mypetjawa v. 2.0 (beta) "<i>Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to ev

August 14, 2005

McCain Interview and Bill Kristol goes off on Rumsfeld

IÂ’ve been following John McCain for a bit. Today he was on FNS. Pretty good interview. It might seem if you asked Bill Kristol that the good Senator from Arizona is a better spokesman for the president on Iraq that is old Rumsy.

Or will we? The president seems determined to complete the job. Is his defense secretary? In addition to trying to abandon the term "war on terror," Rumsfeld and some of his subordinates have spent an awful lot of time in recent weeks talking about withdrawing troops from Iraq--and before the job is complete.

That was Kristol.

Now for McCain.

I don't know, because the president, I think, very appropriately made it very clear in the strongest terms that we are there until Iraqis are capable of carrying out their own security responsibilities. He could not have been more forceful or more clear, in my view. And I totally agree with him, and I think his statement was unequivocal. And now you're seeing these statements, both before and after, which are in contradiction to what he had to say.

Posted by: Howie at 02:13 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 197 words, total size 1 kb.

Terrorist supporters flock to the Jawa to see their brotherÂ’s handy work.

It never ceases to amaze me the fun I get to have watching stuff scroll by. RustÂ’s post from last week on privateers. Well the fact that so many terrorist web sites always have to move around or hide makes it kind of difficult for them to find each other. So when they feel the need to watch olÂ’ Zaqueery saw some poor bastards head off. They come here. Then they read all the nice little comments everyone leaves and well they just canÂ’t resist now can they. So check out Fridays comments on this thread. They guy is too nasty for me to put up here. LetÂ’s just say heÂ’s all invited us to entertain him sexually. I think we should oblige him donÂ’tÂ’ you. But not quite in the same manner as he suggests. First of all old believer whines about us ruining his and other fine Muslims reputation. Sorry Seray it not us itÂ’s you and the people who Sawed off poor Mr. BergÂ’s head. IÂ’ve watched a total of 2.000001 of these and I can tell you now thatÂ’s freaking evil, the executions, the Beheadings. So if you have a problem with it and you think itÂ’s our fault. You donÂ’t have a leg to stand on bother.

So while we are here ItÂ’s worthwhile to note that a big fat security update has been released by Microsoft. It delayed me a bit this AM but letÂ’s all take the time and add it. Mac users have a good time relishing the fact that you donÂ’t need 5 spy tools, two virus scanners and on and on and on. Linux users too.

Posted by: Howie at 01:40 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 300 words, total size 2 kb.

August 13, 2005

The Troll from Seoul

You folks might be interested to know from whence hails My Pet Jawa's cuddly, loveable troll who calls itself "Downing Street Memo". Well, if you read the title of this post, I gave the game away.

His IP address tracks back to Seoul. Seoul, South Korea, a free and prosperous democracy, thanks to... whom? more...

Posted by: seedubya at 04:51 PM | Comments (25) | Add Comment
Post contains 236 words, total size 1 kb.

1 The hilarious thing is: if you go back through old newspapers (especially the more leftie European ones) you'll find just exactly the same kind of pretentious, ignorant pro-"peace" articles and editorials written about the Korean War that exactly the same kind of pretentious, ignorant people are writing about Iraq now. Peace marches in Paris? Check. Accusations that America was "warmongering"? Check. Aspersions about the intelligence of our President and allegations that he's fighting the war for personal gain or just because he likes to kill people? Check. Everything old is new again.

Posted by: DaveP. at August 13, 2005 05:13 PM (9ZxRw)

2 Maybe this guy is Kim Jong-Il? He's got an internet connection which he probably stole from the South.....

Posted by: Fred Fry at August 13, 2005 05:46 PM (RPY7Q)

3 ohhhhhhhh, Korea, eh???....i could have sworn that someone esle here had mentioned that DSM was in Australia.....my bad....oh well....well, there sure has been alot of anti-America rallies going on in South Korea in the last few months....either they are being held by lots of ungratefull South Koreans or Kim has lots of his loony agents down there....what a nut these North Koreans are...ive seen some awfull pics of the poor children looking like concentration camp survivors and its so sad that this loony Kim is doing this to his own people....i sure as hell dont see that happening here...oh yea, Bush is sooooooooooooo evillllllll that he is starving millions of Americans to death.....freakin nutcases these liberals/leftists....how i do loathe them all

Posted by: THANOS35 at August 13, 2005 05:55 PM (IJ51c)

4 maybe he's just roneree, so roneree...

Posted by: Mr. K at August 13, 2005 06:29 PM (7/CRx)

5 I was the victim of several of DSM's rants and always thought he must be either a Canadian or an ex-pat American.

Posted by: jesusland joe at August 13, 2005 07:23 PM (DDXXI)

6 And for all this time I thought he was actually an American. Guess I should have checked out the IP address too.

Posted by: Chris Short at August 13, 2005 07:26 PM (0OCQY)

7 I rike big rong dicks, Me no rikee short and scrubby. I rove srurping on the rong dong, but me no fucky, I no rike breeding bunghore.

Posted by: Downing Street Memo at August 13, 2005 07:38 PM (niirf)

8 Me rike sucky. Me no rike fucky it makes me breed out my asshore. Me sore rong time.

Posted by: Downing Street Memo at August 13, 2005 07:44 PM (niirf)

9 One would have to be short, flat faced and ugly to quote Juan Cole. Eyewitnesses said! yea. Eyewitnesses said the Downing Street Moron's mama had an ugly miscarriage.

Posted by: greyrooster at August 13, 2005 08:08 PM (CBNGy)

10 That's funny, I thought DSM was banned "forever."

Posted by: Mad Dog Vinnie at August 13, 2005 08:14 PM (Kr6/f)

11 That's a DSM clone. Probably Greg. They ought to get married, those two, but they would have to go to Canada or hurry up and get to Massachusetts before the law changes.

Posted by: jesusland joe at August 13, 2005 09:26 PM (DDXXI)

12 Me rove you rong time Jesus Joe, 10 dorrah sucky, me no fucky, me breed out of poopychute

Posted by: Downing Street Memo at August 14, 2005 01:03 AM (niirf)

13 Carros I gave sucky flee, he got rong schrong. Me rikey Carros.

Posted by: Downing Street Memo at August 14, 2005 01:04 AM (niirf)

14 You US imperialist criminal warmongering uncultured capitalist cowboys will soon be expelled from the Peninsula and the peaceful independant reunification of Korea under the banner of Songun wisely held aloft by Dear Leader Comrade Generalissimo Kim Jong Il will reunite all Koreans in the man-centered Juche-based Korean-style socialist system freely chosen by the Korean people out of their own free will and volition. Korea is One! MANSE! MANSE! MANSE!

Posted by: Banner Of Songun at August 14, 2005 03:54 AM (52MJ+)

15 Fuck you Banner of Songun and all your commie pipe-dreams!!!!

Posted by: Downing Street Memo at August 14, 2005 04:33 AM (niirf)

16 Read "Banner Of Songun"'s site. It has to be a parody, it can't be for real. No one is that stupid.

Posted by: Oyster at August 14, 2005 07:24 AM (YudAC)

17 Oyster, Korea is crawling with North spies like a sponge full of red water. Songun is definitely one of them. Listen to me "Songun" - your leader is a bastard who starves people to death and you are a fucking traitor!!!! Goddammit now I'm reallly mad!!

Posted by: Downing Street Memo at August 14, 2005 08:41 AM (niirf)

18 Let me see here. South Korea has twice the population and 40 times the economy of North Korea so they are going to vote to be socialist under the leadership of the starving north. Okay. Who's pretending to be Downing Street Moron.

Posted by: greyrooster at August 14, 2005 09:43 AM (CBNGy)

19 I don't think he's been banned. I think it's him.

Posted by: Oyster at August 14, 2005 10:01 AM (YudAC)

20 DSM must hate America because his mama-san was a "me love you long time" girl and his papa-san was one of many thousands of anonymous GI's who banged her for a couple of bucks. He probably has even had to do the "sucky-sucky" himself a few times, which would explain the bad taste in his mouth. I still wonder why we bother to keep troops in Korea, because they plainly don't want us there, and they also obviously hate freedom and prosperity and want to starve under a communist dictatorship, so let them. We have the equivalent of two whole divisions just sitting there doing nothing but guarding the Koreans' sorry asses while they prosper under our protection and hate us for it, so screw them. We could use those two divisions to invade Syria and Iran, anyway.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 14, 2005 10:20 AM (0yYS2)

21 "His IP address tracks back to Seoul. Seoul, South Korea, a free and prosperous democracy, thanks to... whom?" Probably no one here.

Posted by: actus at August 14, 2005 10:24 AM (nYnig)

22 I'm almost positive Banner's blog is parody. If you go into the archives, there's some pretty funny stuff. Actus....wtf?

Posted by: REMF at August 14, 2005 11:14 AM (aLiCo)

23 Actus wrote: "His IP address tracks back to Seoul. Seoul, South Korea, a free and prosperous democracy, thanks to... whom?" Probably no one here. That includes Downing Street Memo. PS: All you need to know about "actus" is that the fourth person on his rather small blogroll is Max Sawicky.

Posted by: File Closer at August 14, 2005 01:34 PM (X989z)

24 Actus, you have a habit of making false assumptions.

Posted by: Robin Roberts at August 14, 2005 09:43 PM (xauGB)

25 "Actus, you have a habit of making false assumptions." like how long south korea has been democratic.

Posted by: actus at August 15, 2005 09:07 AM (nYnig)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Blog Sabbath Caption Contest: Led Zeppelin Edition

Caption this photo. Winners announced Monday with much fanfare and linky love.

Posted by: Rusty at 04:49 PM | Comments (32) | Add Comment
Post contains 28 words, total size 1 kb.

The REAL Iraq - al Qada link

Did the 9/11 Commission Report leave out mention of Iraqi agents arrested in Germany that could link Mohammed Atta's Hamburg cell of al Qaeda and the Saddam Hussein's regime?

Captain Ed had made this speculation earlier here, not claiming that such a link existed but only that this needs further investigation.

I replied in this earlier post that maybe this should be looked into, but that the speculation that such ties could exist were unwarrented by the facts.

He in turn put up another post on the subject, this time wondering whether or not the evidence for Mohammed Atta meeting with an Iraqi agent in Prague ought to be looked at again.

Captain Ed and I have been going back and forth on this both in the comments section here and through e-mail. The gist of what Ed was saying was that in light of the Able Danger revelations, it is possible that the 9/11 Commission was predisposed to leave out certain bits of evidence that would run contrary to their findings. It is a good observation, one that I would agree with, but on the grounds that that is just par for the course in any type of research that has to sift through tons of data points.

