Is this for real? US to give Russia nuke secrets of England


Recommended Posts

Is this for real? US to give Russia nuke secrets of England

This just popped up on Drudge:

WikiLeaks cables: US agrees to tell Russia Britain's nuclear secrets

The US secretly agreed to give the Russians sensitive information on Britain's nuclear deterrent to persuade them to sign a key treaty, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.

By Matthew Moore, Gordon Rayner and Christopher Hope

04 Feb 2011

The Daily Telegraph

From the article:

Information about every Trident missile the US supplies to Britain will be given to Russia as part of an arms control deal signed by President Barack Obama next week.

Defence analysts claim the agreement risks undermining Britain's policy of refusing to confirm the exact size of its nuclear arsenal.

The fact that the Americans used British nuclear secrets as a bargaining chip also sheds new light on the so-called "special relationship", which is shown often to be a one-sided affair by US diplomatic communications obtained by the WikiLeaks website.

Details of the behind-the-scenes talks are contained in more than 1,400 US embassy cables published to date by the Telegraph, including almost 800 sent from the London Embassy, which are published online today.

I can hear the impeachment axes starting to grind.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It sure looks real.

I have yet to see any reaction to it.

Obam is looking like a traitor and all the Reps who signed off on this bill are as well.

It is a sad statement about this country that this could happen and it isn't even reported except on a few websites - and Obam wants an internet kill switch similar to what happened in Egypt so getting information like this may never happen again...

I am sincerely starting to get worried and I don't like it.

I know it isn't politically correct but any white conservative leader who had done as much damage as Obam would have been gone way before this-will this country die a silent death because they don't want to hurt anyones feelings?

It is looking like it and that is damn pitiful.

People are punished here for being intelligent and strong and rewarded for being weak and needy.

Not a good combination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wow nothing 2 hours later when other topics were topped off

again I am disappointed :(

MSK it is so cool you care and pay attention.

I really dont get why so many smart people are so complacent.

Edited by pippi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pippi:

A lot of the alleged non Democrats voted for the f---- ing treaty.

I think everyone knows that I think this piece of flotsam that occupies the White House has every intention of crippling this country.

Sad part is that a person like McCain just said this week that he can work with Obiwan and that he thinks Obiwan has moved to the center.

Time for Johnny boy to ride into the sunset.

Johnny we hardly knew ya!

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pippi:

A lot of the alleged non Democrats voted for the f---- ing treaty.

I think everyone knows that I think this piece of flotsam that occupies the White House has every intention of crippling this country.

Sad part is that a person like McCain just said this week that he can work with Obiwan and that he thinks Obiwan has moved to the center.

Time for Johnny boy to ride into the sunset.

Johnny we hardly knew ya!

Adam

Absolutely MccANT must go

I am starting to really like Palin she has the knowledge and the nerve-she IS brave-I cannot even imagine how her life has been threatened or compromised yet she still knocks it out of the park whenever she can-I would surely be so scared if I were her.

I am thinking I should be a fan :)

Edited by pippi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pippi:

I was a big supporter of her when she was governor of Alaska. I liked the way she took on corruption. Plus, one of my clients lived up there and worker on her campaign and he verified that she was a solid, decent and articulate spokeswoman for individual freedoms.

When I heard her speech to the convention in 2008 I was completely committed and have been since.

She is a real profile in courage.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pippi:

I was a big supporter of her when she was governor of Alaska. I liked the way she took on corruption. Plus, one of my clients lived up there and worker on her campaign and he verified that she was a solid, decent and articulate spokeswoman for individual freedoms.

When I heard her speech to the convention in 2008 I was completely committed and have been since.

She is a real profile in courage.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really dont get why so many smart people are so complacent.

Did you read enough of the linked story to get the details of the treason?

From the Telegraph story:

Although the treaty was not supposed to have any impact on Britain, the leaked cables show that Russia used the talks to demand more information about the UK’s Trident missiles, which are manufactured and maintained in the US.

Washington lobbied London in 2009 for permission to supply Moscow with detailed data about the performance of UK missiles. The UK refused, but the US agreed to hand over the serial numbers of Trident missiles it transfers to Britain.

