Tag Archives: generals

The Jay And ‘Ye Peace Summit Is Reportedly Going Down Very Soon

Jay Z And Kanye West Soon To Meet Jay Z is finally acquiescing to that meeting Kanye called for not too long ago. As the whole world knows, the duo have had an ongoing rift since late last year. Kanye went on one of his rants, targeting Jay, Bey, and even mentioning Blue not playing with his daughter North. Jay has made it clear that Kanye crossed a line when he mentioned Bey and Blue’s names in his greivances. Kanye feels like Jay should have cut him some slack for that one, seeing as how he was clearly on the verge of a psychotic episode — as evidenced by his hospitalization just a few weeks later. As sources tell TMZ , the issues between them have halted the handling of business between Kanye and Tidal . He pulled his contract with the service, alleging they haven’t held up their end of the bargain to the tune of $3.5 million. Now the $3.5 million isn’t the REAL issue here. It’s chump change to both artists, but things have been left out in the cold because of the issues between them. As a source close to the action says: “The Generals [Kanye and Jay] have to meet face-to-face. When that happens, the resolving the money dispute is a piece of cake.” And since Jay and Bey live in Beverly Hills now — right down the street from Calabasas — the meeting could take place any day now. Getty/Splash

Visit link:
The Jay And ‘Ye Peace Summit Is Reportedly Going Down Very Soon

Caktuz & Xclusive Generals Drop “Drigh” PSA On Drinking Responsibly For Hometown [AUDIO]

Read this article:

Caktuz brings it home over this bouncy track with his High Point, NC country cousins Xclusive Generals (P Wall & Jay Mail) . A PSA…I guess, advocating against driving under the influence, “Drigh” is Kakalak slang for being drunk and high at the same time. Caktuz lets his homies get off before eating the ass end out of this one. Some crafty wordplay from Mr. Carolina. TWITTER SEARCH #DrighHP DOWNLOAD LINK

Caktuz & Xclusive Generals Drop “Drigh” PSA On Drinking Responsibly For Hometown [AUDIO]

