May 12, 2011

Illinois Democratic Rep. Jan Schakowsky tries, embarrassingly, to say what Chris Matthews wants her to say...

... and comes out with 2 idiotically phrased comments:



1. Trying to criticize Republicans for wanting to see the photos of dead bin Laden, she unwittingly refers to the killing as "murder."

2. Having just portrayed Republicans who want to see the photos as somehow engaging in "chest-thumping," she expresses approval of the young people who celebrated the killing, because it was important for them, psychologically, to get to feel like "a winner" and not "a loser."

I'm not sure I want to be too hard on Schakowsky, because she seems, quite frankly, dumb. But it's a dumbness exacerbated by a ridiculous awe of Matthews and a desire to please him. Good lord, who watches that show?

191 comments:

Robert Cook said...

Well, if bin Laden was unarmed and unresisting, his killing was murder.

We still don't know what actually happened, especially given the confused, contradictory and shifting accounts of the deed, but my guess it was an assassination mission from the start, with no intention to try to apprehend din Laden.

Meade said...

"Who watches that show?"

MoDo.

"We briefly celebrated one of the few clear-cut military victories
we’ve had in a long time, a win that made us feel like Americans again
— smart and strong and capable of finding our enemies and striking
back at them without getting trapped in multitrillion-dollar Groundhog
Day occupations."


I don't think Americans want to see the photos as much as they don't like the idea of Obama as Daddy in Chief, protecting us from reality he thinks we might find upsetting. It's a matter of information freedom. Sheep like Schakowsky, Matthews, and Dowd aren't just dumb, they are willfully dumb.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Why anyone votes Democrat is beyond me.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Some people need killing. Monsters like bin laden in particular.

Issob Morocco said...

The Village Idiots who vote for Jan are the most loyal viewers of HardSoftBall. Welcome to life in a one party town.

exhelodrvr1 said...

Killing unarmed, unresisting enemies during wartime is not murder. If they are clearly trying to surrender, there might be grounds for something, but not otherwise.

AllenS said...

Two dumb people on display.

George said...

Trying to criticize Republicans for wanting to see the photos of dead bin Laden, she unwittingly refers to the killing as "murder."

And the proceeds to say that Obama "handled it just right". Sure because if you just murdered someone, you don't want to start having pictures of the body floating around on the net.

Schakowsky is an uber lefty...a socialist, and a former teacher. Saying she is "dumb" is restrained.

People like Matthews and Schakowsky and those that tune in know nothing of embarrassment.

Pogo said...

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence must have a cap on total IQ, like baseball salaries.

George said...

Trying to criticize Republicans for wanting to see the photos of dead bin Laden, she unwittingly refers to the killing as "murder."

And the proceeds to say that Obama "handled it just right". Sure because if you just murdered someone, you don't want to start having pictures of the body floating around on the net.

Schakowsky is an uber lefty...a socialist, and a former teacher. Saying she is "dumb" is restrained.

People like Matthews and Schakowsky and those that tune in know nothing of embarrassment.

shoutingthomas said...

Well, if bin Laden was unarmed and unresisting, his killing was murder.

Good! I hope the soldiers stomped on his corpse.

Cookie, what in the world goes on in that brain (or whatever it is) of yours?

And, I don't understand this. A Democratic is dumb! Can't be! Every Democrat is a genius! Republicans are stoopid!

BT said...

Schakowski is a wonderful reflection of the People of the State of Illinois: liberal, self absorbed and stupid. That goes for our other elected dandies such as Dick Durbin, Mike Madigan, etc as well. Schackowski represents the district covered by Northwestern U, which doesn't say much about them. Didn't her husband serve time for a federal offense?

Pogo said...

Meanwhile, Chicago's health care safety net disintegrates under Democratic leadership.

"Two charity hospitals in Illinois are facing a life-or-death decision. There's not much left of either of them - one in Chicago's south suburbs, the other in impoverished East St. Louis - aside from emergency rooms crowded with patients seeking free care. Now they would like the state's permission to shut down.

...The fate of the two Illinois hospitals will be considered Tuesday by the Illinois Health Facilities and Services Review Board. Without money to solve the operators' financial problems, the board may have little choice but to allow the hospitals to die.

...Near Chicago, Oak Forest Hospital is one of three hospitals owned and run by Cook County, part of the safety net that takes all patients whether they can pay or not. ...The number of uninsured patients more than doubled during the recession, with the hospital carrying the costs.
"

Jay Retread said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hagar said...

Their stories still do not hang together, and it is a fact that bringing bin Laden back alive would have provided entertainment for bloggers and commenters for decades.
But whatever happened, more than one person knows, so the truth (more or less) will slowly leak out, whatever it is.

In the meantime, if it is true that Panetta, Hillary, and Gates made an end run around Obama and Jarrett, how does that match with Obama's "I, me, and myself" announcement from the White House?

Peter Hoh said...

Pogo, she's in the House, not Senate, and while basketball has a salary cap, baseball does not.

AllenS said...

You would have thought that Matthews would have said at least, "Wait a minute, let's back up." But no, he didn't. Any guesses why?

Peter Hoh said...

Pogo, she's in the House, not Senate, and while basketball has a salary cap, baseball does not.

Don't Tread 2012 said...

@Robert Cook

"Well, if bin Laden was unarmed and unresisting, his killing was murder."

Echoing stupidity is, 'well', stupid.

"We still don't know what actually happened, especially given the confused, contradictory and shifting accounts of the deed, but my guess..."

Sigh. Echoing the stupidity of the regime' is, 'well', double stupid, followed by a 'guess'.

F'ing brilliant Robert. Giving garage mahal a run for his money.

Pogo said...

"Do they [the right] want this war to go on?"

For almost 2 full years, the Democrats controlled the Senate, the House, and the Presidency.

They could have ended the war at any time. But they didn't.

Don't Tread 2012 said...

@Robert Cook

"Well, if bin Laden was unarmed and unresisting, his killing was murder."

Echoing stupidity is, 'well', stupid.

"We still don't know what actually happened, especially given the confused, contradictory and shifting accounts of the deed, but my guess..."

Sigh. Echoing the stupidity of the regime' is, 'well', double stupid, followed by a 'guess'.

F'ing brilliant Robert. Giving garage mahal a run for his money.

George said...

"Didn't her husband serve time for a federal offense?"

Yep, bank fraud and tax evasion.

