Liberalism: Logic's retarded cousin. Why think when you can "feel"?
Friday, June 30, 2006
bin Laden's taped tribute to al-Zarqawi
The crack investigative team here at the Crush Liberalism Objective World News Service (aka CLOWNS) has obtained a tape, possibly the first draft of the one just released by OBL, whereby the terrorist mastermind lionizes the recently departed al-Zarqawi. Our Arabic translator (we'll call him "Earl") took a week of Arabic 101 at the local community college before dropping the class to enroll in a shorter class (Famous French Military Victories, I believe). Anywho, Earl's translation follows:
"Damn, Ahmed, did you see the crater left on that 'safehouse' that Abu was in? Just how Allah-damned 'safe' could that house have been? I gotta admit, the explosion was pretty f%ing cool though, wouldn't you say? (silence) Oh, we're rolling? OK...(clears throat)...
Good morning...er, afternoon...er, evening. Aw, hell, inside this cave, it's all the same to me: it's DARK! At any rate, we in the jihadisphere wish to pay our respects to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in his fight against the infidels.
Zarqi taught us a bunch of things. For starters, he taught me and those down here beside me that while it may be maddening to be cooped up in a cave with smelly Afghan goats and mujahideen and that wreak of leeks and couscous, it sure beats getting a half-ton storm of American bombs dropped on your dome! Perspective, people!
Another lesson that I learned from Zarqi is this: do NOT send Habib out for pizza, because he'll just get tailed by the infidels back to this cave. I mean, Zarqi had been on the run for a few years, but his craving for a kibbeh-and-hummus wrap was his downfall. That damned weird-beard at Ibrahaim's Snack Shack was a mole for the infidels, and if you can't trust the yum-yum guys not to turn on you, then you don't need the yum-yums! Note to self: take Omar's Martyrdom Pizza off of the satellite phone's speed dial.
Zarqi showed us the proper way to decapitate an innocent infidel...wait, that's an oxymoron, isn't it? Tee-hee! Anyway, you should wear something black and the soon-to-be Pez dispenser should wear something orange, so the blood shows up better on the film before we send it to Al Jazeera. I mean, AJ's editing isn't very good, so we want to make sure that for maximum effect, the gore is properly pixelized. (pauses) Is "pixelized" a word? Oh, right...still rolling! (clears throat again)
Zarqi demonstrated to us that in some circles of America, parents whose sons we have killed will not get mad at us, but at the infidel Bush. You Americans have some nerve, though! Zarqi cuts off that Berg kid's head, shows the finished product to his father, the old man absolves Zarqi and blames Bush...and you people call us depraved? Although I must admit, this Sheehan woman is sooooo in need of a burqa! I saw her on with that Chris Matthews guy (is he funny, or what?), for what I believe it was the 9,435th interview, and Holy Motherless Goat...that's one loony (and unsightly) broad!
Finally, Zarqi showed us in the jihadisphere that if we can just hold off long enough, the New York Times will let us know what the enemy is up to. I've already let Ayman know that the Western Union transfer to Ahmad and Yousef scheduled on the Americans' Independence Day is a no-go. Thank you, Bill Keller...though I still want your head on my cave mantle!
Ahmed is giving me the 'wrap it up' sign. He's so paranoid that he hears a cave rat fart and thinks that we're going to get a grenade shower! So, I'll throw him a bone and end this tape so we can send it to our buds at Al Jazeera. Toodles for now!"
Nicely done, "Earl." If that's not a job fit for CLOWNS, I don't know what is!
Thursday, June 29, 2006
Pelosi: Al Qaeda deserves access to courts, just like Americans!
From Nimrod Pe-loser (Moonbat-CA):
Today the Supreme Court decision reaffirms the American ideal that all are entitled to the basic guarantees of our justice system. This is a triumph of the rule of law. The rights of due process are among our most cherished liberties and today's decision is a rebuke of the Bush administration's detainee policies and a reminder of our responsibility to protect both the American people and our constitutional rights. We cannot allow the values on which our country was the founded to become a casualty in the war on terrorism.Oh.My.God.
This lunatic thinks that you, my dear readers, are equals with Al Qaeda! She and her idiotic ilk think that terrorists are to be given protection via the Constitution. She celebrates the court's ruling today as some sort of treaty between the United States and Al Qaeda!
But look at Pelosi's words again: "...today's decision is a rebuke of the Bush administration's detainee policies..." My friends, this is exactly why the left is seen as perverted on the issue of national security. They are more concerned with making Bush look bad than with what is in America's best (and secure) interest. Pelosi's own words confirm this.
You fine people know how I've been immensely critical of the GOP and have even advocated not voting for them because of their egregious spending, ineptitude on immigration, etc. However, Pe-loser's words have shaken me to the core. Just knowing that this wacky wench could actually become Speaker of the House is horrifying.
I'm pulling a John Kerry right now. No, I'm not going to make up lies about our soldiers. I'm talking about doing an about-face on the election. I was against the GOP in November, before I was for them! I'll admit it, mea culpa...but we can abso-freakin'-lutely NOT afford for this dingbat to get the Speaker position and be two heartbeats away (or, in Cheney's case, a heartbeat-and-a-half) from the presidency!
These vermin were conferred Geneva rights though they're not a party to Geneva!
NYT tips off terrorists
Michelle Malkin has a great column on the New York Slimes and their shameful record in abetting terrorists. So in case there are any of you left who think the NYT is simply an impartial and objective messenger of the news, perhaps this will go further in quelling your willful naivete:
The New York Times (proudly publishing all the secrets unfit to spill since 9/11) and their reckless anonymous sources (come out, come out, you cowards) tipped off terrorists to America's efforts to track their financial activities.Seriously, Alberto Gonzales: just how much of this shizit are we Americans supposed to take? Punish the damned NYT, and the sicko leakers as well!
Guess what? It isn't the first time blabbermouth journalists have jeopardized terror financing investigations since September 11, according to the government.
I remind you of the case of the Treason Times, the Holy Land Foundation, and the Global Relief Foundation. As the New York Post reported last September, the Justice Department charged that "a veteran New York Times foreign correspondent warned an alleged terror-funding Islamic charity that the FBI was about to raid its office — potentially endangering the lives of federal agents." Times reporter Philip Shenon was accused of blowing the cover on a December 14, 2001 raid of the Global Relief Foundation.
"It has been conclusively established that Global Relief Foundation learned of the search from reporter Philip Shenon of The New York Times," U.S. attorney Patrick Fitzgerald wrote in an Aug. 7, 2002 , letter to the Times' legal department.
Shenon's phone tip to the Muslim charity (which occurred one day before the FBI searched the foundation's offices), Fitzgerald said, "seriously compromised the integrity of the investigation and potentially endangered the safety of federal law-enforcement personnel." The Global Relief Foundation wasn't some beneficent neighborhood charity sending shoes and Muslim Barbie dolls to poor kids overseas. It was designated a terror financing organization in October 2002 by the Treasury Department, which reported that GRF "has connections to, has provided support for, and has provided assistance to Usama Bin Ladin, the al Qaida Network, and other known terrorist groups."
The Muslim charity had "received funding from individuals associated with al Qaida. GRF officials have had extensive contacts with a close associate of Usama Bin Ladin, who has been convicted in a U.S. court for his role in the 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania." Moreover, the Treasury Department said, "GRF members have dealt with officials of the Taliban, while the Taliban was subject to international sanctions."
Shenon's then-colleague, Judith Miller, had placed a similar call to another Muslim terrorist front financier, the Holy Land Foundation, a few weeks before Shenon's call to the GRF. She was supposedly asking for "comment" on an impending freeze of their assets. According to Fitzgerald in court papers, Miller allegedly also warned them that "government action was imminent." The FBI raided the Holy Land Foundation's offices the day after Miller's article was published in the Times.
The Times' reporters — surprise, surprise--refuse to cooperate with investigators trying to identify the leakers. The government is appealing a ruling protecting the loose-lipped reporters' phone records. Which side are they on? Actions speak louder than words.
Oh, and while they continue to sabotage terror financing investigations, the blabbermouths of the Times should be reminded — as the conservative bloggers Bill Keller despises so much are doing — of their own call in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 for vigorous counterterrorism measures to stop the bankrolling of terror:
"The Bush administration is preparing new laws to help track terrorists through their money-laundering activity and is readying an executive order freezing the assets of known terrorists. Much more is needed, including stricter regulations, the recruitment of specialized investigators and greater cooperation with foreign banking authorities. There must also be closer coordination among America's law enforcement, national security and financial regulatory agencies."
"Much more is needed?" Right. And when the Bush administration came through, the Times stabbed them, and us, in the backs. The lesson is clear. When terror strikes, don't believe a word the know-it-all Times prints. They are opportunistic hindsight hypocrites who endanger us all.
"Yeah, well, who cares, you little sh#t? We have Pulitzers to win!"