Another valid point he makes is that his earlier post simply calls for an investigation into what the Iraqi agents were doing in Germany--with a bit of speculation thrown in their to boot. Fine by me. The 9/11 Commission Report is a flawed document just like all other government reports. It is not the final word on 9/11 and those that treat it as such fail to grasp the enormity of the task the Commission had under time constraints. I suspect the next twenty years will produce countless dissertations on the subject by Ph.D. candidates, each one contributing a new piece of information to the overall story of the attrocities that took place on that day.

One of the points that I made to Ed in an e-mail was regarding the validity of his source and his interpretation of the story. My objection was simply that an English synopsis of an Arabic newspaper in Germany may not be the most reliable source. Especially when that source claims the CIA was brought to Germany--something that I am sure they could not have known. My experience with Arabic papers is that any person wearing a business suit and working for the U.S. in any peripheral capacity can be accused of being a 'CIA Agent'.

Ed took up the challenge, and lo and behold, one of his army of readers was able to produce a corraborating account. So, according to MSM reports at the time, we have two Iraqi spies caught in Germany. The non-Arabic sources also mention nothing about the CIA or FBI getting involved and also nothing about a plot for Iraq to involve itself with fundamentalist Islamic terror groups to strike at US interests.

Ed is right that it would be nice to know what those Iraqi spies were doing in Germany. I second the motion. I'm not sure that such knowlege would have improved the 9/11 Report in any fundamental way, but it might have.

To imagine, though, that the fact that there were Iraqi agents in Germany somehow may be the missing link connecting Saddam Hussein to 9/11 is grasping at straws, in my opinion. Many of us on the right would like to believe that such a connection existed because we believe that that would somehow bolster support for the war. But the justness or unjustness of the Iraq invasion ultimately does not rest on whether or not the Baathist regime had anything to do with 9/11.

Further, the war we are fighting in Iraq now is a different war than the one we fought to overthrow the Hussein regime. It is not simply another phase of the same conflict, it is a different war. We are fighting different people and we now have different goals. In the invasion of Iraq we had the goal of toppling a hostile government that we had been at war with for a decade. Now, we are fighting Islamist jihadis engaged in a struggle to build a Taliban-like state in the vacuum created by the fall of the Baathists.

The second conflict is directly connected to 9/11. We do not need to look to a German Iraq-al Qaeda connection to see this, we simply need to look at the facts as they exist on the ground right now.

What is the name the jihadis have taken on themselves in Iraq? Al Qaeda. Who have they pledged their allegiance to? Osama bin Laden. The three main insurgent groups in Iraq (al Qaeda, The Army of Ansar al-Sunnah, and The Islamic Army in Iraq) all share the same general political philosophy as the Taliban and Osama bin Laden. All are part of the network of global jihad. They are our enemies and it they who we are fighting in Iraq today.

We are fighting al Qaeda in Iraq, today. Unfortunately, many in the MSM do not understand the nature of the enemy in Iraq. To concede Iraq to these terrorist forces would be to create a nation state parrhia just like Afghanistan. Iraq would become the next place where large-scale jihadi training camps would operate openly.

We do not need to rewrite history to create a link between Iraq and 9/11. But if we wish to prevent another 9/11 attack from happening again, we must begin by making sure Iraq does not fall to the hands of al Qaeda terrorists who would love nothing more than to create another safe haven from which they could operate.

Posted by: Rusty at 04:45 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 966 words, total size 6 kb.

1 Doesn't matter if there was a link or not, it's history, that war is over.

Posted by: Ren at August 13, 2005 05:27 PM (a9tRx)

2 it does matter. the war is justified entirely on the basis of a connection between Saddam and 9-11.

Posted by: Mr. K at August 13, 2005 06:39 PM (7/CRx)

3 Mr. K: We disagree on this one. # I still cannot understand the difference between a legal or illegal war. Or as you say justified or unjustified. War is war. Plain and simple. A tool to gain something. What are we attempting to gain? I think this police action is more of a defense against further UNJUSTIFIED attacks on the United States (or anywhere) by Religious Islamofacist assholes. The reasoning is that it is always better to fight on their turf. That turf is not neccessarily Iraq. More the middle east. We really could give a shit about Iraq. Give it back to Saddam if we could trust him. We need a base of operations to fight against terrorists. They live in the middle east so we go there to fight them instead of waiting like a bunch of sheep to be slaughtered as the liberal moonbat Clinton administation did. Justified in whose eyes? Some idiot liberal who cannot see the nose on his simple minded face. Protecting our people is justification. The right thing is happening. The truth is if we started to bring our troops home in the morning the Iraqis would start crying in their whatever.

Posted by: greyrooster at August 13, 2005 08:29 PM (CBNGy)

4 I'll emphasize again: That war is over, get over it you want links? how about carbombing, kidnappings killings, beheadings, how about you get your head out of your AZ. That sh*t happens everyday over there and you think these a**holes will stop if they smell victory? Think again, they'll more than happy getting into export.

Posted by: Ren at August 14, 2005 06:33 AM (a9tRx)

5 Rooster - there a plenty of what I think are valid reasons for the war or police action, or whatever you want to call it...but a direct link between Saddam and 9-11 is a smoking gun that needs no lengthy explanations.

Posted by: Mr. K at August 14, 2005 07:23 AM (W+543)

6 Regarding the Mohammed Atta meeting with an Iraqi agent in Prague: The 9/11 commission's only evidence of Atta not being in Prague at the time was that his cell phone was used a couple of times in Florida when the meeting was supposed to have taken place. I would submit that many of these terrorists move about under assumed names and fake passports. Atta conceivably would have as well. There were about 5 or 6 days at that time that his movements could not be accounted for. He could have, without much problem, left the country briefly under a fake passport and left his cell phone behind with another operational member because the phone may not have been of any use to him overseas. I don't think that's too much of a stretch. An assumption maybe, but not a stretch. "But the justness or unjustness of the Iraq invasion ultimately does not rest on whether or not the Baathist regime had anything to do with 9/11." Not to us perhaps. But, to every person opposed to the war THAT is the only thing that they will settle for. That's why we seek to show them (when they're willing to listen) that there was in fact a connection.

Posted by: Oyster at August 14, 2005 08:46 AM (YudAC)

7 Mr. K: I don't believe or know if there is/was a direct link between Sadam and 9/11. Why does there have to be? It was the best place for us to put a forward base of operations to fight the Islamofacists on their own turf. We also got rid of a madman while doing it. The faggot Bin laden wouldn't have trusted Saddam as a partner. Would you? Maybe he would. Maybe not. Really doesn't matter. The point is we needed a base overthere and we got it. What people call Bush's illegal war is really Bush's genius. Of course we all figured the Iraqi people would have been more helpful when looking at what they have to gain. But they have something that holds them back from intelligent interaction with the civilized world. It's called Islam.

Posted by: greyrooster at August 14, 2005 10:26 PM (CBNGy)

8 The commissions ommission of able danger and the discovery of an Iraqi spy ring are not the only ommissions. The commission had their hands tied due to money and time constraints imposed on them by the Bush administration. Bush and Co. only hesitantly allowed the commission to be formed at all. There are literally dozens of compelling questions about 911 that the commission either ignors or only briefly touches on. The official story seems to be full of holes when you examine it carefully, but the commission does nothing to explain these questions, so I have always thought it was a complete whitewash. The wingnuts in Washington desperately wanted regime change in Iraq and they sold the war by lying to the american public and to congress about their posession of WMD. They LIED! Remote control planes carrying chemical and biological weapons? Your fucking kidding me right?!! You are a bunch of stupid assholes if you really believed that shit. STUPID ASSHOLES!!! Now if there were iraqi spys in Germany at the same time Atta was supposedly there, and the wingnuts knew this and used this info to link Iraq to 911, then WHAT TOOK SO LONG FOR THIS TO COME OUT! After 2 1/2 yrs of criticism for this collossaly stupid decision to invade Iraq, suddenly there's intelligence to prove an Iraqi connection to 911? Let me ask you this: Is this the same intelligence that concluded a slam dunk case for WMD in Iraq? Is this the same intelligence that ignored all the warnings pre 911? Intelligence is obviously an oxymoron in this case. And you are all a bunch of morons for buying into it. Stop wasting your time trying to write intelligent things, and just go graze in your field with the rest of the sheep.

Posted by: Jason at August 23, 2005 09:57 AM (LXzkj)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

When America Gets Nuked, What Will the Extreme Left Say?(Caption Contest Winners Announced)

CONTEST WINNERS ANNOUNCED

Bumper Stickerist: Reaping the whirlwind: Women and minorities suffer most during the inevitable aftermath of EuroAmerican patriarchal hegemony.

Cassandra: Why didn't the U.S. military PROTECT US????? [sound of hideous shrieking]

Flea: Militant activists attack occupied Aztlan! Free Aztlan from American imperialism!

More fun stuff below and in comments section. more...

Posted by: Rusty at 04:35 PM | Comments (31) | Add Comment
Post contains 269 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Are terrorists right in what they do? Hell no! But did we provoke their anger by using and exploiting other people and cultures to our own personal gain? Hell yes! As long as we never change our attitude towards the rest of the world we can expect that people will keep getting pissed off and trying to kill us. We can try to kill them faster but that will only piss off their brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, cousins, aunts, uncles and children. Eye for an eye until the whole world is blind. cut and pasted from an actual moombat quote

Posted by: moonbat at August 10, 2005 01:30 PM (3OPZt)

2 whitey had it coming to him.

Posted by: Carlos at August 10, 2005 02:17 PM (8e/V4)

3 Bush lied, people fried! Bush lied, people fried! *slaps bumper sticker across forehead* http://www.flickr.com/photos/1270702_1af6e8889c.jpg

Posted by: Princess Kimberley at August 10, 2005 02:50 PM (8sXP/)

4 This is the harvest of http://flushthekoran.blogspot.com.

Posted by: Editor at August 10, 2005 02:58 PM (adpJH)

5 1. Patiently waiting for the new DNC Chairman. The position has been open since the nuclear weapon detonated in parking lot of the Capital in Washington, DC wiped out all Democratic Party members. 2. The world ponders Americas shift to the right as 500,000 members of the Democratic party have gone missing and are feared dead in the aftermath of the mysterious bread truck explosion in NYC yesterday.

Posted by: Fred Fry at August 10, 2005 02:58 PM (JXdhy)

6 What if said nuke exploded in San Francisco, LA, NY, Seattle or Washington DC? I wonder if any minds would be changed. One of the apparent choice targets would be my hometown. If we got obliterated, I imagine that quite of few of the residents of the above would say "good." That is, until they noticed that there was no more gasoline or plastic or fertilizer and such.

