Some Products to Avoid
You know, she does comedic bits even better than serious bits. Terrific job, Mrs. M!
Labels: Michelle Malkin, Rosie O'Donnell, The View
posted by Pat @ 7:08 PM
47 comments
As Seen in Vanity Fair's August 2006 Issue!
As Seen in US News & World Report's September 11 Fifth Anniversary Issue!
As Seen in Time Magazine's September 11, 2006 Issue!
As Seen in Phoenix New Times' August 9, 2007 Issue!
Friday, April 06, 2007
You know, she does comedic bits even better than serious bits. Terrific job, Mrs. M!
Previous Posts
- Jamieson Group Brings Out the Kooks
- Griffin's Three Key Pieces of Evidence
- Adri's Back!
- Steven Jones to Appear on the View?
- Killtown Fights Back Against Avery
- More From Tarpley on the Good Friday "Sneak Attack"
- What Happened to their 84% support?
- Queen of Nuts
- Webster Tarpley On the Depression of the 1990s
- A Sentiment We Can All Agree With
View My Stats
Allies:
47 Comments:
Oh, Yeah, with comedy like this, Malkin is probably going to be booked solid in Vegas.
Surely some part of you knows the truth is on Rosie's side and not Michelle's.
Yeah because steel really is unmeltable.
I totally disagree with the campaign to get Rosie of tv though as she has as much right to talk shite as Malkin does.
Surely some part of you knows the truth is on Rosie's side and not Michelle's.
I may not agree with Michelle's politics, saying she's tad more sane than Rosie is putting it lightly.
BG, I don't know how many times we have to say this but this is the truth of 9/11 - 19 men, agents of al-Qaeda, hijacked four planes to be used as missles. It's really that simple.
Meanwhile, the Twoofers fail to notice that the obese dyke with the 90 IQ is their current champion.
I totally disagree with the campaign to get Rosie of tv though as she has as much right to talk shite as Malkin does.
I think you will find, upon calm reflection, that neither Rosie nor anyone else has a "right" to be on a television show.
That said, personally, I don't expect the petition to have much effect on ABC, at least not directly. If anything, it will only serve to push Rosie a little further over the edge. I leave it up to the reader to judge whether that's a good or a bad thing.
Rosie is her own worst enemy.
if she would only sit down and speak rationally, in a normal tone of voice, after doing some reading, people might listen to her...
Thank goodness, she is simply behaving like the big mouth we have come to expect...
TAM:)
Surely some part of you knows the truth is on Rosie's side and not Michelle's.
Sorry, Rosie is just like any other twoofer, her view of 9/11 is based on what she wants to believe, not facts.
I actually don't care Malkin because of her xenophobic views on immigration, but it is a cute video even if it probably won't have much impact.
Michelle has more smarts than rosie under her fingernails
19 men, agents of al-Qaeda, hijacked four planes to be used as missles. It's really that simple.
Correct! For the simple minded.
I'll agree to get rid of Rosie if we can get rid of Bill (phone sex) O'Rielly :D
Malkin is probably going to be booked solid in Vegas.
Since Vegas is run by the Jewish mob, I don't see why not.
Hahahaha.. Very funny video. The criminals ARE SCARED SHITLESS! :D
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/michelle/malkin030
802.asp
I think Malkin's hypocrisy is beyond absurd. As one of the first mainstream commentators to question the official story she's definitely got balls to go after someone for doing the same, whether you agree with either party or not.
Craig, there is a big difference between what Malkin's questions (which were made 6 months after 9/11 and well before the 9/11 Commission) and what O'Donell is alleging. I don't see any reference to 9/11 being an "inside job". Plenty of sane people have wondered about a cover up for many of the f-ups leading up to 9/11 and the response on that day.
Asking questions is one thing (provided one can handle answers that don't have to jive with their world view), alleging the U.S. government perpetrated the act on the basis of no credible evidence whatsoever is quite another.
You folks here would be much better served distancing yourselves from these obvious brownshirts like Malkin and sticking to your imaginary science.
Are you deliberately trying to look bad or are you really that desperate?
Oh nevermind. We already know the answer.
Civilized Worm said...
Yeah because steel really is unmeltable.
Yeah...umm...I don't think that's exactly what she said.
Nice try though! Just need a little work on those reading comprehension skills and we can get that grade up in no time!
alleging the U.S. government perpetrated the act on the basis of no credible evidence whatsoever is quite another.