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
Today's chapter of "Fun with Dean"
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: any time that Howie "The Scream" Dean opens his cakehole, it's like Christmas comes early. The latest from the walking talking RNC campaign ad, from CNS News (hat tip Kanaka Girl):
America is about to revisit one of the most turbulent decades in its history, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean told a religious conference in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday. "We're about to enter the '60s again," Dean said, but he was not referring to the Vietnam War or racial tensions.Nicely done, Howie. In an election year when your party is trying to shed its aptly earned image of being a party full of 1960's hippy retreads soft on (and actually hostile to) defense, you cast your party in the very light it is trying to avoid! Apparently, it eventually dawned on him that his longing for the good old days might go over about as well as Monica Lewinsky at the Clintons on Christmas morning:
Dean said he is looking for "the age of enlightenment led by religious figures who want to greet Americans with a moral, uplifting vision."
"The problem is when we hit that '60s spot again, which I am optimistic we're about to hit, we have to make sure that we don't make the same mistakes," Dean added.
Later in his speech Tuesday, Dean appeared to backtrack. "I'm not asking to go back to the '60s; we made some mistakes in the '60s," he said.Actually, yeah...you are asking to go back to the '60s. See your prior comment about being "optimistic of hitting the '60s" again, Mr. Kerry...er, Dean. Continuing:
Dean's comments Tuesday came at a religious gathering convened in the nation's capital to discuss ways of eliminating poverty.A couple of thoughts about this:
"I came in the wrong door when I first got here," Dean said. "I came in the back, and everybody was talking about praising the Lord, and I thought, 'I am home. Finally, a group of people who want to praise the Lord and help their fellow man just like Jesus did and just like Jesus taught.' Thank you so much for doing that for me."
1. Howie knew who Jesus was? I'm impressed! He must have boned up on his Christianity 101 before addressing the locals, so as to avoid that "My favorite book of the New Testament is Job" kind of gaffe again. Otherwise, someone might get the impression that Howie isn't being very honest about his Biblical ignorance. Being ignorant of the Bible is no big deal, unless one says something like "If you know much about the Bible—which I do", right?
2. "Finally, a group of people who want to praise the Lord and help their fellow man just like Jesus did and just like Jesus taught"?? Just what does that mean? People of other churches don't want to praise the Lord or help their fellow man? That is definitely news to me!
Considering that nearly every church is such a place and contains lots of people just like that, and considering that he must have had a great deal of trouble finding such a place before, then one can conclude that he is unfamiliar with the concept of church and has likely never stepped into one before, correct?
3. I'm not slamming the guy for not going to church, but if he's going to pretend to be able to relate with us churchgoing rubes (which, make no mistake, is exactly how he sees us), it kind of helps to have at least a little bit of knowledge of the subject matter. Otherwise, people just might think you're an arrogant elitist who underestimates the intelligence of your audience...and that kind of arrogance and condescension is just soooooooo atypical of liberals, isn't it?
Russia to hunt down hostage killers?
Thanks to WMD Maker for passing this on to me. This article may address the question in my prior post about whether or not Russia will respond to their innocents being decapitated by Islamofascists. From MSNBC:
President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday ordered Russia’s special services to hunt down and “destroy” the killers of four Russian diplomats in Iraq, the Kremlin said.So while the moonbats were getting more excited than Cindy Sheehan in a room full of cameras at the notion of Russia blaming the "occupation", they no doubt will be more disappointed than Bill Clinton with male interns when they find out the Russkies may be planning some old fashioned justice, KGB style.
Nikolai Patrushev, the head of the Federal Security Service — the main successor to the Soviet KGB — later said that everything would be done to ensure that the killers “do not escape from responsibility,” the Interfax news agency reported.
“The president has ordered the special forces to take all necessary measures to find and destroy the criminals who killed Russian diplomats in Iraq,” the Kremlin press service said in a brief statement.
NYT exposes program suggested by...the NYT!
Like Kerry, I guess they were for it before they were against it? From Newsbusters:
The editorial entitled “Finances of Terror” began:I guess that's one way for an MSM outlet to cover some news: suggest a plan or policy, then blow the lid off of it when it happens.“Organizing the hijacking of the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon took significant sums of money. The cost of these plots suggests that putting Osama bin Laden and other international terrorists out of business will require more than diplomatic coalitions and military action. Washington and its allies must also disable the financial networks used by terrorists.”Now that sounds like a great idea. The article wisely continued:“The Bush administration is preparing new laws to help track terrorists through their money-laundering activity and is readying an executive order freezing the assets of known terrorists. Much more is needed, including stricter regulations, the recruitment of specialized investigators and greater cooperation with foreign banking authorities. There must also must be closer coordination among America's law enforcement, national security and financial regulatory agencies.”Interesting isn’t it? The article strongly but accurately concluded: “If America is going to wage a new kind of war against terrorism, it must act on all fronts, including the financial one.”
Hmmm. So, what we have here is a news organization that thirteen days after the country was attacked made a variety of wise and insightful suggestions for programs the White House should impose concerning international banking activities to try to prevent further attacks. Yet, roughly four years and nine months after making such a recommendation, which it appears the White House took quite seriously, the same news organization felt that it was in the public’s interest – as well as the terrorists’ – to know the details of said program.
AP shills for Gore's global "warming"
AP headline: "Scientists OK Gore's movie for accuracy." The implication is that all (or nearly all) scientists think Gore's apocalyptic faux-film is based on real science, and hardly any scientist disagrees. Excerpt:
The nation's top climate scientists are giving "An Inconvenient Truth," Al Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy.Uh, yeah...about that:
The former vice president's movie — replete with the prospect of a flooded New York City, an inundated Florida, more and nastier hurricanes, worsening droughts, retreating glaciers and disappearing ice sheets — mostly got the science right, said all 19 climate scientists who had seen the movie or read the book (a whopping 19, huh? - Ed.) and answered questions from The Associated Press.
AP chose to ignore the scores of scientists who have harshly criticized the science presented in former Vice President Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth.”There are samplings of actual scientists who disagree with GoreCo's junk science Chicken Littlery, and they list facts to back them up. But this was interesting:
In the interest of full disclosure, the AP should release the names of the “more than 100 top climate researchers” they attempted to contact to review “An Inconvenient Truth.” AP should also name all 19 scientists who gave Gore “five stars for accuracy.” AP claims 19 scientists viewed Gore’s movie, but it only quotes five of them in its article. AP should also release the names of the so-called scientific “skeptics” they claim to have contacted.
The AP article quotes Robert Correll, the chairman of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment group. It appears from the article that Correll has a personal relationship with Gore, having viewed the film at a private screening at the invitation of the former Vice President. In addition, Correll’s reported links as an “affiliate” of a Washington, D.C.-based consulting firm that provides “expert testimony” in trials and his reported sponsorship by the left-leaning Packard Foundation, were not disclosed by AP. See http://www.junkscience.com/feb06.htm
The AP also chose to ignore Gore’s reliance on the now-discredited “hockey stick” by Dr. Michael Mann, which claims that temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere remained relatively stable over 900 years, then spiked upward in the 20th century, and that the 1990’s were the warmest decade in at least 1000 years. Last week’s National Academy of Sciences report dispelled Mann’s often cited claims by reaffirming the existence of both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. See Senator Inhofe’s statement on the broken “Hockey Stick.” (http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=257697 )
Gore’s claim that global warming is causing the snows of Mt. Kilimanjaro to disappear has also been debunked by scientific reports. For example, a 2004 study in the journal Nature makes clear that Kilimanjaro is experiencing less snowfall because there’s less moisture in the air due to deforestation around Kilimanjaro.
Gore’s film also cites a review of scientific literature by the journal Science which claimed 100% consensus on global warming, but Lindzen pointed out the study was flat out incorrect.So 13 out of 928 articles endorsed the "consensus" view? Yep, sounds like true "consensus" to me! And nope...no liberal media bias!
“...A study in the journal Science by the social scientist Nancy Oreskes claimed that a search of the ISI Web of Knowledge Database for the years 1993 to 2003 under the key words "global climate change" produced 928 articles, all of whose abstracts supported what she referred to as the consensus view. A British social scientist, Benny Peiser, checked her procedure and found that only 913 of the 928 articles had abstracts at all, and that only 13 of the remaining 913 explicitly endorsed the so-called consensus view. Several actually opposed it.”- Lindzen wrote in an op-ed in the June 26, 2006 Wall Street Journal.
My friends, I apologize if I appear to be beating this global "warming" sham to death. After all, pro-Chicken Little forces aren't going to change their minds, and we pro-reality forces aren't going to change ours. After all, global warming is not really an environmental issue...it's actually a political issue.
Flag desecration amendment fails in Senate
A constitutional amendment to ban flag desecration died in a Senate cliffhanger Tuesday, a single vote short of the support needed to send it to the states for ratification and four months before voters elect a new Congress.Roll call here.
The 66-34 tally in favor of the amendment was one less than the two-thirds required. The House surpassed that threshold last year, 286-130.
