: "Criticizing their pro-Iran-war coalition partners, such as Murdoch/Fox, would be counter to the ADL's new primary focus." This is why I think this issue is so worth pursuing.

Innuendo and, increasingly, explicit claims of anti-semitism have become political weapons of the war-hungry Right in all sorts of foreign policy debates, most frequently now with regard to Iran. That is the real goal of constantly labelling liberal blogs and anti-war groups as Nazis, Hitler, Brownshirts, Gestapo troops, etc. Groups such as the ADL which claim to be devoted to opposing such tactics seem extremely reluctant -- to put it generously -- to condemn these tactics when used by those expressing unrelated political views that they seem to embrace (such as a hard-line against Iran). If they really believe in their ostensible principles, they ought to apply them equally.

-- Glenn Greenwald

"

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/?last_story=/opinion/greenwald/2007/10/05/adl/

r

Posted by: greenwlad | October 5, 2007 6:22 PM | Report abuse

Free speech is dead. The gop killed it.

"Chris Matthews: White House Pressured MSNBC To Tame Hardball
By: Logan Murphy @ 2:15 PM - PDT NOW he tells us...

AttyTood:

Don't you just love these truth tellers in American journalism like Katie Couric and Chris Matthews who are suddenly here to complain that the Bush administration has manipulated Big Media like them, and they're not going to take it anymore? At least not now that George W. Bush and Congress have a record-low approval rating, and after 3,809 U.S. troops have died in Iraq.

Here is MSNBC "Hardball" host Matthews:

In front of an audience that included such notables as Alan Greenspan, Rep. Patrick Kennedy and Sen. Ted Kennedy, Matthews began his remarks by declaring that he wanted to "make some news" and he certainly didn't disappoint. After praising the drafters of the First Amendment for allowing him to make a living, he outlined what he said was the fundamental difference between the Bush and Clinton administrations.

The Clinton camp, he said, never put pressure on his bosses to silence him.

"Not so this crowd," he added, explaining that Bush White House officials -- especially those from Vice President Cheney's office -- called MSNBC brass to complain about the content of his show and attempted to influence its editorial content. "They will not silence me!" Matthews declared.

As Nicole wrote recently, Matthews' behavior is puzzling at times to say the least -- but even with his staunch opposition to the occupation of Iraq, it's really egregious that he hasn't talked openly about this up to this point. PERRSpectives looks at some of the glowing things that Tweety has said about these "thugs and criminals".

"

http://www.crooksandliars.com/

There you go mark. The link :)
"

Posted by: www.crooksandliars.com | October 5, 2007 6:21 PM | Report abuse

It's sad really.

Posted by: rufus | October 5, 2007 6:21 PM | Report abuse

peanuts, the peanuts are watching me, have they made plans?

Posted by: rufus | October 5, 2007 6:20 PM | Report abuse

I am 69, when Zouk is around

Posted by: rufus | October 5, 2007 6:19 PM | Report abuse

The coward fascist zouk is posting as me. It's all he's got. You'll know my posts by the thoughtful insight. Ignore the coward fascist peanut gallery.

Posted by: rufus | October 5, 2007 6:18 PM | Report abuse

'Full disclosure: I am 64. Possibly it is my generation, who loved Burma Shave ads as a road game when we were 8-10 years old, who are the target. I was immediately amused.'

Hey Mark, I'm 57... I remember them too, on road trips with my parents from California to Oklahoma and Arkansas, on Rt. 66.

Posted by: drindl | October 5, 2007 6:16 PM | Report abuse

i wish i had a blog but i will just haveto continue with diarea of the keyboard here

Posted by: rufus | October 5, 2007 6:11 PM | Report abuse

Okay, who spiked rufus' Krispie Treats?

Posted by: Anonymous | October 5, 2007 6:07 PM | Report abuse

Sorry for the long posts. bsimon asks me to post as many news articles as I could today, for his growth and personal inttrospection.

Posted by: rufus | October 5, 2007 5:49 PM | Report abuse

gollem! gollem!

Posted by: rufus | October 5, 2007 5:44 PM | Report abuse

Baba Wawa

Posted by: rufus | October 5, 2007 5:41 PM | Report abuse

Free speech is dead. The gop killed it.

"Chris Matthews: White House Pressured MSNBC To Tame Hardball
By: Logan Murphy @ 2:15 PM - PDT NOW he tells us...

AttyTood:

Don't you just love these truth tellers in American journalism like Katie Couric and Chris Matthews who are suddenly here to complain that the Bush administration has manipulated Big Media like them, and they're not going to take it anymore? At least not now that George W. Bush and Congress have a record-low approval rating, and after 3,809 U.S. troops have died in Iraq.

