Nancy Pelosi So Crammed Full Of Hypocrisy Even Liberal Comic Jon Stewart Can’t Take It Anymore

Jon Stewart is a doctrinaire liberal down the line.  His problem is that he’s in a line of work that sometimes forces him to find what is clearly utterly ridiculous even among his own.

There is NOBODY who could claim that Jon Stewart is a “conservative” or a “Republican.”  If he can’t stand Nancy Pelosi’s abject hypocrisy, you can pretty much take it to the bank that Nancy Pelosi’s hypocrisy is utterly vile beyond belief.

Pelosi drives even Jon Stewart crazy
by Joel Gehrke Commentary Staff Writer
November 11, 2011

Former House Speaker and current Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., attacked Republicans for their opposition to debt ceiling increases, but defended President Obama for voting against a debt-ceiling increase when he was in the Senate, during an interview with Jon Stewart. Her effort to reconcile the two positions drove The Daily Show host to distraction. You can see the transcript and video below.

Pelosi: “We didn’t say, ‘[Bush] amassed this debt, we’re not lifting the debt ceiling,’ because we have to honor the full faith and credit of our country. Republicans with this president, and this president only, exacted upon him that $1.2 trillion [spending cut].

JS: “Well, there were — you know, President Obama himself voted against lifting the debt ceiling [as a Senator].”

Pelosi: “That’s okay, you can lift it, but you can’t obstruct it.”

JS: “No, he voted against lifting it.”

Pelosi: “You can vote against it. You can vote against lifting it.”

JS: “But he said he voted against lifting it because he knew the other people would lift it.”

Pelosi: “That’s right. That’s right. And I say to my members, ‘you can vote anyway you want, but we’re not going to obstruct [the debt-ceiling increase].’ It’s about if you’re going to obstruct.”

JS: “So its okay to do it for political reasons, but not for principle.”

Pelosi: “No, you have to vote what you believe.”

JS: “As long as it doesn’t actually obstruct it.”

Pelosi: “Well, other people who may believe differently can take care of that.”

[Editor’s note: at this point, Jon Stewart put his hand over his face]

Pelosi: “I honestly believe that people vote what they believe. And at that given time, with that set of facts, they don’t want to put their imprimatur on it. They had a different responsibility than I had as Speaker of the House. I had to get it passed. Others had the luxury of expressing their views, but I had get it passed, had to have enough votes to get it passed.”

[See the Washington Examiner site for video of the Daily Show]

It has now been 928 days since the Democrats passed any kind of a budget whatsoever.  These people are incompetent fools in addition to being hypocrites and demagogues.

Turning The Tables On Vicious Rolling Stone Leftist Attack Piece On Michelle Palin (Among Other Things, They Plagiarized).

There was a particularly vicious leftwing assault by leftwing rag The Rolling Stone. The only time I ever hear anything about Rolling Stone Magazine is when they do something particularly vile, because on their best day they are still vile and so why read them?  Their last infamous hit piece (on General Stanley McChrystal) was also filled with fraud.  But what can you say?  Liberals are people who swim in an ocean of lies; and why should they be troubled when the people they trust to lie to them turn out to be dishonest???

There are such lines in the Rolling Stone piece as “Bachmann is a religious zealot whose brain is a raging electrical storm of divine visions and paranoid delusions.” I don’t need to read further than that. It was a toxic, rabid hit piece by toxic, rabid secular humanist liberals.

But let us consider the “standards” of journalism that these people follow. Let us consider who the REAL religious zealots whose brains are raging electrical storms of demonic visions and paranoid delusions are. Let us consider who should have the last laugh, and who should be fired as disgraces:

Rolling Stone caught in potential plagiarism flap over Michele Bachmann profile
By Joe Pompeo & Dylan Stableford
June 24, 2011

It’s been a few months since we’ve had ourselves a good-old plagiarism incident to get riled up about. But thanks to Rolling Stone, our sleepy summer Friday just got a bit more scandalous!

The magazine is taking some heat today for lifting quotes in Matt Taibbi’s hit piece on Minnesota’s 2012 Tea Party hopeful Michele Bachmann.