Tax. Evasion.

George said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Pogo said...

@Peter Hoh
Geez, my sports cred is all in tatters.

George said...

"Didn't her husband serve time for a federal offense?"

Yep, bank fraud and tax evasion.

Tax. Evasion.

Robert Cook said...

"Killing unarmed, unresisting enemies during wartime is not murder."

Um...yes, it is.

Scott M said...

Good lord, who watches that show?

I did, daily, back during the 2008 primaries. Given my innate dislike for all things Hillary and Matthews' poorly disguised bias for Obama, it was nice to see him skewer her almost every day.

I would never have thought, at the time, that Obama would win the national. However, I didn't factor in the massive and influential Wisconsin lawprof voting bloc.

Peter Hoh said...

But that doesn't change the fact that she serves up some dumb quotes.

Robert Cook said...

"For almost 2 full years, the Democrats controlled the Senate, the House, and the Presidency.

"They could have ended the war at any time. But they didn't."


Yep! The Dems have been complicit in these criminal wars from the start.

Don't Tread 2012 said...

@Robert Cook

"Killing unarmed, unresisting enemies during wartime is not murder.

Um...yes, it is."

Only in your echo chamber Robert.

There isn't a jury in sight that would convict the trigger man for killing OBL.

Why do you care how OBL met his 70-odd virgins, anyways?

There is one explanation - that you too are an apologist for terror.

That makes you the enemy.

Meade said...

Non-salary Baseball cap on a Democrat with high IQ.

Don't Tread 2012 said...

@Robert Cook

"Killing unarmed, unresisting enemies during wartime is not murder.

Um...yes, it is."

Only in your echo chamber Robert.

There isn't a jury in sight that would convict the trigger man for killing OBL.

Why do you care how OBL met his 70-odd virgins, anyways?

There is one explanation - that you too are an apologist for terror.

That makes you the enemy.

Don't Tread 2012 said...

@Meade

"Non-salary Baseball cap on a Democrat with high IQ."

Heh.

Intelligence should not be confused with being smart.

rhhardin said...

"Killing unarmed, unresisting enemies during wartime is not murder."

Um...yes, it is.


They have to complete a surrender, because the attackers are not obligated to slow down an attack to accommodate that possibility.

That would put them at increased risk, which they can't be obligated to do.

It's not a police action.

shoutingthomas said...

Um...yes, it is.

OK, Cookie, so it's murder.

I don't give a fuck. Hooray for murdering bin Laden!

What in the fuck is wrong with you? Who gives a fuck whether or not it was murder?

rhhardin said...

"Killing unarmed, unresisting enemies during wartime is not murder."

Um...yes, it is.


They have to complete a surrender, because the attackers are not obligated to slow down an attack to accommodate that possibility.

That would put them at increased risk, which they can't be obligated to do.

It's not a police action.

Pogo said...

@Robert Cook insists that killing unarmed, unresisting enemies during wartime is murder.

The definition thus expanded means that war itself is murder, which I suspect is Cook's position.

And therefore both meaningless and ignorable.

Lincolntf said...

I loved listening to Schakowsky and Matthews using the occasion of Bin Laden's death (and Obama's bizarre choice to claim sole ownership of the photo) the same way they use everything from weather reports to film reviews, as an opportunity to scare people about Republicans. Nobody falls for that crap anymore, but still they persist. People keep getting smarter and the Left keeps getting dumber.
Oh, and the killing of Osama was the antithesis of murder. The shitbag pacifists will probably wring their hands and cry over his body, but that's about all.

Pogo said...

Vaguely recalling the topic of "osmosis" in high school biology, Illinois Democratic Rep. Jan Schakowsky joined the Select Committee on Intelligence, hoping it might rub off on her.

Lincolntf said...

I loved listening to Schakowsky and Matthews using the occasion of Bin Laden's death (and Obama's bizarre choice to claim sole ownership of the photo) the same way they use everything from weather reports to film reviews, as an opportunity to scare people about Republicans. Nobody falls for that crap anymore, but still they persist. People keep getting smarter and the Left keeps getting dumber.
Oh, and the killing of Osama was the antithesis of murder. The shitbag pacifists will probably wring their hands and cry over his body, but that's about all.

traditionalguy said...

Jankowski uses the dumb persona that is required for a liberal activist in an educated area. Well meaning about everything, but unable to function in a fact based world. She is so well meaning that she would have no problem with murdering opponents of a well meaning government. Any scientist that dares to do research that exposes the CO2 Warmist Regime's well meaning but false propaganda had better watch out for the well meaning Jankowski. She will support their imprisonment and murder, because she means well.

windbag said...

Killing is not murder. Our Navy SEALS killed OBL; they did not murder OBL.

Original Mike said...

I've actually started watching it (well, I have it on in that time slot; I'm usually in and out of the room doing chores). Matthews has degenrated into a clown. He was never very thoughtful, but he's turned into a real brown-noser for this Administration.

His primary MO is to find the most ridiculous "Republican" line (e.g. Trump and the birth certificate) and present it as a mainstream conservative view. I think I watch it for the spectacle.

AJ Lynch said...

She is socialist dumb and her husband allegedly helped to write Obamacare while he was in prison.I am not making this up!

Original Mike said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Robert Cook said...

"There isn't a jury in sight that would convict the trigger man for killing OBL."

This doesn't mean the killing wasn't murder...if OBL was unarmed and unresisting.

Why do you care how OBL met his 70-odd virgins, anyways?"

Because I'm concerned with what kind of nation we are and whether we adhere to lawful behavior. Not merely for theoretical reasons...you know, "there's a right way and there's a wrong way to do things," although that's part of it...but because as we abandon lawful behavior in dealing with our declared enemies, we give our government leave to abandon it when dealing with us. We also give those we might face in wartime leave to do the same to us. (One reason we should not torture--aside from it being simply evil behavior, and illegal--is that it legitimizes the torture of our own citizens and soldiers detained by foreign powers.)

Why do you think we prosecuted the Nazis at Nuremberg, rather than simply have them shot, as Churchill urged? Prosecutor Robert Jackson said the treatment we afforded the Nazis--whether through summary execution or through due process of law--would determine what kind of nation we would be thenceforth.

"There is one explanation - that you too are an apologist for terror."

Um...no. This is an explanation you want to assert, either because you are ignorant of other possible reasons, or because you simply want to slander me because it fulfills your emotional needs.