Posted by: Steve in Houston at August 10, 2005 03:13 PM (Im/ra)

7 Actually... I was going to do a post on this a couple days ago because I think that the real challenge Hiroshima presents has to do with the humane response to a perhaps inevitable nuclear attack on a U.S. city (which I agree is very, very possible)... but your nutso blog on the Japanese nuclear program distracted me... An excellent idea for a contest by the way (what about a reverse contest involving the predictable righty response?). But I'm fairly certain you should recuse yourself from being a judge, since you haven't ever read Chomsky (pictured above) and you wouldn't know a fair assessment of a serious leftist position if it bit you in your butt.

Posted by: Professor Peter Von Nostrand at August 10, 2005 03:23 PM (REz6/)

8 Moonbat: You are definitely a moonbat for sure. How many of these so called trodden upon minorities did not sign up on their own. Answer? none. No one twisted anyone's arms. America is just better at business. Exactly what other people and culture are we exploiting. Can you name any? More stupid leftist loser bullshit. Same commie bullshit since the 1920s. Never anything new. Von Nostril: The reason no one is on your blog is because you're a fucking nut. Anyone who believes American troops by the 100,000s should have died to end the Japanese war is the fucking traitor. That is exactly what would had happened had we chose to invade. They started the war. The resulting blame is theirs. Not ours.

Posted by: greyrooster at August 10, 2005 03:44 PM (CBNGy)

9 Uh, greyrooster, 'moonbat' was being ironical. This is a 'caption contest'.......

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at August 10, 2005 03:47 PM (JQjhA)

10 Damn, now I know what itÂ’s like to be a left wing nut moonbat on the receiving end of a Greyrooster beatin. Hey, I just cut and pasted some lefty post on a democrat blog from Seattle. By the way, congrats on your great fishing victory. I think Carlos wins.

Posted by: Brad at August 10, 2005 03:56 PM (3OPZt)

11 Sorry to digress, but this "eye for and eye until the world goes blind" thing is completely false. Hit accuracy drops significantly with the loss of depth perception with only one eye. And if telescopic sights are used... it's got to be an incrediblity lucky shot to get the last guy. Think about it.

Posted by: Charles at August 10, 2005 03:57 PM (lQ1Or)

12 There's such a thing as a "serious leftist position". This is a family friendly blog, professor, quit bringing up sex. Now the caption contest: If we had got out of Iraq and made Israel get out of Palestine, this would never have happened. But because it did, that is no reason to invade another country.

Posted by: jesusland joe at August 10, 2005 03:59 PM (DDXXI)

13 Is there ever any actual content in any of Nosestrand's posts? Anyway, what the Left says just won't matter. It'll be the voices from the Jacksonian Right who will determine the response, and the Left's commentary will just be noise. I'm not needling, because I don't think that's necessarily appropriate, but I know this country. There might be a brief hiatus before an all out counter-strike, and about the most optimistic scenario is that the US would wait or would just respond "in kind" (tit for tat) until a second attack removed all doubt about the coming trend. But frankly, the odds of that are pretty low. Arabia will simply be perceived as a cancer that has to be irradiated, of course preserving the oil fields. I'm not being cynical either. This is as noncontroversial as the idea that the sun sets at the end of the day. The logical inference of a nuclear attack on the US is that it's an act of genocide, and there's no way to modulate or intervene in the process because of the nature of terrorism. (Essentially there's no one to negotiate with who can be held to an agreement.) Since we can't dissuade the enemy from genocide the only defense is genocide. That's the harsh reality. But I'm not convinced such an attack will occur in the first place. Arabia and its people are worth saving, no matter what Nosestrand and his ilk say. While we still have freedom to choose our actions we can choose to negate that element of Arabia that constitutes the actual problem by (what else) luring them into a confrontation over liberal values, and just killing them as efficiently as we can with conventional forces, our databases, and some electronic surveillance gizmos. Which is what we're doing in Iraq folks. You know, it occurs to me that we might be focussing on the wrong aspect of Islamic culture when we emphasize their intolerance toward liberal democracy, women's and minority rights, clannishness, aversion to knowledge and modernity, hypersensitivity to shame, etc., etc.. Perhaps what they need is some really good whisky (which is Gaelic for "living waters" actually), and a rip-roarin' girls-gone-wild blowout? Sort of clears the sinuses. Know what I mean?

Posted by: Demosophist at August 10, 2005 04:02 PM (IbWE6)

14 Rusty. I'd love for you to explain to me how, if the right has its crazies under control, how the Kansas school board has decided to adopt Intelligent Design as part of its science curriculum.

Posted by: Professor Peter Von Nostrand at August 10, 2005 05:52 PM (REz6/)

15 damn, those are some long ass captions: What will the left say when an American city gets nuked - or rendered uninhabitable due to a dirty bomb: 1) Reaping the whirlwind: Women and minorities suffer most during the inevitable aftermath of EuroAmerican patriarchal hegemony. 2) At last, the US has taken off its jackboots and walked a mile in the moccassins of the oppressed, now the healing can begin. 3) The real tragedy isn't the 203,000 dead and counting, the 1.5 million who are left homeless or without a place to work, or the hundreds of billions of dollars of damage done to the infrastructure to the United States and the other economic impacts of this bombing; the real tragedy is that this was avoidable. 4) The remaining Ivy League Schools express regret for the loss of Harvard and condolences for the alumni and family of those who died in the explosion, yet they refuse to condemn the action as being that of a terrorist organization.

Posted by: BumperStickerist at August 10, 2005 05:58 PM (C14d5)

16 Rusty, are you sure that Professor Von Nostrand is not Greg. He has the same habit Greg had of not staying on topic. Plus he is a dumn ass to boot.

Posted by: jesusland joe at August 10, 2005 06:32 PM (DDXXI)

17 Thanks for the linkage, Dr. Rusty. If we go with American Digest's San Diego target choice we can add: "Militant activists attack occupied Aztlan! Free Aztlan from American imperialism!"

Posted by: Flea at August 10, 2005 10:21 PM (TsJea)

18 >>>What if said nuke exploded in San Francisco, LA, NY, Seattle or Washington DC? Proof that there's a silver lining to just about anything bad.

Posted by: Carlos at August 10, 2005 11:09 PM (8e/V4)

19 Fortunately we won't have this problem since Glorious Leader's war on terror will protect us. Too bad the blue states carry all the weight financially for this country. You red state morons would be in deep shit without us.

Posted by: toM at August 11, 2005 01:34 PM (2b46R)

20 Oh, indeed, toM. I'd much rather try to do without wheat, corn, soybeans, chicken, beef, apples, gas for my car, electricity for my house than wait a week for the stock, bond, and commodities markets to reconstitute themselves. Much easier to recreate (or duplicate) a financial center than a field these days, isn't it? It's not "Glorious Leader's" war on terror; it's our nation's war on terror, together with other like-minded but less well armed allies; ask your Congresspeople. And "terror" stands as a proxy for a brand of Islamism that wants you and everyone like you, and me and everyone like me, but especially you and everyone like you, dead or converted-without-possibility-of-unconversion. Blue-state so-and-so.

Posted by: Jamie at August 11, 2005 01:53 PM (+PMxx)

21 "I'd love for you to explain to me how, if the right has its crazies under control, how the Kansas school board has decided to adopt Intelligent Design as part of its science curriculum." A better question is, How did they ever teach Darwin, which is pure, unsubstantiated speculation?

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at August 11, 2005 02:22 PM (x+5JB)

22 What will the far left say? "I told you we should have moved to Canada" Ba da Boom. Crash. "Hon. Get out the marshmellows." Ba da Boom. Crash. "This is what you get for voting Republican" Ba da Boom. Crash. "Arrrrrggggghhhhh zzzz fry sizzle pop" Ba da Boom. Crash. "America. Now with glow in the dark goodness." Ba da Boom Crash Of course leftist won't say anything because there aren't any leftists in America. There are just manufactured strawmen. Fox news will pay some drunken crack whore to ware a Pro Choice botton and say death to America on camera. After which all Americans with political views to the left of Bill Falalfel O'Reily will be shipped to concentration camps in Western Kansas and Oklahoma for "reasearch purposes". God Bless America. Land of the ...

Posted by: Northern Observer at August 11, 2005 03:30 PM (L0dY/)

23 Kansas is a blue state. They are just morally conservative. But they (farmers) still love the handouts (subsidies) that come from Uncle Sam.

Posted by: Kstumpf at August 11, 2005 03:37 PM (GImrl)

24 Anarco-Syndicalism, that is a mouthful. This Chomsky dude is a genius moron. How can anyone advocate the elimination of capitalism and management structure, yet strive so hard to be top of the class? He completely contadicts himself. How does he know to use the bathroom without accidentally eating from the toilette bowl?

Posted by: Kstumpf at August 11, 2005 03:44 PM (GImrl)

25 I didn't think iguanas grew so big or breath lightning.

Posted by: Butch at August 11, 2005 03:47 PM (Gqhi9)

26 What the Left will say? Easy: 1. "It's the Jooooooooooooooooooooooooooos!" 2. "If only we'd established a dialogue with them sooner... [sob!]" 3. "See? This just proves that violence never solves anything." 4. "Mission Accomplished, W." And my personal favorite... 5. "Why didn't the U.S. military PROTECT US?????" [sound of hideous shrieking]

Posted by: Cassandra at August 11, 2005 04:28 PM (eKdAq)

27 Moonbats would say: We had it comming Only one? I BLAME BUSH! Our nukes provoced them in the first place Flipper says you were too soft on terror Now we can plant a forest in the crater and make the city more greener.

Posted by: Ren at August 11, 2005 05:55 PM (a9tRx)

28 Yea. I also think Carlos wins. Just that anything close to blameing whitey doesn't go down well with me. Of course, who else is there to blame. No one else ever does anything.

Posted by: greyrooster at August 13, 2005 07:38 AM (CBNGy)

29 As the mushroom cloud rises in the background: "Of all the things I've seen today, the increased military presence frightens me the most..." "WHY couldn't the terrorists have nuked Crawford, Texas or Miami Beach, Florida? Why did they have to nuke a whole city full of Democrats instead of killing Republicans?" "I'll tell my daughter that we had it coming, and that the American flag stands for tyranny, brutality and running the Bill of Rights through a shredder..." "The important thing now is not to rush into a military blunder; this can be handled diplomatically..." "Did I mention that I served in Vietnam?" or would I be cheating if I just recycle things the Left ahs already said?

Posted by: DaveP. at August 13, 2005 05:20 PM (9ZxRw)

30 Fred Fry said: "1. Patiently waiting for the new DNC Chairman. The position has been open since the nuclear weapon detonated in parking lot of the Capital in Washington, DC wiped out all Democratic Party members." I would add "Rumor has it that all Republican Party politicians were warned ahead of time not to go to work that day."

