April 29, 2008


Several people have forwarded me a link this morning to the Democratic National Committee ad against John McCain that shows two American soldiers at the moment an explosion goes off beside them.

The soldiers are on screen for just a split-second, just long enough for viewers to see that there was an explosion, but not long enough to know if the soldiers pictured survived uninjured, if they were wounded, or if they were killed (note: Both soldiers survived. See final update below).

More than 3 full decades after the last U.S. soldier left Saigon, the party of Bill Ayers still revels in the imagery of blowing up U.S. soldiers as part of their political expression.

Update: RNC slams ad as deliberately distorting what McCain said (a fair charge) and demands that the networks pull the ad off the air.

As for the source of the video clip, we're a little closer to running that down—it was used in Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 911, a movie completed no later than April of 2004. The clip came from the first year of the war.

Additional Update: Charlie Foxtrot notes that the same networks who placed restrictions on 9/11 imagery did not apparently have the same problem with this Democratic National Committee ad.

And because it matters, both U.S. soldiers survive the blast (h/t Political Punch).

Posted by Confederate Yankee at April 29, 2008 10:09 AM

Absolutely disgusting. I expect this for the al Qaeda, not from the DNC.

Posted by: Jeff at April 29, 2008 10:28 AM

Wow. One presidential candidate knows Bill Ayers and he becomes the mascot of the entire political party??? That's like saying Republicans are the party of the KKK because of David Duke.

Both parties use fear as part of their political expression. GWB didn't mind using images of 9/11 and bodies being pulled from rubble either to further his argument to be re-elected...( the irony of a Spanish speaking ad in GWB's voice...

Posted by: matta at April 29, 2008 10:39 AM

You liberals have no shame whatsoever. None.

Posted by: Conservative CBU at April 29, 2008 11:09 AM

I sit here as a long time Democrat who is sick and
tired of his party and the "TRASH" that runs it.
They are as elitist as they come.Ried,Pelosi,
Durbin,Murtha,ect,ect.They have no use for our Military,infact I would say it borders on total
contempt.This Country needs an other Teddy Roosevelt.I'm not much of a John McCain fan but
looking at the 2 on the other side it's a no brainer...As for Bill Ayers if he was run over by
the "L" today I wouldn't even blink.You know I
think I'll stay home and clean my Gun's today...

Posted by: Gator at April 29, 2008 11:11 AM

"That's like saying Republicans are the party of the KKK because of David Duke."

Which plenty of lefties have been willing to do, matta.

Posted by: Rick C at April 29, 2008 11:13 AM

The issue isn't that Obama "knows" Ayers, it is that A) Ayers specifically pledged to "bring down" America and used violence to prosecute those ends, B) Ayers still holds the view that America needs to be, in essence, destroyed, C) Ayers was an integral part of Obama's rise to prominence (ex. Ayers was Obama's boss at one point and was prominent enough in Obama's planning to be the host of his candidacy announcement) and D) Obama has lied about all of the above.

David Duke, on the other hand, can call himself a member of any party he wishes. McCain isn't beholden to Duke in any way, shape or form.

Sheesh, can you think rationally at *all* about these kinds of things?

Posted by: Wildmonk at April 29, 2008 11:13 AM

Just to allay any fears, the soldiers were not killed or hurt though at least one Iraqi walking next to the car bomb was blown to bits. The vid is from very early in the war.

That being said, the libs don't really care about the soldiers, alive or dead, they are merely tools to be used and discarded as necessary. Notice that the dems haven't been telling us how important it is to have a vet as POTUS during a time of war, ala 2004.

Posted by: Saint Patton at April 29, 2008 11:13 AM

Matta: The Democrats already have a lock on the KKK vote, thanks to Robert Byrd, the Exalted Cyclops.

Posted by: Kevin at April 29, 2008 11:14 AM

Matta, why is there irony in Bush speaking Spanish? As Governor of TX, he had quite a few occasions to speak Spanish...hell, as a resident of TX I have numerous occasions to speak it every day...