Ted Koppel Toasts America-Goading Genius of Osama bin Laden on 9/11 Weekend

Former ABC Nightline anchor Ted Koppel may have taken his pomposity off-camera, but it certainly remains. In a gassy op-ed for Sunday’s Washington Post , Koppel announced that that “canny tactician” Osama bin Laden has won the War on Terror by pressing America into a series of wild overreactions. He began: The attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, succeeded far beyond anything Osama bin Laden could possibly have envisioned. This is not just because they resulted in nearly 3,000 deaths, nor only because they struck at the heart of American financial and military power. Those outcomes were only the bait; it would remain for the United States to spring the trap. The goal of any organized terrorist attack is to goad a vastly more powerful enemy into an excessive response. And over the past nine years, the United States has blundered into the 9/11 snare with one overreaction after another . Bin Laden deserves to be the object of our hostility, national anguish and contempt, and he deserves to be taken seriously as a canny tactician. But much of what he has achieved we have done, and continue to do, to ourselves. Bin Laden does not deserve that we, even inadvertently, fulfill so many of his unimagined dreams. It’s important to remember that Koppel was not a measured critic of Bush foreign policy. Before the Iraq War, as Brent Bozell noted, he devoted a show to conspiratorial anti-Bush cranks who compared neoconservatives to Nazis and alleged that America was bent on global domination:  He began with a Scottish newspaper, the Glasgow Sunday Herald, breathlessly announcing a “secret blueprint for U.S. global domination” that included Iraq. But then, he added, “a similar, if slightly more hysterical version” from the Moscow Times claimed “Not since Mein Kampf has a geopolitical punch been so blatantly telegraphed, years ahead of the blow.” Koppel added: “Take away the somewhat hyperbolic references to conspiracy, however, and you’re left with a story that has the additional advantage of being true.” Bozell also reported Koppel also was quick to lie about how the Reagan administration was behind Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction:  Koppel set the tone for the meeting by undermining America’s moral authority: “There’s a sardonic two-liner making the rounds in Washington these days: ‘‘How do we know that Saddam Hussein has biological and chemical weapons? We have the receipts.’ Nasty, but there’s an element of truth to it.” He added “there wasn’t a great deal of outrage from the Reagan-Bush White House” when Saddam gassed his own people in 1988. That’s misleading. President Reagan condemned it, Secretary of State George Shultz condemned it. What we forget is that the media barely covered it at that time , making our lack of memory easy to exploit. They didn’t have “a great deal of outrage,” either. Koppel is still slashing conservative foreign policy for leading to an “existential nightmare” based on “unsubstantiated assumptions.” (That’s funny: Koppel’s whole embarrassing attempt to push the conspiracy theory that the 1980 Reagan campaign delayed the release of U.S. hostages was a series of “unsubstantiated assumptions,” but he put them on the air anyway, just like a reckless partisan.) Koppel even attacked himself for liberals and media stars offering “flaccid opposition” to the war:  But the insidious thing about terrorism is that there is no such thing as absolute security. Each incident provokes the contemplation of something worse to come. The Bush administration convinced itself that the minds that conspired to turn passenger jets into ballistic missiles might discover the means to arm such “missiles” with chemical, biological or nuclear payloads. This became the existential nightmare that led, in short order, to a progression of unsubstantiated assumptions: that Saddam Hussein had developed weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons; that there was a connection between the Iraqi leader and al-Qaeda. Bin Laden had nothing to do with fostering these misconceptions. None of this had any real connection to 9/11. There was no group known as “al-Qaeda in Iraq” at that time. But the political climate of the moment overcame whatever flaccid opposition there was to invading Iraq , and the United States marched into a second theater of war, one that would prove far more intractable and painful and draining than its supporters had envisioned. Koppel sneered that perhaps Osama bin Laden had more foresight than our disastrous American architects of war, and even today, we are “so absorbed in our own fury and so oblivious to our enemy’s intentions” that we still haven’t absorbed the wisdom of Ted Koppel and all his liberal foreign-policy buddies like John Kerry:  Perhaps bin Laden foresaw some of these outcomes when he launched his 9/11 operation from Taliban-secured bases in Afghanistan. Since nations targeted by terrorist groups routinely abandon some of their cherished principles, he may also have foreseen something along the lines of Abu Ghraib, “black sites,” extraordinary rendition and even the prison at Guantanamo Bay. But in these and many other developments, bin Laden needed our unwitting collaboration, and we have provided it — more than $1 trillion spent on two wars, more than 5,000 of our troops killed, tens of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans dead. Our military so overstretched that one of the few growth industries in our battered economy is the firms that provide private contractors, for everything from interrogation to security to the gathering of intelligence. We have raced to Afghanistan and Iraq, and more recently to Yemen and Somalia; we have created a swollen national security apparatus; and we are so absorbed in our own fury and so oblivious to our enemy’s intentions that we inflate the building of an Islamic center in Lower Manhattan into a national debate and watch, helpless, while a minister in Florida outrages even our friends in the Islamic world by threatening to burn copies of the Koran. If bin Laden did not foresee all this, then he quickly came to understand it. In a 2004 video message, he boasted about leading America on the path to self-destruction. “All we have to do is send two mujaheddin . . . to raise a small piece of cloth on which is written ‘al-Qaeda’ in order to make the generals race there, to cause America to suffer human, economic and political losses.” Through the initial spending of a few hundred thousand dollars, training and then sacrificing 19 of his foot soldiers, bin Laden has watched his relatively tiny and all but anonymous organization of a few hundred zealots turn into the most recognized international franchise since McDonald’s. Could any enemy of the United States have achieved more with less? Could bin Laden, in his wildest imaginings, have hoped to provoke greater chaos? It is past time to reflect on what our enemy sought, and still seeks, to accomplish — and how we have accommodated him. Next up: Koppel is taking this acidulous commentary to BBC America. 

See original here:
Ted Koppel Toasts America-Goading Genius of Osama bin Laden on 9/11 Weekend

Scarborough Blames ‘American Apathy’ and Republicans for the Continued War in Afghanistan

