Liz Trotta on Fox News jokes about Obama Being Assassinated

Just as it was totally unacceptable for Hillary Clinton to make a flippant remark about Bobby Kennedy being assassinated in 1968 and to suggest that she was running in case it happened to Obama, Just as it was totally unacceptable for Michael Savage to play the "Dead Kennedy’s" on his radio show, in a lame attempt to mock the health crisis of Ted Kennedy, It was totally unacceptable what this woman did on Fox News.

The Short Clip:

The Quote:

"and now we have what … uh…some are reading as a suggestion that somebody knock off Osama …uh..um..Obama [after being prompted by the FNC anchor]….well both if we could [laughing]"

What this woman did was not only distasteful, socially unacceptable, and totally disgusting, it was also against the law. Making a statement of this nature is against the law, for anyone under the protection of secret service. Now whether they will enforce it or not, is another matter.

You can also contact FOX:

Contact FOX:
Teri Everett, Senior Vice President
Corporate Affairs & Communications
Phone: 212-852-7070
E-Mail: teverett@newscorp.com

jhorner@newscorp.com

In case anyone thinks that she was taken out of context, here is the full clip:

This not to say, that all Republicans think like this, I am personally a Constitutionalist and Libertarian and I do not feel this way, I cherish my right to free speech, but with that Right comes a responsibility, and this stupid woman, totally shot that responsibility all to hell.

I also notice that none of the Conservative Blogs are even talking about this. Because they are cowardly bastards, all of them, they should hang their heads in shame, because talking about, even jokingly, killing someone that is running for President of the United States of America, is about the most low class, ignorant thing that one could ever want to do.

The very idea that Rupert Murdoch would even remotely tolerate this sort of reprehensible sort of talk on his own network, speaks volumes about him, his thought process and the status of this man’s very dark soul. It also speak volumes as to the reason why I will never, ever, watch Fox News Channel.

There is a great deal of outrage in the blogging world and rightly so, you can see it all, at Memeorandum

Update: Spied over at HotAir, an apology from Liz, I guess the DailyKos people got through to the Secret Service or to Murdoch:

Exit Question: If she did not mean it, then why the hell say it for in the first place? Humor my ass. Dumb bitch. AngryLoserTalk to the handRolling Eyes

Chuck Baldwin officially launches his campaign website….

I received some great news this morning in my e-mail inbox. Dancing

Pastor Chuck Baldwin has officially launched his Campaign website.  

I am voting for Chuck Baldwin because he more represents the American values that I, as a Christian, as a Libertarian and as a Constitutionalist, hold very dear.

He might not win, but I will know that my vote went for someone who still believes in the old Paleo-conservative values that I hold dear. I will also know, that my vote did not go to a third term of George W. Bush, a Neo-Conservative, Globalist, Shill or a Socialist, Marxist, Liberal. 

This notion that if you don’t vote for John McCain, that your vote is a vote for Hillary or Obama is the biggest lie and the great travesty ever heaped upon this Nation. Heaped upon it by warmongering bastards who want to send this Nation into a pit that it will never get itself out of.

I ask you today, Libertarian, Constitutionalist, Conservative, Republican, wake up and realize that this Nations only hope, is found in this man.

Check out his Website, Forum  and go to his "Money Bomb" page.

Let’s get American back on the right track, vote for Chuck Baldwin

Keith Olbermann's Special Comment: "Clinton, you invoked a political nightmare"

The Video:

Full Transcript: (Taken from and Thanks to MSNBC for getting this on, before the weekend.)

Asked if her continuing fight for the nomination against Senator Obama hurts the Democratic party, Sen. Hillary Clinton replied, "I don’t. Because again, I’ve been around long enough. You know, my husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. You know, I just don’t understand it. You know, there’s lots of speculation about why it is. “

The comments were recorded and we showed them to you earlier and they are online as we speak.

She actually said those words.

Those words, Senator?

You actually invoked the nightmare of political assassination.

You actually invoked the specter of an inspirational leader, at the seeming moment of triumph, for himself and a battered nation yearning to breathe free, silenced forever.

You actually used the word "assassination" in the middle of a campaign with a loud undertone of racial hatred  -  and  gender  hatred  – and political hatred.