Posted by: wyzbok at April 29, 2008 11:24 AM

@wildmonk - Who said anything about Obama? CY was criticizing the DNC which is exactly my point. Guilty by party afiliation, what a fine American tradition! Taking a single candidate's association with Ayer and linking the entire party to it? Then the reverse should be fair too, right? No, its stupid and childish. How long before all the adults run around going, "you've got democrat/republican cooties!"?

@Rick - agreed, neither party is above such stupidness...

Posted by: matta at April 29, 2008 11:41 AM

That's like saying Republicans are the party of the KKK because of David Duke.

Duke also sought office as a democrat and Duke won his senate seat over the objections of high-ranking Republicans. Republicans didn't want Duke, big difference from the loving embrace given to Obama by the libs.

Sorry but if the left can try to tie McCain to Dubya in a quest to somehow taint him, then Obama's connection to Ayers (and others) is fair game.

Posted by: Gil at April 29, 2008 11:42 AM

That's like saying Democrats are the party of the KKK because of Senator Robert "Exalted Cyclops" Byrd.

Posted by: Doh at April 29, 2008 11:51 AM

No, matta, this is not the same thing and rough moral equivalences are the harbinger of complete moral breakdown. Has ANY Republican defended Duke in the terms Obammy has Ayers? He's a neighbor, a colleague, a member of the mainstream (that last especially). And that is BEFORE we even compare the relative careers of Duke and Ayers. Correct me if I am wrong but Duke has never been associated with ANY crime, no? Much less murderous terrorism within our own borders. Ayers and Dohrn and Boudien and whatever element of their representative freak show has not killed itself are a cancer on our nation and our society; indeed, the very notion of society itself. Barry cannot play patty-cake with this vermin and expect us all to look away. If there are new facts or statements, things could change but anyone who says Ayers is no big deal is, first off tactically wrong as regards this election, but much more importantly is a villain themselves. Yes, you.

Posted by: megapotamus at April 29, 2008 11:54 AM

Also, let us not forget that Ayers launched Obammy's political career. Why would he do that? Out of buddy-hood? Or because he saw Barry as a valid vehicle for his own political preferences? Is Barry merely a pawn in game of life? And on the topic, who is Duke's Barry? Who is the mainstream political figure beholden to him, who owes his political genesis to Duke? Of course, there is no one. Ayers is a traitor and a murderer; unpunished and enthused, still, by the same passions of yesteryear. It seems in this that, yes, he is a worthy avatar and stand-in for the Dems generally. The primary voters in any case. I am willing to be educated on the relative evil of David Duke.

Posted by: megapotamus at April 29, 2008 11:59 AM

That's like saying Republicans are the party of the KKK because of David Duke.

Did Duke commit a crime as Ayers did?

Posted by: Hemisphere Danger at April 29, 2008 12:02 PM

I am interested in exactly which known terrorists McCain toasted at a private party, since we are talking about equivelance, that would be it. Otherwise, you are full of it.

Posted by: moptop at April 29, 2008 12:05 PM

Too damn bad. How do your rightwingers like the Rovian tactics thrown back in your faces?

Just wait...just wait....we've learned alot from you guys. There's much much more to come in the switboating of the Republican Party and Senator Grampa Munster.

You just wait....

Posted by: TimPundits at April 29, 2008 12:19 PM

Why aren't the dems using the truly awful vids that actually show US troops being shot or shattered by bombs?

Because the libs know the price would doom their party for the next twenty years. So instead they inch up to the line but don't quite go over; it will still cost them.

Posted by: Sacred Trust at April 29, 2008 12:19 PM

McCain is a fool if he doesn't go hammer and tong after the Dems. The 350 million that Soros is promising his 527's are going to attempt to make him look like a traitor who caved into the Commies and sold out his fellow POW's.

I wonder if 90% of them will work against him like 90% of the Swifties worked against Kerry.

If not that, at least all of their allegations will be unable to be refuted because McCain will not release his Service records. Like Kerry.



the new math at work.

Posted by: hang all traitors at April 29, 2008 12:23 PM

Hey, no matter what your politics, leave Grampa Munster ALONE!

Posted by: anon at April 29, 2008 12:33 PM

hey Tim, swiftboating means being called a liar by 90% of your compatriots and not being able to refute it. Like John Kerry.