Professor Malcolm Chalmers said: “This appears to be significant because while the UK has announced how many missiles it possesses, there has been no way for the Russians to verify this. Over time, the unique identifiers will provide them with another data point to gauge the size of the British arsenal.”

Duncan Lennox, editor of Jane’s Strategic Weapons Systems, said: “They want to find out whether Britain has more missiles than we say we have, and having the unique identifiers might help them.”

While the US and Russia have long permitted inspections of each other’s nuclear weapons, Britain has sought to maintain some secrecy to compensate for the relatively small size of its arsenal.

William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, last year disclosed that “up to 160” warheads are operational at any one time, but did not confirm the number of missiles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pippi:

I was a big supporter of her when she was governor of Alaska. I liked the way she took on corruption. Plus, one of my clients lived up there and worker on her campaign and he verified that she was a solid, decent and articulate spokeswoman for individual freedoms.

When I heard her speech to the convention in 2008 I was completely committed and have been since.

She is a real profile in courage.

Adam

Thanks-I think she may be this country's last hope

I sincerely hope she runs-I will do what I can to support her-her time is now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't mean to minimize the gross stupidity and incompetance (if not outright treason) of those in the U.S. government who gave this information on British nuclear missiles to Russia. But, compared to the damage done to U.S. security by such as Aldrich Ames, Robert Hanssen, and the Walker family spy ring, it pales into almost insignificance. I seriously doubt that Russia's strategic nuclear plans depend on the paltry number on British missiles. However, it is curious why the Russians would even care, when it is a drop-in-the-bucket compared to the U.S. nuclear arsenal.

Anyway, in a real nuclear conflict, with actual exchange of missiles, where much of Russia (and, of course, the U.S.) would be reduced to radioactive ash, the British arsenal would likely be redundant. How many times, with how many nuclear warheads, does it take to destroy the major Russian targets? Somehow, I think even just just one (rather than the likely multiple hits) direct hit would do the trick for each of them.

As for Palin being our last best hope, let us hope not. A Dan Quayle analogue is not likely to win the Presidency, let alone the Republican nomination. In any case, just because Palin says the "right things" (which she often does) on some issues does not mean that she would be a good choice.

Let's go over this again: "the enemy of my enemy is NOT necessarily my friend." For example, former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum has occasionally said the right thing, but when looked at closely, he is no friend of libertarian (certainly not Objectivist!) principles and has said so explicitly, in print, attacking such nefarious beliefs as "individualism."

Advocates of traditionalist conservatism and "born-again" evangelical/fundamentalist Christians (which usually mesh rather comfortably) may have some positions on selected issues that are similar to, or consonant with, libertarianism/Objectivism, but they have many more which are diametrically the opposite. For those that need a refresher or are not clear on the issues involved, Rand presented the differences between Objectivism and this type of conservatism quite clearly in her essay, "Conservatism: An Obituary" (in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal). See also, her essay, "Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World," in Philosophy: Who Needs It.

As Richard Weaver (a traditionalist conservative, by the way) stated in the title and subject of his book, Ideas Have Consequences. On this, Rand would have agreed with Weaver, if on no other. The philosophical foundations of our beliefs have bearing on the actions that we take.

Palin may hold some views which we can agree with. She may show courage in expressing them. Unfortunately, that's just the tip of the Palin iceberg. Examine the rest of her views (such as her avid belief in and practice of, Pentecostalism) before you sign on to her ship. You may not like her ultimate destination.

Edited by Jerry Biggers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jerry:

I understand your argument and agree with it.

However, humor me with the following exercise:

The Board of Elections has a gun to your mother/father/child/wife/significant other/dog/cat's head and you have to choose between the following three four for President:

O'biwan / McCain / Hilary Clinton / Palin

None of the above is not an option.

Adam

Post Script: Having been involved in the League of Non Voters back in the day, I would want on every ballot in today's political world to have a "None of the Above" choice available as a permanent ballot line.

Edited by Selene
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jerry:

I understand your argument and agree with it.