In the story, posted online Wednesday, Taibbi borrows heavily from a 2006 profile of Bachmann by G.R. Anderson, a former Minneapolis City Pages reporter who now teaches journalism at the University of Minnesota. The thin sourcing, as Abe Sauer argues over at The Awl, is part of a “parade of uncredited use of material” from local blogs and reporters who “have dogged Bachmann for years now.”

But the larger issue for journalism’s ethical watchdogs concerns the several unattributed quotes Sauer spotted in Taibbi’s piece, which Rolling Stone executive editor Eric Bates explained away by saying he’d cut out the attributions due to “space concerns” and that he would “get some links included in the story online.”

At least one plagiarism “expert” doesn’t buy Bates’ logic.

“Attribution is the last thing an editor should cut!!!!” Jack Shafer, who is known to grill copy-stealers in his media column for Slate (and who used to edit two alt-weeklies similar to City Pages), told The Cutline via email. “How big was the art hole on that piece? Huge, I’ll bet.”

Shafer added: “If an editor deletes attribution, can the writer be called a plagiarist? I don’t think so. Is that what happened? If Taibbi approved the deletions, it’s another question.”

We emailed Taibbi, who is no stranger to press controversies, with a request for comment and will update this if we hear back.

UPDATE 4 p.m. “I did in fact refer to the City Pages piece in the draft I submitted,” Taibbi told The Cutline. “I did not see that those attributions had been removed. I grew up in alternative newspapers and have been in the position the City Pages reporter is in, so I’m sympathetic. They did good work in that piece and deserve to be credited. But you should know also that this isn’t plagiarism–it’s not even an allegation of plagiarism. It’s an attribution issue.”

In the meantime, Anderson is giving Rolling Stone the benefit of the doubt, although he didn’t let them off the hook entirely.

“I would not consider what the Rolling Stone [piece] contained in it to be plagiarism,” Anderson told City Pages. “What I will say, as a graduate of the Columbia J-School, and an adjunct at the University of Minnesota J-School, I do know that if a student handed in a story with that particular lack of sourcing, not only would I give it an ‘F,’ I would probably put that student on academic fraud.”

You can check out a side-by-side comparison of the two Bachmann profiles over at The Awl.

What is particularly ironic is the use of an image of Michelle Bachmann as holy warrior, gripping the Bible in one hand and a sword dripping in blood in the other as a bloody slaughter continues unabated in the background. It’s an image that is intended to summon the most grisly spectre of the Crusades, of course.

Accompanying the Rolling Stone article on Bachmann:

At the worst of the Crusades, the “Christian warriors” were given Absolution for their sins for taking part in the Holy War. You could literally get away with murder. And too many did just that (at least until they found out the hard way that the Pope’s absolution didn’t give them absolution from a just and holy God).

Now, let us consider the irony of the “Absolution” given by the left. Women are sacred cows (now watch me get attacked as calling women “cows”) in liberalism. You do not DARE attack women. Unless they are conservative women like Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann. And then liberals are given total Absolution to attack them as women, as wives, as mothers, as sexual beings, as anything that smears them and degrades them. And they have absolution to do it; no women’s group will come after them. Their sins are pardoned.

Call it a leftwing Crusade; better yet, call it a leftwing jihad.  “Kill thee all the enemies of liberalism.  Nullus Dues lo volt! [No God wills it!].  Thous hast absolution to murder thine opponents by any means necessary!”  And off these “journalists” (or JournoLists) go to do their demonic bidding.

A similar case of such liberal Absolution just occurred with Jon Stewart, who mocked black conservative Herman Cain in an obviously racial and racist manner using his Amos and Andy voice. It’s fine; a Jon Stewart liberal can openly racially mock a black man, provided that black man is a conservative. It’s no different than the most cynical criticism of Pope Pius in the Crusades, who said it was okay to murder as long as you were murdering a Muslim.

We see their “objective” work when they flood to Alaska to search through tens of thousands of Sarah Palin emails and even enlist their readers to help them dig for dirt.  They never would have DREAMED of subpeoning Barak Obama’s emails.  We see their “objective” work when they trip all over themselves to buy a story about a bogus lesbian Muslim heroine (i.e. more liberal fraud) just because she was lesbian and Muslim, and that’s exactly what they wanted to see.

I would love nothing more than to have all the Western “journalists” who have played these games grabbed up and taken to a country governed by Islam and watch the look on their formerly smug faces as they were tortured and killed one after another. Until that day, they will continue to serve as useful idiots for communism and terrorism and pretty much every other “ism” that is eroding Western Culture from within.