I think what you are trying to say (but I admit I have a hard time crawling around in the fever swamp of left pseudo-intellectuals so I may be wrong) is "TANGing".

TANG-Texas Air National Guard.

TANGing means lying blatantly; using forged documents that are comical in their inauthenticy; destroying the reputation of your employer; having yourself and subordinates fired over the incident and having an inquiry done by a former Senator to assess just how big a lie it was... Like Dan Rather, Mary Mapes and CBS News.

Is that what you mean?

Posted by: hang all traitors at April 29, 2008 12:33 PM


"There's much much more to come in the switboating of the Republican Party and Senator Grampa Munster."

The problem with your strategy is that Swiftboating relies on truth, not lib fantasies.

Posted by: coggieguy at April 29, 2008 12:36 PM

Trolling here:
Speaking of the Munsters and JFKerry, I rented the first season of the Munsters has an episode, I think it is "Far Out Munsters", that has a beatnik poet that I swear looks and sounds just like a young John Kerry right down the the sonorous voice and incomprehensible beatnik poetry.

Posted by: anon at April 29, 2008 12:42 PM

Wow. They sure do get a lot of joy from US Troops getting hurt.

Posted by: brando at April 29, 2008 01:19 PM

democrats get as much joy out of injured and dead American soldiers as al Qaeda

Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at April 29, 2008 01:26 PM

@mega - you are making my point for me. Nobody in the RNC supported Duke or the KKK either. The DNC doesn't endorse or support Ayer either. Obama and the DNC are not the same thing like McCain and NC's GOP aren't the same thing either. Yet CY wrote a post about a DNC ad and then baited the end of the post by linking the DNC and Ayer together. Now a conversation about whether or not the ad went over the line or not is fine, but where does Ayer show up in the ad which is the subject of the post? hmmm, I don't see him and yet CY plays the political version of 7 degrees of Obama to smear one with the other.

Obama bashing is fine, but has nothing to do with the subject...

Posted by: matta at April 29, 2008 01:38 PM

I'm in my 40's, retired military. My wife, US Army, is currently in Iraq. I will never, I say again, NEVER, vote for a Democrat for the rest of my life. I don't care how the parties change through the years. The Democratic base desires the defeat of the US military, and praises the death of US military servicemen and women. There is nothing they can do to ever get me to believe that they didn't wish for my death in my three tours in Iraq. I cannot, will not, shall not, vote for anyone who desires the support of those who wish for my death.

Posted by: Diggs at April 29, 2008 01:52 PM

Woh's surprised that Al Q and the DNC are on the same side? When has the American Left EVER sided with America against those who wish the deaths of Americans?

Posted by: DaveP. at April 29, 2008 02:33 PM

Hopefully Soros and TimPundits will be stupid enough to accuse McCain of breaking under torture.

That will allow McCain to publicly describe in detail--for the first time--exactly what was done to him. Broken shoulders, teeth broken out with a rifle butt, etc.

When the dust settles, the entire country will see McCain as a man who endured unimaginable physical and psychological pain in the service of his country.

And he'll be running against either Hillary "Sniper Dodger" Clinton or Barack "My Pastor Hates America" Obama.


Posted by: Tom W. at April 29, 2008 03:18 PM

regarding matta's kkk comment

are you forgetting about Robert Byrd?

Posted by: Diego at April 29, 2008 03:47 PM

matta, um, what? Of course "the party of David Duke" is a rhetorical flourish that throve in its day and thrives still in many precincts, I'm betting those comfortable to Bill Ayers. It is YOU who wants to dismiss Ayers as a mere foil to Duke, butcha can't, as I said. So, no, I have not made a point for you. You do not have one.

Posted by: megapotamus at April 29, 2008 03:56 PM

And also "Taking a single candidate's association with Ayer and linking the entire party to it?"
Yeah, Obammy ain't runnin' for dogcatcher. He is the leader of the Dem party as long as he is the front runner for Prez. If he gets the nom, win or lose he is the Dem leader until the next cycle. So, no cookie there, either. The hilarious thing is, even if Ayers is successfully declared off limits, even if Wright is, it does not matter. Obammy has a deep, deep bench as regards lifelong associations with vicious domestic radicals. Obviously, he is one himself.