Joe Scarborough on Monday continued to spin for Barack Obama, this time defending the President’s war strategy in Afghanistan and placing blame on the American people. Citing a New York Times columnist, the Morning Joe host complained, “And as Frank Rich said, the President’s best political ally on Afghanistan is apathy. Americans don’t care that their sons and daughters are going off to fight and die for a war that really has no end game.” Co-host Mika Brzezinski agreed. She derided, “Maybe if most Americans actually cared beyond the ones that have to go and serve we would have different outcomes.” While Scarborough reacted with some criticism, he was empathetic with the President because, “If Barack Obama takes the troops out and does what I’m saying he should do, Republicans will kill him. Every time a poppy is grown in Afghanistan, they will blame Barack Obama. Every time a woman is tortured inside Afghanistan, they will blame Barack Obama. Every time anything goes wrong, they will blame Barack Obama.” In all fairness, it was unacceptable for the media or Democrats to blame President Bush for any of our country’s problems. Except if you include all of them. Including, during the previous administration, the media saw the rise of the insurgency as an indictment of Bush’s lack of foresight, leadership and military acumen. Not to mention that the media and Democrats made stars of those who were critical of Bush’s policies. Nevertheless, Scarborough believed that the troops should get out of Afghanistan immediately because it is an “un-winnable war.” The former Republican Congressman has been sounding increasingly pro-Obama in recent months. Apparently, he’s now attacking the President from the left, parroting anti-war liberals. Since, the Afghanistan war is now the Obama administration’s war to own, it is now acceptable for the media to make excuses and avert blame to anyone but the current administration. Furthermore, if you criticize the Obama administration you are derided as a partisan who is just trying to blame Obama for another problem he inherited from the Bush administration. The host and anchors of MSNBC certainly weren’t as understanding of no-win situations when it came to the Bush administration. Based upon the actions of the current administration and its supporters, one would think passing the buck, not baseball, is our national pastime.

Chris Matthews: ‘Is Sarah Palin The Most Important Republican In The Country?’

A truly extraordinary thing happened on this weekend’s “The Chris Matthews Show”: the host asked his panel if former Alaska governor Sarah is the most important Republican in the country right now. What made this even more surprising was how his guests — CNN’s Gloria Borger, Politico’s John Harris, the BBC’s Katty Kay, and former “CBS Evening News” host Dan Rather — seemed to feel she was. Most bullish on Palin was Rather who said, “I wouldn’t underestimate her…If she decides to run, it would be hard to bet against her for the nomination.” For his part, Matthews played a little bit of a misdirection with his viewers by predictably bashing Palin during the program’s introduction (multiple videos follow with highlights and commentary):  CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: She was a governor that couldn’t take it anymore. Ridiculed as a Bozo, all she could do was cash in get what she could on the way off the stage. But a year later, with zillions in her pocket, she’s an even better bet to run. As the opening segment about President Obama and Generals McChrystal and Petraeus came to an end, Matthews told his viewers:  MATTHEWS: Before we break, it was a year ago that Sarah Palin called that surprise news conference out there in the lawn in Wasilla to announce she was quitting as Alaska governor. David Letterman had a lot of fun with that. What followed was one of Letterman’s typically derogatory “Top Tens” about Palin: After the commercial, Matthews played a clip from Palin’s resignation speech last July: SARAH PALIN: With this announcement that I’m not seeking re-election, I determined it is best to transfer the authority of governor, to Lieutenant Governor Parnell. MATTHEWS: Transfer the authority? Well, she quit. A lot of people thought that was a short-sighted move, that quitting would end her career as an elected politician. Well, a year since then Palin’s made well over $12 million. Her first book “Going Rogue” was the year’s number one best-seller, made her $7 million in the advance. She gets $100,000 a speech, and Fox signed her to a TV deal. Besides getting to be rich, has she become, I would ask you open-ended, is she the most important Republican right now in the country? Kay was the first to answer, making some surprisingly positive comments about the former Governor and her success assisting Republican candidates in recent primaries.  When Matthews commented that Palin seems to be only backing winners, Borger countered that maybe they’re winning BECAUSE of her support.  For his part, Harris was a little less enthusiastic, but also gave an uncharacteristically upbeat view of the former vice presidential candidate. But the best was yet to come when Rather got his turn: DAN RATHER: Well, she’s not running at the moment for President. But I wouldn’t underestimate her. She’s a version now of a Deacon with four aces. She can go a lot of different ways. She is playing an almost perfect hand. If she wants to stay a power in the Party, make a lot of money and not run, she can do that. I wouldn’t underestimate her even for 2012 for one second. If she decides to run, it would be hard to bet against her for the nomination. MATTHEWS: Good point. Is she Richard Nixon? Is she going around and picking up chits, proving that she can deliver, carefully selecting winners, avoiding losers when they’re on the right, so that day after this election, like Nixon did in ’66, “Look what I did for the party, I should be the nominee?” RATHER: And goes into the convention with maybe thirty percent of the votes. Imagine that. For approaching two years, America’s press have been mercilessly eviscerating this woman with every opportunity. Now, with Obama plummeting in the polls, and Democrats looking like they’re in a lot of trouble in the upcoming midterm elections, suddenly Palin is not only possibly the most important Republican in the country, but is also a legitimate candidate for President. Is hell freezing over, or is something else at play here? 

View post:
Chris Matthews: ‘Is Sarah Palin The Most Important Republican In The Country?’