I don't think anyone is alleging the entire US government was involved. Most of use point the finger of blame to a tiny Zionist Neocon cabal within the Administration that has allegiance to a certain foreign government.
Nesnyc, I'm no fan of Israel. However, I see no credible evidence that Israel or its supporters in this country perpetrated 9/11. Further, it would have taken well more than a merry band of neocons to perpetrate 9/11, it would have required the active cooperation of thousands of military and civilian government employees plus private sector firms and yet none of them can be identified.
If you want to argue the United States should stop blindly backing Israel, you'll get plenty of agreement from me. A critique of U.S. support for Israel can be argued on the basis of well known facts. However, please spare me the conspiracy theories.
However, I see no credible evidence that Israel or its supporters in this country perpetrated 9/11.
You haven't really looked closely at the issue then. There are VOLUMES of real hard fact tying Israel (a faction of) to this attack. Key players were in the right place, Mossad agents were filming the event as it unfolded and the resulting wars were part of the Israeli strategic continuum. This is one of the easiest 2 & 2's to put together.
it would have required the active cooperation of thousands of military and civilian government employees plus private sector firms and yet none of them can be identified.
So how do you figure only 19 Arabs could pull this off and not, say, a few key people? Most of the top military brass is in their positions due to Zionist influence and they give the order to the rest. The rest don't have to be in on it. It's not as complicated as you're making it out to be. Most of the defense people actually DID do their jobs on 911 however, the people at the top delayed in giving orders to deploy.
Take the time to READ THIS and it will all come together.
Mossad agents were filming the event as it unfolded
Even if this claim is true, so what? Did they perpetrate the act with their camera? Give me a break. After the first plane hit, plenty of people were filming the twin towers.
So how do you figure only 19 Arabs could pull this off and not, say, a few key people?
Very simple, they hijacked planes with the intention of flying them into buildings and in three instances, they succeeded. Depending on which brand of the conspiracy theory you are preaching the number required grows exponentially, to either carry out the attack or cover it up. If I were to take your assertion seriously, and I don’t, the only way you have a small number is for the hijackers to have been Israelis passing themselves off as Islamic militants.
Take the time to READ THIS and it will all come together.
Okay, the usual batch of conspiracy assertions with “point the finger at Israel” slant, with claims such as this
And before you say pilots could not make that kind of flight, let me remind you many of the said hijackers were found alive. So that part of the argument is pointless. They were never on those planes, they were flown by remote control via ultra Zionist Dov S. Zakheim. (another PNAC founder)
ROTFLMAO! You can’t possibly expect me take such nonsense seriously. Let’s forget the so-called evidence for a moment and just look at the alleged motive (which by itself wouldn’t prove complicity), Israel didn’t need 9/11 to happen to get U.S. support, it already had it prior to 9/11.
You really waste your time making these arguments and shoot down your own credibility. Rather, you should ask people what our so-called alliance with Israel gets this country? (I would argue nothing) Does American military presence in the Middle East guarantee a stable supply of oil (no) and even if it did, is that a reason to get involved in regional conflicts in the Middle East (no again).
There are VOLUMES of real hard fact tying Israel (a faction of) to this attack.
Not exactly a credible statement when coming from an idiot with an Ahmadinejad avatar who thinks that the Holocaust never happened.
Even if this claim is true, so what? Did they perpetrate the act with their camera?
Here's a direct quote from one of these Israeli slimballs:
We were sent to document the event...
http://208.65.153.251/watch?v=KwOKm9-c2ls
What about the hundreds of Israeli spies tied to 911?
http://208.65.153.251/watch?v=JWpWc_suPWo
Please open your eyes!
Rather, you should ask people what our so-called alliance with Israel gets this country?
The satisfaction of knowing you've done the right thing? No, the US doesn't profit from it's alliance with Israel. In fact, you lose lots of cash because of them. On the other hand, you don't profit from giving food and medicine to starving kids in Africa either. Benevolence can be it's own reward.
If I were to take your assertion seriously, and I don’t, the only way you have a small number is for the hijackers to have been Israelis passing themselves off as Islamic militants.
The precedent to 911, actually how it is pluasible that this plan can happen, is all laid out in the Northwoods Documents. These plans date back to the 60's and show beyond a shadow of a doubt that US military operatives in the highest positions can and are ready to implement plans like 911. You cannot logically discount that a faction within our own government was culpable.