Add that abject hypocrisy of the left to the fact that for a writer anything resembling plagiarism is the greatest sin imaginable, and you get to see just how utterly vile these people are. They have no honor, no integrity, no decency. Period.

And then we compare the sheer number of plagiarism cases at leftwing papers such as the New York Times (I’ll just drop a couple of names like Jayson Blair and Maureen Dowd and Zachery Kouwe) to conservative papers like the Wall Street Journal, and you see which side simply has no honor, integrity, or decency at all.  But what should we expect from such a rabid little bunch of Goebbels?  Honesty?

It is also interesting to add that the Crusaders were in fact responding to CENTURIES of Muslim aggression. While many of the monstrous acts that occurred on both sides could never be justified, “the Crusades” themselves were quite justifiable. I make mention of this because the left continues to do to the Crusades what they are doing even today; take the side of the aggressive vicious murderers against Western Culture. And when you look at a major rundown of major plagiarism cases in journalism, it’s the leftwing names like the Washington Post and the Boston Globe and ESPN rather than Fox News.

When America is sufficiently toxic and ripe for judgment, it listens to lies and the bad people who tell those lies and votes for Democrats.  That’s basically where we seem to be now.

Oh, by the way, Barack Obama is a documented plagiarist, too.  That’s part of the reason liberal journalists love him so much; he’s truly one of them.

Democrats Actually CONTINUE To Defend Cop Killer-Celebrator ‘Common’ Invite To White House

This is absolutely bizarre to me.

Barack and Michelle Obama had a poetry night at the White House.  Among the invited honorees was a rapper named “Common” who has actually celebrated two different CONVICTED cop murderers.

Again, not just ONE cop murderer, but TWO:

• Assata Shakur, also known as Joanne Chesimard, was convicted for the 1973 slaying of Trooper Werner Foerster.  She escaped prison and fled to the communist nation Cuba, where “Common” actually went to visit her prior to his “A Song for Assata.”   
• Mumia Abu-Jamal, who was convicted of the 1981  murder of Philadelphia Police Department Officer Daniel Faulkner.

Two murdered police officers.  Two convicted cop killers.  And the man who celebrated those cop killers was personally invited by the Obamas for a reading of his “poetry” in the White House.

The garbage excuses I have heard from Democrats are absolutely incredible.  As genuinely depraved as I believe Democrats are, they never cease to surprise me with their moral depravity.

The latest defense was offered by Jon Stewart – and of course immediately picked up as a talking point by the left.  I blocked someone as a lying vermin, and he posted back with – of course – Jon Stewart’s talking point.  Said talking point is that if you exclude “Common” for celebrating cop killers, you must also discard any invite of Bob Dylan, Bruce Springsteen and Bono.

What is interesting about this assortment of singers is that the above list consists of – in order from above – 1) a left wing radical; 2) a hard-core Democrat; and 3) a liberal.

Let’s take Bono – who apparently wrote a song called “Native Son” about an American Indian named Peltier who killed two FBI agents – first:

Bono fans fill Obama coffers
The presidential hopeful has found just what he’s looking for in U2 devotees as they swell his campaign reserves
Times, August 30, 2008
By: Colin Coyle

One is charismatic, plays to packed stadiums and wants to change the world. The other is Bono. Now a group of U2 fans, struck by the parallels between Barack Obama and the Irish rock star, have become one of the U.S. Democratic presidential nominee’s most enthusiastic band of supporters.

U2 fans for Obama, a collection of 103 U2 devotees, has raised almost $18,000 (EU12,200) for the presidential hopeful’s campaign and organised more than 600 events to date.

The group, whose website and blog are linked to the presidential candidate’s official homepage, believe that “since Bono can’t run for U.S. president, Obama is the next best thing”. Their blog declares that members “see in Obama a progressive Christian who embodies the ideas and sentiments…so compelling in U2’s music.”

The politician is already an avowed fan of the band, recently telling Rolling Stone magazine that U2 is on his iPod playlist. Bono attended the Democratic convention in Denver last week where he heard two U2 tracks, “City of Blinding Lights” and “Beautiful Day,” bookend Obama’s acceptance speech early on Friday. “Beautiful Day” was also the musical backdrop a night earlier when Obama introduced Senator Joe Biden, his nominee for vice-president, to the Denver crowd.