You actually used the word "assassination" in a time when there is a fear, unspoken but vivid and terrible, that our again-troubled land and fractured political landscape might target a black man running for president.

Or a white man.

Or a white woman!

You actually used those words, in this America, Senator, while running against an African-American against whom the death threats started the moment he declared his campaign?

You actually used those words, in this America, Senator, while running to break your "greatest glass ceiling" and claiming there are people who would do anything to stop you?

You!

Senator -  never mind the implications of using the word "assassination" in any connection to Senator Obama…

What about you?

You cannot say this!

The references, said her spokesperson, were not, in any way, weighted.

The allusions, said Mo Uh-leathee, are, "…historical examples of the nominating process going well into the summer and any reading into it beyond that would be inaccurate and outrageous."

I’m sorry.

There is no inaccuracy.

Not for a moment does any rational person believe Senator Clinton is actually hoping for the worst of all political calamities.

Yet the outrage belongs, not to Senator Clinton or her supporters, but to every other American.

Firstly, she has previously bordered on the remarks she made today…

Then swerved back from them and the awful skid they represented.

She said, in an off-camera interview with Time on March 6, "Primary contests used to last a lot longer. We all remember the great tragedy of Bobby Kennedy being assassinated in June in L.A. My husband didn’t wrap up the nomination in 1992 until June, also in California. Having a primary contest go through June is nothing particularly unusual. We will see how it unfolds as we go forward over the next three to four months."

In retrospect, we failed her when we did not call her out, for that remark, dry and only disturbing, in a magazine’s pages. But somebody obviously warned her of the danger of that rhetoric:

After the Indiana primary, on May 7, she told supporters at a Washington hotel:

"Sometimes you gotta calm people down a little bit. But if you look at successful presidential campaigns, my husband did not get the nomination until June of 1992. I remember tragically when Senator Kennedy won California near the end of that process."

And at Shepherdstown, West Virginia, on the same day, she referenced it again:

"You know, I remember very well what happened in the California primary in 1968 as, you know, Senator Kennedy won that primary."

On March 6th she had said "assassinated."

By May 7 she had avoided it. Today… she went back to an awful well. There is no good time to recall the awful events of June 5th, 1968, of Senator Bobby Kennedy, happy and alive – perhaps, for the first time since his own brother’s death in Dallas in 1963… Galvanized to try to lead this nation back from one of its darkest eras… Only to fall victim to the same surge that took that brother, and Martin Luther King… There is no good time to recall this. But certainly to invoke it, two weeks before the exact 40th anniversary of the assassination, is an insensitive and heartless thing.

And certainly to invoke it, three days after the awful diagnosis, and heart-breaking prognosis, for Senator Ted Kennedy, is just as insensitive, and just as heartless. And both actions, open a door wide into the soul of somebody who seeks the highest office in this country, and through that door shows something not merely troubling, but frightening. And politically inexplicable.

What, Senator, do you suppose would happen if you withdrew from the campaign, and Senator Obama formally became the presumptive nominee, and then suddenly left the scene? It doesn’t even have to be the “dark curse upon the land” you mentioned today, Senator. Nor even an issue of health. He could simply change his mind… Or there could unfold that perfect-storm scandal your people have often referenced, even predicted. Maybe he could get a better offer from some other, wiser, country. What happens then, Senator? You are not allowed back into the race? Your delegates and your support vanish? The Democrats don’t run anybody for President?

What happens, of course, is what happened when the Democrats’ vice presidential choice, Senator Thomas Eagleton of Missouri, had to withdraw from the ticket, in 1972 after it proved he had not been forthcoming about previous mental health treatments. George McGovern simply got another vice president.

Senator, as late as the late summer of 1864 the Republicans were talking about having a second convention, to withdraw Abraham Lincoln’s re-nomination and choose somebody else because until Sherman took Atlanta in September it looked like Lincoln was going to lose to George McClellan.

You could theoretically suspend your campaign, Senator.

There’s plenty of time and plenty of historical precedent, Senator, in case you want to come back in, if something bad should happen to Senator Obama. Nothing serious, mind you.