"That makes you the enemy."

Again, no. Any who support lawless behavior and murder by America, even in wartime, are enemies of and traitors to America. I am probably the only--or one of the very few--true patriots commenting on this blog.

DADvocate said...

Some people need killing.

"He needed killin'" is a legal defense in Tennessee.

Matthews/Schakowsky display the typical logical hypocrisy/inconsistency of liberals. Whatever we do is OK, whatever you do isn't. Matthews is an idiot. I might watch for a minute or 2 to see what stupidity he will come up with at the moment. He has the intellectual capacity of a kindergartener.

Robert Cook said...

"There isn't a jury in sight that would convict the trigger man for killing OBL."

This doesn't mean the killing wasn't murder...if OBL was unarmed and unresisting.

Why do you care how OBL met his 70-odd virgins, anyways?"

Because I'm concerned with what kind of nation we are and whether we adhere to lawful behavior. Not merely for theoretical reasons...you know, "there's a right way and there's a wrong way to do things," although that's part of it...but because as we abandon lawful behavior in dealing with our declared enemies, we give our government leave to abandon it when dealing with us. We also give those we might face in wartime leave to do the same to us. (One reason we should not torture--aside from it being simply evil behavior, and illegal--is that it legitimizes the torture of our own citizens and soldiers detained by foreign powers.)

Why do you think we prosecuted the Nazis at Nuremberg, rather than simply have them shot, as Churchill urged? Prosecutor Robert Jackson said the treatment we afforded the Nazis--whether through summary execution or through due process of law--would determine what kind of nation we would be thenceforth.

"There is one explanation - that you too are an apologist for terror."

Um...no. This is an explanation you want to assert, either because you are ignorant of other possible reasons, or because you simply want to slander me because it fulfills your emotional needs.

"That makes you the enemy."

Again, no. Any who support lawless behavior and murder by America, even in wartime, are enemies of and traitors to America. I am probably the only--or one of the very few--true patriots commenting on this blog.

AJ Lynch said...

She is socialist dumb and her husband allegedly helped to write Obamacare while he was in prison.I am not making this up!

Fred4Pres said...

It is okay to pick on Schakowsky. She is a friggin congressperson and this level of stupidacity deserves to be picked on.

Chris Matthews deserves the scorn he normally gets.

Original Mike said...

I saw Schakowsky discussing the economy and stimulus a couple of months back. She is certifiably stupid.

Fred4Pres said...

It is okay to pick on Schakowsky. She is a friggin congressperson and this level of stupidacity deserves to be picked on.

Chris Matthews deserves the scorn he normally gets.

David said...

Jan was my Congressmule when I lived in Chicago. She is dumb. But also vapid and arrogant, a difficult combination to pull off. In her district, she can stay in Congress as long as she wants.

She is the white Carol Mosley Braun.

Jenner said...

In order to discuss this "murder" it would be good to get up to speed on the law. This type of action has been classified as a "targeted killing" and as such it is not murder or assassination. Go over to Volokh Conspiracy and look at the detailed posts on targeted killing. You can disagree with the morality of targeted killing which is determined by the circumstances of war, but the interpretation of the law on this issue is pretty solid.

It would be good for the media to try to explain this to the public.
It might also help our legislators get educated on the law, whose knowledge is clearly lacking.

David said...

Jan is on the Intelligence Committee.

There is a certain leak.

Jenner said...

In order to discuss this "murder" it would be good to get up to speed on the law. This type of action has been classified as a "targeted killing" and as such it is not murder or assassination. Go over to Volokh Conspiracy and look at the detailed posts on targeted killing. You can disagree with the morality of targeted killing which is determined by the circumstances of war, but the interpretation of the law on this issue is pretty solid.

It would be good for the media to try to explain this to the public.
It might also help our legislators get educated on the law, whose knowledge is clearly lacking.

Marshal said...

You have to love Cook. He's the child complaining "it's not fair". You can't explain why fairness doesn't matter because he doesn't understand enough about life for the explanation to mean anything.

Best to smile and move on.

Pogo said...

"I am probably the only--or one of the very few--true patriots commenting on this blog."

If by "true patriots" you mean "communists", you're probably right.

Marshal said...

You have to love Cook. He's the child complaining "it's not fair". You can't explain why fairness doesn't matter because he doesn't understand enough about life for the explanation to mean anything.

Best to smile and move on.

Scott M said...

"I am probably the only--or one of the very few--true patriots commenting on this blog."

Hubris will getcha nowhere...

ricpic said...

Save peaceful statist Americans from blood lust crazed Palin!!!

Scott M said...

"I am probably the only--or one of the very few--true patriots commenting on this blog."

Hubris will getcha nowhere...

AprilApple said...

Jimmy Carter?

The Drill SGT said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
AprilApple said...

Democrats need to be stroked. It's required.

Jay said...

Prosecutor Robert Jackson said the treatment we afforded the Nazis--whether through summary execution or through due process of law--would determine what kind of nation we would be thenceforth.


Um, that doesn't make him correct.

NotYourTypicalNewYorker said...

I am probably the only--or one of the very few--true patriots commenting on this blog.

Just....WOW.

Aridog said...

Oh, my ... what will Obama's worshipers do when it, eventually, dawns on them that Obama has, in fact, ramped up "targeted killing" considerably over his predecessors? Drone strikes increased. Special Operations staffing increased and more deployed.

I don't like the man, for myriad reasons, but I'm not gonna fault him for allowing either of those SOCOM/CIA activities on his watch. It's like MAC-V/Phoenix redux, but with better tools and stuff.

Obama likes his killing, yes sir, but prefers it to be in the dark and unannounced, unless it's worth a poll bounce or two.

MadisonMan said...

Why anyone votes Democrat is beyond me.

I suggest some do because the Republican Candidates are even worse. Believe it!

In this case, however, I do wonder about her opponents -- or is this just a Chicago thing? (Basing this on the comments, not on the video).

Original Mike said...

" I am probably the only--or one of the very few--true patriots commenting on this blog."

I does a body good to start the morning off with a good belly laugh.

Lincolntf said...

Robert Cook:
"I am probably the only--or one of the very few--true patriots commenting on this blog."

Auto-friggin-matic thread winner. Bobby boy, you don't understand the first thing about this country, it's history or it's ideals.
You're a Patriot like Helen Thomas is a Hooters girl.