Oh, yeah, that one sure puts us conservative Republicans to shame.  He’s clearly one of our guys, right?  I mean, we’re responsible for this guy, right?

Oh, that’s right: WRONG!!!

I’m not going to bother to see if Bono was ever invited to attend anything during the Bush presidency, but if he was, I’ll bet you it was because of his humanitarian efforts, rather than because of his songs.

Then there’s Bruce Springsteen.  I don’t know what cop killer this turd eulogized, and I really don’t care.  But here’s the skinny on him:

‘The Boss’ would hire Obama for the top job
CAMPAIGN ’08: RACE FOR THE WHITE HOUSE
Rock star Bruce Springsteen endorses the Illinois Democrat. Clinton wins over salsa artist Willie Colon.
April 17, 2008|Johanna Neuman and Noam N. Levey | Times Staff Writers

Bruce Springsteen, the poetic rocker whose lyrics have chronicled the hardships of working-class Americans in struggling factory towns, on Wednesday endorsed Barack Obama for president.

The support that the music star known as “the Boss” threw behind the Illinois senator was a highlight of a relatively quiet day on the campaign trail, as Obama and rival Hillary Rodham Clinton prepared for Wednesday night’s Democratic debate in Philadelphia.

Okay, that’s two scratched off the list of three.

How about Bob Dylan?

Well, according to Democrat Underground:

“Joan Baez spoke of Dylan’s liberal political bend in “No Direction Home.” He was not a conservative.”

Then there’s such lines as this one from Dylan:

As Bob Dylan sang, “I’m liberal but to a degree. I want everybody to be free. But if you think I’m going to let Barry Goldwater move in next door to me and marry my daughter you must think I’m crazy . . .”

And Goldwater, of course, was the Republican nominee who was destroyed by the famous/infamous 1964 “Daisy” ad (you know, the ad by Vietnam warmonger Lyndon Johnson that implied Goldwater was a warmonger).

So Dylan was really just a garden variety liberal: he was the kind of hypocrite who was liberal, and therefore tolerant of everybody and everything but people he disagreed with like conservatives.  Then the intolerant hater burst out of his chest like that creature from Alien.

So I can draw two conclusions from this: 1) if you sing songs celebrating cop murders, YOU ARE A LIBERAL DEMOCRAT.  And 2) Democrats are so insane that they actually justify Obama inviting a rapper who celebrates two cop murderers by citing three other liberals who also seem to have celebrated cop killers.

Only a Democrat is morally sick and psychologically irrational enough to see the reason in this defense.

Allow me to also point out that this black president who made sure we all understood that “the Cambridge police acted stupidly” (conclusion determined after stating he didn’t know any of the actual facts) invited a black man who eulogized two Black Panthers who both murdered WHITE police officers.

Also allow me to point out that there is a direct link between Barack Obama and “Common”: both were members of Jeremiah Wright’s demonic racist and un-American church.

Here is Trooper Werner Foerster, who was MURDERED by Assata Shakur:

And here is Philadelphia Police Department Officer Daniel Faulkner, who was murdered by Mumia Abu-Jamar.

Take a good look at these two white men who were murdered by Black Panthers as they tried to do their duties maintaining the thin blue line between civilization and total anarchy and mayhem.  And tell me how you would feel about a president inviting a singer who wrote songs celebrating the murders of two BLACK police officers by two convicted white Ku Klux Klansmen who were nobly fighting for “white justice,” or “white power,” or “the cause,” or however the hell you want to phrase it to make it like “Common’s” eulogies.  Because THAT is EXACTLY what we have in the case of two Black Panthers murdering two white police officers.

Hey, how about if your next president invites a singer who soulfully and spiritually eulogizes James Earl Ray – the “so-called” but actually innocent man convicted of the murder of Martin Luther King???  Here’s an article from – you guessed it, Democratic Underground – saying James Earl Ray is innocent.  Hey, why not celebrate him as some kind of hero?!?!?!

If you are a Democrat, and you are not personally ashamed of your Disgrace-in-Chief, you are simply a cockroach masquerading as a human being.