Posted by: Oyster at August 14, 2005 10:05 AM (YudAC)

31 Northern Obliviouser, a new contender for title of Village Idiot, drooled: "Of course leftist won't say anything because there aren't any leftists in America." Oh, but of course not. "There are just manufactured strawmen." Yep, made in a brand new strawman manufacturing facitility in Kansas. They also do tin-men and cowardly lions. "Fox news will pay some drunken crack whore to ware a Pro Choice botton and say death to America on camera." They must have a HUGE budget, because the dhimmicrats sure have a lot of drunken crack whores working for them. "After which all Americans with political views to the left of Bill Falalfel [sic] O'Reily will be shipped to concentration camps in Western Kansas and Oklahoma for "reasearch [sic] purposes"." WTF? Falalfel? You moron, it doesn't even make sense, and you misspelled it anyway. Holy mother of pearl, you're a dumbass. You're definitely an idiot liberal, and you must be canadian, because only a canadian liberal could be so stupid. And as to the message of the last part, I have but one thing to say; "not soon enough". I would love to pack you mewling retards onto cattle cars and send you off to the ovens, or better yet, decorate every street light and power pole in America with your stinking corpses. And by the way, liberal idiots, when you send me hate mail, try to make sense, because I hate to waste my time reading something that sounds like it came from a brain damaged chimpanzee who writes by throwing bananas at the keyboard.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 14, 2005 10:38 AM (0yYS2)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Iraqis: Constitution will beat deadline

Uh Oh, another Entrenched Media whining topic down the tubes.

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Most points of disagreement on the country's new constitution have been overcome and will be ready before the deadline, President Jalal Talabani said Saturday.

"The meetings are still going on and we have gone forward," Talabani told reporters. "There is a meeting today and another meeting tomorrow and God willing we will finish the job tomorrow" - one day ahead of the deadline for parliament to approve the charter.

Talabani said the meetings are concentrating on federalism in Shiite areas of central and southern Iraq, as well as the role of Islam in the state.

Appears that someone else isn't happy......Al Qaeda threatens to kill pro-charter Iraq imams: website.

DUBAI - The group of Al Qaeda frontman in Iraq Abu Musab Al Zarqawi has threatened to kill any Muslim imam who speaks out in favour of IraqÂ’s constitution, according to an Internet statement published on Saturday

Companion OpiniPundit

Posted by: Traderrob at 09:38 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 171 words, total size 1 kb.

August 12, 2005

Seattle Muslim Threatens Jawa Readers

One of the tiny minority of extremists sends the following message to Jawa readers. Abbas is from Seattle, Washington, and writes [warning: nasty language follows]: more...

Posted by: Rusty at 07:09 PM | Comments (25) | Add Comment
Post contains 480 words, total size 3 kb.

1 You just gotta love diversity. Diversity is strength, didn't you know? That's what makes our country STRONG!!!! And what's with the guy's grammar though? Is that like muslim ebonics?

Posted by: Carlos at August 12, 2005 07:16 PM (8e/V4)

2 Oh man, IÂ’m still at work right now and the Northgate Mosque is about Ã‚Â½ mile away. Chances are pretty good this dude in close by! LetÂ’s see, ok Abbas let me just address one of your points IÂ’ve been married 17 years, and we really donÂ’t Â….ya know ...all that often anymore you asshole!!!

Posted by: Brad at August 12, 2005 07:22 PM (3OPZt)

3 So....can we claim a fatwa or not?

Posted by: Mad Dog Vinnie at August 12, 2005 07:23 PM (Kr6/f)

4 This is exactly why I say the goat humpers shouldn't be in America to begin with. Deport all believers in this nasty religion. Starting with this unappreciative little shit. MUSLIMS OUT OF AMERICA!

Posted by: greyrooster at August 12, 2005 07:36 PM (CBNGy)

5 Hmmm...that really begs the question, you know. If Abbas is so ardently opposed to fornication...what about the 72 sloe-eyed houris with succulent and perpetually untouched zinaats? Is Abbas going to spend eternity wringing his weasel?

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at August 12, 2005 08:02 PM (RHG+K)

6 Hey Abbas, I'm with Brad. Most of us just wish we could... you know. So f-ck off.

Posted by: Carlos at August 12, 2005 08:02 PM (8e/V4)

7 The British have finally seen the light and are kicking the extremists out. It's time the US gets with the program. These people need to be rooted up and deported pronto, or the people of the United States just might have to take a little action on their own.

Posted by: jesusland joe at August 12, 2005 08:04 PM (DDXXI)

8 As if 1 ABBA wasn't enough... this party guy should be locked in a room w/ your average Huffington Poster & a TV that plays nothing but Queer Eye for ther Straight Guy... who am I kidding, the entire E! lineup.

Posted by: PMain at August 12, 2005 08:16 PM (QyMqT)

9 "BUT DO NOT SAY I TOLD YOU !!" Okay. Mum's the word!

Posted by: Oyster at August 12, 2005 08:32 PM (YudAC)

10 Um, does that count as a fatwa? ... just saying /TJ

Posted by: TJ at August 12, 2005 08:41 PM (PL7dL)

11 Nicely put greyrooster. Maybe not so nicely, but blunt and to the damn point.

Posted by: tyler at August 12, 2005 08:48 PM (t+GZI)

12 Looks like someone needs to switch to decaf. Can't understand why he took the name of a Swedish rock band though. Maybe Dancing Queen was big in Mecca or something. Anyway, good luck with your project there Abba. Just remember to connect the blue wire before the red one. Or is it the red one before the... Wait! Red is positive and Black is the ground. Yeah, that's it.

Posted by: Charles at August 12, 2005 10:52 PM (lQ1Or)

13 The ever tolerant, have no fun Muslims are just trying to make me think about a day in the laugh of a guy with a small dick, low-tolerance for alcohol, and the ability to use terms like, "women are for babies and men are for fun". What losers these Muslim extremists are.

Posted by: Chris Short at August 13, 2005 05:46 AM (0OCQY)

14 Okay, now that I've had my pork products for breakfast, I feel in the right state of mind to comment on this. The most offensive thing for me about senor Abbas' "rant" is the spelling and punctuation. Why do these things always come across like a text message from an angry, blind monkey with only one finger? Also, I consider it a triumph of infidel technology that we can turn the "Caps Lock" off at will. To quote Bugs Bunny: What a Maroon.

Posted by: Graeme at August 13, 2005 06:33 AM (ZLlKM)

15 OOOhhhhh.

Posted by: Paul at August 13, 2005 07:23 AM (PM/BC)

16 Abbas, It would be useful if Muslim preachers paid a bit more attention to God, which means doing some theology, rather than making speeches about Palestine, Afghanistan and Iraq which are, after all, political, and not religious issues. The excessive politicisation of Islam has created a situation in which the best-known Muslim today is Osama bin Laden. Islam must decide whether it wants to be a faith or a political movement. It cannot be both without being hijacked by Salafis or Khomeinists who have transformed it into a breeding ground for terror.

Posted by: Amir at August 13, 2005 07:39 AM (PM/BC)

17 With his language skills, I can't imagine this guy has a job, so he must be a graduate student at one of our illustrious leftist universities.

Posted by: Mike at August 13, 2005 09:30 AM (M7kiy)

18 Any extremists in the Atlanta area want to take a crack at me? Rusty, can I make up t-shirts with your blog name and url? I want these punks to be able to pick me out from a crowd more easily. I'm 39 and this guy makes we want to re-enlist and go send a few back to allah.

Posted by: kstumpf at August 13, 2005 09:34 AM (Kv4B9)

19 Sounds as though this guy Abbas is a typical illiterate Islamist whose "Allah" is no god at all, just a perverted distortion of reality whose "prophet" Muhammed was nothing more than a child molesting, woman abusing terrorist whose teachings, for whatever originally intended purpose and for whatever value they may have originally possessed, have been so significantly distorted by mindless, inhumane clerics spewing hate and inhumanity to sub-human fools who are easily misguided and mislead to conduct acts against innocent people and write/spew mindless dribble such as we've just seen evidenced by our friend Abbas! Abbas should immediately gain a little common sense, stop eating pork and bathing in pig's blood, and convert - he should become a Christian or a Jew, learn a little more about human love and kindness, and possibly, how to speak and write.

Posted by: Hyscience at August 13, 2005 09:36 AM (xFeJi)

20 .. YOU GOT THE BIG BALLS.. and you got three defect ones, now lay off Rusty you God damn linguistic retard.

Posted by: Ren at August 13, 2005 01:00 PM (a9tRx)

21 This guy's an assmuffin who needs his head handed to him. Can I volunteer for the job?

Posted by: elliott at August 13, 2005 02:30 PM (XlQVK)

22 Unfortunately a threat is not a fatwa. Fun, but not a fatwa.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at August 13, 2005 03:08 PM (JQjhA)

23 Hyscience: I love run-on sentences!

Posted by: Oyster at August 13, 2005 03:23 PM (YudAC)

24 "sharpens up double headed axe in the backyard shed"...."evil laughter"....send in Abbas

Posted by: THANOS35 at August 13, 2005 06:34 PM (IJ51c)

25 Tyler: I'm known for my layed back mannerism. Oyster: So do I. That's why I continue to use them. Or is it the fact that I don't know better?

Posted by: greyrooster at August 13, 2005 08:57 PM (CBNGy)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

No, Iraq Had Nothing to do with 9/11 (Updated)

Scroll to end of post for update.

Is the 9/11 Report flawed? Yes. But that does not mean there was a conspiracy to keep information out of the report. It is the inherent nature of government reports, all government reports, to be flawed. If you don't want a flawed government report then you should not ask the government to report on anything.

Do the Able Danger revelations impeach the entire 9/11 Report so that nothing in the report should be believed? No. Of course not. It would be silly to have ever imagined that the report represented reality unbiased and unfiltered.

The 9/11 Report represents a consensus view on intelligence failures that led to the 9/11 attrocities. Consensus views, by their very nature, are never complete and are never 100% accurate. They can't be. But the alternative to producing a consensus view is producing competing reports, each with their own set of biases, each with a different set of assumptions, and each with a different focus and emphasis.

So, when Captain Ed began speculating that there may actually have been operational ties between al Qaeda and Iraq, I was a bit taken aback. If I read him correctly, his reasoning is: more...

Posted by: Rusty at 03:34 PM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 2554 words, total size 15 kb.