The Drill SGT said...

grrr. blogger ate my stuff for an hour. a couple of short comments:

Robert Cook said...
Well, if bin Laden was unarmed and unresisting, his killing was murder.


You conflate military operations and law enforcement operations.

Police are required to use the minimum for necessary. The Army approach is that few operations fail by using too much force. In a military operation, one side, particularly one consisting of illegal combatants can't engage in killing US assets, then instantly seek the protection of prisoner status. Said differently, taking prisoners is optional for a military commander, if it does not risk his mission or men. However once taken, prisoners are entitled to maximum protection.

There is a reason, I sometimes quote that little SOF phrase, "2 in the chest and 1 in the head". It is indicative of the approach you take in clearly a room.

-------
as for the Congresswoman, she committed a Kinsley gaffe. e.g. she told the truth as she sees it. She views war as a law enforcement exercise, like our President.

Lincolntf said...

Robert Cook:
"I am probably the only--or one of the very few--true patriots commenting on this blog."

Auto-friggin-matic thread winner. Bobby boy, you don't understand the first thing about this country, it's history or it's ideals.
You're a Patriot like Helen Thomas is a Hooters girl.

Original Mike said...

" I am probably the only--or one of the very few--true patriots commenting on this blog."

I does a body good to start the morning off with a good belly laugh.

DADvocate said...

Cookie needs to learn the difference between war and law enforcement.

"By virtually any account of the law of war, Osama Bin Laden was a valid military target, and as far as we can tell from the news accounts, this was a military mission undertaken by a military unit. To require that military units can use lethal force only in self-defense is not only a complete misunderstanding of the law of war (under whose auspices the SEALs were operating); it would subject our servicemembers to intolerable risk and cripple our nation’s ability to defend itself."

AFG said...

Talk about playing up a blog post to your commenters. You could have one from a half dozen fox programs every single night asking "who watches that show." Althouse has jumped the shark, weird to watch this happen in real time.

Robert Cook said...

"Hubris will getcha nowhere..."

"No brag; just fact."

Sixty Grit said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
AFG said...

If you replaced "democrat" with "republican" in any one of these comments, they would basically be indistinguishable from the comments at daily kos, or any other politically homogeneous online enclaves.

Rob said...

@Robert Cook
Just so that you don't have to strain yourself by actually researching the law of war, I'll pose a hypothetical. You are a U.S. soldier in World War II. You and your squad, unseen, sneak into a French town and see an SS officer drinking coffee at the sidewalk cafe. You cannot see if he is armed. You see no other soldiers around. If you shoot him, is it murder?

The Drill SGT said...

AFG said...

Fixed it for you :)

If you replaced "AQ" with "US Army" in any one of these comments, they would basically be indistinguishable from the comments at daily kos, or any other politically homogeneous online enclaves.

Pogo said...

"If you replaced "democrat" with "republican" in any one of these comments"

I'll not disagree; that a large faction of Congresscritters are box-o-rocks dumb is a painful fact.

The Drill SGT said...

AFG said...

Fixed it for you :)

If you replaced "AQ" with "US Army" in any one of these comments, they would basically be indistinguishable from the comments at daily kos, or any other politically homogeneous online enclaves.

Fen said...

Oh lookie, another troll we've never heard from till today is all-of-a-sudden concerned about Althouse and her blog.

And he's making an appeal to conformity!

Because it worked on him. Someone once told him "vote Democrat and you can hang with the cool kids". And so he became a whore.

Bend over bitch.

The Drill SGT said...

Rob said...

nice analogy

Pogo said...

Is it murder?
Hell, meat is murder, ain't it?

Robert Cook said...

Sixty Grit said:

"Hey, Cookie...is...on the side of the enemies of freedom."

You mistake me for one of your comrades.

Pogo said...

Is it murder?
Hell, meat is murder, ain't it?

The Drill SGT said...

Rob said...

nice analogy

Fen said...

I'm not sure I want to be too hard on Schakowsky, because she seems, quite frankly, dumb

See, over in the NorthEast, I can blame radon exposure for all of our dingbats. What's your excuse?

Scott M said...

"No brag; just fact."

It is absolutely impossible to logically prove your opinion of yourself as fact.

garage mahal said...

It's cute watching everyone rushing to take the side of Obama over Cook. Hope and Change Cookie!

Scott M said...

If you replaced "democrat" with "republican" in any one of these comments, they would basically be indistinguishable from the comments at daily kos, or any other politically homogeneous online enclaves.

Only the ad hominem comments. Your premise doesn't work when addressing actual policy. Further, reading DK or some of the other more prominent left-leaning blogs, one doesn't see a whole lot of mention of freedom or liberty unless its a personal behavioral issue.

Scott M said...

It's cute watching everyone rushing to take the side of Obama over Cook. Hope and Change Cookie!

What's really cute is watching the formerly anti-eliminationist rhetoric liberals suddenly "pivot" and wholly embrace things like targeted killing, M-4 carbines, stealth choppers, etc. You have to admit. Their main guy is one effective killer.

Fen said...

"Some men aren’t looking for anything logical, like money. They can’t be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn.”

Crimso said...

"Why do you think we prosecuted the Nazis at Nuremberg, rather than simply have them shot, as Churchill urged? Prosecutor Robert Jackson said the treatment we afforded the Nazis--whether through summary execution or through due process of law--would determine what kind of nation we would be thenceforth."

It was indisputably victor's justice. If it wasn't, where were the Allies' war criminals? "Due process of law?" Do you know how much of the "due process of the law" was simply made up (i.e., agreed upon by the major powers) as they went along? Try Taylor's "The Anatomy of the Nuremberg Trials," he spells it out quite clearly (and he would know, having been an intimate part of the process).

Taylor: 'This phase of the case is based on the assumption that it is, or will be declared, a punishable offense to plan and launch (and lose?) an aggressive war, particularly if treaties are thereby violated. Although the phrase "illegal launching" is a "law idea"...[ellipses in original] the thing we want to accomplish is not a legal thing but a political thing.'

While the victors decided they would not permit a tu quoque defense, IIRC, Taylor described the consideration of charges relating to waging war from the air against civilians. They rejected such charges because, as Taylor described it, they would look ridiculous and hypocritical if one merely glanced out the window of the courtroom.

George said...