However, humor me with the following exercise:

The Board of Elections has a gun to your mother/father/child/wife/significant other/dog/cat's head and you have to choose between the following three for President:

O'biwan / McCain / Hilary Clinton / Palin

None of the above is not an option.

Adam

Post Script: Having been involved in the League of Non Voters back in the day, I would want on every ballot in today's political world to have a "None of the Above" choice available as a permanent ballot line.

Adam,

err,...isn't that four? If I agree to just leave, will they spare my cat?

Anyway, those four are not likely to be on a ballot for President at the same time. You present a grim choice....but you didn't exclude a write-in (heh, heh). So I would write in:...Rand Paul.

In real ife, we are likely to be offered someone other than Palin by the G.O.P. Romney, probably. But he has two counts against him: 1) he put in RomneyCare in Massachusetts and has a problem with differentiating that from ObamaCare. 2) Mormonism (which, unlike the MSM's ignoring of Obama's "liberation theology" - Marxism barely disguised - minister for over 20 years, they will go after his Mormon beliefs, big-time).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jerry:

I understand your argument and agree with it.

However, humor me with the following exercise:

The Board of Elections has a gun to your mother/father/child/wife/significant other/dog/cat's head and you have to choose between the following three four for President:

O'biwan / McCain / Hilary Clinton / Palin

None of the above is not an option.

Adam

Post Script: Having been involved in the League of Non Voters back in the day, I would want on every ballot in today's political world to have a "None of the Above" choice available as a permanent ballot line.

Adam,

err,...isn't that four? If I agree to just leave, will they spare my cat?

Anyway, those four are not likely to be on a ballot for President at the same time. You present a grim choice....but you didn't exclude a write-in (heh, heh). So I would write in:...Rand Paul.

In real ife, we are likely to be offered someone other than Palin by the G.O.P. Romney, probably. But he has two counts against him: 1) he put in RomneyCare in Massachusetts and has a problem with differentiating that from ObamaCare. 2) Mormonism (which, unlike the MSM's ignoring of Obama's "liberation theology" - Marxism barely disguised - minister for over 20 years, they will go after his Mormon beliefs, big-time).

Lol - sloppy on my part. As I was typing and listening to Al Jazeera, my compartmentalized brain decided to add Hilary who was cackling on about the perfect storm that is presenting itself in the Middle East!

So I added her for sexual balance and forgot to proofread the post. So much for stream of consciousness posting!

I will correct it.

Additionally, hearing Hilary's voice generally causes me extreme psychic disruptions that are essentially neurological!y based.

I understand in realpolitik terms, but this is an exercise in comparing Palin only to a slew of potential Democratic Presidential candidates.

Therefore, I am forcing the choice between Palin and any other Democrat to establish a point.

Care to pick from those FOUR now.

Adam

Edited by Selene
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have the Brits complained about this outrage anywhere?

If so, please provide some references.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In real ife, we are likely to be offered someone other than Palin by the G.O.P. Romney, probably. But he has two counts against him: 1) he put in RomneyCare in Massachusetts and has a problem with differentiating that from ObamaCare. 2) Mormonism (which, unlike the MSM's ignoring of Obama's "liberation theology" - Marxism barely disguised - minister for over 20 years, they will go after his Mormon beliefs, big-time).

I don't get this. Obama's 'liberation theology' minister and his influence on the candidate were page one news in the mainstream media. How is that 'ignoring'?

As for Romney, is the story that Romney's Mormonism was only raised by the media, independent of the no-holds-barred internal Republican campaign? How about Huckabee's sleazy attack?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have the Brits complained about this outrage anywhere?

If so, please provide some references.

That is the problem. The Telegraph and the Daily Mail both frontlined this story, and stressed that their report was based on diplomatic cables. The Mail, of course, just rewrites Telegraph stories for the largely-illiterate, but the Telegraph has a massive and well-indexed catalogue of the leaked cables.

When sourcing other stories derived from leaked cables, the Telegraph supplies links to its hoard. In this case, there is no reference to any particular cable or cables -- a search of their database using any one of or combination of the words 'trident start missiles serial numbers treaty nuclear russia russian' doesn't turn up a cable or cables that support or mention the details of the charges the Telegraph has made. Neither do any of the other, independent hoards show anything (e.g., http://cablesearch.org/ -- see also this handy primer on searching the cable leaks).