It’s just like you said, "We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California."

Since those awful words in Sioux Falls, and after the condescending, buck-passing statement from her spokesperson, Senator Clinton has made something akin to an apology, without any evident recognition of the true trauma she has inflicted.

"I was discussing the Democratic primary history, and in the course of that discussion mentioned the campaigns both my husband and Senator Kennedy waged California in June in 1992 and 1968," she said in Brandon, South Dakota. "I was referencing those to make the point that we have had nomination primary contests that go into June. That’s a historic fact.

"The Kennedys have been much on my mind the last days because of Senator Kennedy.  I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation, particularly for the Kennedy family was in any way offensive, I certainly had no intention of that whatsoever."

"My view is that we have to look to the past and to our leaders who have inspired us and give us a lot to live u
p
to and I’m honored to hold Senator Kennedy’s seat in the United States Senate in the state of New York and have the highest regard for the entire Kennedy family.  Thanks. Not a word about the inappropriateness of referencing assassination.

Not a word about the inappropriateness of implying – whether it was intended or not – that she was hanging around waiting for somebody to try something terrible.

Not a word about Senator Obama.

Not a word about Senator McCain.

Not: I’m sorry…

Not: I apologize…

Not: I blew it…

Not: please forgive me.

God knows, Senator, in this campaign, this nation has had to forgive you, early and often…

And despite your now traditional position of the offended victim, the nation has forgiven you.

We have forgiven you your insistence that there have been widespread calls for you to end your campaign, when such calls had been few. We have forgiven you your misspeaking about Martin Luther King’s relative importance to the Civil Rights movement.

We have forgiven you your misspeaking about your under-fire landing in Bosnia.

We have forgiven you insisting Michigan’s vote wouldn’t count and then claiming those who would not count it were Un-Democratic.

We have forgiven you pledging to not campaign in Florida and thus disenfranchise voters there, and then claim those who stuck to those rules were as wrong as those who defended slavery or denied women the vote.

We have forgiven you the photos of Osama Bin Laden in an anti-Obama ad…

We have forgiven you fawning over the fairness of Fox News while they were still calling you a murderer.

We have forgiven you accepting Richard Mellon Scaife’s endorsement and then laughing as you described his "deathbed conversion."

We have forgiven you quoting the electoral predictions of Boss Karl Rove.

We have forgiven you the 3 a.m. Phone Call commercial.

We have forgiven you President Clinton’s disparaging comparison of the Obama candidacy to Jesse Jackson’s.

We have forgiven you Geraldine Ferraro’s national radio interview suggesting Obama would not still be in the race had he been a white man.

We have forgiven you the dozen changing metrics and the endless self-contradictions of your insistence that your nomination is mathematically probable rather than a statistical impossibility.

We have forgiven you your declaration of some primary states as counting and some as not.

We have forgiven you exploiting Jeremiah Wright in front of the editorial board of the lunatic-fringe Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.

We have forgiven you exploiting William Ayers in front of the debate on ABC.

We have forgiven you for boasting of your "support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans"…

We have even forgiven you repeatedly praising Senator McCain at Senator Obama’s expense, and your own expense, and the Democratic ticket’s expense.

But Senator, we cannot forgive you this.

"You know, my husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California."

We cannot forgive you this — not because it is crass and low and unfeeling and brutal.

This is unforgivable, because this nation’s deepest shame, its most enduring horror, its most terrifying legacy, is political assassination.

Lincoln.

Garfield.

McKinley.

Kennedy.

Martin Luther King.

Robert Kennedy.

And, but for the grace of the universe or the luck of the draw, Reagan, Ford, Truman, Nixon, Andrew Jackson, both Roosevelts, even George Wallace.

The politics of this nation is steeped enough in blood, Senator Clinton, you cannot and must not invoke that imagery! Anywhere! At any time!

And to not appreciate, immediately – to still not appreciate tonight – just what you have done… is to reveal an incomprehension of the America you seek to lead.

This, Senator, is too much.

Because a senator – a politician – a person -  who can let hang in mid-air the prospect that she might just be sticking around in part, just in case the other guy gets shot – has no business being, and no capacity to be, the President of the United States.

Good night and good luck.