"But it's a dumbness exacerbated by a ridiculous awe of Matthews and a desire to please him."

Maybe so. But even Clinton wouldn't pull out the cigar for that.

Original Mike said...

"It's cute watching everyone rushing to take the side of Obama over Cook."

"Obama's side". That's how you look at everything, isn't it?

Osama was a terrorist whom we killed. It needed to be done. It's not a "side" thing.

The Grand Inquisitor said...

Frankly, it's just not likely the SEALs went in to assassinate someone.

They went in knowing the likely outcome was Osama's death because of how they would rush in shooting any potential threat, but they aren't cold blooded killers. They are honorable and professional men who abide by the Geneva Conventions and UCMJ.

It jeopardizes these men to pretend they scoffed at US treaty obligations under Geneva Convention II. Sure, Osama Bin Laden deserves only the worst, but SEALs aren't going to execute a man just to do it.

And it's very unfortunate we did not manage to capture him. Perhaps the mission changed when the helicopter crashed, and they gave up on that possibility. Justice for Osama is not possible, and frankly, is not a priority. Protecting America is the priority, and that means knowing what Osama knows, and undermining Al Qaida and Pakistani allies of OBL.

Instead, I see a rush to brag about how badass Obama's mission was, and a rush to brag about the spoils of this takedown, even though Al Qaida is notoriously compartmentalized about intel (they did not all know OBL was alive, or what kind of intel he had, for example).

Robert Cook said...

"Rob said...

nice analogy"


Actually, it's not analogous at all, as the circumstances are entirely different than those in which we found bin Laden.

An enemy officer, apparently alone drinking coffee in a public place, may well be guarded by a number of well-hidden, well-armed comrades. If he is in uniform, and it is wartime, he must be armed. If armed, even if alone, he may be a threat.

Dustin said...

Frankly, it's just not likely the SEALs went in to assassinate someone.

They went in knowing the likely outcome was Osama's death because of how they would rush in shooting any potential threat, but they aren't cold blooded killers. They are honorable and professional men who abide by the Geneva Conventions and UCMJ.

It jeopardizes these men to pretend they scoffed at US treaty obligations under Geneva Convention II. Sure, Osama Bin Laden deserves only the worst, but SEALs aren't going to execute a man just to do it.

And it's very unfortunate we did not manage to capture him. Perhaps the mission changed when the helicopter crashed, and they gave up on that possibility. Justice for Osama is not possible, and frankly, is not a priority. Protecting America is the priority, and that means knowing what Osama knows, and undermining Al Qaida and Pakistani allies of OBL.

Instead, I see a rush to brag about how badass Obama's mission was, and a rush to brag about the spoils of this takedown, even though Al Qaida is notoriously compartmentalized about intel (they did not all know OBL was alive, or what kind of intel he had, for example).

Marshal said...

"garage mahal said...

It's cute watching everyone rushing to take the side of Obama over Cook. Hope and Change Cookie!"

This is a unique experience for Democrats. Since their support for any action is entirely based on who initiates it, watching people support actions based on principle is novel to them.

We're happy to show you how people act when they're not diseased with partisanship. You're welcome.

DADvocate said...

It's cute watching everyone rushing to take the side of Obama over Cook. Hope and Change Cookie!

I know it's hard for you to understand, but it's not about taking Obama's side vs. Cookie's side. It's not about one person against the other. It's about applying the correct principle to the situation.

Of course, you're a typical for whom principles only matter when they support your point of view, i.e. moral relativism at its finest.

Marshal said...

"garage mahal said...

It's cute watching everyone rushing to take the side of Obama over Cook. Hope and Change Cookie!"

This is a unique experience for Democrats. Since their support for any action is entirely based on who initiates it, watching people support actions based on principle is novel to them.

We're happy to show you how people act when they're not diseased with partisanship. You're welcome.

Robert Cook said...

"It is absolutely impossible to logically prove your opinion of yourself as fact."

I guess you're too young to have caught my humorous pop culture allusion.

Lincolntf said...

"An enemy officer, apparently alone drinking coffee in a public place, may well be guarded by a number of well-hidden, well-armed comrades. If he is in uniform, and it is wartime, he must be armed. If armed, even if alone, he may be a threat."

Oh cripes. What a toolbag.

Robert Cook said...

"It is absolutely impossible to logically prove your opinion of yourself as fact."

I guess you're too young to have caught my humorous pop culture allusion.

Fen said...

@ Freder Frederson

I know you're back. I saw your posts. You're the only liberal on these boards that remained consistent re waterboarding as "torture". You claimed you wouldn't want it done in your name, even to save your family and your city from a WMD attack. And I believed you.

So now, talk to me about the Geneva Conventions and the killing of illegal combatants who are surrendering. What does your precious international law say about this?

AllenS said...

George said...
Maybe so. But even Clinton wouldn't pull out the cigar for that.

The visuals of that statement...

Scott M said...

I guess you're too young to have caught my humorous pop culture allusion.

Oh, I "got" it. I used to make a decent living on pop culture references. It just wasn't funny.

AllenS said...

George said...
Maybe so. But even Clinton wouldn't pull out the cigar for that.

The visuals of that statement...

Sixty Grit said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
bagoh20 said...

I'm glad he's dead. Well, not really, cause now we can't kill him anymore, but this accomplishment was not some great success. It was a success, but took far too long and cost far too much. Like all government work even when it eventually gets done, the cost makes it amount to little more than face-saving by avoiding a disastrous failure. I don't get Mathews' view that it proves we are now suddenly competent again.

Robert Cook said...

"Oh, I 'got' it. I used to make a decent living on pop culture references. It just wasn't funny."

Sure it was. More to the point, even if you recognized the allusion, you still didn't "get it," as you would have understood I did not mean my remark as a "logical proof," but merely as a breezy retort.

Lighten up, dude!

Hoosier Daddy said...

assassinating an enemy leader is fine. The Bits and Czechs assassinated Heydrich. There was no plan to capture him.

Marshal said...

"Actually, it's not analogous at all, as the circumstances are entirely different than those in which we found bin Laden."

The only difference is that Bin Laden isn't in uniform, which is a war crime. So Cookie's position is that by committing war crimes Bin Laden somehow earns extra protection.

We do have to cut some leeway though. These mistakes are easy to make when you support someone and are forced to rationalize their actions after the fact.

bagoh20 said...