The satisfaction of knowing you've done the right thing?
Yeah! THE RIGHT "THING"
Here's what the US is fighting for!!!!
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e1842edc4f
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=aabeb2f4a1
Aren't you all so very proud???? :D
You know, if the Jewish government wanted to get peoples sympathy, all they'd really have to do is pay a couple hundred agents to go undercover and act like you. If I were paranoid, I'd accuse you of being Mossad.
So you're saying you actually agree with the kids in these videos Alex?
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e1842edc4f
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=aabeb2f4a1
I sure don't. In fact, I am repulsed to even think of how these slimy characters run this country. You should be repulsed and ashamed too.
Nesnyc: We were sent to document the event...
Anyone who happens to have a camera when a dramatic event occurs is “documenting” the event. Every news organization was filming the events too, does that mean they were “in on it”.
Nesnyc: The precedent to 911…the Northwoods Documents
Sorry, a dumb idea that was rejected 4 decades earlier isn’t evidence that 9/11 was an inside job or that Israel did it.
What you have presented isn’t evidence. You basically just want everyone else to suspend that they know or saw of the event and believe some Israeli-neocon cabal did it because you say so.
Alex: The satisfaction of knowing you've done the right thing?
You could make that argument for getting involved in Darfur are countless other conflicts around the globe. We can’t be the world’s policeman, we can’t even handle all the conflicts with which we are currently involved.
Also, your assertion basically assumes Israel is a strictly a victim and completely in the right. I don’t see it the same way. There is no reason for Israel to be putting settlements on the West Bank, that just further aggravates the situation and makes it harder to reach a deal with moderate Arabs. Second, if you listen to the settlement advocates, it is clear the settlements are there for religious reasons, I don’t see how it is in vital interest of the United States to support Israeli religious extremists.
I think you will find, upon calm reflection, that neither Rosie nor anyone else has a "right" to be on a television show.
Yeah you're right, if the station feels she's become a liability then they have every right to fire her. Still I really hope they don't pull her off the air over this, that would only serve to turn her into a martyr for these lunatics.
Yeah...umm...I don't think that's exactly what she said.
She said it was the first time in history that fire had caused steel to melt. What part did I get wrong?
Cons:
You could make that argument for getting involved in Darfur are countless other conflicts around the globe.
And I do.
We can’t be the world’s policeman, we can’t even handle all the conflicts with which we are currently involved.
I think you're wrong about that, but I'm looking at it from a military perspective. You're right in that without the support of the American people, it could never be done. The problem isn't that you're not physically capable of doing it, but that you can't stop squabbling amongst each other long enough to agree on any sort of long-term goals. Right now the US is just coasting along from one administration to the next, hoping that everything will turn out ok.
Also, your assertion basically assumes Israel is a strictly a victim and completely in the right.
Not really. A rape victim may have helped the situation along by wearing skimpy clothing and flirting with her attacker, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to help her when she gets attacked. Israel is far from innocent, but they're a hell of a lot better than the alternative, and they ARE the victim.
There is no reason for Israel to be putting settlements on the West Bank, that just further aggravates the situation and makes it harder to reach a deal with moderate Arabs.
Right, see the short skirt and flirting analogy :)
Second, if you listen to the settlement advocates, it is clear the settlements are there for religious reasons
And Israeli governments have generally been willing to negotiate about the removal of those settlements. They're not really a huge issue - the bigger problem is that the other side can't be trusted to negotiate in good faith, if they're willing to negotiate at all.
Correct! For the simple minded.
No, it's correct for any of us living in the real world.
This comment has been removed by the author.
There is no reason for Israel to be putting settlements on the West Bank, that just further aggravates the situation and makes it harder to reach a deal with moderate Arabs.
Uh Israel doesn't make the settlements. They're communities of far-right Jews, and they're about the biggest headache the Israeli government has to deal with. They need to be done away with.
And who are these moderate Arabs? I always see Fatah cited as "moderate", but that's only in comparison to the overtly genocidal Hamas.
Really, I want the Palestinian state to be created so that the Palestinians no longer have excuses for killing kids in discos and pizza parlors. Sadly though, I'm correct in saying that the state will not be the end of the terrorism against Israel. Maybe then the world community (apart from America) will stop being so utterly stupid, get their heads out of their asses, and support the liberal democracy besieged by people religiously and culturally inclined to destroy Israel just because it's populated by Jews.