The most common meme circulating on the internet today repeats the notion that Telegraph 'cited' wikileaks, but this isn't true.

I will keep looking for the proverbial smoking gun, but I can't figure out why the Telegraph didn't simply point to the cable or cables that support their claim.

A series of classified messages sent to Washington by US negotiators show how information on Britain’s nuclear capability was crucial to securing Russia’s support for the “New START” deal.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I recall, the issue of Rev. Jeremiah Wright's sermons and of whether Obama as a 20-year member and financial supporter (i.e. $20K in one year) was aware and approved of Wright's inflammatory rhetoric, was primarily publicized by Fox News, talk radio conservatives like Limbaugh, and other conservative media outlets.

In contrast, the liberal/left MSM, which dominates practically everything outside of the above, said next to nothing about Rev. Wright's views until Fox News brought it up, and started saturating their news broadcast with excerpts from videos of Wright's sermons. At that point, the MSM could not ignore it and covered the story in a way as to minimize the significance of the Wright-Obama connection. An example is the New York Times article (listed in your Google link) which is a facile attempt to accomplish the above. This was the same line peddled by NPR, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, and CNN. "No big thing/Wright speaks in hyperbole - he didn't really mean what he had said/Obama probably had no idea what his self-admitted hero and mentor taught," etc.

Obama, for his part, was typically disingenuous, first claiming Wright was his friend and that the Right is "exagerrating" his views. When confronted with the videos of Wright's sermons, and then unable to deny that Wright made those statements, Obama changed his story to say that of course he was unaware that his mentor had said such things, and that he never heard such things, and that of course he did not agree with Wright on those issues.

Despite the fact that Obama had been an active supporter and contributor for 20 years, the MSM bought his story and tried its best to minimize the significance of Obama's connection with Wright. The Right continued to publicize the issue, but to no avail. Too bad, because it was an example of Obama being caught red-handed (emphasis on red). Do you think they would have similarly minimized a connection say, of McCain's minister with extremist views? I think not. McCain (and the American electorate) would have never heard the end of it. Notice that this issue was hardly mentioned at all in the months drawing up to the election. I was not a particular fan of McCain, but this one-sided treatment stunk.

Regarding Romney, he was endorsed with a cover story by the National Review, indicating that his Mormon views were not an important issue to NR's predominantly Catholic editors. Huckabee's attempt to bring the issue up was pretty much ignored as "beside the point." If Romney had gotten the nomination rather than McCain, we would have seen the issue of his "Mormonness" breaking-out all over the MSM, with stories about "Everything-That-You-Wanted-To(no, Must)-Know About-The-Really-Strange-Practices,-Beliefs-And-Violent-History-of-the-Mormons." If you doubt this, watch what happens if Romney emerges as the Republican standard bearer against Obama.

I guess that I should add that I am not a supporter of Romney, Huchabee, Palin, Rubio, or anyone else currently mentioned as possible Republican candidates. But my guess is that those on the Right will once again be faced with the choice of the "lesser of two evils."

Edited by Jerry Biggers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jerry:

Before Romney started to lose ground in the polls, they, the generic MSM did hammer him on the Mormon Church's dicta on "Negro's" not being permitted to be in the church:

"First of all, Mitt Romney has been raised a devout Mormon. He's a leader in the group. The founder, Joseph Smith, was actually an abolitionist who vehemently fought against the ills of slavery and welcomed Blacks into his new religion replete with its own bible, The Book of Mormon, was written by members of this group. Smith's successor was Brigham Young, who indeed was a racist, and who introduced the doctrine that Blacks were descendents of Cain, the bad son of Adam and Eve.

Thus, they were cursed with the mark of Cain (their Blackness) and are forbidden entry into heaven and prohibited from the priesthood of the Mormon Church. This started as Jim Crow laws were being written throughout the nation during the late 1800's and post Reconstruction.