I've mentioned this before, so I'll keep this short. I think the amendment's defeat is a good thing. While I detest and am grossly offended by some leftist ingrate's burning of the American flag, I would say that burning the flag is no less constitutional than burning a magazine. This banning is not the role of the federal government. If some smelly pinko wants to burn the flag, he should be free to do so.
Then he shouldn't be surprised if he receives a patriotic asskicking afterwards!
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Quote of the day
This one from Joe Biden (Plagiarist-DE):
Speaking to a group of 130 twenty- and thirty-something supporters of his leadership PAC last Thursday, Biden indicated that while he thinks he could be an effective chief executive, as far as the job itself goes, he could take it or leave it.Now that sentiment stands in stark contrast with the last Democrat president we had, doesn't it? Hey, who knows? "Make me the leader of the free world because...uh...well...I love my wife!" almost worked for Gore, didn't it?
“I’d rather be at home making love to my wife while my children are asleep,” he said.
Ward Churchill fired?
Karma has bitten Ward in his pseudo-Indian posterior, has it not? From the LA Times (part of the anti-security BDS MSM contingency):
The University of Colorado on Monday moved to fire a professor whose essay likening some victims of the Sept. 11 attacks to a Nazi caused a national outcry.You're not being fired for your outrageous "Little Eichmanns" speech, Dr. Dumbass. You're being fired for research misconduct and for plagiarism. Colleges and universities are kind of funny about having tenured professors (who are supposed to reflect academic brilliance) being no more diligent than Joe Freshman when it comes to fact checking and original work. Hell, your stupid and inflammatory speech has made you a cult favorite among the pervasive moonbat population of our country's postsecondary institutions.
Phil DiStefano, interim chancellor of the Boulder campus, delivered a notice of recommended termination to ethnic studies professor Ward L. Churchill on Monday morning. DiStefano said the professor was being fired for shoddy research and for plagiarism, and the university said it considered Churchill's reference to World Trade Center workers as "little Eichmanns" to be free speech.
"We want to protect academic freedom and freedom of expression," DiStefano said at a news conference in Boulder. "However … we take research misconduct very seriously."
Churchill's attorney, David Lane, said the move was no surprise and vowed to fight the termination in a federal lawsuit.
"For a year and a half, they've been looking for good excuses to fire Ward Churchill for his free speech," Lane said.
So trust me, Sitting Bullsh#t...you're not being fired for outrageous words. You're being fired because you're an academic fraud! However, take heart: you are now qualified to be a Democratic Senator from Delaware!
Monday, June 26, 2006
UPDATE: Why does the Times hate America?
Michael Barone has a great piece about the NYT jeopardizing American security in a fit of BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome). The closing is the best:
Why do they hate us? Why does the Times print stories that put America more at risk of attack? They say that these surveillance programs are subject to abuse, but give no reason to believe that this concern is anything but theoretical. We have a press that is at war with an administration, while our country is at war against merciless enemies. The Times is acting like an adolescent kicking the shins of its parents, hoping to make them hurt while confident of remaining safe under their roof. But how safe will we remain when our protection depends on the Times?Keller and company have Pulitzers to win, so to America, they say "Best of luck with that security thingee!"
UPDATE (6/26/2006 - 10:41 p.m.): Hugh Hewitt has an interview that implies NYT blabbermouth-in-chief Bill Keller is a damned liar:
Stuart Levey, the Treasury's Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, is my first guest today. I just finished recording the interview. He flatly contradicts Bill Keller's assertion that concern over assisting the terrorist was a "secondary argument," made in a "half-hearted way." It was the central argument he and Secretary Snow made to Times' officials, with the Secretary making it to Mr. Keller. The Treasury stands by that assessment, and strongly so.
The papers helped terrorists elude capture. It is that simple and that damning.
Saddam repeats moonbat talking points
Saddam believes the U.S. wants his help to quell the Iraqi insurgency. He genuinely believes that. Then again, a cursory glance at the moonbat blogs out there (like the Kos kooks or the Dumbass Underground) reveals that the nutbars of the left are longing for the "good old days" of Saddam feeding dissidents feet first into woodchippers, and they agree with Saddam: he's the man.
Khalil al-Dulaimi argued in an interview with The Associated Press that the former leader is the key to returning stability to Iraq.I wonder if Saddam's delusions were brought on by reading a copy of the New York Times or the L.A. Times?
"He's their last resort. They're going to knock at his door eventually," the lawyer said. Saddam is "the only person who can stop the resistance against the U.S. troops."
Freeh: Clinton uninterested in Khobar justice
Pretty damning stuff, from former FBI director Louis Freeh:
Ten years ago today, acting under direct orders from senior Iranian government leaders, the Saudi Hezbollah detonated a 25,000-pound TNT bomb that killed 19 U.S. airmen in their dormitory at Khobar Towers in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. The blast wave destroyed Building 131 and grievously wounded hundreds of additional Air Force personnel. It also killed an unknown number of Saudi civilians in a nearby park.Please read it all. It's not long, and it outlines the whole post-Khobar debacle in great detail.
The 19 Americans murdered were members of the 4,404th Wing, who were risking their lives to enforce the no-fly zone over southern Iraq. This was a U.N.-mandated mission after the 1991 Gulf War to stop Saddam Hussein from killing his Shiite people. The Khobar victims, along with the courageous families and friends who mourn them this weekend in Washington, deserve our respect and honor. More importantly, they must be remembered, because American justice has still been denied.
Although a federal grand jury handed up indictments in June 2001--days before I left as FBI director and a week before some of the charges against 14 of the terrorists would have lapsed because of the statute of limitations--two of the primary leaders of the attack, Ahmed Ibrahim al-Mughassil and Abdel Hussein Mohamed al-Nasser, are living comfortably in Iran with about as much to fear from America as Osama bin Laden had prior to Sept. 11 (to wit, U.S. marshals showing up to serve warrants for their arrests).
It soon became clear that Mr. Clinton and his national security adviser, Sandy Berger, had no interest in confronting the fact that Iran had blown up the towers. This is astounding, considering that the Saudi Security Service had arrested six of the bombers after the attack. As FBI agents sifted through the remains of Building 131 in 115-degree heat, the bombers admitted they had been trained by the Iranian external security service (IRGC) in Lebanon's Beka Valley and received their passports at the Iranian Embassy in Damascus, Syria, along with $250,000 cash for the operation from IRGC Gen. Ahmad Sharifi.
We later learned that senior members of the Iranian government, including Ministry of Defense, Ministry of Intelligence and Security and the Spiritual Leader's office had selected Khobar as their target and commissioned the Saudi Hezbollah to carry out the operation. The Saudi police told us that FBI agents had to interview the bombers in custody in order to make our case. To make this happen, however, the U.S. president would need to make a personal request to Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah.
So for 30 months, I wrote and rewrote the same set of simple talking points for the president, Mr. Berger, and others to press the FBI's request to go inside a Saudi prison and interview the Khobar bombers. And for 30 months nothing happened. The Saudis reported back to us that the president and Mr. Berger would either fail to raise the matter with the crown prince or raise it without making any request. On one such occasion, our commander in chief instead hit up Prince Abdullah for a contribution to his library. Mr. Berger never once, in the course of the five-year investigation which coincided with his tenure, even asked how the investigation was going.
Upon being advised that our investigation now had proof that Iran blew up Khobar Towers, Mr. Berger's astounding response was: "Who knows about this?" His next, and wrong, comment was: "That's just hearsay." When I explained that under the Rules of Federal Evidence the detainees' comments were indeed more than "hearsay," for the first time ever he became interested--and alarmed--about the case. But this interest translated into nothing more than Washington "damage control" meetings held out of the fear that Congress, and ordinary Americans, would find out that Iran murdered our soldiers. After those meetings, neither the president, nor anyone else in the administration, was heard from again about Khobar.
Ah, yes...the "good ol' days" of Bubba!
Saddam had ties to Taliban, al Qaeda, and other jihadists
Declassified documents...and they didn't come from CBS, so there's a decent chance they're authentic! From the scourge of the left, Fox News:
Newly declassified documents captured by U.S. forces indicate that Saddam Hussein's inner circle not only actively reached out to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan and terror-based jihadists in the region, but also hosted discussions with a known Al Qaeda operative about creating jihad training "centers," possibly in Baghdad.Big coinkidink, I'm sure. There's more in the link, so read at your convenience. Sucks to be part of the "Bush lied, people died" and "There's no connection between Iraq and terrorism" crew, doesn't it? However, I have a prediction, and I doubt I'm going out on a limb with it:
Ray Robison, a former member of the CIA-directed Iraq Survey Group (ISG), supervised a group of linguists to analyze, archive and exploit the hundreds of captured documents and materials of Saddam's regime.
This is the final installment in a three-part series concerning a notebook kept by an Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) agent called Khaled Abd El Majid, and covers events taking place in 1999. The translation is provided by Robison's associate, known here as “Sammi.”