——

I am also working on an editorial about the comments that Senator Clinton made. I most likely will not be able to finish it tonight. I am going to watch racing with my Father tomorrow. So, the piece will not be up till tomorrow or Sunday. There is just too much here to write a simple piece, this whole thing is a grand insult and outrage that cannot be just tossed aside. Something has to happen to fix it, before it destroys the Democrat Party. I just hope Senator Clinton wakes up from whatever dream world she is living in and realizes what she has done.

Till tomorrow, as Keith Olbermann would say…..

Good Night and Good Luck

Let us not forget our United States Servicemen

While I have been a very vocal critic of the Bush Administration’s Handling of the war in Iraq. I will always stand in honor for our United States Military.

Here is a video that I think everyone, Liberal, Conservative and everything in between, needs to watch: (H/T to Army Wife Toddler Mom and Tammi)

Please, support Military Ministry or Soldiers’ Angels

Let’s not forget those, who choose to serve our Nation, so that Bloggers, like me, can write and be free.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,News , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Ex-Romney Adviser says it's "accurate" to call Hillary a Bitch.

footinmouth

From the "Open Mouth, Insert Foot" file….

Seen over Here:

Man, what do you start here? I’m no Hillary fan, not by a long shot, but man, at least have some decorum for the idiot closet lesbian Lady. What? Why are you looking at me like that for? I dont knowTongueWinkingBig Grin

Seriously, people should engage the brain just a wee bit more, especially on network TV man. I mean, it is one to sit here on a Blog and rip on the Liberals and call ’em Marxists and Lesbo’s and Idiots and the like, but on National TV?

That’s going a little overboard if you ask me. Worried

Just saying ya’ll…. Cowboy

A Perfect example of what is wrong with the modern day Republican Party.

I mean, I can understand people not liking what Keith Olbermann said, but it is really necessary to be that damned nasty about it?

I mean, after all, he did clarify what he meant.

Don’t get me wrong, I believe in free speech, but this sort of nonsense is uncalled for.

Update: As such as I thought, Cannot answer my question, so, they resort to personal attacks. So typical for your ilk. You see folks, this is what happens when you allow intellectually dishonest people near a computer. Keep drinking the Kool-Aid guys, and I’ll keep pointing you out to the Blogging world. 

As such I thought….

You know, If I had a dollar for every time, some idiot news outlet, who was seeking ratings, published a bogus story, saying Bush was going to attack Iran. I’d be rich, very rich.

The Article: White House denies Army Radio report on plan to attack Iran (Via Jerusalem Post

The White House on Tuesday flatly denied an Army Radio report that claimed US President George W. Bush intends to attack Iran before the end of his term. It said that while the military option had not been taken off the table, the Administration preferred to resolve concerns about Iran’s push for a nuclear weapon "through peaceful diplomatic means."

I mean, really? Are people just that stupid that they will Blog on every drip of news that comes out of the nozzle of the Main Stream Media’s faucet?

I can see why now, that MSM hates Blogs, there’s just no ethical standards amongst these people.

A word of wise to you guys, if it doesn’t pass the smell test, don’t print it!

Here’s the list of gullible people that printed this unfounded story: Firedoglake, The Hill’s Blog Briefing Room, Think Progress, Wonkette, God-o-Meter, Israel Matzav. The major exception being Blogs of War who, like me, says the story doesn’t pass the smell test.

Update: Hello to all the readers from Memeorandum, who finally added me back to the list of blogs to scan! yippie! DancingBig Grin (thanks to Blogs of War for linking!)

Ouch!

via Brave New Films:

 

If this is any preview of what’s going to happen in the general election… It’s going to be tough of the G.O.P. and McCain.

Others: MyDD, Booman Tribune, The Real McCain, Daily Kos, Balloon Juice, Group News Blog and Attackerman

The White House cannot control the media and whines about it.

This is too damn funny….