Posted by: megapotamus at April 29, 2008 04:00 PM

Capitalist Infidel: democrats get as much joy out of injured and dead American soldiers as al Qaeda.

Actually more, the dems never met a terrorist they didn't want to protect and love.

Posted by: Sara at April 29, 2008 04:00 PM

We've lost 44 soldiers in April so far, the deadliest month for the US military since last September. John McCain has flip flopped four times now on his "Korea" plan for Iraq.

In 2005 he told Chris Matthews: “I would hope that we could bring them all home,” he said on MSNBC. “I would hope that we would probably leave some military advisers, as we have in other countries, to help them with their training and equipment and that kind of stuff.”

When Matthews pressed him on keeping bases in Iraq, offering up the German and Korean precedents McCain said:

“I not only think we could get along without it, but I think one of our big problems has been the fact that many Iraqis resent American military presence,” he responded. “And I don’t pretend to know exactly Iraqi public opinion. But as soon as we can reduce our visibility as much as possible, the better I think it is going to be.”

Kind of sounds like he was just touting the then current Bush "hide in our bases" strategy but he was talking long term.

Then in 2006 he changed his mind. The Korea model sounded just fine. He needed to a political hug from George Bush.

But last fall he told Charlie Rose: “Eventually I think because of the nature of the society in Iraq and the religious aspects of it that America eventually withdraws”

Now of course there's another election and he's running for president. Now he considers anyone who holds the position he himself embraced in 2005 and 2007 a terrorist sympathizing defeatist. He'd like us to keep killing Iraqis until those who are left accept domination by a nation that invaded, occupied and destroyed their country. One that arrested them without charge, imprisoned them without trial and tortured them.

As with almost every other issue, on Iraq John McCain is all over the map. He is intellectually and temperamentally unsuited to be president. We've already had a president like that for the last years. We do not have the time or resources to waste another four years.

Posted by: markg8 at April 29, 2008 04:21 PM

markg8, McCain evolved his position over time as conditions in Iraq changed, and over five years they have changed dramatically. He has taken defensible positions about what was then known (positions which you, like the DNC, purposefully and dishonestly misrepresent. A character flaw on your part, to be sure).

There is a phrase, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."

That phrase neatly sums up Obama's unthinking, inflexible view of the conflict, and that of the progressive wing of the Democratic party in general. You were first trapped in a quagmire of "the war is lost," in March of 2003, and nothing will change that ironclad view, no matter what what develops.

Wars have their ups and downs, and this one is no different, but at this point of the conflict, with al Qaeda having conceded that they cannot win, and al Sadr's militia being cut to shreds even with Iranian Quds force support, no credible observer sees anything but a decided U.S. advantage in the conflict.

It is too early to say the war is "won," but you lose credibility if you claim coalition forces are not presently winning.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at April 29, 2008 04:44 PM

Moptop, you need to worry about Ata testifying in Rezko's trial, he could take Hill and Obama out.

Posted by: justbecause at April 29, 2008 04:50 PM

Mark, obviously you know very little about war. It's long been an axiom that no battle plan survives contact with the enemy.

War is about adapting your plans to what your allies and your enemy do. That's just what McCain is doing... as the situation changes, McCain sits down and takes a long look at what the new strategy should be.

It's amusing that not too long ago, the anti-war lefties were demanding a change in strategy; that is part of what led to the Surge, which was, let us remember, a new strategy. Now, all of a sudden, it's bad form to consider new strategies.

There's a term for people who try to fight today's war with yesterday's battle plans and strategies: losers.

Posted by: C-C-G at April 29, 2008 07:14 PM

The Dhimmierats concern for the troops is matched only by their courage and patriotism. The Dhimmierats have all the characterists of a rat except for the tail.

Posted by: Thomas Jackson at April 29, 2008 10:36 PM

Glorious Iraqis resistance fighters liberating their country from...Iraqis?