The first two translations from this notebook detailed an agreement between members of the Saddam regime and the Taliban to establish diplomatic and intelligence based cooperation. This final translation further advances the link between the Saddam regime and world-wide Islamic Jihad terrorism.
The relationship between the Taliban and Saddam appears to have been mediated by a Pakistani named Maulana Fazlur Rahman. Another document captured in Afghanistan and written by an Al Qaeda operative confirms the relationship between the Maulana and Saddam. The translation provided here includes an early 1999 meeting between the director of the IIS and the Maulana.
Another notebook entry records a meeting with Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, an Afghani Islamic Jihadist and leader of the Islamic Party in Afghanistan. Hekmatyar made news recently with the BBC article Afghan Rebel’s pledge to al-Qaeda that reports on a video statement from Hekmatyar in which he states he will fight alongside Al Qaeda. In this translation, Hekmatyar makes specific requests for a “center” in Baghdad and/or Tajikistan.
A third meeting involves an Islamist representing Bangladesh that we believe to be Fazlur Rahman Khalil. Another page of the notebook indicates Khalil is coming or came to Iraq. Khalil is a Taliban/Al Qaeda associate who signed the 1998 fatwa from Usama bin Laden declaring war on the United States.
The left will dispute the validity of the documents, if not accuse them of being planted or "timed" to coincide with the election this year. They will point to Bush's poor PR handling of not linking Iraq with al Qaeda as "proof" there was no such link, despite the contents of these documents. Basically, the left has invested so much time and energy into the "Bush lied" and "No connection to terror" mantras that they almost have to go down with the Kennedy car, don't they?
Islamofascists decapitate innocent Russians
The left has been fond of telling us that the reason for terrorists decapitating innocent civilians is because America invaded Iraq. Nick Berg and others were beheaded by the recently toes-up al-Zar-qaward because they had the "misfortune" of being Americans. That poor South Korean, Kim Sun-il, was decapitated because South Korea had some troops there, of which Kim was not a member. If we "occupiers" would just leave Iraq, the beheadings would stop, right?
Uh...no. Russia, who has been steadfastly against the war because of their financial ties to Saddam, has now seen four of its countrymen (embassy workers) butchered by al Qaeda. From the Beeb:
Insurgents in Iraq say they have killed four Russian embassy workers kidnapped at the start of June.Chechnya? That's not Iraq, and it probably isn't even George Bush's fault! I know, I know, the prior sentence is just crazy talk, isn't it? After all, it's ALL Bush's fault!
The Mujahideen Shura Council, an umbrella group incorporating al-Qaeda in Iraq, released an internet video and a statement announcing their deaths.
The video showed one man being beheaded and another shot dead, as well as the body of a third, but there was no sign of the fourth hostage.
The Kremlin said it could not immediately confirm their deaths.
"At this moment our sources in Iraq have not confirmed the report of the killing of the Russian hostages," a government spokesman Moscow radio.
"The Foreign Ministry is doing all it can and using all channels to check the validity of this information."
The men were seized in Baghdad on 3 June, and kidnappers said the executions were in revenge for "torture, killing and displacement by the infidel Russian government" in Chechnya.
What sayeth thou now, oh leftist terrorism apologists? Just a case of Muslims being Muslims, perhaps we need to learn "cultural acceptance"...maybe that's "just the way they do things" over there?
What sayeth you now, Russkies? You want to finally help us out in this terrorism thingee, now that it's hit a little closer to home for you guys?
Sunday, June 25, 2006
Murtha: U.S. more threat to world peace than Iran or North Korea
There you go, Murthaholics. Your boy Jacques, at it again. Observe:
American presence in Iraq is more dangerous to world peace than nuclear threats from North Korea or Iran, Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., said to an audience of more than 200 in North Miami Saturday afternoon.A whole crowd of a stunning...200? Wow...it must have been a jam-packed, standing-room-only coliseum, huh? Actually, it was a college theater that likely holds many more people than that. But why nitpick about the paucity of moonbats in attendance?
Rumor has it he's going to tour with the Dixie Chicks, but that hasn't been confirmed. Before anyone on the left googles that, the prior sentence was sarcasm.
Saturday, June 24, 2006
UPDATED: Why hasn't the NYT been prosecuted?
Excellent commentary by Heather MacDonald at The Weekly Standard:
BY NOW IT'S UNDENIABLE: The New York Times is a national security threat. So drunk is it on its own power and so antagonistic to the Bush administration that it will expose every classified antiterror program it finds out about, no matter how legal the program, how carefully crafted to safeguard civil liberties, or how vital to protecting American lives.Since when has being briefed ever deterred liberal Senators from invoking the amnesia defense when they feign outrage?
The Times's latest revelation of a national security secret appeared on last Friday's front page--where no al Qaeda operative could possibly miss it. Under the deliberately sensational headline, "Bank Data Sifted in Secret by U.S. to Block Terror," the Times blows the cover on a highly targeted program to locate terrorist financing networks. According to the report, since 9/11, the Bush administration has obtained information about terror suspects' international financial transactions from a Belgian clearinghouse of international money transfers.
The procedure for obtaining that information could not be more solicitous of privacy and the rule of law: Agents are only allowed to seek information based on intelligence tying specific individuals to al Qaeda; they must document the intelligence behind every search request and maintain an electronic record of every search; and, in an inspired civil liberties innovation that would undoubtedly garner kudos from the Times had a Democratic administration devised it, a board of independent auditors from banks reviews the subpoena requests to make sure that only terror suspects' transactions are traced. Any use of the data for criminal investigations into drug trafficking, say, or tax fraud is banned. The administration briefed congressional leaders and the 9/11 Commission about the system.
Seriously, the first line sums it up: "The New York Times is a national security threat." There's just no two ways about it. Their shameless and brazen fits of Bush Derangement Syndrome have driven their headlines (and declining circulation) for years, but the NSA story and this one really take the cake. The Constitution specifically addresses treason and giving aid and comfort to our enemies, and if the NYT isn't doing that, then Michael Moore is the new spokesman for Weight Watchers.
The program is not illegal, and the Slimes concedes that point, begrudgingly. Hell, it even was responsible for nabbing the Bali bomber, Indonesian terrorist Hambali! Not illegal, seems to be working...I know, let's sabotage it!
The closing is excellent:
Al Qaeda has long worked to manipulate the media in its favor. It can disband that operation now, knowing that, unbidden, America's most powerful newspaper is looking out for its interests.UPDATE (6/25/06, 2:27 p.m. EST): Further piling on and aiding the Iraqi insurgency/terrorism spree, the Slimes is now reporting on "a classified briefing at the Pentagon this week by the commander, Gen. George W. Casey Jr." How can they spin this into a "public interest" story, when by their own admission, it's freakin' classified? I don't hear the same people who were screaming about non-covert desk jockey Plame getting that worked up over this story, do you?
UPDATE (6/25/06, 2:29 p.m. EST): Rep. Peter King (R-NY) is going to ask AG Gonzales to look into prosecuting the Slimes, calling their actions "treasonous." What took them so long?!? It's high time they were made an example of, isn't it?
"MSM infidels...what would we do without them?"
Friday, June 23, 2006
Saddam starves a WHOLE meal!
Someone call Amnesty International...Saddam skipped a meal. His hunger strike lasted all of...one lunch. He scarfed down dinner.
Nothing like a man who refuses to compromise his principles, huh? :-D
Miami terror ring..Muslim? No way!
For those of you on the left who may be coming down from your pot-induced high and thus be oblivious to recent goings-on in America, I hope the following statement doesn't frighten you: We're in the middle of a war against terrorism.
A terrorist ring in Miami was busted by the feds. Link to story here. Apparently, they were planning an attack on the Sears Tower in Chicago.
If you look far enough down in the story, you'll finally find this trivial detail: they were Muslim. I know, I know, it is sooooo unlike the MSM to forget to mention that aspect of our enemy. For those of you on the left, the prior sentence was sarcasm.
Thursday, June 22, 2006
"Vote for 'cut and run', because Wellstone would have!"
I see the left is still trying to gravy-train off of corpses, a la Cindy Sheehan, Michael Berg, Yoko Ono, Courtney Love, etc. Add Durbin the Turban to the mix. Senator Dick al-Durbin laden on the smoking defeat (86-13 against) of the Kerry amendment:
Senator Wellstone was going back home to Minnesota to face reelection. I remember saying to him, "Paul, I hope this doesn't cost you the election." And you know what he said to me, Senator Byrd? "It doesn't matter. This is what I believe, this is who I am." That was the last conversation I ever had with Paul Wellstone. He died in a plane crash just a few days later. I've thought about him ever since, I miss him, I miss his voice. I wish he were here today. If he were here today I know what he would be doing, he would be joining me in supporting the Kerry amendment.Great...so the vote could have been 86-14 instead? Now that would have been a monumental difference and a poignant statement, wouldn't it?