The Article: White House takes swipe at NBC News (Via The Hill)

Steve Capus

President, NBC News

30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, N.Y. 10112

Mr. Capus:

This e-mail is to formally request that NBC Nightly News and The Today Show air for their viewers President Bush’s actual answer to correspondent Richard Engel’s question about Iran policy and "appeasement," rather than the deceptively edited version of the President’s answer that was aired last night on the Nightly News and this morning on The Today Show.
In the interview, Engel asked the President: "You said that negotiating with Iran is pointless, and then you went further. You said that it was appeasement. Were you referring to Senator Barack Obama?"

The President responded: "You know, my policies haven’t changed, but evidently the political calendar has. People need to read the speech. You didn’t get it exactly right, either. What I said was is that we need to take the words of people seriously. And when, you know, a leader of Iran says that they want to destroy Israel, you’ve got to take those words seriously. And if you don’t take them seriously, then it harkens back to a day when we didn’t take other words seriously. It was fitting that I talked about not taking the words of Adolf Hitler seriously on the floor of the Knesset. But I also talked about the need to defend Israel, the need to not negotiate with the likes of al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas. And the need to make sure Iran doesn’t get a nuclear weapon."

This answer makes clear: (1). The President’s remarks before the Knesset were not different from past policy statements, but are now being looked at through a political prism, (2). Corrects the inaccurate premise of Engel’s question by putting the "appeasement" line in the proper context of taking the words of leaders seriously, not "negotiating with Iran," (3). Restates the U.S.’s long-standing policy positions against negotiating with al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas, and not allowing Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon.

Engel’s immediate follow-up question was, "Repeatedly you’ve talked about Iran and that you don’t want to see Iran develop a nuclear weapon. How far away do you think Iran is from developing a nuclear capability?"

The President replied, "You know, Richard, I don’t want to speculate – and there’s a lot of speculation. But one thing is for certain – we need to prevent them from learning how to enrich uranium. And I have made it clear to the Iranians that there is a seat at the table for them if they would verifiably suspend their enrichment. And if not, we’ll continue to rally the world to isolate them."

This response reiterates another long-standing policy, which is that if Iran verifiably suspends its uranium enrichment program the U.S. government would engage in talks with the Iranian government.

NBC’s selective editing of the President’s response is clearly intended to give viewers the impression that he agreed with Engel’s characterization of his remarks when he explicitly challenged it. Furthermore, it omitted the references to al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas and ignored the clarifying point in the President’s follow-up response that U.S. policy is to require Iran to suspend its nuclear enrichment program before coming to the table, not that "negotiating with Iran is pointless" and amounts to "appeasement."

This deceitful editing to further a media-manufactured storyline is utterly misleading and irresponsible and I hereby request in the interest of fairness and accuracy that the network air the President’s responses to both initial questions in full on the two programs that used the excerpts.
As long as I am making this formal request, please allow me to take this opportunity to ask if your network has reconsidered its position that Iraq is in the midst of a civil war, especially in light of the fact that the unity government in Baghdad recently rooted out illegal, extremist groups in Basra and reclaimed the port there for the people of Iraq, among other significant signs of progress.

On November 27, 2006, NBC News made a decision to no longer just cover the news in Iraq, but to make an analytical and editorial judgment that Iraq was in a civil war. As you know, both the United States government and the Government of Iraq disputed your account at that time. As Matt Lauer said that morning on The Today Show: "We should mention, we didn’t just wake up on a Monday morning and say, ‘Let’s call this a civil war.’ This took careful deliberation.’"

I noticed that around September of 2007, your network quietly stopped referring to conditions in Iraq as a "civil war." Is it still NBC News’s carefully deliberated opinion that Iraq is in the midst of a civil war? If not, will the network publicly declare that the civil war has ended, or that it was wrong to declare it in the first place?

Lastly, when the Commerce Department on April 30 released the GDP numbers for the first quarter of 2007, Brian Williams reported it this way: "If you go by the government number, the figure that came out today stops just short of the official declaration of a recession."

The GDP estimate was a positive 0.6% for the first quarter. Slow growth, but growth nonetheless. This followed a slow but growing fourth quarter in 2007. Consequently, even if the first quarter GDP estimate had been negative, it still would not have signaled a recession – neither by the unofficial rule-of-thumb of two consecutive quarters of negative growth, nor the more robust definition by the National Bureau of Economic Research (the group that officially marks the beginnings and ends of business cycles).