I watched me some MSNBC last night: Maddow and Ed's show. What lame drivel. Even if you like the President or hate FOX, those shows are embarrassingly stupid. It made me feel really good though to know that I disagree with them on nearly everything. The stupidity of those shows alone would make me question my position, if I agreed with them.

Sometimes FOX is embarrassing to a conservative too, but MSNBC is ridiculously so for the left and way way more one sided and dishonest.

bagoh20 said...

If we only could have hired Zombie Lee Harvey Oswald. That dude was an efficient low cost assassin... and we did get to see the photos, even a video.

The Drill SGT said...

Fen said...So now, talk to me about the Geneva Conventions and the killing of illegal combatants who are surrendering. What does your precious international law say about this?

Let me understand...

Is there any evidence that he was surrendering?

I thought there might be an issue that he "appreared" to be unarmed. That isn't even close to surrendering.

surrendering is hands up, pleading, with little likelihood of a suicide vest and the circumstances present to provide him the opportunity to do so.

Scott M said...

Lighten up, dude!

Now, THAT'S funny, especially coming from you. In the current vain of conversation, please let me declare that I am probably the only--or one of the very few--true humorists commenting on this blog.

madAsHell said...

They are both very disturbed.

Scott M said...

Lighten up, dude!

Now, THAT'S funny, especially coming from you. In the current vain of conversation, please let me declare that I am probably the only--or one of the very few--true humorists commenting on this blog.

Lucius said...

There are things ya gotta do in life! Aren't you thrilled Obama *murdered* bin Laden?! Yay!

These Republicans: god, what a bunch of bear-baiters. Trying to revel in Osama's murder, rub our faces in it? Fucking savages, don't they realize how incendiary that is? Can't they show any *respect*?

Kids today, boy I tell 'ya! The pride they have, knowing Obama killed-- murdered-- bin Laden. This is the most important thing that's ever happened to them. For the 1st time in their lives, they can feel proud of the USA-- all thanks to Barack Obama.

Palin, my god the bloodlust in these people! Just psychopaths. Wanting to rub their faces in this murdered blood . . . .

Lucius said...

Now that I'm done channeling the Chris Matthews roundelay . . .

What is it with this guy? I used to watch him around the time of Lewinskygate and, tho a lifetime ago, he seemed then like a sort of reality-based person.

As a Carter wordshop man,but amendable to Tip O'Neill, wasn't he supposed to be a kind of New Democrat before New Democrats? Didn't a lot of those people just drift further to the center in the years since (like Doug Schoen)?

Instead Matthews has become a roid-rage parody of Carter-in-Exile: a self-righteous partisan bore, thinking his hides his partisan schtick in plain sight behind the cover of-- what, his gifts in logic??

The Drill SGT said...

Robert Cook said...
Well, if bin Laden was unarmed and unresisting, his killing was murder.


Cookie, you know that Jimmie Carter, ex-Annapolis man, was fist bumping, when he heard news that Navy Seals did the evil deed?

That tells you how much farther out of touch over on the left you must be. 3 SD's beyond Carter, I suspect :)

Robert Cook said...

Scott M:

That's the spirit, dude!

Clyde said...

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines."

-- Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882)

Robert Cook said...

Scott M:

That's the spirit, dude!

edutcher said...

I love how Chrissy talks about Conservatives wanting to see the pictures as "bearbaiting", liking "to incite more trouble", wanting "this war to go on". Bet he didn't feel that way about the Abu Graib pictures.

And I'm willing to bet, if you gave Cook enough time, he could find a reason to charge everybody in the country with being a war criminal.

Crimso said...

"Why do you think we prosecuted the Nazis at Nuremberg, rather than simply have them shot, as Churchill urged? Prosecutor Robert Jackson said the treatment we afforded the Nazis--whether through summary execution or through due process of law--would determine what kind of nation we would be thenceforth."

It was indisputably victor's justice.


If Cook can read the words of a Republican, he might want to look at those of Senator Robert Taft in 1946, who made the exact same point.

DADvocate said...

...Maddow and Ed's show. What lame drivel.

Amen. They specialize in straw man attacks and then smirk smugly as if they accomplished something.

traditionalguy said...

Cookie...Running Al Qaeda from a headquarters located behind the lines is not surrendering. To surrender, Osama would have to have voluntarily left his Pakistan headquarters and turned himself in. Why is that hard for you to see?

Sixty Grit said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Roger J. said...

I seldom agree with Mr Cooks political positions, but he is one of the few liberals that post hereon who is intellectually consistent--And that is a good thing IMO.

And in the event of OBL's killing I agree with him entirely. It was assassination (or murder if you prefer) pure and simple.

That said, I agree with ends, if not the means.

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

Good lord, who watches that show?

Those that want to get their daily dose of Obama cheer-leading.

For me, the sight of a tingling Matthews shaking pompoms and wearing cheer lollipops is just too much to bear.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Yamamoto was assassinated.

Robert Cook said...

"It is easy to understand Kookie if you know this - in his mind 'Osama good...'"

Wrong again, Sixty Grit! You show anew that you have no understanding t'all!

Marshal said...

"It was assassination (or murder if you prefer) pure and simple."

It wasn't an assassination or murder. It was a military action generally referred to as a raid.

Marshal said...

"Roger J. said...

I seldom agree with Mr Cooks political positions, but he is one of the few liberals that post hereon who is intellectually consistent--Robert Cook: Consistently allying with America's enemies."

There's a campaign slogan:

Robert Cook: Consistently allying with America's enemies.

edutcher said...

Cook needs to note that, in both the Mexican and Civil Wars, partisans in civilian clothes were regularly shot.

Marshal said...

"Roger J. said...

I seldom agree with Mr Cooks political positions, but he is one of the few liberals that post hereon who is intellectually consistent--Robert Cook: Consistently allying with America's enemies."

There's a campaign slogan:

Robert Cook: Consistently allying with America's enemies.

Roger J. said...

Marshall--a fine point you raise--I prefer to look at the end result--and I am quite happy about it.
And as an very old army ranger (1967-August-October at Ft Benning and outlying camps) I fully understand how raids work--you kill as many of the miscreants that will do you harm to accomplish the larger mission. Mr bin Laden apparently got in the way.

Irene said...

Her congressional bio identifies her previous occupation as "Community Activist."

Haha.

edutcher said...

How many Democrat non-lawyers (and lawyers, for that matter) in Congress have the same thing on their resume?