I do feel badly that Wellstone died, because in spite of his flaming leftist ideology, the man was at least honest about who he was and was willing to lose an election instead of compromising his beliefs. That kind of openness and adherence to core beliefs is sorely lacking in today's politicians.
That damned "freedom" thing!
Need more proof that the do-gooders are wanting to limit freedom in the name of "public health"? A recent discussion here focused on passionate arguments about government trying to limit smoking in consenting adults, even by telling private property owners who could and could not smoke and where they were and were not allowed to smoke.
Anyway, thanks to Kira for forwarding this to me. It's not about smoking, but about any behavior that someone other than you deems is bad for you, and wanting the government to stop it...for your own good, of course. From Townhall:
The day after Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger crashed his motorcycle, while he was still recovering from surgery to repair his fractured face, The Cincinnati Post scolded the Ohio native for not wearing a helmet. "Riders should wear helmets," the paper proclaimed, "and if they're not going to, perhaps the government should step in and make them."Yes, those pesky "freedom advocates" can be a nuisance, can't they? If they won't take safety precautions for themselves, then by
The Post pined for the days when "all states required helmets," bemoaning the fact that 30 states now let adult motorcyclists decide for themselves what, if anything, to wear on their heads. The laws were changed, the editorial explained, because of "pressure from those who advocate 'freedom.'"
Notice the scare quotes. According to The Cincinnati Post, the freedom to take a risk is not really freedom at all; you are truly free only when you make the right choices -- those that minimize the chance of injury. It's a depressingly common attitude nowadays, when health promotion is routinely accepted as a justification for meddling in what used to be considered our private lives.Why don't the same do-gooders who want to control our decision-making in the name of health and wellness advocate banning football? Now that would go over as well as a Kennedy at a "Take Back The Night" rally! Continuing:
By the standards of "public health," which seeks above all else to minimize morbidity and mortality, Roethlisberger should not have been riding a motorcycle at all. Given the nature of his injuries, it's doubtful a helmet would have prevented them, unless it was a full-face model. But it's certain Roethlisberger would not have been in a motorcycle crash if he had never ridden a motorcycle.
If injury prevention were Roethlisberger's overriding goal, of course, he probably would not have chosen a career in professional football.
The editors of The Cincinnati Post are not the only ones who are puzzled by the concept. At a recent conference sponsored by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg -- who brags about tracking New Yorkers' blood sugar levels and driving down cigarette consumption with high taxes and a ban on smoking in bars and restaurants -- called for "an aggressive, comprehensive public health strategy" aimed at "deadly menaces [that] result from our choices," including "tobacco addiction, unhealthy nutrition, and excessively sedentary lifestyles."There you have it, folks. The mayor of the largest city in America is equating smoking (a conscious choice) with polio (a disease that one does not take proactive steps to acquire). Bloomberg is a Republican (albeit a liberal one), which is proof that do-gooders can occupy various ideological and party lines.
Regarding government efforts to influence what we eat and how much exercise we get, Bloomberg acknowledged that "some people may call that too intrusive." (Yeah, we're funny that way. - Ed.) He immediately dismissed this concern by relabeling it: "I call it dynamic and effective public health." You say tomato ...
The problem is that Bloomberg's idea of public health, like the CDC's, does not distinguish between deadly diseases people catch and risky things they choose to do. In his speech he equated smoking, overeating and failing to wear a seat belt with polio, cholera and tuberculosis, wishing away freedom by pretending it doesn't exist.
Finally, an argument we've heard before:
"We rely on the forceful application of law -- democratically debated and approved -- as the principal instrument of public health policy," Bloomberg said. So as long as your risky hobby or habit meets with the majority's approval, there's no need to worry, unless you think politicians sometimes are driven by their own ideological agendas.There's a ringing endorsement for you folks who want to prevent personal freedom, infringe on private property rights, and limit individual responsibility: the do-gooder mayor of NYC thinks like you do.
Bloomberg wants us to know he's not one of those fanatics. "Clearly," he said, "there are many matters of personal behavior and personal taste that we have no business regulating." Oddly, he did not name a single one.
Does government have the right (or authority) to ban, say, gay intercourse or tattoos? I mean, they're highly unhealthy, right? What do you want a bet that the same big-government do-gooders wouldn't even THINK about proposing a Texas-type ban on sodomy or Oklahoma-type ban on tattoos, especially in NYC? After all, there are just some "matters of personal behavior and personal taste that we have no business regulating": sodomy and tattoos being among them, but the foods you eat and the cigs you smoke NOT being among them.
So, bareback a tattooed Village People throwback all you want...just make sure you don't light up or phone in a pizza afterwards.
WMD's found in Iraq...again
The United States has found 500 chemical weapons in Iraq since 2003, and more weapons of mass destruction are likely to be uncovered, two Republican lawmakers said Wednesday.But...but...didn't Saddam tell the world he had destroyed ALL of his WMD's, regardless of whether they were created before 1991? Why, this revelation would mean that Saddam actually...lied! Who would have ever pegged Saddam Hussein as a liar?
"We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons," Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., said in a quickly called press conference late Wednesday afternoon.
Reading from a declassified portion of a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center, a Defense Department intelligence unit, Santorum said: "Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist."
For those of you on the left, the prior paragraph was sarcasm.
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
Left: Nixon defined by Watergate, unfair to define Rather with Memogate
The Godfather observes that the left likes to define Nixon (a liberal Republican who grew the government bigger than any Republican president, other than maybe the current one) with Watergate...but they tell us that it would be unfair to define Rather with the forged document story! On the MSM mentality:
I don't know why journalists -- just forget Dan Rather individually. Why should journalists be exempt from the same type of historical judgments? Why should journalists be exempt from profiles? I mean, journalists love to go out there and find out everything with their subjects: Where did they first go to school? When did they first have sexual relations? When did they do this? When did they do that? When did they wreck their first car? Who did they first murder? Blah, blah, blah. Try doing the same thing with a journalist, and you will have hell to pay.Right...Rather was objective! And Monica Lewinsky is of Hispanic descent! Well, she did have "a little Cuban in her", didn't she? But I digress...
"Why, we're immune to that! We're not the story. We're not the focus of the story. Who we are doesn't matter. We're just objective purveyors of the truth!"
Irony of the day
Peace protestors become violent. Then again, they... usually...do.
To them, "peace" means "absence of the imperialist American war machine's activity", not actual "peace." The irony is probably lost on these dope-smoking, tree-hugging, burlap-wearing, patchouli-smelling, incense-burning, dictator-defending, unemployable socialist miscreants.
Saddam is on a hunger strike after his lawyer went "toes up" yesterday. If we force feed him, it's torture. If we let him starve to death, it's torture. Damned if we do, darned if we don't.
How about we just bitchslap him and gig him with a white-hot cattle prod, if we're going to get lampooned once again from the human rights do-gooders who refuse to condemn acts of barbarism by Islamofascists? Maybe give him a pork rind bath.
Better yet, put him in a Kurdish jail...general population. Fun for the whole family!
Photo of the day
Hat tip to Jason at Texas Rainmaker for this:
Damn, Jacques...that looks mighty uncomfortable!
Hawaiian school admissions policy discriminatory?
Thanks to Kanaka Girl for passing this on to me. From CNN:
A wealthy private school created exclusively for its indigenous people is asking a federal appeals court to allow it to continue its race-based admissions policy.That last paragraph really bugs me. First of all, life's not fair...deal with it. Secondly, "take care of our own"? Does anyone want to guess what the reaction would be if a white "mainlander" were to make a comment about "taking care of our own"? That disturbs me, I don't mind telling you.
Fifteen judges on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals were scheduled to hear arguments Tuesday in San Francisco about whether the Kamehameha Schools can continue to limit enrollment to Native Hawaiians.
While the courts have generally ruled against favoritism in education based on race, the Kamehameha case is different. The school receives no federal money. And its policy was based on the will of a Hawaiian princess 10 years before the monarchy was overthrown.
"Her whole intent was to provide a means for educating her people so they could compete in a society that was changing so quickly," said Kekoa Paulsen, a spokesman for Kamehameha Schools.
A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit initially ruled 2-1 against Kamehameha's admissions policy last August. But the full court announced in February it would reconsider that decision. The admissions policy has remained in place while appeals are pending.
Kamehameha Schools was established under the 1883 will of Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop as part of a trust now worth $6.8 billion. Part of the school's mission is to counteract historical disadvantages Native Hawaiians face in employment, education and society.
Following the initial ruling against Kamehameha last year, 15,000 people marched through downtown Honolulu in protest.
"We're not asking for a handout. We're asking to be able to take care of our own," said Miki Kim, a 1976 Kamehameha Schools graduate who organized a rally last fall supporting the school. "This country is not fair."
I have mixed feelings on this. Be it that I'm not Hawaiian, I guess I have a different perspective.