1 I agree that "Able Danger" doesn't mean that everything the 9/11 Commission produced was crap. On the contrary, with such a complex investigation even random chance would have them right at least some of the time. By the same token, if the CIA was wrong about WMDs that doesn't necessarily mean that they were wrong about everything either. And one of the "Able Danger" consequences is that it confirms Atta meeting with Saddam's man in Prague. Things are going to get interesting with this one, unless the MSM manage to spike it.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at August 12, 2005 05:39 PM (RHG+K)

2 I submit you left out something. The commissioner who should have been a witness not a commissioner. The Gorelick wall was built for a reason, and it was not to enable fighting terrorism. Read Deborah Orin's column http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/51737.htm If this pans out, the one person with some experience fighting terrorists, challenged the Gorelick wall from the start. I agree that it does not necessarily follow that 9/11 would have been prevented, nor that Iraq was behind 9/11. But putting the FBI on the tail of the ringleader may well have put a big crimp in it. That painting of a gloating Saddam with the burning towers in the backgroud was it just whimsical artwork? Or was it a victory lap? As to what the 9/11 commission produced and it's veracity, I have this to say -- When the commission allowed their meeting to be turned into a partisan circus, my suspicians rose that it was a polictal event not a fact finding endeavor. The applauding Jersey girls added a nice touch every time the commision discussion tried to zing the Bush administration. I believe the main failure point was the Gorelick wall. There is some good news, I do believe the commission members were sworn in. When we get to the bottom of this ...

Posted by: bill at August 12, 2005 06:09 PM (7evkT)

3 Bill, Agreed, the Gorelick wall was the main problem. Absolutely. The policy was patently idiotic.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at August 12, 2005 06:14 PM (JQjhA)

4 Rusty, I'm not stating that categorically Saddam had involvement in 9/11. However, with the constantly changing stories from the 9/11 Commission about their knowledge of Able Danger, it certainly looks like they wanted this buried...which does indeed call the credibility of the entire report into question. If they buried this evidence on purpose, and lying about their knowledge of it makes that a reasonable conclusion to draw, then it follows rather naturally that the report they wrote followed the narrative they intended instead of the truth. And that does mean that we need to look at the entire body of evidence over again, this time with ALL of the evidence, and stop relying on preconceived notions. Starting with a preconceived notion that Saddam did (or didn't) have some involvement in 9/11 will once again tend to make people disregard evidence to the contrary. The report from Al-Watan Al-Arabi says that the CIA told the Germans that they had Iraqi agents in Germany working with Islamist terrorists -- and sure enough, the Germans found them doing exactly that in February of 2001, according to this Arabic-language newspaper out of Paris. They arrested two of them and the CIA and FBI interrogated them. Now if that's not true, then fine ... but since it did get published, it's hardly a secret. Why didn't the CIA or FBI address that with the Commission, even just to debunk it? The report contains a number of debunkings such as this, including that of Atta's alleged travels in April 2001 to Prague. I'm asking the questions. If the answers fit the "no operational connection" conclusion after ALL the evidence gets reviewed, I'm perfectly fine with that. I'm not prepared to start at the conclusions of a report from what now appears to be a deliberately skewed investigation.

Posted by: Captain Ed at August 12, 2005 06:18 PM (yoKZg)

5 Oh, and by the way, nice redesign here. Meant to drop you a note earlier -- looks great.

Posted by: Captain Ed at August 12, 2005 06:26 PM (yoKZg)

6 So why was the Gorelick wall not the center of the 9/11 commission's report, it sure is the center of the failure? And that leads to the conclusion the whole 9/11 commission was a polictical event, not a fact finding endeavor. That then puts the whole issue of Iraq's involvement in play. If Iraq was involved, the left's house of cards comes tumbling down -- which explains why they are being so irratioanl about Able Danger. Remeber the Iraq war was under way when the report was being written. It also brings up why the wall in the first place. Might there be an answer in China-Gate and the 1996 election. The wall sure looked stupid to Mary Jo White. I don't know, but I want a do over, with commissioners on the stand as witnesses. I am with the Captain -- I want answers.

Posted by: bill at August 12, 2005 06:28 PM (7evkT)

7 Fair enough, Ed. But doesn't the news actually say that the arrests 'came in the wake' of reports about Iraq was cooperating with extremists? And that the arrests were 'considered so important that the CIA' was sent to investigate? What I mean by that is that it could very well have been the CIA's predisposition to believe that Saddam was working with al Qaeda that got the investigation going. Just something to think about. You are right, though, that this may need to be looked at again. But also consider that our source is an English language summary of an Arabic paper written in Germany?

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at August 12, 2005 06:30 PM (JQjhA)

8 Another god point Bill. I would also point out that I think all reports are skewed. That is just the nature of, well, reporting. You have to start out with a set of basic assumptions before you do anything. And since no matter what you do you will find some evidence to contradict your assumptions there is always the question of what to do with that--especially when such evidence is overwhelmed by countering evidence.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at August 12, 2005 06:35 PM (JQjhA)

9 Rusty, To not believe Iraq was not cooperating with extremists you have to have been, well watching MSM TV. All these Islamo-Fascist are hooked together, despite their cute names. Big mistake to think otherwise. Iraq was paying the families of suicide bombers of Israel. There were several known terrorists in Iraq. Proxy war is a proven tactic. Iraq had every reason to be in that game after the Gulf War.

Posted by: bill at August 12, 2005 06:38 PM (7evkT)

10 Rusty, True, the world is full of contradiction, and wading the pond can be tough. But if you seek the truth, it will eventually show up. If you seek to deceive it will be found out. Remember the 9/11 commission started out with two tough truth seekers at the helm, Kissinger and Mitchel. The Democrats screamed bloody murder until they resigned. Why was that? The Internet changes everything, the day of collaboration on a grand scale is here.

Posted by: bill at August 12, 2005 06:44 PM (7evkT)

11 "The last time I checked, the CIA and every single other intelligence agency around the world once considered it a matter of fact that Saddam Hussein possessed stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. You remember, WMD? It turns out, though, with the clearer vision of hindsight and actually having people on the ground to inspect the situation that what the CIA once considered fact was wrong." I'm sure all the Kurds who died in poison gas attacks will feel much better knowing they're not actually dead, because they were killed with something that doesn't exist. Also, speaking on behalf of all Desert Storm vets who were exposed to sarin and cyclosarin in the Khamsaya incident, I feel much better knowing that the long term side effect of those nerve agents won't eventually kill me, because it didn't really happen. WMD's were fact, they were real, they really killed people, both in the Iran-Iraq war and in actions against the Kurds and Shia. Just because Saddam was smart enough to get them out of the country before we invaded doesn't mean they never existed. Don't drink the Kool-Aid Rusty, you know better than that.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 12, 2005 07:18 PM (0yYS2)

12 My opinion: The anti-war people need to realize that there are only two significant sides in the entire world... those that want more Democracy, and those that cling to the status quo. Which are you? The EXACT same people that want a Democratic Taiwan independent of China, are the ones who have been chanting for years to liberate Iraq. If someone doesn't topple dictatorships and replace them with Democracy... then its only a matter of time before dicatatorships start toppling Democracies, and we already have the CIA doing a more than fine enough job of that. The entire issue of Iraq's terrorists connections is a moot point, it wasn't the main reason for liberating Iraq, and people who claim it is are fooling themselves. We need better Democracy at home, and abroad. /Canadian, 23

Posted by: Liam at August 12, 2005 07:27 PM (WNU3T)

13 Don't forget that Vladimir Putin also stated that he warned President Bush of intelligence that they had received prior to 9/11 that Iraq had plans in motion to strike the U.S. *in* the U.S. It does raise new questions, in my mind. Dave

Posted by: Dave S at August 12, 2005 07:47 PM (lWve/)

14 Rusty, no one but the actual perpetuaters and their immediate contacts really know what happened in their meetings. But if it walks like a duck, acts like a duck, quacks like a duck, well it's most likely a duck. I have my doubts that this can ever be decisively proven because even large sums of money have failed to loosen the tongues of these fanatics trained from youth to follow Muslim jihadi ideology. However, it is likely that more information is available through archives if they have not already been tampered with. It would be interesting to see what category of documents Berger destroyed. It seems likely that he has played a bigger role in all this than we had imagined. Captain Ed has done a superb job investigating Berger but much more needs to be done. Now we understand why the Clinton Administration treated Bush with kid gloves after the 9/11 Commission Report. I figured that the report would have played a much larger role in the 2004 elections. You can bet it didn't because it was much more likely to hurt the Democrats than the Republicans. I wonder now just how much Berger, Gorelick, and Ben-Veniste know about what really happened. Has Gorelick said anything about the Able Danger reports? There is a story out there for the Post or the Times. Now where is Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman when you really need them?

Posted by: jesusland joe at August 12, 2005 08:34 PM (DDXXI)

15 While I agree with most of the message and that we need to see more before we decide that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11, I don't think you can conclude that Hussein wouldn't risk supporting such an attack. His decision making has clearly shown itself to be unhinged. His sons are dead and he is in prison because he can't think clearly or recognize the consequences of his actions.

Posted by: Gary Myers at August 12, 2005 09:19 PM (FH1t5)

16 I want to know why so many were "interrogated" by the commission and others were "interviewed" privately and what was asked and answered. I also want to know that if Iraq "had nothing to do with 9/11", then first tell me how long the grounded airplane fuselage sat at Salman Pak before 9/11. Why doesn't the commission even mention Salman Pak? I want to know, as Captain Ed brought up a day or two ago, why there was no mention of Mohammed Afroze, who he collaborated with and where they trained to expand 9/11 internationally, even though it didn't materialize as an international plot. It is alleged that he was in Florida for flight training as well. I'll think of more as I go.

Posted by: Oyster at August 12, 2005 09:34 PM (YudAC)

17 wow, rusty actually admits that some US guvment reports are flawed...i wonder if he would've been so lenient during the Clinton days? if a dude can only carry a hammer, everything starts to look like nail

Posted by: seany boy at August 12, 2005 10:41 PM (sjyaE)

18 Rusty: Very level-headed two-base hit, to drive in one run (the Gaerlick wall). Although Ed makes some good points, the thing that makes the "operational link" so unlikely is the fact that conspiratorial behavior is generally consistent. That is, people wouldn't be conspiratorial about the omission of the Atta/IIS link and yet uncompromisingly open about facts that determine a relationship. Yes, they're saying that there was smoke but no fire... but they didn't even try to cover up any of the smoke. I would also point out that I think all reports are skewed. Sometimes 180 degrees. Funny story about commissions. I worked for a number of years with a former member of the Coleman Commission. The study they produced Equality of Educational Opportunity was instrumental in promoting racial balance in schools, a process that has remained divisive and contentious right up to the present day. But what most people do not know is that the study actually found no convincing link between the funding of schools, whether predominantly black or white, and student achievement. No link. So the public statement at the end of the Commission Report simply reiterated the conventional politically motivated wisdom about the disparity of results being related to the disparity of resources even though the actual study conducted by James Coleman found precisely the opposite! The just ignored the findings and went with their preconceptions. Yes, Congressional Commissions are pretty funny things.