Here is MSNBC "Hardball" host Matthews:

In front of an audience that included such notables as Alan Greenspan, Rep. Patrick Kennedy and Sen. Ted Kennedy, Matthews began his remarks by declaring that he wanted to "make some news" and he certainly didn't disappoint. After praising the drafters of the First Amendment for allowing him to make a living, he outlined what he said was the fundamental difference between the Bush and Clinton administrations.

The Clinton camp, he said, never put pressure on his bosses to silence him.

"Not so this crowd," he added, explaining that Bush White House officials -- especially those from Vice President Cheney's office -- called MSNBC brass to complain about the content of his show and attempted to influence its editorial content. "They will not silence me!" Matthews declared.

As Nicole wrote recently, Matthews' behavior is puzzling at times to say the least -- but even with his staunch opposition to the occupation of Iraq, it's really egregious that he hasn't talked openly about this up to this point. PERRSpectives looks at some of the glowing things that Tweety has said about these "thugs and criminals".

"

http://www.crooksandliars.com/

There you go mark. The link :)

Posted by: rufus | October 5, 2007 5:40 PM | Report abuse

Story continues below ↓
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
advertisement

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by: RUFUS | October 5, 2007 5:40 PM | Report abuse

Story continues below ↓
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
advertisement

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by: rufus | October 5, 2007 5:38 PM | Report abuse

Rufus, your 5:17P and 5:18P were posted to the wrong web log.

Please try

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/2007/10/whoopi_goldberg_wants_to_do_ho.html

for salacious joy with Baba Wawa.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | October 5, 2007 5:33 PM | Report abuse

"only the left has free choice"

Only the right has free speech

Posted by: rufus | October 5, 2007 5:18 PM | Report abuse

"NEW YORK - Rosie O'Donnell put a new spin on her departure from "The View" Wednesday night, claiming on stage at a comedy club that she had been fired by Barbara Walters.

O'Donnell joined Roseanne Barr on stage at Comix in New York City at Barr's invitation, according to the New York Daily News' Rush & Molloy, who reported the incident.

While on stage, Rosie reportedly started off her address to the crowd by saying, "When I was fired by Barbara Walters."

Story continues below ↓
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
advertisement

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

O'Donnell said that the ladies on "The View" wore earpieces, according to the article. She also claimed that producers told the panelists what to say through the devices. Rosie also reportedly told the Comix audience she refused to wear one during her time on "The View."

The outspoken former TV host also made another shocking claim -- that she and Walters were once close enough that Walters suggested a name-brand, personal lubricant for O'Donnell's use -- Astroglide. Rosie told the Comix audience that the suggestion took her by surprise, Rush & Molloy reported.

Reps for Rosie and Barbara could not be reached at press time.

"

only the left has free choice

Posted by: fascist gop rule | October 5, 2007 5:17 PM | Report abuse

"http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/propaganda_noise_machine?f=h_hot"

Purporting to describe "how this thing started," North mischaracterized Limbaugh's "phony soldiers" conversation
Friday, October 5, 2007 4:52PM
On Big Story, Gibson touted 3-year-old Brock book, National Review article as new
Friday, October 5, 2007 3:57PM
In column, DeLay claimed Limbaugh was discussing "Global War on Terror critics" who faked military credentials
Thursday, October 4, 2007 6:45PM
Limbaugh website featured image of Stalin with Media Matters logo on his chest
Thursday, October 4, 2007 5:31PM
Limbaugh on wounded Iraq vet: "I didn't call this guy a suicide bomber"
Thursday, October 4, 2007 4:25PM
On Fox & Friends, Tyrrell falsely asserted Limbaugh had apologized for "phony soldiers" remark
Thursday, October 4, 2007 1:39PM
CNN's Beck claimed Media Matters "twisted" Limbaugh's words, revisited Soros falsehood
Wednesday, October 3, 2007 8:22PM
Coulter: Characterization of O'Reilly as surprised by Sylvia's "was inserted by people interpreting" his comments

Wednesday, October 3, 2007 5:21PM
National Review's York ignores Limbaugh falsehood about splicing of audio and transcript
Wednesday, October 3, 2007 4:35PM
Limbaugh offering inconsistent explanations for "phony soldiers" comment
Wednesday, October 3, 2007 2:34PM
MSNBC's Geist, Politico's Brown misrepresented Clear Channel letter on Limbaugh's "phony soldiers" comments
Wednesday, October 3, 2007 12:07PM
O'Reilly: Media Matters President David Brock "biggest villain ... in the country"
Wednesday, October 3, 2007 12:04PM
On Fox News Live, Angle repeatedly misrepresented Limbaugh's and "critics'" comments
Wednesday, October 3, 2007 10:24AM
Defending Limbaugh, Bennett misrepresented Limbaugh's attack on Rep. Murtha
Tuesday, October 2, 2007 8:55PM
NBC still promoting Coulter's books, despite Fox & Friends' claim to the contrary
Tuesday, October 2, 2007 7:40PM