It wasn't until 1978 that the Mormon Church felt encouragement to change this policy. In the meantime the Romney families were thriving under it. A member of the Carter Administration's Justice Department decided that if the Mormon Church wants to embrace a racist doctrine they should no longer be given tax exemption status. As the federal government was about to make its move, the Church proclaimed that God visited their president and twelve apostles and proclaimed the curse lifted. Blacks from here on have a chance beyond hell. How convenient.

Romney as an elected official has been known to make racial slurs. He has recently referred to a construction boondoggle, The Big Dig, as a "tar baby" he needs to avoid. Tar baby is an old school racial slur. It's not something we want a presidential candidate to say and have such a thought process about.

Romney's successor as governor of Massachusetts is the Honorable Deval Patrick, a Black who served as chief of the Civil Rights Office of the Clinton Administration's Justice Department. That is the same office that went after the Mormon Church's racist policies in the late seventies."

http://academic.uday...ey/romney01.htm <<This was from the Boston Globe...Is America Ready for a Mormon President

"Many Republicans believe that Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, though still considered a long shot, could emerge as the ''dream candidate" they will be looking for: an attractive social conservative in one of the bluest of blue states (he opposed the Supreme Judicial Court's legalization of gay marriage) whose CEO-style leadership will please the party's conservative base while not alienating middle-of-the-road voters."

There were lots more.

Adam

http://www.boston.co...rmon_president/

Edited by Selene
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jerry:

Before Romney started to lose ground in the polls, they, the generic MSM did hammer him on the Mormon Church's dicta on "Negro's" not being permitted to be in the church:

"First of all, Mitt Romney has been raised a devout Mormon. He's a leader in the group. The founder, Joseph Smith, was actually an abolitionist who vehemently fought against the ills of slavery and welcomed Blacks into his new religion replete with its own bible, The Book of Mormon, was written by members of this group. Smith's successor was Brigham Young, who indeed was a racist, and who introduced the doctrine that Blacks were descendents of Cain, the bad son of Adam and Eve.

Thus, they were cursed with the mark of Cain (their Blackness) and are forbidden entry into heaven and prohibited from the priesthood of the Mormon Church. This started as Jim Crow laws were being written throughout the nation during the late 1800's and post Reconstruction.

It wasn't until 1978 that the Mormon Church felt encouragement to change this policy. In the meantime the Romney families were thriving under it. A member of the Carter Administration's Justice Department decided that if the Mormon Church wants to embrace a racist doctrine they should no longer be given tax exemption status. As the federal government was about to make its move, the Church proclaimed that God visited their president and twelve apostles and proclaimed the curse lifted. Blacks from here on have a chance beyond hell. How convenient.

Romney as an elected official has been known to make racial slurs. He has recently referred to a construction boondoggle, The Big Dig, as a "tar baby" he needs to avoid. Tar baby is an old school racial slur. It's not something we want a presidential candidate to say and have such a thought process about.

Romney's successor as governor of Massachusetts is the Honorable Deval Patrick, a Black who served as chief of the Civil Rights Office of the Clinton Administration's Justice Department. That is the same office that went after the Mormon Church's racist policies in the late seventies."

http://academic.uday...ey/romney01.htm <<This was from the Boston Globe...Is America Ready for a Mormon President

"Many Republicans believe that Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, though still considered a long shot, could emerge as the ''dream candidate" they will be looking for: an attractive social conservative in one of the bluest of blue states (he opposed the Supreme Judicial Court's legalization of gay marriage) whose CEO-style leadership will please the party's conservative base while not alienating middle-of-the-road voters."

There were lots more.

Adam

http://www.boston.co...rmon_president/

"Old school racial slur"...where?