On the one hand, I don't see how this is much different than having an all-black school or all-white school. The argument is that only people of a certain race/nationality/culture can go there. What if Tennessee had a school that said only native Tennesseans could go there, in order to preserve our fine banjo-strumming, BBQ-cooking, possum-eating heritage? For those of you on the left, we don't really eat possum in TN...at least, not during the off-season! LOL!
Having said that...
The school is a PRIVATE school that does not accept federal funds. Therefore, the school should be able to run any which way it sees fit. Throw in the fact that the school (private property, which prior to Kelo actually meant something) was explicitly WILLED to native Hawaiians (the beneficiaries of the will), which is no different than you willing your 401k to your kids or church or dogs or whomever. Therefore, it seems to me that however I may like/dislike the school being ONLY for natives, it is likely well within their legal right to exist as they currently do. Plus, anything the 9th Circus wants to override can't be bad in the first place, since all they do is override good judgment and common sense, right?
Weigh in, folks. What do you think?
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
Photo of the day
Tony Snow exposes Wolf Blitzer's bias
Why hasn't Snow been the prez's mouthpiece since Day One? Check this out:
BLITZER: The Washington Post published a fascinating cable today, a report written by the US embassy in Baghdad to the state department signed by ambassador Khalizad in which it painted a very, very grim picture, Tony, of what's going on in Iraq right now. I know that many have that the news media is only focusing on the negative, but here the US embassy in Baghdad paints a pretty stark picture of what's going on right now, and the reality is gloomy.Wolf, if you're going to reference an article in a leftist rag (or any paper, for that matter), it helps to actually know when said article was written. Otherwise you wind up looking like an idiot, or biased...or both. So which one is it?
SNOW: That's taken in mid-May. Here we are, we're a month later and I've just told you you've got 50,000 Iraqi troops that are now focusing on those problem areas in Baghdad. What's interesting is -- hand me that for a second. Because there was an interesting lead on this story where it was said, "Hours before President Bush left on a surprise trip for an upbeat assessment of the situation..." He didn't go there for an upbeat assessment of the situation. He went there for a realistic assessment. And he got it from the prime minister, and he got it from the electricity minister and the oil minister and the minister for human rights and the minister for national reconciliation. So this was not the president trying to do a victory lap, no, it was the president now realizing you've got somebody you can work with to deal with problems like this.
Let's see: Blitzer brandishes a month-old paper that had a "gloomy" article, and he does so when America (and specifically, Bush) is making noticeable and demonstrable progress in the Global War On Terror (for those of you on the left, Iraq IS part of that war) in an attempt to rain on that parade and continue portraying the war as something it's not...a lost cause.
Nope...no liberal media bias!
Monday, June 19, 2006
Irony of the day
Headline: "Nestle to buy Jenny Craig for $600 million"
I know, Nestle makes different kinds of food and drinks, but what's the first product line you think of when you hear the name "Nestle"? Chocolate. Plus, this tidbit struck me as humorous, too:
Weight management will become a new business within Nestle's nutrition unit and will reinforce its U.S. presence. The Swiss company already owns the Lean Cuisine line of foods.So, will the new nutrition unit be located above, below, or beside the candy unit (aka the "diabetes- and cardiovascular disease-inducing unit")?
"With this strategic acquisition, the group takes another important step in its transformation process into a nutrition, health and wellness company," said Nestle Chairman and Chief Executive Peter Brabeck-Letmathe.
"The rise of obesity and the resulting metabolic disorders, such as diabetes and cardiovascular disease, is a major public health concern, not only in the USA but also the world over," Brabeck-Letmathe said.
I dunno...I thought it was funny. OK, moving on...
Murtha: Flip-flopping is OK, and so was Clinton's Somalia debacle
Murthaholics may want to turn away from this post, because it makes your Jack look like the political opportunist and bumbling idiot that he is. From Expose the Left:
The Media Blog writes about Murtha’s Friday appearence on CNN’s The Situation Room and posts this transcript of the Congressman advocating we “change directions” like “Clinton did in Somalia”:Nicely done, Jacko! You may be the only schmuck I've ever heard who refers to the "Black Hawk Down" incident in Somalia as a good thing and worth repeating. Let's see your party run with that idea to the polls this November! My guess is that your Somalia strategy will be as tightly embraced as a consenting adult female in Scott Ritter's house (for those of you on the left, that means the idea won't be embraced very well, since Ritter digs pre-pubescent girls)!The thing that disturbed me and worries me about this whole thing is we can’t get them to change direction. And I said over and over in debate, if you listen to any of it, in Beirut President Reagan changed direction, in Somalia President Clinton changed direction, and yet here...On changing direction:
Here’s what Osama bin Laden said about Clinton’s decision to “change direction” in Somalia, according to the Frontline documentary, “Hunting bin Laden“:“After leaving Afghanistan, the Muslim fighters headed for Somalia and prepared for a long battle, thinking that the Americans were like the Russians,” bin Laden said. “The youth were surprised at the low morale of the American soldiers and realized more than before that the American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows ran in defeat. And America forgot all the hoopla and media propaganda … about being the world leader and the leader of the New World Order, and after a few blows they forgot about this title and left, dragging their corpses and their shameful defeat.“The Media Blog’s Stephen Spruiell concludes:The comparison was especially ill-timed, given that Islamic extremists are in the process of taking over the country and some are warning that it could become a new safe haven for al Qaeda.
The next time Murtha makes his pitch for “changing direction” in Iraq, he might want to omit this particular comparison. It only serves to remind us how much we have to lose by turning our backs on Iraq now.
Jacko then "weighs in" on the most pressing issue of his party today: Karl Rove's posterior.
He’s in New Hampshire, he’s making a political speech. He’s sitting in his air conditioned office in his big fat backside, saying stay the course.Rove is fat, but Murtha is svelt? Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.
Finally, Jacko comes up with the brilliant idea of fighting terrorism in the Middle East by redeploying our troops to...Okinawa! How's that for a timely response? I mean, we'd be a mere 4,000 nautical miles away! Jacko, not being used to getting challenged on his lunatic ravings, began stumbling and bumbling when Russert called him on it:
REP. MURTHA: There’s many countries understand the importance of stability in the Middle East. This is an international problem. We, we use 20 million barrels of oil a day. China’s the second largest user. All these countries understand you need stability for the energy supply that’s available in the Middle East. So there’s many, many countries.I suggest that Murtha, being the military genius that he is because (like John Kerry) he served in 'Nam, bone up on his current affairs and military matters a bit since, in his old age, it must have slipped his mind that Okinawa wants our troops off of their island. Yessiree, nothing says "I'm a military strategy genius" more than recommending a redeployment of our troops to a place 4,000 nautical miles away that doesn't even want us there!
MR. RUSSERT: Who?
REP. MURTHA: Kuwait’s one that will take us. Qatar, we already have bases in Qatar. So Bahrain. All those countries are willing to take the United States. Now, Saudi Arabia won’t because they wanted us out of there in the first place. So—and we don’t have to be right there. We can go to Okinawa. We, we don’t have—we can redeploy there almost instantly. So that’s not—that’s, that’s a fallacy. That, that’s just a statement to rial up people to support a failed policy wrapped in illusion.
MR. RUSSERT: But it’d be tough to have a timely response from Okinawa.
REP. MURTHA: Well, it—you know, they—when I say Okinawa, I, I’m saying troops in Okinawa. When I say a timely response, you know, our fighters can fly from Okinawa very quickly. And—and—when they don’t know we’re coming. There’s no question about it. And, and where those airplanes won’t—came from I can’t tell you, but, but I’ll tell you one thing, it doesn’t take very long for them to get in with cruise missiles or with, with fighter aircraft or, or attack aircraft, it doesn’t take any time at all. So we, we have done—this one particular operation, to say that that couldn’t have done, done—it was done from the outside, for heaven’s sakes.
As with Cindy Shehag, the left will eventually rue the day they hitched their horses to the Murtha Wagon.
Murtha's words before advocating a "Black Hawk Down" repeat
Friday, June 16, 2006
Fake news at CBS (humor)
This is funny...I don't care who you are! Actual Viacom ad:
al-Zarqawi: "We're losing"; MSM and Dems: "We're losing"
Maybe when Zar-qaward said that al Qaeda in Iraq was losing, and the MSM and the left (pardon the redundancy) say "We're losing", they're both talking about the same thing: America is winning.
Here are some of Zarqi's own words, with the translation from the Crush Liberalism Objective World News Service (CLOWNS) to assist you:
As an overall picture, time has been an element in affecting negatively the forces of the occupying countries, due to the losses they sustain economically in human lives, which are increasing with time. However, here in Iraq, time is now beginning to be of service to the American forces and harmful to the resistance (terrorists - Ed.) for the following reasons:These documents did not come from CBS, so there's a pretty decent chance that they're authetic. I'm guessing (circle your calendars) that it won't be long before leftists begin questioning the authenticity of the documents. If so, one has to wonder "Then how the hell did we get the idea to go kill these 104 terrorists and capture 759 more, and uncover 28 major weapons caches...information that was all outlined in some of Zarkie's (fake?) documents?" Also, like Iraqi National Security Adviser Mouwafak al-Rubaie noted the following about a discovered thumbdrive (for those who don't know, that's a portable hard drive) at Zarkie's bombed "not-so-safe-house":
1. By allowing the American forces to form the forces of the National Guard, to reinforce them and enable them to undertake military operations against the resistance. (Americans training the Iraqi forces to fight us terrorists, and apparently training them well, contrary to the claims of the American MSM and the left (forgive the redundancy) - Ed.)