Furthermore, never in our nation’s history have we characterized economic conditions as a "recession" with unemployment so low – in fact, when this rate of unemployment was eventually reached in the 1990s, it was hailed as the sign of a strong economy. This rate of unemployment is lower than the average of the past three decades.

Are there numbers besides the "government number" to go by? Is there reason to believe "the government number" is suspect? How does the release of positive economic growth for two consecutive quarters, albeit limited, stop "just short of the official declaration of a recession"?

Mr. Capus, I’m sure you don’t want people to conclude that there is really no distinction between the "news" as reported on NBC and the "opinion" as reported on MSNBC, despite the increasing blurring of those lines. I welcome your response to this letter, and hope it is one that reassures your broadcast network’s viewers that blatantly partisan talk show hosts like Christopher Matthews and Keith Olbermann at MSNBC don’t hold editorial sway over the NBC network news division.

Sincerely,

Ed Gillespie

Counselor to the President

So, they cannot control the media, like they do over at Fox News and so, they write NBC whining about it. Crying

How immature, stupid, and terribly lame, can you be? Rolling EyesLoser

November cannot come fast enough.

Others agree: JustOneMinute, Marc Ambinder, The Hill’s Blog Briefing Room and Gawker

U.S. to build new prison in Afghanistan

I can hear the Liberals whining now….

The Article: U.S. Planning Big New Prison in Afghanistan (Via New York Times)

Quote:

The Pentagon is moving forward with plans to build a new, 40-acre detention complex on the main American military base in Afghanistan, officials said, in a stark acknowledgment that the United States is likely to continue to hold prisoners overseas for years to come.

The proposed detention center would replace the cavernous, makeshift American prison on the Bagram military base north of Kabul, which is now typically packed with about 630 prisoners, compared with the 270 held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

Until now, the Bush administration had signaled that it intended to scale back American involvement in detention operations in Afghanistan. It had planned to transfer a large majority of the prisoners to Afghan custody, in an American-financed, high-security prison outside Kabul to be guarded by Afghan soldiers.

The reason why I would say that Liberals will whine about this, is because Bush said he would scale back American involvement in detention centers in Afghanistan. However, if you read the REST of this article. You will see why were having to get involved and stay involved.

Quote:

But American officials now concede that the new Afghan-run prison cannot absorb all the Afghans now detained by the United States, much less the waves of new prisoners from the escalating fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

(Snip!)

Faced with that, American officials said they wanted to replace the Bagram prison, a converted aircraft hangar that still holds some of the decrepit aircraft-repair machinery left by the Soviet troops who occupied the country in the 1980s. In its place the United States will build what officials described as a more modern and humane detention center that would usually accommodate about 600 detainees — or as many as 1,100 in a surge — and cost more than $60 million.

“Our existing theater internment facility is deteriorating,” said Sandra L. Hodgkinson, the senior Pentagon official for detention policy, in a telephone interview. “It was renovated to do a temporary mission. There is a sense that this is the right time to build a new facility.”

American officials also acknowledged that there are serious health risks to detainees and American military personnel who work at the Bagram prison, because of their exposure to heavy metals from the aircraft-repair machinery and asbestos.

“It’s just not suitable,” another Pentagon official said. “At some point, you have to say, ‘That’s it. This place was not made to keep people there indefinitely.’ ”

That point came about six months ago. It became clear to Pentagon officials that the original plan of releasing some Afghan prisoners outright and transferring other detainees to Afghan custody would not come close to emptying the existing detention center.

You see, this is not being done, so that the American Government can keep us in that country forever, as Liberals like Keith Olbermann and his hyperventilating special comments want us to believe. They’re doing this out of a human concern for Prisoners housed there, Yes, my friends, the United States is still a caring Country, that cares for the well-being of people, even those who would want to kill us.

I am writing this to prove a point, that even if President George W. Bush is an idiot, and Yes, I do believe that he is not the brightest bulb in the box, there are people still working in the United States Government, that do still possess a great deal of intelligence and still have the morals and integrity that this Nation is known for.

The New York Times’s Liberal bias aside, the article is quite informative as to the real conditions on the ground in Afghanistan. I suggest you read it.