This has been my lifelong understanding of "tar baby" [from wiki]:

"The Tar-Baby is a doll made of tar and turpentine used to entrap Br'er Rabbit in the second of the Uncle Remus stories. The more that Br'er Rabbit fights the Tar-Baby, the more entangled he becomes. In modern usage, "tar baby" refers to any "sticky situation" that is only aggravated by additional contact. The only way to solve such a situation is by separation.[1]"

In my opinion accusing someone of racism for using "tar baby" to describe a "sticky situation" is simply a smear. I've used "tar baby" myself to describe engineering projects I didn't want to get involved in. A reference to "race" was the farthest thing from my mind and didn't have anything to do with the subject in the first place. You might give Romney a break on this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jerry:

Before Romney started to lose ground in the polls, they, the generic MSM did hammer him on the Mormon Church's dicta on "Negro's" not being permitted to be in the church:

"First of all, Mitt Romney has been raised a devout Mormon. He's a leader in the group. The founder, Joseph Smith, was actually an abolitionist who vehemently fought against the ills of slavery and welcomed Blacks into his new religion replete with its own bible, The Book of Mormon, was written by members of this group. Smith's successor was Brigham Young, who indeed was a racist, and who introduced the doctrine that Blacks were descendents of Cain, the bad son of Adam and Eve.

Thus, they were cursed with the mark of Cain (their Blackness) and are forbidden entry into heaven and prohibited from the priesthood of the Mormon Church. This started as Jim Crow laws were being written throughout the nation during the late 1800's and post Reconstruction.

It wasn't until 1978 that the Mormon Church felt encouragement to change this policy. In the meantime the Romney families were thriving under it. A member of the Carter Administration's Justice Department decided that if the Mormon Church wants to embrace a racist doctrine they should no longer be given tax exemption status. As the federal government was about to make its move, the Church proclaimed that God visited their president and twelve apostles and proclaimed the curse lifted. Blacks from here on have a chance beyond hell. How convenient.

Romney as an elected official has been known to make racial slurs. He has recently referred to a construction boondoggle, The Big Dig, as a "tar baby" he needs to avoid. Tar baby is an old school racial slur. It's not something we want a presidential candidate to say and have such a thought process about.

Romney's successor as governor of Massachusetts is the Honorable Deval Patrick, a Black who served as chief of the Civil Rights Office of the Clinton Administration's Justice Department. That is the same office that went after the Mormon Church's racist policies in the late seventies."

http://academic.uday...ey/romney01.htm <<This was from the Boston Globe...Is America Ready for a Mormon President

"Many Republicans believe that Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, though still considered a long shot, could emerge as the ''dream candidate" they will be looking for: an attractive social conservative in one of the bluest of blue states (he opposed the Supreme Judicial Court's legalization of gay marriage) whose CEO-style leadership will please the party's conservative base while not alienating middle-of-the-road voters."

There were lots more.

Adam

http://www.boston.co...rmon_president/

"Old school racial slur"...where?

This has been my lifelong understanding of "tar baby" [from wiki]:

"The Tar-Baby is a doll made of tar and turpentine used to entrap Br'er Rabbit in the second of the Uncle Remus stories. The more that Br'er Rabbit fights the Tar-Baby, the more entangled he becomes. In modern usage, "tar baby" refers to any "sticky situation" that is only aggravated by additional contact. The only way to solve such a situation is by separation.[1]"

In my opinion accusing someone of racism for using "tar baby" to describe a "sticky situation" is simply a smear. I've used "tar baby" myself to describe engineering projects I didn't want to get involved in. A reference to "race" was the farthest thing from my mind and didn't have anything to do with the subject in the first place. You might give Romney a break on this one.

Mikee:

Excuse me?

I might give Romney a break?

Dude, I was just providing a fellow OL member with some articles from the MSM on Romney and the accusations of Mormonism and racism. Those are not my statements.

However, since you mention it:

"The concept of tar baby goes way back, according to Words@Random from Random House: "The tar baby is a form of a character widespread in African folklore. In various folktales, gum, wax or other sticky material is used to trap a person." The term itself was popularized by the 19th-century Uncle Remus stories by Joel Chandler Harris, in which the character Br'er Fox makes a doll out of tar to ensnare his nemesis Br'er Rabbit. The Oxford American Dictionary defines tar baby much like Romney used it, "a difficult problem, that is only aggravated by attempts to solve it." But the term also has had racial implications. In his book Coup, John Updike says of a white woman who prefers the company of black men, "some questing chromosome within holds her sexually fast to the tar baby." The Oxford English Dictionary (but not the print version of its American counterpart) says that tar baby is a derogatory term used for 'a black or a Maori.'"