Posted by: Demosophist at August 13, 2005 12:03 AM (IbWE6)

19 By all accounts Teddy Kennedy's big buddy, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, is in the middle of everything. He was the planner of 9/11, and the one who suggested it in the first place to Osama. He was the Uncle of Ramzi Yusef, supposedly, and sent him money while the latter was planning the 1993 WTC attack. He was the architect of the failed Bojinka Plot of 1995, which meant to assassinate the Pope during his visit in 1995 to the Philippines, bomb 12 airliners out of the sky over the Pacific, and crash four airplanes into the CIA at Langley, Pentagon, and yes, WTC. It was uncovered when Yusef set his place in Manila on fire while bomb building and the Filippino police found his laptop with the plans on it. Khalid Sheik Mohammed also is supposedly related to the one 1993 conspirator not arrested, Abdul Rahman Yassin, who is "at large." ALL these guys are supposedly Pakistanis, Baluchis, who worked in Kuwait during Saddam's invasion. Weird huh? Ramzi Yusef traveled on an Iraqi passport, so did AFAIK Abdul Rahman Yassin. Connections? Unknown but it would not shock me if Iraq under Saddam was playing footsie in a general way with bin Laden's terror activities against the US. It fits Saddam's general profile of operations. I mean, what did he gain in attempting to assassinate Bush 1.

Posted by: Jim Rockford at August 13, 2005 01:45 AM (4878o)

20 There is certainly some heavy thoughful information coming forth on this topic. Sort of proud of those who spend the time and energy to dig as deep into this matter as the majority of above posters. Amazing what can be accomplished without the crazy anti-America set involvement. I'm happy tonight. Received call from by son and several of his buddies. Big time fishing party when they rotate. God bless the United States Marine Corps. I also give thanks to RODNEY STRONG and his Sonoma County Cabernet Sauvignon 1996. The man is a genius.

Posted by: greyrooster at August 13, 2005 09:13 PM (CBNGy)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Cowed by the bully ACLU lawyers, US lowers transit terrorism level

Thismakes me furious.

How can they officially let their guard down so soon after the London bombings?

Not that what they were doing before was helping anyway. I was in NYC 3 weeks after the first set of bombings, and one of my friends had her bag searched. I'd like to state for the record now that I watched the policemen search bags for 15 minutes.

They searched the bags about 8 women for every man.

UPDATE: Can you or your church group do something about the ACLU? Yes.

Posted by: Suzanne at 02:43 PM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 111 words, total size 1 kb.

Jawa Report: Over 2 Million Served (LINK THIS POST, BIYATCHES!)

Celebrate with us for a moment. You can help us celebrate our ginormous flow of traffic by linking to this post and sending a trackback, thus increasing our traffic even more! In return, we'll issue a fatwa against your infidel butt, you'll get a link in return, and maybe you'll get a hit or two of your own. But make sure it's a good post. Okay, who are we kidding, there are no good posts out there...... more...

Posted by: Rusty at 01:29 PM | Comments (31) | Add Comment
Post contains 399 words, total size 3 kb.

How "Able Danger" Will Be Played

This is the money quote from the New York Times Thursday article about the 9/11 Commission/"Able Danger" scandal [emphasis added]:

Mr. Felzenberg said the commission's staff remained convinced that the information provided by the military officer in the July 2004 briefing was inaccurate in a significant way.
"He wasn't brushed off," Mr. Felzenberg said of the officer. "I'm not aware of anybody being brushed off. The information that he provided us did not mesh with other conclusions that we were drawing" from the commission's investigation.

Felzenberg has, in effect, called the unidentified officer a liar or the dupe of a liar. In order for the information to be "inaccurate" it would have to have been faked in some way. The possibility of faked information being fed to the Commission should have, in and of itself, immediately raised alarm bells that a coverup or setup was taking place. Why would the commissioners simply dismiss, without investigation, an attempt to give them false information? more...

Posted by: Bluto at 01:14 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 388 words, total size 3 kb.

1 The 9-11 Commission, or as I refer to it, the Clinton Legacy Protection Cartel, had it's "conclusions" before it heard all of the testimony. Sounds about right. Did Commissioner Gorelick personally approve the final draft??

Posted by: MCPO Airdale at August 12, 2005 01:39 PM (WOQ34)

2 Horseshit. Politicians should never have been part of that group. The fact is that these guys were NAMED! Funny how it fit with who was in those planes but not with their "conclusions". They want the intelligence failure to be blamed on Bush, not where it really belongs. The blame belongs on a policy that was started many years ago and strengthened during the previous admininistration and simply carried on during the new one. They're ALL at fault. They ALL failed to protect us. Why can't they call a spade a spade?

Posted by: Oyster at August 12, 2005 01:41 PM (fl6E1)

3 Jaime Gorelick killed 3000 people. Liberals are traitors . What do we do with traitors? ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZAAAAAAAAP! Or at least we used to.

Posted by: Filthy Allah at August 12, 2005 03:38 PM (5ceWd)

4 Where are Woodward and Bernstien now? Would they have the same ambition to get to the bottom of this the same way they went after tricky Dick? And where is the Deep Throat to back this up from within the intelligence Dept? They are all cowards and I don't blame Zell Miller for getting out while he is still clean. Somebody help me with track backs through Yahoo. My site is cmunkeypunky.com, and I want to link to Rusty.

Posted by: kstumpf at August 12, 2005 04:53 PM (Kv4B9)

5 Fox, meet the hens. Hens, fox. Fox is in charge now, he'll take good care of you hens. Ta ta!

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 12, 2005 05:07 PM (0yYS2)

6 And they continue to shout that Bush lied. Well, who lied to Bush?

Posted by: greyrooster at August 12, 2005 07:58 PM (CBNGy)

7 Fridays My word by John Gibson is almost exactly online with this thread.

Posted by: kstumpf at August 13, 2005 11:13 AM (Kv4B9)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Biggest Gigolo: David Lee Roth or Yoda?

Click photo. Louis Prima + Yoda = Pimptastick Good Time. Eat your heart our David Lee Roth. Via Flea.

Posted by: Rusty at 12:35 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 33 words, total size 1 kb.

Muslim Funny

Via Interested Participant. Muslim comic Shazia Mirza:

I'm terrified I'll die a virgin. Not because I'm obsessed with sex. I'm not, I don't think it's that big a deal. But I don't want to get to Paradise and have to sleep with one of the suicide bombers.

It's funny because it's true.

Posted by: Rusty at 12:25 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 54 words, total size 1 kb.

1 That's awesome!

Posted by: Venom at August 12, 2005 01:36 PM (dbxVM)

2 I don't think she'll live long making jokes about islamotards.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 12, 2005 01:44 PM (0yYS2)

3 She's an incredibly brave woman.

Posted by: Oyster at August 12, 2005 02:05 PM (fl6E1)

4 i give her marks for bravery, thats for sure.....it seems from what ive seen that the women in Iraq are more open to change than the men are, but we all know why that is....Islam is a man only religion...men go to see Allah and get to party and sleep with whores while the women{except these mysterious virgins} all seem to go to hell....nice religion

Posted by: THANOS35 at August 12, 2005 02:15 PM (IJ51c)

5 Once muslim girls figure out that men from civilized cultures won't have them stoned to death for burning supper, it'll all be over.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 12, 2005 05:09 PM (0yYS2)

6 I'm an Athiest dating a Muslim, the only thing that I know of so far that is sexist about the Muslim faith, is that Muslim women can only marry Muslim men, while Muslim men are allowed to marry Christian and Jewish women as well. It's still a stupid religion.

Posted by: Liam at August 12, 2005 09:36 PM (WNU3T)

7 Improbulus Maximus wrote: "Once muslim girls figure out that men from civilized cultures won't have them stoned to death for burning supper, it'll all be over." A truer statement has never been written in a weblog comments section; this truth is the reason why the culture war will be won by the West. The barbaric sexual politics of traditional Islam are a product of a nomadic desert people, and fully incompatible with modernity. Perhaps the Islamist agitation troubling the world is a visceral reaction to the increased information flow and freedom of the modern world. Many traditional cultural features of the Islamic world fare quite badly in a side-by-side comparison with others in the world. The Islamic traditionalists know that they have little to offer people, especially women, so they attempt to destroy other cultures that do not have the same bizarre restrictions. I see a solution in continued globalization, both of capital and information. Traditonal Islamic culture is static, defensive-minded, and ultimately weak; it cannot stand up to the prolonged barrage by Western ideas that is currently taking place. It is simply a matter of time.

Posted by: File Closer at August 13, 2005 11:31 AM (X989z)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

About Those Approval Polls

Rob on Say Anything makes some valid points about the AP poll that the anti-war movement always cites when they want to make the case that they're now the majority. (h/t: Wizbang) The party affiliation numbers suggest it's not very representative of either the total or the voting population. He might be going a little too far, however, when he states:

The bottom line is, I’m not sure I’m going to be trusting any more of these polls touted by the media. It just doesn’t seem like any of them are really all that representative of the true opinions and feelings of the people.

Well, it's going to be tough knowing the public attitude and values if we stop conducting polls. And you could tell pretty easily that this AP poll wasn't representative... which suggests that one needn't necessarily be skeptical of all polls. Let's try not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I've helped design a number of academic surveys using reputable firms (like Angus Reid Group) and don't think it's wise to paint with such a broad brush. The cell phone problem is real, but there are countermeasures. And refusals that might bias the results have been around for a long time, so the same corrective measures would work with "don't call" lists. (Legitimate political surveys aren't included in the national "don't call" list anyway.)

By the way, to point out a problem that Rob didn't discuss: one thing that I rarely see mentioned in MSM coverage concerning polls that identify approval or disapproval of Bush's handling of the war is any attempt to distinguish between those who feel we're not sufficiently invested and those who feel we're too invested. Believe it or not there are quite a few folks who think Bush is "too liberal," and that we ought to be not only pressing the war against Syria and Iran, but that we also ought to engage against perfidious Arab media. MSM and the anti-war Left always assume that disapproval signifies "too conservative" (warmongering), which is simply not the case.

(Cross-posted by Demosophist to Demosophia, Anticipatory Retaliation and The Jawa Report)

Posted by: Demosophist at 12:18 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 362 words, total size 3 kb.