Jon Stewart Rips Hypocrite-in-Chief Obama’s Campaign Launch A New Orifice

Obama officially lauched his campaign yesterday.  So he could be the first candidate to rake in as much campaign money as possible.

He wants to raise a billion dollars.  Because when your record is as utterly pathetic and contemptible as his is, all he can really do is use his Chicago-style ways to buy the election.

I still find it amazing that the man who ran as the “reformer” of our political system was simultaneously the biggest money-grabbing political whore in human history.  After all, mutual contradictions can get no traction climbing the mountain of hopey-changey.

Politico made this observation:

April 05, 2011
Parody gets more views than real Obama launch

The National Republican Senatorial Committee’s parody of Obama’s 2012 campaign, released Friday, now has 665,000 views on YouTube.

Obama’s real launch video, released yesterday: Just 168,000.

YouTube’s metrics tend to lag a bit, but the numbers suggest that — energy-wise — we’re in 2010, not 2008.

Jon Stewart managed to expose Barack Obama for the complete hypocritical fraud that he is (see the video here).

So I guess that means I’m not the only one whose winged Obama unicorn crapped all over the front yard and then flew away?

Jon Stewart’s Hilarious Takedown Of Obama’s Odyssey Dawn Libya Hypocrisy

Here’s the link.  Watch and enjoy.  And learn about your Hypocrite-in-Chief:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-march-21-2011/odyssey-dawn—unconstitutional-war

If You Support Obama, Please Quit Driving, Traveling, Or Using Most Household Products

Barack Obama took more money from British Petroleum than any politician over a twenty year period.  In spite of the fact that he had only been in national politics for less than three years.  Barack Obama’s administration approved the project and granted the permit for the doomed BP drilling site.  Barack Obama’s administration helped quash environmental problems and issued an environmental waiver to BP at said doomed site only days before the disaster.  Barack Obama failed to take the disaster seriously and delayed serious action for weeks, fiddling with fundraisers, golf outings, and vacations while the Gulf went to hell.  The Obama administration has continued to delay and waste time pursuing the dotting of the i’s and the crossing of the t’s regarding mindless bureaucratic inanities.

Obama is rather like Oliver Hardy blaming British Petroleum like it was Stan Laurel: “Well, that’s another fine mess you’ve gotten me into!”  But the fact is that Obama was up to his eyeballs in this mess from the inception.

One example of the time-wasting bureaucratic idiocy that is so characteristic of shockingly poor leadership was the sand berms that Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal demanded.  Jindal spent weeks urging the federal government to construct sand berms that would protect the coastland and the vital marshes from oil seepage, but ran into one federal government delay after another.  He wanted some two dozen temporary berms, but the federal government dithered and then dithered some more.  Eventually the feds said they would allow six such berms.  And would only pay for one.  And that they wouldn’t allow any construction until after an environmental impact study.  While lethal oil began to contaminate the coastlands and marshes.

“It is clear the resources needed to protect our coast are still not here,” Gov. Jindal said.  “Oil sits and waits for cleanup, and every day that it waits for cleanup more of our marsh dies.”

44 days after the disaster, Obama graciously allowed Louisiana to construct six berms.  You know, the-build-a-barn-after-the-horses-left thing.

Jon Stewart absolutely skewered Obama’s incompetence by playing videos in which Obama vows “not to rest” until he solves the BP disaster, intermixed with video footage of all the useless garbage he’s been up to.

Jon Stewart link 1

Jon Stewart link 2

And then there’s the “never let a good crisis go to waste” thing.  Obama has handled this crisis more as a political problem than a national disaster from the outset.  And in Barack Obama’s brand of politics, you demagogue and you pander to leftist special interests.  And thus:

Obama: US must end its dependence on fossil fuels
3:16 PM on 06/02/2010
JULIE PACE, Associated Press

PITTSBURGH (AP) — Seizing on a disastrous oil spill to advance a cause, President Barack Obama on Wednesday called on Congress to roll back billions of dollars in tax breaks for oil and pass a clean-energy bill that he says would help the nation end its dependence on fossil fuels.

Obama predicted that he would find the political support for legislation that would dramatically alter the way Americans fuel their homes and cars, including placing a price on carbon pollution, even though such legislation is politically divisive and remains bogged in the Senate.