Additionally, this TIME magazine piece of trash article from 2008 was specifically about Romney's use of the phrase:

Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is taking flak this week for his use of the term "tar baby" while addressing a group of Iowa Republicans on July 29 in a reference to Boston's troubled Big Dig highway project. Was he offensive in doing so? The head of the NAACP, Bruce Gordon, believes the governor "made a bad choice" in using such a term, the civil-rights leader told the Boston Herald. But Romney has his defenders as well, among them a minister in the Nation of Islam. Romney's spokesman apologized on his behalf, saying the governor simply meant to refer to "a sticky situation."

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1221764,00.html#ixzz1D8VmVdIL

And there are lots more articles from the black/persons of color/what ever the PC word of the month is community that believes it is a racial slur.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like WSS, I'd like to see confirmation from specific Wikileaks items. If Wikileaks has released diplomatic communications indicating that the US government was ready to give Vladimir Putin and his generals highly specific information about nukes in the possession of the British military, the particular items will be getting quoted soon enough.

But if the story is true, I'm not shocked that the Obama administration turning over information about an ally's nuclear deterrent to the Russians, even though said ally is not a party to the "New START" Treaty and did not plan to be. The treaty is 30 years out of date, constituting further proof, if any was needed, of Barack Obama's rigid thought processes. In 2011 it serves mainly as our President's ego accessory. And his particular disregard for Britain was made apparent when he snubbed Gordon Brown and sent back the bust of Winston Churchill.

Republican candidates for President:

I still cannot fathom why anyone thinks Mitt Romney will get the nomination. He's the author of RomneyCare. Case closed. Only an ego that vies with Obama's—and the fatuity of some prominent supporters—have kept him in the race.

Of course, the items that Adam posted, alleging racism on Romney's part, are eye-glazingly stupid. Whoever wrote the first one has never learned as much about the Mormon church as one could pick up on one visit to Provo, UT. The restrictions on African-Americans were imposed by Joseph Smith himself, and the pretext was that Africans were descended from Ham, who the Bible says played a dirty trick on his father, Noah. The Mormon Church leadership finally did retract them in a politically opportunistic fashion—just as it once upon a time rescinded its approval of "plural marriage"—but the deed's been successfully done.

And "tar baby" as a racial slur is dumber than "niggardly" as a racial slur.

Newt Gingrich has already been to Iowa, professing his allegiance to ethanol subsidies, now and forever. Even Al Gore admits that ethanol subsidies are nothing but deadweight loss. Newt won't be going anywhere, either.

I don't worry about Sarah Palin's religion. I do worry about her reality-TV lifestyle and her ongoing propensity to shoot from the lip. Still don't think she'll get the nomination. But if she does, negatives and all, she'll be a far better candidate than Mitt Romney.

Those Midwestern governors, Pawlenty and Daniels, still look good. Chris Christie looks even better.

I still haven't seen or heard as much of Herman Cain as I'd like, but he comes across well in short interviews. A VP debate between Herman Cain and Joe Biden would be most interesting.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Robert Campbell' timestamp='1296956219' post='123695

But if the story is true, I'm not shocked that the Obama administration turning over information about an ally's nuclear deterrent to the Russians, even though said ally is not a party to the "New START" Treaty and did not plan to be. The treaty is 30 years out of date, constituting further proof, if any was needed, of Barack Obama's rigid thought processes.

Konrad Yakabukski in today's Globe and Mail wrote about the New START treaty:

"..in his ambition to render nuclear weapons extinct..Obama is truly Reagan's child...in late 1986, Reagan holed up in Reyjkavik with Gorbachov to negotiate the complete elimination of nuclear weapons. It was entirely Reagan's initiative; his closest advisors and supporters on the right thought him delusional...George Will later wrote: "

Reagan accelerated the moral disarmament of the west by elevating wishful thinking to political philosophy."

Obama faced the same derision...accused of 'indulging in a fantasy world that's nuclear-free.'

"This goal will not be reached quickly, perhaps not in my lifetime," Obama said .."but we must ignore the voices that tell us the world cannot change."

..end full quote

Looks like only parts of Reaganism are 30 years out of date around here.