Posted by: http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/propaganda_noise_machine?f=h_hot | October 5, 2007 5:06 PM | Report abuse

willie, the Burma Shave signs were still on the US Hwys in the 60s! But anyone who only knows the Interstate system as completed would be unimpressed, I guess.

Full disclosure: I am 64. Possibly it is my generation, who loved Burma Shave ads as a road game when we were 8-10 years old, who are the target. I was immediately amused.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | October 5, 2007 5:05 PM | Report abuse

wORSE STILL WILL. tHINK ABOU TTHE THOUSANDS OF DEAD SOLDIERS, LIKE pAT tiLLMAN OF SAN JOSE CA. their dead now. Who will speak for them? Are they phoneies?

Yvonne. Your party is a party of fascists hypocrites .You get what you deserve.

Rush, coulter, hannity ,o'reilly. FASCISTS. They are you standard bearers? I feel sorry for the children of gop parents and grandparents.

Posted by: RUFUS | October 5, 2007 04:31 PM

"GI to her family: Ask many questions if I die
By: Nicole Belle @ 10:39 AM - PDT Sadly, after Pat Tillman, this doesn't seem so hard to believe anymore...and if her death was the result of a Blackwater employee, the administration and Department of Defense will likely do everything in their power (and given the news yesterday, a few things technically not in their power) to force this story down the memory hole.

Patriot Ledger (h/t Heather):

Ciara Durkin was home on leave last month and expressed a concern to her family in Quincy: If something happens to me in Afghanistan, don't let it go without an investigation.

Durkin, 30, a specialist with a Massachusetts National Guard finance battalion, was found dead last week near a church at the Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan. She had been shot once in the head, the Army says.

Fiona Canavan, Durkin's older sister, said today that when her sister was home three weeks ago, she told family members that she had come across some things that concerned her and had raised objections to others at the base.

''She was in the finance unit and she said, 'I discovered some things I don't like and I made some enemies because of it.' Then she said, in her light-hearted way, 'If anything happens to me, you guys make sure it gets investigated,"' Canavan said. ''But at the time we thought it was said more as a joke."[..]

Canavan said that her sister was openly gay, but that the family had no specific reasons to think that had anything to do with her death.

Filed Under: Military, War Coverage

"

WWW.CROOKSANDLIARS.COM

Posted by: RUFUS | October 5, 2007 04:57 PM
"

Posted by: RUFUS | October 5, 2007 4:58 PM | Report abuse

who in the world would remember an ad campaign from the 1920's? Likely voters I guess.

This is really lame.

Posted by: willie | October 5, 2007 4:52 PM | Report abuse

This is why rush and hannity and o'reilly do what they do. They are fighting against americans. Treason?

"GI to her family: Ask many questions if I die
By: Nicole Belle @ 10:39 AM - PDT Sadly, after Pat Tillman, this doesn't seem so hard to believe anymore...and if her death was the result of a Blackwater employee, the administration and Department of Defense will likely do everything in their power (and given the news yesterday, a few things technically not in their power) to force this story down the memory hole.

Patriot Ledger (h/t Heather):

Ciara Durkin was home on leave last month and expressed a concern to her family in Quincy: If something happens to me in Afghanistan, don't let it go without an investigation.

Durkin, 30, a specialist with a Massachusetts National Guard finance battalion, was found dead last week near a church at the Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan. She had been shot once in the head, the Army says.

Fiona Canavan, Durkin's older sister, said today that when her sister was home three weeks ago, she told family members that she had come across some things that concerned her and had raised objections to others at the base.

''She was in the finance unit and she said, 'I discovered some things I don't like and I made some enemies because of it.' Then she said, in her light-hearted way, 'If anything happens to me, you guys make sure it gets investigated,"' Canavan said. ''But at the time we thought it was said more as a joke."[..]

Canavan said that her sister was openly gay, but that the family had no specific reasons to think that had anything to do with her death.

Filed Under: Military, War Coverage


"

Posted by: tillamn was not an isolated incident | October 5, 2007 4:51 PM | Report abuse

I'll always remember: Nixon's the One!

Posted by: Lucy Van Pelt | October 5, 2007 4:49 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company