“The votes may not be there right now, but I intend to find them in the coming months,” Obama told an audience at Carnegie Mellon University. “I will continue to make the case for a clean energy future wherever and whenever I can, and I will work with anyone to get this done. And we will get it done.”

Obama said the country’s continuing dependence on fossil fuels “will jeopardize our national security, it will smother our planet and will continue to put our economy and our environment at risk.” […]

“The time has come, once and for all, for this nation to fully embrace a clean energy future,” the president said. […]

Obama also used the speech to lash out at Republicans with partisan rhetoric, saying they have mostly “sat on the sidelines and shouted from the bleachers” as he’s tried to restore the economy.

And thus Obama, who couldn’t be more responsible for this disaster without being the guy who blew up the platform, resorts to his constant stream of demagogic bullcrap.  It’s those Republicans who are responsible, you know: “The fact that I took all that BP campaign money, and then paid BP back by securing environmental waivers, and then paid BP back some more by letting BP broadcast the message that everything was under control and it was just a minor technical problem, nothing to worry about, is beside the point.  Republicans are evil, and they are to blame for everything.”

Mind you, Obama doesn’t have anything even close to a consistent energy position; to have that, he’d have to be an actual leader rather than a mere politically opportunistic demagogue.  Thus only a couple of months ago Obama was the one who ENDED the ban on offshore drilling (hint: not Bush):

From NPR, March 31, 2010:

President Obama announced the end of a decades-old ban on oil and gas drilling along much of the U.S. Atlantic coast and northern Alaska on Wednesday, as part of an effort to reduce foreign imports and win support for an energy and climate bill.

Then we had the Gulf of Mexico disaster, and suddenly “the end of a decades-old ban” suddenly became a brand new ban.  And the politician who accepted more BP-bribe money than anybody is suddenly shooting out demagoguery onto the airwaves the way that damn hole keeps shooting out oil into the ocean.

It’s not like Obama is an actual leader who needs a consistent policy; rather, he’s a pandering constantly-in-campaign-mode weasel who will say or do anything to gain a momentary political advantage.

And, of course, Obama also demonized oil companies.  Not just British Petroleum, the one actually responsible for paying Obama all those campaign contributions and creating the disaster, but ALL oil companies.  Because oil is as evil as Republicans.  And Democrats want to stop oil at all costs.

Forget the fact that this disaster was caused by Democrats who kept pushing oil companies further and further away from shore, into more and more and more dangerous conditions, until a disaster was inevitable.  Every single Democrat who has helped stopped oil drilling on the coastal shelf or – better yet, on our land – is partly to blame for this disaster.

Unless you don’t think we need oil.

But if you don’t think we need oil, the stop the hell using it.

Let me just put it this way: if you support Barack Obama, quit traveling.  Do not drive your car, do not take the bus, do not fly, do not get on a boat.  Because it’s finally time that you were consistent: ending oil means no oil.  So don’t use it.

Go to this site and make sure you don’t use any of the household products that contain oil, too.

My advice to you Democrats is just to move out of your house with all those evil oil products and live in a hole.  Don’t use a shovel to dig your hole – because it was made using oil – just scratch at the dirt with your fingernails.

Turn off your computer, too.  Because it’s got oil products, too.

And just climb in that damn hole and stay there.

Heck, maybe we could plug the hole in the Gulf with Democrats and have the best of all possible worlds.

Obama The War Criminal

The man who has exposed CIA interrogators and Bush officials for condemnation due to their support for “enhanced interrogations” is himself a murderer of innocent women and children.

Red Cross: Many Afghans dead after US bombings

By RAHIM FAIEZ, Associated Press Writer Rahim Faiez

KABUL – The international Red Cross said Wednesday that its officials saw women and children among dozens of dead bodies in two villages in western Afghanistan targeted in U.S. bombing runs.

The Afghan president said he would raise the issue with President Barack Obama when the two meet later Wednesday.

A team from the International Committee of the Red Cross traveled to two villages in Farah province Tuesday, where the team saw “dozens of bodies in each of the two locations that we went to,” said spokeswoman Jessica Barry.

“There were bodies, there were graves, and there were people burying bodies when we were there,” she said. “We do confirm women and children. There were women and children.”

