I believe it's Hustler magazine that does the "Girl Next Door" thing, right? I think we've found a new candidate:

MONCEAU-SUR-SAMBRE, Belgium (AP) — She was the typical girl-next-door — pretty daughter of a hospital secretary who grew up on a quiet street in this rust-belt town and finished high school before becoming a bakers' assistant.

I hear her eyes are blue.

One blue this way, one blue that way.

Some other girls next door she'll be swapping recipes with:

Erzsebet Bathory

Belle Gunness

Dorothea Puente

Just to name a few.

As far as I'm concerned, that USA Today article I linked up there takes the media coddling of terrorists to a new low. Just when you think they can't get any lower...

Background on this "girl next door" here. (Link whoring on your own blog, Rusty...sheesh, I thought I was shameless.)

CP@VAM

Posted by: Vinnie at 09:52 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 149 words, total size 1 kb.

When we first noticed the eary similarities between the Giuliana Sgrena kidnapping and the kidnapping of the four Western peace activists in Iraq, we had no idea just how uncanny the two situations would become. It turns out that American Thomas Fox, Canadians Harmeet Singh Sooden and James Loney, and British citizen Norman Kember were kidnapped in the exact same spot as Giuliana Sgrena.

Up to this point we have refrained from speculating that this hostage crisis could have been staged by the terror organization so that they could later release the hostages in a show of 'goodwill'. Our many readers and fellow bloggers have not been so restrained. However, in light of this new information...well, consider it a thought in the back of our collective heads which we just can't help thinking. In no way would this have to mean that the hostages were in on the hoax, only that the threat against their lives might not be real--especially if they were known by the terrorists to sympathize with their cause.

Why would terrorists do this? Well, look what happened during the Giuliana Sgrena crisis. Sgrena, who's sympathies were with the terrorists anyway, was more than happy to cry on cue and demand that Italy withdraw immediately from Iraq. The reaction from the Italian Left was overwhelming and the pressure mounted on the Burlesconi government to leave. Terrorists are not stupid. They choose tactics that they believe work. If it seemed to work once.....

If this is the case, then it is good news for the hostages as their eventual release is almost gauranteed. For the sake of the hostages, we hope this is so.

Guardian (hat tip Alicia):

Four Christian peace activists held hostage in Iraq were kidnapped at the same place where an Italian journalist was abducted, raising the possibility one group carried out both attacks, police said Thursday.

The style of the abduction also was similar: The activists were seized Saturday in the vicinity of a mosque near Baghdad University. A car blocked their car, gunmen got out, threw the driver and translator out and drove away with the four captives, security officials said. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to talk to the media....

While in captivity, Sgrena also appeared in a video. She begged for her life and warned foreigners to leave the country.

Iraqi police Lt. Thaer Mahmoud said Thursday that the activists were kidnapped in the same place as Sgrena, whose release on March 4 touched off a tragic friendly fire incident that strained relations between Italy and the United States.

Posted by: Rusty at 07:29 PM | Comments (27) | Add Comment
Post contains 481 words, total size 4 kb.

The American hostage in Iraq, Thomas Fox, who's name was first revealed on The Jawa Report on Nov. 29th, is also a blogger. more...

Posted by: Rusty at 06:19 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 456 words, total size 3 kb.

The American hostage in Iraq, Thomas Fox, who's name was first revealed on The Jawa Report on Nov. 29th, is also a blogger.

His blog, Waiting in the Light, was last updated on November 9th. In his last entry, Tom Fox, now held by Sunni insurgents with links to those who fought the U.S. in Fallujah, decries the U.S. led assault on that city. Despite the fact that Fallujah was run by a form of strict Islamic law before the U.S. liberated that city--in which civilians were murdered for appearing too 'Western'-- Fox's entry decries the U.S. occupation with no words of criticism of the 'resistance' that fought his fellow countrymen.

Further, Fox seems to believe a Muslim cleric's version of the Fallujah narrative over those of the Marines and soldiers that liberated that city. Perhaps Fox was unaware that the cleric was possibly a member of the Shura council which ran Fallujah and which meted out death sentences to prostitutes, collaborated and gave refuge to al Qaeda linked terrorists (possibly some of the same terrorists holding Fox hostage now), and which saw even the possession of Western media a sign of apostasy?

It is tragic irony that those now holding Fox hostage are those that he found difficult to criticize, and that the U.S. Marines and soldiers which he found so easy to fault are his best bet on surviving his ordeal alive.

His entries are a mix of personal reflection and first-hand reporting from Iraq. His blog also reveals that Fox was a truly committed pacifist, willing to die rather than do violence to others. There is much to be admired in a man willing to die for his beliefs.

However, it remains unclear why it is that Western pacifists seem so eager to take on the U.S. and Israel and so willing to overlook the violence and aggression of Jihadis and Palestinians? If all violence is equally bad, then why the focus on Western violence and not on those who are the enemy of the West?