Edited by daunce lynam
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I posted before I saw Adam's latest.

Referring to the ethnic and racial slurs used by Brits is irrelevant in an American context, unless the British slurs have gained some currency over here. The Brits evolved, and in some cases still retain, their own ugly lexicon.

Going to junior high and high school in Houston, Texas, I figure I heard pretty much the entire range of racial invective then in active use. Texans have subsequently damped that stuff way down. Never once encountered "tar baby," except in connection with Br'er Fox, Br'er Bear, and Br'er Rabbit.

Some of us are old enough to recall the Little Black Sambo story (now regarded with extreme embarrassment in the United States; is it still in print in the UK?).

Sambo and his family hailed from somewhere in South India, as one might surmise from the prominent role played by the tiger, or from the big cat's ultimate meltdown into a puddle of ghee. The tone was patronizing toward "natives," all right, but the yarn had nothing to do with anybody from Africa.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Daunce,

Do you know that before Ronald Reagan was elected President, George Will utterly despised him? Among Reagan's many sins, as Will then saw things, was being too fond of the free market. For in that stage of his development Will was a paternalistic social conservative, proud of his book Statecraft as Soulcraft. Reading a George Will column in 2011, you'd never know he could have written such a tome.

After Reagan was elected, Will figured he'd better cozy up to him. But I'll bet he's a lot fonder of Reagan in retrospect than he was while the man occupied the White House.

In the 1980s, Reagan knew that nuclear arms negotiations with the Russians had some symbolic significance, back when Soviet nukes were targeted on the US, American nukes were targeted on Russia, and each side had massive overkill capacity. Meanwhile, he never forgot that the Soviet threat would come to an end when the Soviet Union came to an end—and never quit working toward that objective. He also pushed for improved defenses against nuclear missiles—something Gorby was hoping he'd give up, and that Putin wants Obama to give up.

Ask anyone who now says that Obama is to Putin what Reagan was to Gorbachev his or her opinion of the "evil empire" remark, or the "tear down this wall" speech.

Besides, Vladimir Putin is a nasty critter, but he's more neo-Czar than neo-Stalin. And Peter the Great or Nicholas I didn't rule over a declining population.

The nuclear threats are now coming out of countries like North Korea and Iran, whose rulers are emphatically disinclined to make deals with Barack Obama. For that matter, Pakistani nukes ought to be a lot more worrisome to Obama than anything presently under the Kremlin's control.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Daunce,

Do you know that before Ronald Reagan was elected President, George Will utterly despised him? Among Reagan's many sins, as Will then saw things, was being too fond of the free market. For in that stage of his development Will was a paternalistic social conservative, proud of his book Statecraft as Soulcraft. Reading a George Will column in 2011, you'd never know he could have written such a tome.

After Reagan was elected, Will figured he'd better cozy up to him. But I'll bet he's a lot fonder of Reagan in retrospect than he was while the man occupied the White House.

In the 1980s, Reagan knew that nuclear arms negotiations with the Russians had some symbolic significance, back when Soviet nukes were targeted on the US, American nukes were targeted on Russia, and each side had massive overkill capacity. Meanwhile, he never forgot that the Soviet threat would come to an end when the Soviet Union came to an end—and never quit working toward that objective. He also pushed for improved defenses against nuclear missiles—something Gorby was hoping he'd give up, and that Putin wants Obama to give up.

Ask anyone who now says that Obama is to Putin what Reagan was to Gorbachev his or her opinion of the "evil empire" remark, or the "tear down this wall" speech.

Besides, Vladimir Putin is a nasty critter, but he's more neo-Czar than neo-Stalin. And Peter the Great or Nicholas I didn't rule over a declining population.

The nuclear threats are now coming out of countries like North Korea and Iran, whose rulers are emphatically disinclined to make deals with Barack Obama. For that matter, Pakistani nukes ought to be a lot more worrisome to Obama than anything presently under the Kremlin's control.

Robert Campbell

Sure. But trying to fit the nasty jigsaw piece into a space still goes toward filling in the jigsaw. Putin is dreadful and indeed a Czar, but he does rule. Czar Lavrenti P. Beria II.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now