Afghan President Hamid Karzai ordered a probe Wednesday into the killings, and the U.S. military sent a brigadier general to Farah to head a U.S. investigation, said Col. Greg Julian, a U.S. spokesman. Afghan military and police officials were also part of the investigative team.

Karzai, currently in the United States, will raise the issue of civilian deaths with Obama, a statement from Karzai’s office said. The two presidents were scheduled to hold their first face-to-face meeting later Wednesday.

Karzai called civilian casualties “unacceptable.”

Civilian deaths have caused increasing friction between the Afghan and U.S. governments, and Karzai has long pleaded with American officials to reduce the number of civilian casualties in their operations. U.S. and NATO officials accuse the Taliban militants of fighting from within civilian homes, thus putting them in danger.

Local officials said Tuesday that bombing runs called by U.S. forces killed dozens of civilians in Gerani village in Farah province’s Bala Buluk district.

Barack Obama, who personally ordered drone bombings in Pakistan, also has the blood of innocent Pakastani civilians on his hands.

Let’s see: aggressively interrogating terrorist murders to prevent further attacks and save lives, bad; bombing women and children to kill those same terrorists, good.

Let’s treat Obama by his own standard and bring him up on war crimes charges.  Or, at the very least, let’s demand that Barack Obama climb off his moral high horse and recognize that choices have to be made in war, and maybe he shouldn’t judge other presidents for their choices when he has his own share of them to be held accountable for.

Recently, the moral stupidity, hypocrisy, and cowardice of the left was revealed when leftwing funny man Jon Stewart first agreed that Harry Truman, like the hated Bush, was a war criminal for incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.    And then he apologized for calling Harry Truman – a Democrat – a war criminal.  Mind you, nothing was mentioned of the war crimes of FDR, who killed over a hundred thousand civilians during the firebombing of Tokyo alone.  Even the left recognize the blatant dishonesty and hypocrisy endemic to the mainstream leftwing-dominated media.  Antiwar.com calls Stewart a “Wimp, Wuss, and Moral Coward.”  This Week excoriates Stewart for his “pathetic ass-covering,” and points out that “Surely ‘mass incineration’ of civilians ranks ‘as a far worse crime than the very serious crime of torturing prisoners.'”

While I believe that the antiwar left is utterly wrong for arguing that either Bush or Truman (or FDR) were “war criminals,” I can at least applaud the consistency of their logic.  Not so the mainstream left, who hypocritically and dishonestly prefer to subjectively demonize their targets based on politics rather than actual deeds.

So I say this to liberals of all stripes: by all means, attack Bush as a war criminal as you will.  But you damn well better be just as shrill demanding that Barack Obama, a murderer of women and children, be prosecuted for his war crimes.  And you’d better demand that the memos documenting Nancy Pelosi’s role in participating in “Bush war crimes” become public.

Liberal NBC News Networks Are “the Lohans”

Bill O’Reilly has long-said that NBC News is the most liberal and corrupt news organization in the country, and that its spin-off MSNBC is a disgrace.

Recent evidence proved that he knew what he was talking about.

An exchange between “The Daily Show” host Jon Stewart and NBC anchor Brian Williams – and the underlying Richter-scale level on-air meltdowns the network has suffered – makes for hilarious yet revealing insights into the liberal media:

Brian Williams appeared on Tuesday night’s “The Daily Show” from Minnesota, where Jon Stewart asked him about the recent infighting taking place on MSNBC.

“Let me ask you this,” Stewart said. “You’re NBC, you’re the top dog, you’re the anchor, and then they send you over to MSNBC, and literally they’re beating each other up. Matthews is yelling at Olberamnn, Scarborough is yelling at David Shuster, you have to apparently ask some of the women there if they would check a box if they like you…is there no control? Is it Lord of the Flies?”

When Williams tried the, “I think every family has a dynamic all its own” defense, Stewart shot back: “But does MSNBC have to be the Lohans?”

A further comment from the Huffington Post claims:

Word on the blogs has it that the awkward edit toward the end of the segment occurred to eliminate this exchange:

Brian Williams: You don’t understand the pressure.
Jon Stewart: You’ve got to lie. I’ve just got to tell the truth.

So we’ve got the crazy psycho liberal thing, and we’ve got the biased lying ideologue thing going on in the same Jon Stewart riff.

Not a bad days’ work, Jon.