2. By undertaking massive arrest operations, invading regions that have an impact on the resistance, and hence causing the resistance to lose many of its elements. (terrorists are dying because of the Americans' and Iraqis' efforts - Ed.)
3. By undertaking a media campaign against the resistance resulting in weakening its influence inside the country and presenting its work as harmful to the population rather than being beneficial to the population. (terrorists beheading innocents is "beneficial to the population" - Ed.)
4. By tightening the resistance's financial outlets, restricting its moral options and by confiscating its ammunition and weapons. (those bastards are taking our weapons away! Someone call the ACLU or CAIR! - Ed.)
5. By creating a big division among the ranks of the resistance and jeopardizing its attack operations, it has weakened its influence and internal support of its elements, thus resulting in a decline of the resistance's assaults. (we terrorists can't attack as often or as effective as we once could...and it's destroying our morale! - Ed.)
6. By allowing an increase in the number of countries and elements supporting the occupation or at least allowing to become neutral in their stand toward us in contrast to their previous stand or refusal of the occupation. ("Increase in countries" supporting the allies? I thought the Americans were "going it alone"?? - Ed.)
7. By taking advantage of the resistance's mistakes and magnifying them in order to misinform. (the allies didn't confer with Al Jazeera, and are instead telling the Iraqis that WE are the bad guys! WTF? - Ed.)
When asked how he could be sure the information was authentic, al-Rubaie said "there is nothing more authentic than finding a thumbdrive in his pocket."Anywho, what Zarkie was saying (before being dispatched to his plate of grapes) can best be summed up as follows:
"Damn those Americans! Their plan is working against me and my...what does that Shehag broad and her boyfriend whose son splashed my garb with the blood from his hacked off head call us again? Oh, right: 'freedom fighters'! Allahdammit, will the NY Times and John Murtha scream 'quagmire' and 'America cannot win' a little louder and more often? We're in BIG trouble over here!"
The MSM and the Dems (I know, I'm redundant today) have been screaming that we need to train the Iraqis...we have, and apparently more and more effectively with the passing of time. They've been screaming that America is going it alone and is losing...al Qaeda disagrees on both counts.
There's more to Zarkie's diary, and it makes for good reading. However, the discovery as usual make Democrats look like the fools that they are.
It's official: you may now question their patriotism
House Resolution 868: "Providing for consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 861) declaring that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror, the struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary."
Seems easy enough, right? "The U.S. will win the war on terror...period." Believe it or not, there were 194 "No" votes: 190 Democrats, 1 Socialist, and 3 Republicans. The Republicans were Jones (NC), Leach, and Ron Paul.
I don't know the first two, but I know Ron Paul. Paul is a Libertarian who changed party affiliations so he could get elected. Most Libertarians (with a capital L) are against the wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq (though Paul was smart enough not to oppose Afghanistan right after 9/11), as well as any foreign intervention/excusions...even if for obvious national security interests. I normally like Paul, but he's all wet on this issue.
There were actually 4 Democrats who think we will indeed prevail in the GWOT: Barrow, Boren, Marshall, and Melancon. Kudos to them for being Americans first.
Feel free to ask them why they voted against a simple resolution stating that we aren't going to be dhimmis in America. I mean, just because al-Zarqawi thought that al Qaeda was losing doesn't mean that Democrats agree.
Thursday, June 15, 2006
Teacher arrested for sex with student...who is legally an adult
In my view, this is ridiculous.
Carrollton Leader Community Editor Crystal Forester appeared live on “On the Record with Greta Van Susteren” Tuesday at 9 p.m. to discuss details of the ongoing investigation involving a 25-year-old Hebron High School teacher accused of having sexual relations with her 18-year-old student.Should the teacher have been fired? Yes, because she is in a position of trust and should not be diddling her students. Once they're no longer students, fine. But criminal prosecution for sex between consenting adults?
Forester broke the story in the May 31 issue of the Leader after the Spanish teacher and cross country coach, Amy McElhenney of The Colony, turned herself into police and was subsequently released on $5,000 bond.
While the student was of legal age, 17-years-old in Texas, McElhenney was arrested under a three-year-old law that makes it illegal for teachers to be engaged in sexual relationships with their students.
If convicted, McElhenney would be charged with a second degree felony, punishable by up to 20 years in prison and a possible fine up to $10,000, Murphy said.
State Rep. Helen Giddings, D-Dallas, wrote the law in 2003, but she never intended for it to apply to 18-year-old students considered legal, consenting adults. The bill was amended when it reached the floor of the House, criminalizing all relationships between educators, regardless of age. The bill was also changed making the offence a second-degree felony, though Giddings had intended it to be a state jail felony.
I wonder if the law will be challenged. I mean, Lawrence v. Texas (what is it about Texas and private consensual sexual practices?) made headlines last year (or the year before, I can't recall) when the SCOTUS ruled that the Texas statute governing $odomy was unconstitutional, due to "right to privacy" concerns. I know there's no constitutional "right to privacy", but take that up with the SCOTUS and not me. The point is, that if two consenting adult dudes can rumproast in the privacy of their own home, why can't a 25-year-old female and 18-year-old male do the horizontal hula?
Actual scientists slam Gore's Chicken Little enviro-crap
I read this yesterday, but since both Kanaka Girl and Kira forwarded the info to me, I get the feeling that I need to comment on it. :-) Anyway, from the Canucks:
"The Inconvenient Truth" is indeed inconvenient to alarmists"Most people"? "Tiny cadre" of skeptics? Whatever. Anywho, continuing:
By Tom Harris
Monday, June 12, 2006
"Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the truth as they see it," Al Gore sensibly asserts in his film "An Inconvenient Truth", showing at Cumberland 4 Cinemas in Toronto since Jun 2. With that outlook in mind, what do world climate experts actually think about the science of his movie?
Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."
But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of "climate change skeptics" who disagree with the "vast majority of scientists" Gore cites?
No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.See, the left has been fond of dismissing any anti-global "warming" research as being funded by Big Oil or other boogeymen. Therefore, this analysis must be particularly "inconvenient" in that these scientists aren't government scientists who are dependent upon research grants to sustain their livelihoods (even if it means using tenuous scientific practices to obtain said grants). Nor are the scientists linked to or funded by an industry or lobby group, therefore avoiding the facile dismissal of results as "tainted by their self-interests"...as if anti-capitalist or grant-dependent scientists are somehow more credible!
Even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. "While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change," explains former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball. "They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies."
So we have a smaller fraction."Negligent"...or dishonest? And as for "We should listen most to scientists who use real data"? Why, that's just crazy talk! For those of you on the left, that was sarcasm.
But it becomes smaller still. Among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. "These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios," asserts Ball. "Since modelers concede computer outputs are not "predictions" but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts."
We should listen most to scientists who use real data to try to understand what nature is actually telling us about the causes and extent of global climate change. In this relatively small community, there is no consensus, despite what Gore and others would suggest.
Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"See aforementioned "grant-dependency" and "anti-capitalist" comments for insight.
Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.A hotter or brighter sun would make things warmer? Who knew?!? I guess that global warming on Mars may not be due to SUV-driving Martians after all, but instead to a brighter sun! For those of you on the left...aw, screw it, you know the drill.
You should really read the rest of the article here, since there's not much of it left and it does a great job dispelling the lies (or, if you prefer, "creative truths") of Gore's scaremongering flick. However, I must close with this excerpt:
Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."This isn't the first time I've read about how skeptical scientists have been intimidated into silence as a result of pressure by their peers. It's a damned shame when scientists cannot even be trusted to be scientists due to political influence. Science has traditionally been an area impervious to politics because it's very nature depends on knowing or finding what "is" and what "causes". Apparently, not anymore.
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
Government is supposed to save us from ourselves?
Dr. Walter Williams examines the slippery slope of do-good big government intervention on people's choices:
Down through the years, I've attempted to warn my fellow Americans about the tyrannical precedent and template for further tyranny set by anti-tobacco zealots. The point of this column is not to rekindle the smoking debate. That train has left the station. Instead, let's examine the template.Yeah, but that's smoking! And smoking is bad for you and everyone else! But...
In the early stages of the anti-tobacco campaign, there were calls for "reasonable" measures such as non-smoking sections on airplanes and health warnings on cigarette packs. In the 1970s, no one would have ever believed such measures would have evolved into today's level of attack on smokers, which includes confiscatory cigarette taxes and bans on outdoor smoking.