1 BINGO!!!

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at August 12, 2005 12:41 PM (JQjhA)

2 i have talked to quite a few of my friends, neighbors and co-workers and a few of them who support Bush, still feel that he is being too nice, too easy going on the terrorists and Mulsim rabble rousers...i understand with his born again Christian ways that feels that reaching out and being forgiving and friendly to these troubkle makers will turn them into the US's friends and that is President Bush's right, but when many of his supporters feel otherwise he should be thinking about what the people want, after all thats his job... to listen and obey the will of the majority of the people

Posted by: THANOS35 at August 12, 2005 01:30 PM (IJ51c)

3 I'm very unhappy with the way the GWOT is being handled. First, the President should declare a national state of emergency, declare martial law, and expel all Arabs and muslims from the US, as well as exile and imprison leftards and moonbats who give aid and comfort to the enemy. Oh yeah, and put Jimmy Carter, Ted Kennedy, George Soros, John Kerry, Billary Clinton, Sandy Berger, et al, on trial for treason, then hang them in public and leave them for the crows. Simultaneously, we need to send two mechanized divisions to crush Syria and exterminate their military to the last man, raze their cities, and salt the earth, then turn east to Iran, and invade with two divisions from Iraq and two from Afghanistan. Then, once Iran lies in smoking ruin, roll back across Afghanistan into Pakistan and lay waste there, in a coordinated effort with India. Then, to the Arabian peninsula, where every member of every royal family or ruling junta, along with every imam and mullah should be shot on sight and their cities flattened. Across the Sinai into Egypt, Sudan, etc., until every enemy lies crushed. If this were done right, there would be hundreds of millions dead at the end of the campaign, and islam would be returned to the dark ages, where it belongs. These people, and I use the term loosely, are savages incapable of understanding or appreciating civilization, and should be purged for the good of humanity. So yeah, I'm not happy with the way Bush is handling things.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 12, 2005 02:02 PM (0yYS2)

4 well IM, sorry to say it, but we dont have a General George S. Patton to do all that, cause thats the kind of man it would take to be that ruthless with our enemies...too many politically correct generals out there now, after all, God forbid if we should hurt some poor Muslim terrorists feelings

Posted by: THANOS35 at August 12, 2005 02:19 PM (IJ51c)

5 Um, I dont think Patton would take that job- at least not the really creepy parts that IM proposes inside our own country. But hey, everyones got their own take on this mess. My wish- one bullet/bomb through SH's head would have saved alot of trouble.

Posted by: Max at August 12, 2005 02:46 PM (HFKAk)

6 Martial law in the US was the main thing that kept the domestic situation in hand during the war. Don't think for a second that all the people supported the war effort, not for one second. There were a lot of enemy agents and sympathizers in the US, not to mention communists, anarchists, and all sorts of n'er-do-wells who wanted our enemies to win, just like today. I despise FDR's social agenda, but he ran that war right for the most part, except that he didn't lock up enough people. And as for lacking generals to do the job, that's not the problem, it's the lack of political backbone in Washington. Enemies don't need to be pacified or negotiated with, they need to be killed, even if it means genocide. Kill them until they stop causing trouble, that's the only option, because wars aren't won by half-measures.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 12, 2005 04:28 PM (0yYS2)

7 Thanos: after all thats his job... to listen and obey the will of the majority of the people Actually, it's not... any more than it's your boss's job to listen to you and then do everything you decide is correct. Granted, once every four years you have the opportunity to choose your boss... but that the limit of your say-so, so use it wisely. Improb: We've got lots of degrees of freedom to waste before we ever get close to what you suggest, but were it ever to come to that there are less personnel-costly ways of accomplishing that objective. Also, if you've read Wretchard's latest you'd know that the jihadists have compelled us to unleash a set of genies that won't be easy to get back in the bottle once the threat is over, no matter how effective we are at defeating the enemy. It'll be a "brave new world," alright.

Posted by: Demosophist at August 12, 2005 04:44 PM (IbWE6)

8 We managed to get all the genies back in the bottle after WW2, so much so, in fact, that we almost let the commies take over. Also, given our recent history, i.e., Ruby Ridge, Waco, et al, where government forces basically murdered civilians and walked away with impunity, aren't we really already pretty far down the road to tyranny? I mean, come on now, why is it not at all a problem when the government wants to murder and terrorize white Christians, but if they even think about trying to fight against muslims who are in open war against us, everyone starts screaming about their rights? This country is fucked up, and I don't know the we'll ever get it straight again. Don't read the Bible or an FBI sniper will murder your wife, but if you want to kill Americans for Allah, well shucks, it's your First Amendment right!

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 12, 2005 05:22 PM (0yYS2)

9 I'm sorry Improb, but you lost me. The events you mention were no more (in fact, were a good deal less) intrusive than the Alien and Sedition Acts (and more importantly, their consequences in terms of arrests) which began in 1798. Very few believe that the Alien and Sedition Acts could pass the SCOTUS now, but I'm not so sure.

Posted by: Demosophist at August 12, 2005 06:13 PM (IbWE6)

10 A&S was poorly worded and probably intended to be used against internal political enemies moreso than against foreign agents, which is why it was overturned. A modern version could be written to protect the nation from traitors and enemy agents, yet still not infringe on the spirit of the Bill of Rights. Back to my reference to Ruby Ridge and Waco: Weaver was targeted by the FBI and BATF simply because he was a white man with fringe Christian beliefs who wanted to live seperately from the rest of a decadent society. Okay, nothing illegal about that. Unsocial maybe, but not illegal in any way, but the Feds went after him like he was Dr. Evil or something, they set him up, entrapped him, and then murdered his wife and son in cold blood. Lon Hoiriuchi, a world class sniper, shot his wife standing in the door of the cabin with her baby in her arms. He said he missed. At 200 yards. Right. I would love to get my hands on that piece of shit, I'd like to see how long he could live without any skin. But I digress... Compare this to today, where we have foreign nationals illegally in the country, preaching hatred and murder of Americans, and the government can do, will do, nothing but wring its collective hands and implore us to remember that islam is a religion of peace while they worry over every detail of every warrant, and try their best not to offend any of these poor, misunderstood people. Too bad the Weavers and the Branch Davidians didn't get that kind of treatment, but what the hell, they were only white Christian Americans, right? So they didn't matter. It's time to face the facts people, we are beset by two enemies; muslims on the one hand, who are doing everything they can to destroy civilization, and the liberal-run government on the other, who are doing everything they can to help them. Our only choice is to kill them before they kill us, there is no other option but to accept conquest and dhimmitude.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 12, 2005 07:32 PM (0yYS2)

11 disapproval of bush also comes from folks - like me - who think te is too sift too liberal to pacoifist too multilateral. IOW: from the right. but we'd NEVER EVER vote for a dem/lefty. this is true when things get sour/tough in iraq: we think he should stop fighting them there with a blindfold on and a hand behind our back. LET'S WHACK 'EM GOOD! and cut spending. anyhow, this is why approval/disapproval numbers are total BUNK!

Posted by: reliapundit at August 12, 2005 08:28 PM (cHHMb)

12 Demonsophist: Well spoken and true. My personal belief is that if we have 100% of Iraq in total agreement with us, we would still have a problem with the Islamofacists. I did expect us to take Syria and Iran out of the equation by now. That soft hearted sissy Bush. He stopped to soon. Just like his old man. Clinton (aka JB on the job) would have nuked half of the middle east by now. If it turned out popular and got votes he would nuke the other half. Monica would be Secretary of State. In case of an air pocket no female with buck teeth would be allowed on Airforce. One.

Posted by: greyrooster at August 12, 2005 08:33 PM (CBNGy)

13 Improb: Fair enough that Ruby Ridge and Waco might have been grievous mistakes, although OK City suggests that the notion of dangerous religio/racist Christian cults might not be all that benign. Still, that doesn't justify what was done (even if the final stage of Waco was mostly a series of tragic errors by both sides). I do know something about cults, since I've been an anti-cult activist for years, and Christian cults can be damn near as dangerous as Muslim ones. It's just that they're far smaller and more isolated. But as capabilities for using very destructive weapons advance, being small and isolated may not be a disadvantage... and it certainly makes the marginalized group a lot angrier. I suggest you read Jerrold Posts's Political Paranoia. He understands Al Qaeda about as well as anyone I know, and he also has a pretty good grasp of certain American extremist groups (not all of which are dangerous). Anyway, my impression of those two events (assuming they were as you characterize them) is that they were very isolated examples of very bad judgment, of the sort that all governments make from time to time. They are not examples of a totalitarian Ur-myth having pervaded the institutions of the State. After all, the third example you did not mention was Jim Jones, and the State erred on the side of caution and inaction there. That might go a long way to explaining their later zeal with the Branch Davidians, at least. Very badly handled, but we didn't handle the aftermath of the Iraq Invasion, very well either. Nor did we handle the daylight bombing campaign against the Nazis very well. My uncle died over Bremen as a result of some of those stupid ineffective and wasteful tactics. We threw away a lot of lives there.

Posted by: Demosophist at August 13, 2005 12:35 AM (IbWE6)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Bakri Freed

Omar Bakri Muhammed is out of a Lebanese jail. Free, once again, to spout his message of jihad against the West and tolerance for Islamic terrorists. But at least he won't be going back to London to abuse the British socialist-state any time soon. more...

Posted by: Rusty at 12:04 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 220 words, total size 2 kb.

Sheehan: Secret Service Out To Kill Us

Tinfoil alert. I guess since Sheehan's son died in the War that we're not allowed to institutionalize her? The Astute Blogger sends us word about Sheehan's latest moonbat statements:

Cindy says that the protesters will be killed if they stay the night.
Â“WeÂ’re not letting them intimidate us. If we get killed out here, know that
the Secret Service killed us.Â” [MORE HERE]

Since I saw Cindy on MSNBC this morning, I'm going to presume that the Secret Service hit squad missed their target. By the way, the MSNBC story was very flattering to Sheehan. No mention of her antisemetism, paranoia, and false alliby that her protests are about the President's alleged lack of concern.

Greg Hays is photoblogging the Cindy Sheehan protest from Crawford.

NoDNC and T. Longren have the propaganda angle covered.

Very Small Doses presents a Cindy Sheehan media timeline here.

Point Five, Confederate Yankee, and Bespoke Memetics have the parody angle covered.

PS-Due to an Instalanche, LGF, and Michelle Malkin link all within 48 hours I've been overwhelmed with e-mails. Sorry if I haven't got back to you. I now understand why Glenn Reynolds never returns my phone calls.

Posted by: Rusty at 11:51 AM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 204 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Yet another white knight that the radical left expects to lead them to victory, who devolves into a raving YYYEEEEAAARRRGGGHHH lunatic. When do we get to fight a worthy opponent? Or do we have to spend our blogging time swatting flies?

Posted by: a4g at August 12, 2005 12:15 PM (Wekol)

2 First, Venom, this horse can't die until the one's who gave it life kill it. (and I don't mean kill her so don't misconstrue that) That's not going to happen until they find someone new whose blood they haven't sucked dry yet. Then they'll just leave her at the side of the road and "moveon". Second, the new Iranian President may be a case of mistaken identity, but not a "conspiracy".