ConsDemo:
First, let's note that I don't really agree or disagree with Rosie. But I agree with her right to say it.
I think you may be starting you believe in some major contradictions here. I don't think Rosie ever said, on the air, that "9/11 was an inside job!!!!! The government did it all!!!."
She's stuck closely to what she sees as anomolies in the WTC 7 story.
Which is very similar to what Malkin did. 9/11 Commission or not, the official story was very well agreed upon six months after the attacks. In fact, when the Commission report came out, there was little that was new or had been previously unknown to the average person familiar with the "official story."
So while the topics may be SLIGHTLY different, Malkin, asked questions about the official 9/11 story (especially about the passenger "takedown" of 93). She even went on the O'Reilly Factor that night and argued with him about this, defending herself where O'Reilly basically said she as nuts to ask these questions.
So I stand by my feeling that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. If she doesn't like what Rosie is saying, that's a shame. She has the right to voice that, but to try to censor Rosie is really lame when you're talking about some one who is a proverbial bomb thrower (Malkin.) One quick example would be that Malkin goes NUTS over the illegal immigration issue and the fact that children born in the US of illegal parents are made citizens. Guess what? Her parents were not legal at the time of her birth, yet she was granted citizenship. Should she then set an example and head back to her parent's country of origin and go through the legal process????? The defense rests.
Craig, Malkin never insinuated that the government was complicit in the attacks, nor did she make woowoo statements like "fire never melts steel". She asked a couple legitimate questions, which were, at the time, reasonable. Even a lot of the questions in Loose Change were reasonable at the time. The difference is that we are now 6 years down the road, there is a HUGE amount of documentation and evidence to explain the events of 9/11, ALL of these questions have been answered, and people like Dylan and Rosie STILL continue to repeat the same "questions" as if nobody has ever addressed them. Malkin asked a few questions, got the answers, and moved on. There's a big difference there.
And let me be clear - I'm not exactly a huge Malkin fan. I do check her site semi-regularly, and appreciate some of her work, but a lot of the time she's either trying way too hard to be funny or she's arguing like a woman possessed. Equating her to "Rosie", however, is just plain wrong.
Anyone who happens to have a camera when a dramatic event occurs is “documenting” the event. Every news organization was filming the events too, does that mean they were “in on it”.
LOL! The major part of the legit news media that "documented" the event was practically in tears that day. But these bozos were having a dance party, see the difference?
These stooges failed lie detector tests; the FBI officers beat them up and they were held in solitary confinement. I don't see any of the other people sent to "document" the event treated the same way. Can you explain why?
Alex: And Israeli governments have generally been willing to negotiate about the removal of those settlements.
Not quite. They’ve been willing to give up barren hilltops but they insist on absorbing some prime real estate and all of Jerusalem into Israel.
Shawn: Sadly though, I'm correct in saying that the state will not be the end of the terrorism against Israel.
Maybe, assuming the state approximates the pre-1967 West Bank and there is a some mutually acceptable solution to Jerusalem, Israel will be able to say its intransigence is not the blame for the conflict. There is certainly a radical fringe on Arab side that will never be satisfied, a situation Israel probably could have avoided if hadn’t tried to occupy the WB for four decades. There will need to be a buffer between Israel and new state for a while. I remember a discussion I had with either you or Alex last fall about peacekeepers between Hezbollah and Israel and whoever it was dismissed the potential for success yet that cease-fire is holding.
Craig: I don't think Rosie ever said, on the air, that "9/11 was an inside job!!!!!
She has asserted that WTC7 and I think the other two buildings were “blown up” which is straight out of the twoofer lexicon, plus she has hawked Loose Change and 911weknow, which are both twoofer propaganda flicks. Her “questions” aren’t new and they’ve already been answered, the twoofers ask them over and over again because as Alexander Cockburn says, “they disdain any answers but their own.”
Other than having a nice body, I’m not that impressed with Malkin, but even if she asked some conspiratorial-type questions, she at least had the sense to accept answers that didn’t just validate her world view, which sets her apart from the twoofers. I also disagree that 9/11 was considered settled in period after the attacks, there were still many questions, questions that were far more legitimate than the twoofer “questions” of today.
nesnyc: I don't see any of the other people sent to "document" the event treated the same way. Can you explain why?