The door was opened, and the zealots took over. Much of the attack was justified by an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) secondhand smoke study that used statistical techniques, if used by an academic researcher, would lead to condemnation if not expulsion. Let's say that you support the attack on smokers. Are you ready for the next round of tyranny using tactics so successful for the anti-tobacco zealots?
According to a June 2 Associated Press report, "Those heaping portions at restaurants -- and doggie bags for the leftovers -- may be a thing of the past, if health officials get their way." The story pertains to a report, funded by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) titled, "Keystone Forum on Away-From-Home Foods: Opportunities for Preventing Weight Gain and Obesity." The FDA says the report could help the American restaurant industry and consumers take important steps to successfully combat the nation's obesity problem. Among the report's recommendations for restaurants are: list calorie-content on menus, serve smaller portions, and add more fruits and vegetables and nuts. Both the Department of Health and Human Services and the FDA accept the findings of the report.Of course it wouldn't ever come to that...right?
Right now, the FDA doesn't have the authority to require restaurants to label the number of calories, set portion sizes on menus or prohibit allowing customers from taking home a doggie bag. That's for right now, but recall that cigarette warning labels were the anti-tobacco zealots' first steps. There are zealots like the Washington-based Center for Science in the Public Interest who've for a long time attacked Chinese and Mexican restaurants for serving customers too much food. They also say, "Caffeine is the only drug that is widely added to the food supply." They've called for caffeine warning labels, and they don't stop there. The Center's director said, "We could envision taxes on butter, potato chips, whole milk, cheeses and meat." Visions of higher taxes are music to politicians' ears.
How many Americans would like to go to a restaurant and have the waiter tell you, based on calories, what you might have for dinner? How would you like the waiter to tell you, "According to government regulations, we cannot give you a doggie bag"? What about a Burger King cashier refusing to sell french fries to overweight people? You say, "Williams, that's preposterous! It would never come to that."
I'm betting that would have been the same response during the 1970s had someone said the day would come when cities, such as Calabasas, Calif., and Friendship Heights, Md., would write ordinances banning outdoor smoking. Tyrants always start out with small measures that appear reasonable. Revealing their complete agenda from the start would encounter too much resistance.The way that big government advocates have operated for years is implementing their policies incrementally. Like Dr. Williams says, pushing for their desired changes up front would bring about too much resistance. For them, it's better to control a little bit today, a little bit more tomorrow, until finally there is nothing else left to control.
Diet decisions that people make are none of anybody else's business. Yes, there are untoward health outcomes from unwise dietary habits, and because of socialism, taxpayers have to pick up the bill. But if we allow untoward health outcomes from choices to be our guide for government intervention, then we're calling for government to intervene in virtually every aspect of our lives. Eight hours' sleep, regular exercise and moderate alcohol consumption are important for good health. Should government regulate those decisions?
This may come as a shock to those on the left, but government cannot prevent us from dying. My apologies if that wrecks your view of the infallability of the imperial federal government. Death has a 100% success rate, in that it eventually beats us all.
Therefore, government has a 0% success rate in preventing death. With that kind of failure rate, why don't the feds just let us live our lives as we see fit and let the chips fall where they may? Well, so long as the chips aren't potato chips, lest we pay a fat tax on it!
Quote of the day
From America's favorite flip-flopper, Senator Jean-Francois Heinz-Kerry, at a liberal rally:
Kerry, who was widely criticized as the party's standard-bearer in 2004 for being too cautious in his criticism of the war, said Tuesday that politicians "cannot have it both ways."The king of ketchup is also the king of "having it both ways", and judging by his comments, it looks like he designates that right solely to himself.
In remarks that could have been aimed at Clinton, Kerry said: "It's not enough to argue with the logistics or to argue about the details. ... It is essential to acknowledge that the war itself was a mistake. ... It was wrong, and I was wrong to vote for that Iraqi war resolution."
Is "I actually did vote for the $87 billion...before I didn't" considered "having it both ways"? I thought so.
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
Dems' suicide watch begins, as Rove is cleared by prosecutor
Looks like Libby will have to be the left's consolation prize. From the AP:
Top White House aide Karl Rove has been told by prosecutors he won't be charged with any crimes in the investigation into the leak of a CIA officer's (sic) identity, his lawyer said Tuesday, lifting a heavy burden from one of President Bush's most trusted advisers.For our friends on the left, I would advise that they call "9-Wahhhh-Wahhhh" and get a "Wahhhh-mbulance" dispatched for their "Wahhhh-mergency"!
Attorney Robert Luskin said that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald informed him of the decision on Monday, ending months of speculation about the fate of Rove, the architect of Bush's 2004 re-election now focused on stopping Democrats from capturing the House or Senate in this November's elections.
Mark Corallo, a spokesman for Rove, said the White House official "is elated" and said that "we're done."
Fitzgerald met with chief U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan before he notified Rove. Hogan has been overseeing the grand juries in the CIA leak case. Messages left with Fitzgerald's spokesman seeking comment were not immediately returned.
The prosecutor called Luskin late Monday afternoon to tell him he would not be seeking charges against Rove. Rove had just gotten on a plane, so his lawyer and spokesman did not reach him until he had landed in Manchester, N.H., where he was to give a speech to state GOP officials.
Al Jazeera Terrorvision Network knowingly using discredited photos
Many on the left think that because Al Jazeera is not state-owned, they are thus free from any pro-Muslim and pro-terrorist bias. Then again, many on the left believe that the Rhodes Scholar Bill Clinton didn't know the meaning of "is" or "sexual relations."
If this doesn't prove that Al Jazeera is an Islamofascist mouthpiece, nothing will. On June 3, a photo was being circulated in the international MSM purporting to be of the Haditha "massacre". The only problem was, it wasn't. I know, I know...details, details! I can be picky about those things. Anyway, the various MSM outlets acknowledged their error and issued corrections and apologies...after the damage had been done, though.
Well, lo and behold! The Al Jazeera Terrorvision Network (AJTN) runs an article yesterday about Haditha...with the discredited photo! Here's the screen shot:
As of this morning, they have since removed the discredited photo and issued the following mea culpa:
Al Jazeera Magazine’s editorial team deeply regrets and apologizes for the previous mistake of publishing a wrong picture for this story.Of course, after the damage has been done. After all, you can't "unsee" a picture.
Only two possibilities exist here: either Al Jazeera knew the photo was discredited and used it anyway to further their pro-terrorist anti-Western agenda; or they are so incompetent and lazy as journalists that they genuinely didn't know what the rest of the journalism world learned over a week ago, which is that the photo was falsely attributed to Haditha.
So which is it, folks? Bias or incompetence? Either way, this should effectively destroy any credibility that the left has wanted to attribute to the AJTN. As in with Dan Rather and the Texas Air National Guard story, this one was just "too good to verify."
Monday, June 12, 2006
Zarqawi's replacement challenges election results (satire)
Hat tip to Mike's America for this hilarious piece of satire. I have to specify it's satire, lest the left go apoplectic...again. The Crush Liberalism Objective World News Service (CLOWNS) is syndicating Mike's story:
Al Queda Names New Iraqi Leader, Jilted Al Masri Demands Recount!CLOWNS: Journos everywhere, entrusted to provide you with the news you need! :-)
The news that al-Muhajer was selected to succeed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who was killed Wednesday by a U.S. airstrike on his hideout northeast of Baghdad, Iraq, came as welcome news to some Iraqi Jihadists.
But not all!
The leading candidate before yesterday's vote, Abu Ayyub al-Masri, who had been predicted to win by Al Jazeera exit polling screamed foul! "There were significant irregularities in the voting in a number of provinces," claimed al-Masri. He went on to say that "many of the older Jihadis may have been confused by our similar sounding names."
In a further move designed to highlight the possibility of voter fraud al-Masri added: "We know that the voting machines used were stolen from a Halliburton warehouse near Baghdad. Apparently they were surplus voting machines manufactured by Diebold, an American company, and last used in Ohio during the 2004 presidential election."
Al-Masri went on to say that "It's also a distinct possibility that the rigging of these machines to favor al-Muhajer was part of a Bush Administration Psy-Ops program to steal the election in favor of their CIA backed candidate."
The group backing al-Masri has filed an immediate injunction with the Jihad council to seal all records in preparation for legal moves demanding a recount.
Al-Masri also indicated that many of the absentee ballots of Jihadis in the field were illegally disqualified and that Jihadis of African origin were dissuaded from voting by the presence of Arab Imams at polling places. In addition, "Our dark skinned brothers were handed fliers saying that the voting day for those of African origin was next week" said al-Masri.
Al-Masri demanded that: "Should a revote be necessary, we need to have outside observers favorable to our democratic cause. Former US President Jimmy Carter, who has experience with this in Venezuela, as well as the friend of Jihadis everywhere: Cindy Sheehan, should be called in to assure the result reflects the will of the Jihadis."