Posted by: Oyster at August 12, 2005 12:40 PM (fl6E1)

3 Hahaha, I love how it's casually dismissed as simply mistaken identity when everyone was so, well, venomous not too long ago. C'mon, I know it's all fun to show the online diaries for the world to see, but let's face it: the "blogosphere" has a lot of growing up to do if the majority of people are going to take it seriously. A reference source it is not, and while I know someone will chime in and say "it's not meant to be a source of refernece," all I can say, then, is that some people sure are wasting a lot of time doing "reseach." I mean, if it's just a mistake, then why were so many people's panties in a bunch over Rathergate? Sure he fucked up (to put it mildly), and paid the price by falling on his sword. I'm sure we'll see a lot of bloggers give up their blogs as their pennence for making a "mistake." I mean, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, right? By the way, kudos to the CIA for doing some legit research instead of jumping on the first rumor to hit them. On the other note, you could be right, Oyster. Not until every neocon and every leftie have extracted whatever they can out of this woman will they leave her alone. Both are guilty of the same thing.

Posted by: Venom at August 12, 2005 01:01 PM (dbxVM)

4 What, praytell, are the neocons, (is that the same as Joooooos?), "extracting" from this shameless propaganda whore who desecrates the memory of her heroic son? For we the few, the proud, the sane, she is a passing amusement, as she can only hurt the leftard moonbat cause and makes a good distraction from whatever main course the media buffet has been serving ad nauseum. I for one say we should give her all the airtime she wants, because she's obviously a Rove plant, since everything she says or does only strengthens the President's position. And Oyster is always right.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 12, 2005 01:10 PM (0yYS2)

5 Why is it that whenever someone disagrees with a neocon position, the neocon automatically assumes it's something Jewish-related? Give it up, or at the very least, loosen the tinfoil. And what are neocons extracting from Sheehan? Why, Clueless Maximus, the same as the lefties: shameless promotion for their own ideals. Admit it, no one on other side of the issue actually cares that she lost a son in Iraq - it's all about how they can play her against the other side. That is the real tragedy in all of this. Both sides should let her protest and stop making judgement calls on her. Until you've lost a child in conflict, you won't know what she's going through or her motivations.

Posted by: Venom at August 12, 2005 01:29 PM (dbxVM)

6 i dont give a flying flaming fuck if it is mistaken identity, but as he has made very early on,the new President of Iran is definitly a big mouthed, egotistic, eager to start up a shitstorm, idiot....Iran is supplying the terrorists in Iraq with shape charged explosives and im sure that the Iranian Pres is sending them with love....yea, i understand he is really just a figure head and im sure he knows this as the madmullahs really are the true power behind the throne in Iran, but it makes him a really nice juicy target for a bullet to his head when he acts and talks like a bigshot in charge......and that bullet might just come from his own people if he gets to big for his britches....after all, the mullahs do not share power

Posted by: THANOS35 at August 12, 2005 01:43 PM (IJ51c)

7 oh, and for Cindy...lemme play a violin for ya while you cry us a river...she is definitly ready for a nice padded cell up here in NJ, right in Gray Stone

Posted by: THANOS35 at August 12, 2005 01:47 PM (IJ51c)

8 Cindy obviously has deep emotional and psychological troubles. I hope somebody that cares for her will do the right thing and have her intsitutionalized.

Posted by: tyler at August 12, 2005 02:03 PM (Y9Lwb)

9 Venom, I take umbrage at your implication that the "right side" is using her for the same purpose. Most of those on the right, myself included, feel sorry for her because of the obvious way the anti-war movement is exploiting her. Dan Rather's retirement was already planned. And he did not give up being a personality. He's still spouting. And you're not allowed to use the "tinfoil" inference. That's only for us nazi-neo-cons to use when referring to the libs. Get your own saying ;-)

Posted by: Oyster at August 12, 2005 02:18 PM (fl6E1)

10 Aw, but tinfoil is such a universal household product - and it fits so many heads on both sides of the spectrum.

Oyster, maybe you do feel sorry for her for the way the left is exploiting her (but, oddly enough, not for losing a son), but judging from the comments here I'd say you're in the minority. I mean, look at this thread alone - most would prefer to ridicule her (which is, you must agree, a form of self-serving propoganda in itself). And Thanos, sure, the new president of Iran is definitely a theocratic fascist, but that obvious observation wasn't the point being made. It was simply the lack of acknowledgment by those that were oh-so-certain he was a hostage taker a while ago that they were, it seems now, pretty wrong. And the accompanying point that it's pretty hypocritical for bloggers who so love to call for resignations by the MSM when they fuck up, but then offer nothing similar when they fuck up. And what's with the violin crack? Have you given up playing with yourself to play a violin? Bravo. Thanks for missing the point again, btw.

Posted by: Venom at August 12, 2005 02:39 PM (dbxVM)

11 I feel like flying down there and smacking this loonie.

Posted by: FIlthy allah at August 12, 2005 03:40 PM (5ceWd)

12 Not for losing a son?!!! Are you kidding me? You, sir, are far too judgemental and way too quick with unfounded accusations. I'm not going to beat you up too bad for that because you don't know why I can empathize with her in that regard. I'll just leave it at that and ask you to read my previous comments on the matter before you stick your foot in your mouth again.

Posted by: Oyster at August 12, 2005 04:27 PM (fl6E1)

13 Hmmm, something smells... "greggy" in here, or is that just my imagination? At any rate, it look like the village has a new idiot. Welcome, Venom!

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 12, 2005 04:43 PM (0yYS2)

14 yea, seems like another greg clone....insults you when you expose his bullshit and than trys to move the goalposts when he knows he is wrong...nice try venom but youll have to do better, close but close only counts in horseshoes and handgrenades

Posted by: THANOS35 at August 12, 2005 04:55 PM (IJ51c)

15 Mistaking the mullet headed president of Iran for a terrorist A BIG DEAL. Big deal why? Damn these liberal will make a big thing out of nothing. What has it got to do with anything? We all know the president of Iran is an Islamofacist. If he wasn't the mad moolas would have the military (that they are in charge of) remove him. Maybe he was a hostage taker, maybe not. Who cares and why does in matter. The mad moolas are for anyone against America. Like Venom, Colon Babaler, etc:

Posted by: greyrooster at August 12, 2005 08:42 PM (CBNGy)

16 Why is it that moonbats always find something irrelevant and idiotic to latch onto when there are bigger fish to fry? The fact is, the president of Iran has already said he's going ahead with nukes, he doesn't care about anyone else. Sounds just like Saddam with the UN sanctions. And Oyster, you really shouldn't let a nitpicking leftist get to you, dear. I have a son in Iraq and I'm absolutely outraged what Cindy Sheehan, Moveon.org, and the rest of them are saying about Iraq--among the cracks about BushitlerRovianConspiracy that it's a war about Israel. Who's making this all about the jews again, Venom? Excuse me, but I'm always hearing the leftists talk about "peace" and "money for jobs not war" and who say "kill more jews for peace". Cindy Sheehan is spouting anti-semitic rhetoric like this: Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel. Pretty extreme. Even her own family is separating themselves from her message and is denouncing what she's doing.

Posted by: Cao at August 14, 2005 11:08 AM (RyucI)

17 Gee, thanks for the "welcome," Clueless Maximus...incidentally, where the fuck have you been? I've been posting here for almost a year now/ These days, I choose to let the moronic neocons wallow in their self-indulgent nonsense, but I actually feels some amount of pity for this mother, and decided to give my opinion (which was that since none of us can really empathize with her, we ought to just ignore this "story."). Thanks for missing the point, smart guy. Thanos - moving the goalposts? See, you're missing one of the fundamental rules of a debate: you can't accuse someone of "moving the goalposts" when it's been pointed out to you that you've done it. Pot, please meet kettle. Cao - I don't really read Sheehan saying anything anti-Jewish. Being anti-foreign-policy-as-it-pertains-to-Isreali-relations doesn't really make one anti-semitic, unless you're looking for that angle from the get-go. Look, I never said this woman wasn't being exploited by the left. Definitely she is. I'm saying two things: 1) She's a woman who's lost a son in combat and until you're a parent in that kind of circumstance, you can't possibly have any idea what's going on in her head; and, 2) Let this topic go. There will always be anti-war protesters, and if everyone gets their panties in a knot each time one makes the news, well, you'll never have any time to enjoy life.

Posted by: Venom at August 15, 2005 10:05 AM (dbxVM)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Instapundit Having Second Thoughts About "Gay" Marrage?

This story has apparently inspired at least a few second thoughts about same-sex marriage from libertarian-minded Megan McArdle, posting for Glenn on Instapundit:

Seriously, I find it difficult to phrase an objection to this that does not basically hew to the anti-gay-marriage line: i.e. marriage in the west has traditionally been between two people who want to have sex with each other. The objection to this argument is the same one that pro-gay-marriage forces employed against those who claimed that marriage was for child-rearing: we allow all sorts of people who cannot have sex with each other (certain classes of parapalegics, for example) to wed, so how can you exclude these people on this grounds? I think it's funny, but if this sort of practice becomes more than a stunt, it seems very likely to me to weaken an already ailing institution.

Well that's the point. Now consider the unspoken consequences of that ailing institution: more family disruption leading to greater social upheaval, crime, and perhaps most importantly an IQ deficit created by poor early childhood parenting. Yes same-sex marriage isn't the whole problem, but it can't help. And it could hurt, quite a bit. (See Institute for Marriage and Public Policy)

(Cross-posted by Demosophist to Demosophia, Anticipatory Retaliation and The Jawa Report)

Posted by: Demosophist at 11:09 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 227 words, total size 2 kb.

There's your "extreme circumstances"

Life News:

Pro-abrotion Sen. Barbara Boxer of California says she will filibuster the nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court if he does not say he is in favor of upholding the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized unlimited abortions.

Anybody want to lay odds Frist doesn't have the balls to stand up to her?

Oddly enough, when I did a Google news search, the only two direct hits I got were Life News and Outside The Beltway. Seems that the rest of the MSM are going to give Boxer a pass on this. Go figure.

Posted by: Drew at 10:13 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 104 words, total size 1 kb.

Bomb Makers Blow Themselves Up

(Istanbul, Turkey) I suspect this probably happens much more regularly than is reported.

From the Turkish Daily News:

Turkish police said on Tuesday that two men killed in a blast in an Istanbul flat were Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) members in the process of making a bomb.

An additional five people were injured.

From a fundamental Islamist perspective, would a man be given martyr status and 72 virgins if he never completed the suicide mission because he blew himself up while making a bomb? Islamic scholars must surely be searching for an answer.

Posted by: Mike Pechar at 02:05 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 101 words, total size 1 kb.

200kb generated in CPU 0.0919, elapsed 0.2588 seconds.
136 queries taking 0.2254 seconds, 548 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Search Thingy

Monthly Traffic

Pages: 177436
Files: 438
Bytes: 1937.7M
CPU Time: 292:03
Queries: 18086200

Content

Posts: 5690
Comments: 76627

Feeds

August 14, 2005

August 13, 2005

August 12, 2005

Search Thingy

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives

Blogroll

Monthly Traffic

Content

Feeds