I’m not sure if all of your assertions about the Israelis that filmed the event are true. They were spotted filming and were apprehended and held, because they were a) filming the event and b) foreigners who were not here legally. Many people were rounded up during that period. Even if they were “dancing” and failed a lie detector, it still isn’t evidence of Israeli complicity. There were for more celebrants in the Arab world, if the number celebrating is proof, the Islamists would win hands down.
There is certainly a radical fringe on Arab side that will never be satisfied, a situation Israel probably could have avoided if hadn’t tried to occupy the WB for four decades.
Nearly 80 percent of Palestinians support the suicide bombing of Israeli civilians. It's very naive to assume this is just because they can't have the West Bank yet. They're inundated from day one by their parents and their media to think the Jews are the children of Satan and that they drink the blood of Muslim and Christian children.
I'm assuming they go to the pre-'67 borders and give Palestine all of the West Bank and Gaza (which they already gave). I can guarentee that more than half of Palestinians (best case scenario) still support attacks on civilians even after the creation of the state. (Remember that Arafat rejected the plan that'd give them all of Gaza, virtually all of the West Bank save a buffer zone, and highways connecting the two - and then initiated an intifada.) Also, the Palestinians never initiated suicide intifadas against Egypt or Jordan when Gaza and the West Bank were actually annexed by both.
Not quite. They’ve been willing to give up barren hilltops but they insist on absorbing some prime real estate and all of Jerusalem into Israel.
I guess you weren't paying attention when they abandoned Gaza? I haven't seen any evidence of them trying to absorb "some prime real estate", other than Jerusalem. If you've got evidence of that, I'd love to see it. As for Jerusalem, I can't really blame them. Technically speaking, they're fully entitled to keep Jerusalem, the West Bank, AND Gaza. What's wrong with keeping territory which you've captured while fighting a defencive war? That they're willing to give back ANY land is a positive indication of their character.
I remember a discussion I had with either you or Alex last fall about peacekeepers between Hezbollah and Israel and whoever it was dismissed the potential for success yet that cease-fire is holding.
Sure, it's holding because Hezbollah is using the opportunity to rearm. There's been numerous articles about the UN's inability to stop this. They're also using the opportunity to solidify their control over certain parts of Lebanon, and are trying to increase their influence in Beirut. The next war, when it comes, will be worse than the last one. Nasrallah isn't stupid - nobody expected them to start attacking Israel again right after the ceasefire. I dismissed the possibility for success not because I expected immediate fighting but because I know that, until Hezbollahs influence in Lebanon is ended once and for all, we're simply going to keep seeing the same sort of nonsense over and over again.
There were for more celebrants in the Arab world, if the number celebrating is proof, the Islamists would win hands down.
Ah, but you see, Nazinyc thinks that all those Arabs who were filmed celebrating were really just "Zionist agents", or were paid by Da JOOOOS to dance in the streets.
So how do you figure only 19 Arabs could pull this off
Northwoods Documents
Mossad agents were filming the event as it unfolded
But these bozos were having a dance party
the people at the top delayed in giving orders to deploy
prisonplanet.com
whatreallyhappened.com
rys2sense.com
Vegas is run by the Jewish mob
Zionist Neocon cabal within the Administration
the resulting wars were part of the Israeli strategic continuum
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107048/
It is my understanding that the Israelis want to hang onto land that is most fertile and has the best water access on the WB. While their current proposals call for technically turning over a large share of the actual land, they would still have the parts they turn over in an economic chokehold.
Israel's pullout from Gaza had very little to do with trying to appease Palestinians. Rather, they did so because they were expending enormous resources to protect relatively few settlers.
It is my understanding that the Israelis want to hang onto land that is most fertile and has the best water access on the WB. While their current proposals call for technically turning over a large share of the actual land, they would still have the parts they turn over in an economic chokehold.
Like I said, I've never heard of this before, nor have I seen any evidence to support it. I can't say you're necessarily wrong, but I've not seen anything to prove you right.
Israel's pullout from Gaza had very little to do with trying to appease Palestinians. Rather, they did so because they were expending enormous resources to protect relatively few settlers.
This is little more than guesswork on your part. While it's a plausible scenario it, once again, lacks any real evidence. Regardless, it shows that Israel IS willing to give up those settlements. Why is it important to you whether they're giving them up because they cant afford them, or because they want to make the Pallies happy?
Alex, to your first point
http://www.guardian.co.uk/
israel/Story/0,,1709278,00.html
Gaza had no religious significance to the Jews. The WB does.
Post a Comment
<< Home