Unless of course the pacifist really doesn't believe his tactics would work in totalitarian states or among violent religious fanatics? Which, I think, is quite revealing.

Regardless of his naivite and poor judgement, we pray for his and the other hostages release and that those responsible will meet a swift and deadly justice. Fox is an innocent and a victim, and those who are holding him captive are guilty and aggressors. At The Jawa Report, we will not equivocate between the two and hold that the value of the life of an innocent is greater than the value of the life of those guilty of hostage taking.

Posted by: Rusty at 04:25 PM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 456 words, total size 3 kb.

Seeing the various levels of rancor regarding the Chrismahanakwanzaka season, I would like to present my peaceful solution, or my own Oslo Accords if you will. Alright, maybe not the best analogy. Or maybe the best. We live in an uncertain, postmodern time. Got that, buddy? Sorry, I need to calm down a bit.

Anyway, my prosposal is a classic standby. Festivus is truly a holiday for the rest of us, and by rest of us I mean all of us, right now. Here is a video that explains the spirit of the season. Festivus has a rich tradition beyond that of Seinfeld, though most of you are likely too ignorant to understand that. OK, OK, I am sorry about that last one. My Airing of Grievances is getting ahead of me. Please understand that lashing into others and the world about how they have disappointed me gives me more pleasure than you can imagine. And how do I know? Well, because one year, my family celebrated Festivus. What follows is a cautionary tale of anger, redemption, and triumph. more...

Posted by: wineaholic at 03:19 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 719 words, total size 4 kb.

The reality of war is such that it is hell. So, picking a particular weapon--which is no worse (and in fact much less worse and much less indiscriminate) than many others--and then trying to prove that it is 'bad' simply because one doesn't like the sound of the word 'chemical' seems like a kind of semantic sophism not worthy of discourse.

Bill, from INDC Journal, takes apart the White Phosphorous argument:

A. White Phosphorous rounds have a chemical action with the potential to cause really super nasty, icky-sounding wounds.

B. This legal round that has a chemical action with the potential to cause really nasty, icky-sounding wounds can be subsequently exagerrated and spun by partisan ideologues as a "chemical weapon," with the intent of drawing an ironic moral equivalence between the United States and Saddam Hussein's regime.

Right-on Bill. I believe all those IM chats with Jeff Goldstein are beginning to pay off.

Posted by: Rusty at 03:11 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 192 words, total size 1 kb.

It seems this guy here(don’t bother)Well he seems to think he’s on to a trend and uses Howie here as an example of a person who expresses a “highly unfavorable negative opinion” of Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi. Ok I admit it I have a highly unfavorable negative opinion of terrorists. I especially harbor a highly unfavorable negative opinion of those who’s highly unfavorable negative opinion of me is so strong they want to blow me up or saw off my head. So in order to lift myself out the category of those who use highly unfavorable negative opinion speech I submit the following to his little word counter bot. more...

Posted by: Howie at 02:47 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 1536 words, total size 8 kb.

Congrats to Junkyard Blog for four years in the blogosphere. That's a long time for a blog to hang around, but JYB's still in its prime. Bryan Preston gets credit for a wide variety of scoops and memes, including the 'Google It!' button about Bill Clinton's support for regime change in Iraq, realizing the implications of the flooded buses in New Orleans, warning about the empty gimme-gimme theology of Rick Warren's "Purpose Driven Church", and yeoman advocacy for John Bolton (and Bolton's Proliferation Security Initiative).

And those are just this year. There's a reason huge blogs like Michelle Malkin and Polipundit look up Bryan to guest-blog for them. Bryan's also been able to parlay his blog hobby into some freelance opinion writing as well: you might have seen his byline at Tech Central Station or NRO.

So JYB--keep on barking. The rest of you--go wish him well here.

Posted by: seedubya at 02:00 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 158 words, total size 1 kb.

A video from Palestinian Islamic Jihad of a beheaded Israeli is being distributed on the internet. The video shows a crowd of Palestinians in Gaza, including children, shouting "Allahu akhbar!" (God is great) as a terrorist takes the head out of a bag and holds it up for the cheering crowd. Jihadi music plays in the background and the crowd is visibly ecstatic.

Visual evidence suggest that the victim may have been killed first, and then beheaded later. UPDATE: The video may be downloaded here.

This should serve as a reminder that beheading those deemed 'infidels' and 'apostates' has a long tradition in Islamic culture and in Palestine. For instance, a recent photo taken by Michael Totten (scroll down) in Hezbollah controlled Lebanon three feet from the Israeli border of a large public sign glorifying the beheading of an Israeli soldier. The written message facing the Israeli checkpoint serves as a warning to the IDF.

In related news, jorors in the Sami Al-Arian case in Florida still are deliberating on the charges that the former college professor funneled money to the Palestinian Islamic Jihad organization. The same group responsible for this video. Predictably, Leftists at ZNet defend al-Arian because of his 'good character' and cite Islamic Jihad's charitable work. As if terrorists and their supporters are puppy killers and opposed to charity.