Scott M said...

How many Democrat non-lawyers (and lawyers, for that matter) in Congress have the same thing on their resume?

Might be comparable to the number of GOP members with "NRA member" on theirs.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Non-salary Baseball cap on a Democrat with high IQ.

Ha Ha Ha. Reminds me of this guy Baseball cap fail.

Roger J. said...

To be absolutely clear I have no problem at all with a US policy that advocates killing terrorists anywhere any time.

I recall when the israelis whacked two hamas "leaders" with concrete bombs and the stupid palis finally stopped identifying their leaders--good policy--and it should be standing US policy to kill any leader of a terrorist organization any time anywhere.

I was merely pointing out that Mr Cook has been consistent in his comments--and I appreciate that.

je

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Non-salary Baseball cap on a Democrat with high IQ.

Ha Ha Ha. Reminds me of this guy Baseball cap fail.

rhhardin said...

Chest thumping disparages men.

You don't get much thump with women.

Roger J. said...

rh--but you do get jiggles--a lot more fun

vech said...

"Good lord, who watches that show?" Very few, but so many blogs mention it day after day, one gets the impression it's the most popular show on cable.

edutcher said...

Scott M said...

How many Democrat non-lawyers (and lawyers, for that matter) in Congress have the same thing on their resume?

Might be comparable to the number of GOP members with "NRA member" on theirs.


Don't hold your breath on that one. Aside from the RINOs, a lot of Eastern, suburban ones probably don't.

AJ Lynch said...

We could fix our media problem if we mocked and disparaged the biased talking heads whenever they are seen in public.

ken said...

Was not Chrissie 'I squat to pee' Matthews considering a US Senate run not so long ago? And was he not a speechwriter for Jimmuh Carter? I think he'd fit right in with the rest of the pompous assclowns that inhabit the Senate. How less qualified would Matthews be than that cretin from Minnesota, Stuart Smiley or Fat Teddy K. when he first ran?

The Navy Seals could have at least brought back Usama's head in a basket in the manner of Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia, a decent enough movie with Warren Oates.

For you of colored persuasion who voted by an almost Soviet-era margin for the Zebra, take a look at black male employment numbers under Obama...the lowest EVAH. Yassuh, little zero be our own watermelon jake.
Has anyone ever compared the performance as President of those men who were formerly Senators versus those who were governors?

vech said...

"Good lord, who watches that show?" Very few, but so many blogs mention it day after day, one gets the impression it's the most popular show on cable.

Chuck66 said...

Good lord, our country is being run by Community Organizers and trial lawyers (ummmmn, no dis-respect to all lawyers, such as the blog host).

AJ Lynch said...

We could fix our media problem if we mocked and disparaged the biased talking heads whenever they are seen in public.

edutcher said...

Scott M said...

How many Democrat non-lawyers (and lawyers, for that matter) in Congress have the same thing on their resume?

Might be comparable to the number of GOP members with "NRA member" on theirs.


Don't hold your breath on that one. Aside from the RINOs, a lot of Eastern, suburban ones probably don't.

Chuck66 said...

"The only difference is that Bin Laden isn't in uniform, which is a war crime."

What uniform does a terrorist wear? I believe he was dressed like a terrorist.

I hate to be the first one to bring up a nazi comparison, but if Hitler was dressed in casual clothes and riding to his house in Bavaria, and a US plane stafes his car (knowing its him) and kills him, is that murder?

Scott M said...

Not that I disagree with the underlying analogy, but you cannot surrender to an aircraft.

Chuck66 said...

The NRA is the nations oldest civil rights organization. I think membership in it is a good thing.

Roger J. said...

IMO here's the beauty of the abbottabad raid--there is not rag head terrorist who wont be able to enjoy a sound nights sleep knowing that SEALS or Rangers who will pay him a late night visit and kill him--That means these bastards will have to continually watch their backs--good outcome for us.
The egyptian dude Zhawire is next on the list and I am betting he doesnt have long to live.

ma

edutcher said...

Chuck66 said...

Good lord, our country is being run by Community Organizers and trial lawyers (ummmmn, no dis-respect to all lawyers, such as the blog host).

Miss Ann is a conlawprof. She hasn't practiced law in more than a quarter century.

But your point is extremely well-taken.

MadisonMan said...

I think membership in it is a good thing.

Groucho Marx comes to mind. :)

William said...

So far as I can see, this is the one thing Obama has done right in his Presidency. I fear for Matthews' sanity if Obama should achieve another triumph in the near future. Matthews will collapse into a soft, wet pile of quivering, orgiastic protoplasm. His entire nervous system is designed to explicate Obama's failures, not expound on his triumphs.

Scott M said...

Groucho Marx comes to mind. :)

I'm not sure he was a member, so they're in the clear. That being said, ever watch or hear tapes from his early TV game show/interview show? For the time period, he was filthy.

Fen said...

Is there any evidence that he was surrendering?

One of his wives has stated so.

And no, I don't find her credible, but I'll grant it for Freder's argument.

If he has the integrity to make it.

Scott M said...

Groucho Marx comes to mind. :)

I'm not sure he was a member, so they're in the clear. That being said, ever watch or hear tapes from his early TV game show/interview show? For the time period, he was filthy.

Scott M said...

So far as I can see, this is the one thing Obama has done right in his Presidency.

If his version of the story holds (dubious at best at this point), then I'd be inclined to agree. However, people said the same thing about the pirate incident, heaping credit on him after the kills, only to find out the local commanders made the call.

Joe said...

Pogo, there is an IQ cap on all three branches of government.

Scott M said...

So far as I can see, this is the one thing Obama has done right in his Presidency.

If his version of the story holds (dubious at best at this point), then I'd be inclined to agree. However, people said the same thing about the pirate incident, heaping credit on him after the kills, only to find out the local commanders made the call.

Aridog said...

Chuck66 said...

I think membership in it [the NRA] is a good thing.

Me too. I joined as a Junior Member at a range in 1950. I learned all about "gun control" ... e.g., how to hit what I was shooting at.

G-r-o-a-n. [I'm older than dirt so I just couldn't resist that one]

One can be a member for decades without agreeing with every single stance taken by an organization.

I do agree with their 2nd Amendment stance.

I do credit them with making my time in war a better experience than it might have been.

Marshal said...

