Lunch: $950, Anonymity: Priceless
Katherine Mangu-Ward | March 22, 2007, 11:41am
It's really too bad that Karl Rove/Dick Cheney/Scooter Libby/Dick Armitage/whoever ruined Valerie Plame's life by destroying her priceless anonymity. Still, there's an upside: Now you can have lunch with Plame and her husband, Ambassador Joe Wilson for the low, low current asking price of $950.00.
The bill of fare:
Includes lunch for two(2) with Valerie Plame Wilson and Joe Wilson and a signed book.
We don't remember who told us, but you'll have lunch with Ambassador Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame at a "safehouse".
Lost in the din of the leak scandal that has consumed Washington is the very personal impact on the willowy blond CIA operative at its center. Plame, 42, wife of former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson, has become the most famous spy in the world, but her career has been derailed. It appears likely she will leave the CIA, some acquaintances say, but she hasn't publicly signaled her plans.
Having lunch with these two fascinating and compelling people will surely be a fantastic experience to remember forever!
Currently, the Wilsons are trumped by breakfast with Alan Greenspan and Andrea Mitchell (going for $26,000.00), but they're actually beating out tea with Madeleine Albright ($650.00) in the auction to support the Robert F. Kennedy Memorial.
Loundry | March 23, 2007, 5:29pm | #
It seems like you're saying that you are going to lump in the radical shrill left in with center-lefties because the center-lefties don't do enough to distance themselves from the shrill. I don't really buy that.
All I would really like to hear from you is something like this: "I can't claim to speak for all liberals, but I reject the far-left and they do not belong in my camp." I'd like to hear a lot more liberals say that, but, instead, I hear a lot of bitter, raging hate for "Chimpy McBushitler". And I've heard that raw hate incessently since 2000. Liberals are more hateful toward Bush than Conservative Rednecks are towards gays, and I should know: I'm a gay who lives among Conservative Rednecks and has done so for years without incident.
I think hating Bush has become a comfortable pasttime for many liberals, and I think that liberals underestimate the damage it has done to their repuatation. When someone says, "I'm a proud liberal", I do NOT hear someone saying, "I stand against racism and fight against injustice." Instead, I hear, "I am a seething, vengeful, hateful bastard!" That is what "liberal" means to me nowadays.
Has the right distanced itself from its base of fundamentalist rednecks? Nope.
Of course not. There's only about 100 million of them, so they can't afford to. Furthermore, many of these people have learned to stuff their racist feelings because they know that overt expressions of racism is politically incorrect. (This is a kind of political correctness I actually like.) The right has, on the other hand, openly eschewed groups like Fred Phelps (but they liked him when he was only attacking gays), the Klan, and white power groups. This is good and it shows the right's willingness to move toward the center and exclude the groups which promote violence and hate -- at least openly.
And that's what I'd like to see happen on the left. You can start by telling me how much you think International ANSWER sucks. I would really like to hear that from a whole bunch of liberals, I really would. I think it would go far to repair the left's awful reputation.
But what is the left wing version of the KKK?
The closest equivalent would be anyone that has anything to do with Jihad or the Mujahedin. The worst thing that liberals have done has been their uncritical support for the evil religion of Islam, especially since Islam is anti-woman and anti-gay. Those are two things that liberals are supposed to stand up for, and they wipe their asses with women and gays in the name of supporting "multiculturalism".
But the evil done in the name of Jihad absolutely dwarfs that done by the present-day KKK, which, by comparison, is a joke.
rob | March 26, 2007, 12:56pm | #
“What's wrong with CAIR? I absolutely think Bush and Cheney are worse than CAIR...CAIR hasn't hurt anyone. They haven't started any wars, justified torture, or used their podium to turn Americans against eath other. None of these things can be said about Bush or Cheney.” – joe
joe officially jumps the shark again… I mean, what could possibly be wrong with an organization that openly aligns itself with Hamas, supports terrorism, etc?
Here’s a quick fly-by of CAIR criticism from the Wikipedia entry:
“CAIR has received criticism from a number of both governmental and non-governmental sources, for actions it has taken and people and organizations it has been involved with.
The greatest source of criticism has involved CAIR's ties to terrorism and terrorist groups.[9][10][11][12][13][14] As of 2006, at least four former CAIR officials have been charged with terrorism-related offenses. Critics claim CAIR is a spin-off of the Islamic Association for Palestine, which is alleged to be a “front group” for Hamas.[15]
Critics have also taken aim at CAIR's fundraising and sources of funds. Shortly after the 9/11 attacks, CAIR's website solicited donations for what it called the "NY/DC Emergency Relief Fund."[16] However, clicking on the donation link led to a website for donations to the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF). It was later designated as a terrorist organization by the European Union and U.S., and shut down by the U.S. government.
CAIR has also been accused of doctoring photographs and reporting fraudulent statistics about the Muslim population of the United States in support of its own private agenda. Finally, another source of criticism is that CAIR attempts to suppress criticism of Islamic terrorism and intolerance through accusations of racism and anti-Muslim bias.
Investor's Business Daily publicly condemned CAIR as being "the PR machine of militant Islam" after CAIR "dispatched its henchmen" to try to shut down the first Secular Islam Summit. [10]
Among the numerous books donated to libraries in CAIR's "library project" was former congressman Paul Findley's 'Silent No More', which includes positive statements about convicted terrorist Abdul Rahman al-Amoudi.[17]
Even disputed as these criticism are, it doesn’t bother joe in the slightest to say that he thinks guys with those sorts of connections are better than Bush & Cheney.
Sad… Hate is even more blinding than partisanship, joe.
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