The complaint was we weren't training them fast enough, then oh, the Iraqis flee from battle! Now mark puts us back on track with unjust invasion, and America is terrorizing the poor Iraqis. Last time I checked they ELECTED their government. They didn't elect Joe Bob from Texas to rule Iraq, they elected some Iraqi folks. America is fighting to keep those Iraqis alive through a turbulent time. And the results will be a stable country that doesn't threaten other nations.

The Left doesn't take merit into consideration. They see a political enemy and they Attack Attack Attack until it is gone, no matter what is being argued. The War on Terror started after 9/11, but the opposition started in Florida 2000.

There's more blood on Iraqi/Al-Qaeda/Iranian hands than on any American's. Everytime a carbomb goes off, the Dems take a poll.

Posted by: Dave at April 30, 2008 01:36 AM

Correct me if I am wrong but Duke has never been associated with ANY crime, no?

You're wrong. To the best of my knowledge, he has never been convicted of a violent crime- but he has been convicted of fraud and filing a false tax return, and has served time.

Search wikipedia for his entry, the details are there. Apparently CY's 'questionable content' filter doesn't like ''.

Posted by: rosignol at April 30, 2008 05:17 AM

@mega - a) Obama is only a Senator and a presidential candidate, not the leader of the DNC party. b) I don't need a cookie, your empty blustering isn't a counter point. Taking a despicable person who is associated with one person in the entire party and linking an entire organization to that same person is childish. It doesn't work for Duke and RNC and it doesn't work for Ayer and DNC.

@CY - McCain "evolved" his position??? Shouldn't that be "intelligently designed"? Is that the answer for his changing position on the GWB's tax cuts, religious endorsements and public financing as well? Love the nuances.

Posted by: matta at April 30, 2008 07:08 AM

So who IS the Dem leader if not Barry? Bueller? Ayers? Clinton? But he's ahead of Clinton. Right?Hilarious! Dealing with Leftwingers is like playing darts with the blind, but less challenging. So... what if Barry IS elected? Is he the Dem leader then? Not so much? Of course in such a situation we could still not speak of Ayers, disrespectful to the office, dontcha know, not to mention racist. Speaking of bluster.... How pathetic.

Posted by: megapotamus at April 30, 2008 08:36 AM

Of course, the David Duke = Bill Ayers discussion would have a tad more relevancy if David Duke were considered a respected academic and educational leader by the Republicans rather than routinely rejected, condemned and considered a general douche bag. By the way, incase you didn't know David Duke has run for various offices not only as a Republican, but also as a Democrat, an independent and on various minor party tickets, including the Populist Party.

Posted by: submandave at April 30, 2008 11:39 AM

@mega - By your logic, when Hillary was leading, she was the leader of the DNC then she lost being the leader. By the same logic, Giuliani was the leader, then Romney and I guess McCain is now the leader of the RNC, right? Oh, wait maybe that would be GWB. BTW, Howard Dean is the chairman (i.e. leader) of the DNC. Keep coming with the insults or is recess overwith?

@subman - I knew he ran as a democrat but he switch to be a Republican and its not really the point. My analogy was if the DNC = Ayers, then RNC = KKK as Obama knows Ayers and Duke knows KKK. My point is that CY's post of smear tactics of guilty by organization is childish. I know alot of good people who are both democrats and republicans who do a lot of good work at local, county and state level. They don't deserve to be smeared simply because of the associations of 1 individual.

Posted by: matta at April 30, 2008 02:04 PM

So who is the leader of the Democrat party?

Posted by: megapotamus at April 30, 2008 04:50 PM

Mega, that would be Screamin' Howie Dean, the architect of this marvelous Dumb-o-cratic Primary Process that is all process and no results.

If the Party of the Donkey ran primaries the way the Party of the Elephant does--that is, in a reasonable fashion--Obama would have sent Clinton back to New Yahk months ago, and their party might have had a chance to coalesce behind Obama.

As it is now, thanks to the oh-so-fair proportional representation rules of the DUMB-o-crat primaries, there's a good chance that the party will split right down the middle during or after the convention.

I begin to wonder if Dean isn't a Karl Rove agent.

Posted by: C-C-G at April 30, 2008 06:59 PM