"What uniform does a terrorist wear? I believe he was dressed like a terrorist."

The laws of war require combatants to wear a recognizable uniform.

"I hate to be the first one to bring up a nazi comparison, but if Hitler was dressed in casual clothes and riding to his house in Bavaria, and a US plane stafes his car (knowing its him) and kills him, is that murder?"

I think you misread my post, presuming you're responding to me and not using my post to mock Cook. Combatants failing to wear a uniform are still combatants. They're merely combatants violating the laws of war. Either way he's a legitimate military target. Except to Cook, who believes violating the laws of war protect his allies from attack.

Cook's strategy is first to invent the standard. Only after it is established can he use Alinsky's rule #4 to attack us.

MadisonMan said...

I'm just imagining the sheer gratingness of the noise of Matthews horrible shouty twang, and Palin's Minnesotan Don'tchaKnow accent if they ever shared a mic.

(shudder)

I do appreciate that she's worked on minimizing her accent in the past couple years. Matthews should do the same with his.

I don't want to belong to any club that would accept me as one of its members -- Groucho Marx.

Crimso said...

"you cannot surrender to an aircraft."

There were Iraqis that surrendered to a UAV during Desert Storm. They knew the UAV was a harbinger of 16" rounds from a BB (Wisconsin, in this case).

Don't Tread 2012 said...

@Marshal

"Cook's strategy is first to invent the standard. Only after it is established can he use Alinsky's rule #4 to attack us."

Invent being the key concept.

"Men are the only animals that devote themselves, day in and day out, to making one another unhappy. It is an art like any other. Its virtuosi are called altruists." - HL Mencken

mtrobertsattorney said...

Whether it was murder or not is beside the point. Obama clearly ordered bin Laden to be killed and yet he refuses to step up and admit it. Why?

Scott M said...

yet he refuses to step up and admit it. Why?

It chafes.

Marshal said...

"mtrobertsattorney said...

Whether it was murder or not is beside the point. Obama clearly ordered bin Laden to be killed and yet he refuses to step up and admit it. Why?"

We don't want to admit it publicly. Our own leaders are vulnerable and we prefer not to publicly acknowledge that leaders are legitimate targets because it might increase the chances one of Cook's allies acts on it.

It's the same reason we don't admit we're trying to kill Khadaffi, even though we are. The best solution is to act on it ourselves without publicly admitting it, exactly as we're doing.

Sixty Grit said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Marshal said...

"mtrobertsattorney said...

Whether it was murder or not is beside the point. Obama clearly ordered bin Laden to be killed and yet he refuses to step up and admit it. Why?"

We don't want to admit it publicly. Our own leaders are vulnerable and we prefer not to publicly acknowledge that leaders are legitimate targets because it might increase the chances one of Cook's allies acts on it.

It's the same reason we don't admit we're trying to kill Khadaffi, even though we are. The best solution is to act on it ourselves without publicly admitting it, exactly as we're doing.

The Drill SGT said...

mtrobertsattorney said...
Obama clearly ordered bin Laden to be killed and yet he refuses to step up and admit it. Why?


If you have promised your left that you won't usefully interogate him, and

You have a Dufus AG that promises to try him in civilian court and promises conviction no matter what, and

You know in your heart of hearts that a trial would be a victory for him, and not for you, and

You don't want the sucking PR disaster of locking him up without a trial, and

Most Americans want him dead and buried in a bacon wrap,

You give mission guidance that tells the Seals not to take chances....

Almost Ali said...

Good lord, who watches that show?

I do. Once or twice a week. Around here we call Chris the laughing hyena. And he hyena-laughs like he has an absolute lock on MSNBC. I'm surprised he doesn't just moon his audience.

Meanwhile, gotta know what the opposition is up to. Although Rachel is impossible to take - a regular, razor-wielding biker dyke. The "Tokyo Rose" dykedom.

And back to the question, who watches these shows, technology will soon enable us to see who's watching.

Scott M said...

Although Rachel is impossible to take

HOWARD JOHNSON IS RIGHT!!!

Alex said...

At least one Democrat with the courage of her convictions, as misguided as they are. The rest of the Democrats are hypocritical bastards, hailing THIS assassination as good & holy, while the ones under Bush were murder, evil.

zbogwan99 said...

Osama Bin Laden is the Satan of America. He's responsible for 9/11 and we have a right to see pictures of his demise, despite the cowardly President Obama's refusal to show them.

We need our closure and damed what the terrorist think!!!

Don't Tread 2012 said...

"...they wanna stick it to the other side 'cuz they think its going to help our country out in the long run..."

"...incendiary..."

"...and I think the president has handled it just right..."

So many memes, so little time...

wv - paphy

Robert Cook said...

"...I know "t'all" is not a word...."

Your perspicacity is astonishing. Of course it's not a word...it's two words--"at all"--contracted.

Kirk Parker said...

"Schakowsky... seems, quite frankly, dumb."

An Illinois Democrat, dumb? Inconceivable!!!



"There isn't a jury in sight that would convict the trigger man for killing OBL."

More to the point, where is the prosecutor who would manage to pretend he had jurisdiction to bring charges, or the judge who wouldn't immediately dismiss?


And now we learn Cook thinks the Nuremberg trials were actual justice, not victor's justice? . . . . Nah, he can't really believe that, so presumably it's something he thinks is useful to his argument.

Robert Cook said...

"'Cook's strategy is first to invent the standard. Only after it is established can he use Alinsky's rule #4 to attack us.'"

I'm humbly proud and astonished to discover I am inventing a new standard of...of what?

And what is Alinsky's rule #4? I have heard of Saul Alinksy but have never read anything by him or even seen any of his books. (As I suspect no one has for 40 or more years.) Here I thought I was inventing a new standard--of something--and yet I also learn I'm merely following a guidebook that is decades old.

How 'bout that? I'm an innovative copycat!

Marshal said...

"I have heard of Saul Alinksy but have never read anything by him or even seen any of his books."

Most baseball players don't know who came up with the infield fly rule either.

reader_iam said...

Robert:

Actually, there's been an uptick of sales of Alinsky's book over the past few years (before that, a few thousand copies a year were sold), though by no means could one describe it a some sort of mass seller. I first read it decades ago (just for info, not as a proponent) and reread my copy last year, along with "The Starfish and The Spider," another book having to do with organization. Both provide some insights into today's political (etc.) landscape and language.