Hat tip to Doubletap at Infovlad.

WARNING: Graphic and gruesome images below. Not appropriate for children. View at own risk. more...

Posted by: Rusty at 10:21 AM | Comments (91) | Add Comment
Post contains 327 words, total size 3 kb.

1 I wish there was something I could say that would convince liberals that these people are evil and must be destroyed, but to them, these are the good guys. Liberals and muslims are scum and should all be killed.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 01, 2005 11:10 AM (0yYS2)

2 While I don't plan to check out the photos, what's the "visual evidence" that suggests the person was killed first, then beheaded?

Posted by: Venom at December 01, 2005 11:22 AM (dbxVM)

3 The visual evidence he was murdered first- it appears the victim was shot in the head before being beheaded.

Posted by: Ed Mahmoud at December 01, 2005 11:57 AM (NVdGX)

4 IM, As a liberal scum, I can attest that not all of us support murders. In fact, as a verbal and fiscal supporter of Israel as well as the destruction of the terrorist freaks anywhere and everywhere, your diatribe makes no sense. Please keep that in mind when you go on your killing spree. Funny how you sound so much like those that you hate. Those that you attest to hate spout the same, "kill them all their scum" crap? How ironic. LS

Posted by: Liberal Scum at December 01, 2005 11:58 AM (yd3Ue)

5 They are disgusting animals. Venom, visual evidence might be lack of blood on exposed tissue. If beheaded while alive, the blood would have covered everything.

Posted by: Sissyblue at December 01, 2005 11:59 AM (tBV+C)

6 Good grief LS, take yourself a little bit more serious! Get a life..

Posted by: sissyblue at December 01, 2005 12:06 PM (tBV+C)

7 I hate to sound typically Christian-Republican, but remember that part in the Gospel when the crowd perferred the release of the convicted killer over the release of Jesus? Makes me think of people turning a blind eye to Palestinian evil in favor of condemning Israel.

Posted by: Mus Zibii at December 01, 2005 12:10 PM (9tB9I)

8 Keeping a head in a bag like that is barbaric! Don't they think about how quickly it will rot? You need to keep it in a Refrigerator like Idi Amin did,,, or maybe send it to the taxidermist. Man, these Palestinians are really brutes!

Posted by: MDowdisjustold at December 01, 2005 12:17 PM (KeOQp)

9 LS When someone is confronted with the mutilated head of human being the NORMAL reaction is extreme anger and rage. I am glad you are a supporter of Israel. But to be very blunt, most liberals think this sort of thing is just peachy-keen for arabs to do or they try to pretend they didn't hear anything. Why do you think this image wasn't plastered all over the TV? Remember when the US soldiers in afghanistan burnt the corpses for hygenic reasons? We never heard the end of it. -ron

Posted by: ron at December 01, 2005 12:37 PM (dVi8K)

10 Liberals are traitors. I had a girlfriend who thought the same way: you call them scum, they call you scum, what's the difference between you and them? Well the difference is I don't run around indiscriminately killing Catholic schoolgirls and beheading them. I hate them muslims for all they're worth but I wouldn't go around killing muslim women and children. They don't draw any distinction whatsoever. You could be 2 months old. If you're white and western, you're the infidel and deserve to die. GET IT????? Our troops do not equal muslim "freedom fighters. " We seek to minimize collateral damage. they seek to maximize it. If you still don't get it - f*ck you. I'm tired of explaining basic issues of morality with people who obviously have none.

Posted by: AF at December 01, 2005 01:00 PM (4Tddr)

11 Don't be foolish - they would have taped the beheading - much more propoganda in that then merely showing a human head. they most likely robbed a grave. Remember the fake funeral they tried to stage? I would suggest a few plane loads of napalm in gaza as a reminder that they can only respect a force stronger than themselves.

Posted by: goesh at December 01, 2005 01:04 PM (1w6Ud)

12 Dr. Rusty, please stop saying "children"--all you ever see is boys, not boys and girls. and ron, joy and triumphalism is a normal tribal reaction to the severed head of one's enemy. There is a long history of cultural anthropology where warring bedouin tribes beheaded kidnapped captives on the plains of battle, often in front of the opposing tribe, as a kind of boast or threat. That is why the Bush/Blair policy in Iraq is so important--less tribesmen, more citizens.

Posted by: matoko-chan at December 01, 2005 01:05 PM (PW+pB)

13 "But to be very blunt, most liberals think this sort of thing is just peachy-keen..." Huh? We're the hand-wringing, tree-huggers that don't want to see anyone killed -- remember? No liberal I know (and I associate with hundreds) thinks any kind of murder / execution is accpetable. Religious and nationalistic fanaticism is the biggest threat to peace. From the insanely ignorant and murderous Islamacists at the extreme to our own more moderate "just kill him" televangelist Pat Robertson, to the fundmentalists in Kansas -- we all have nutbags among us. Every time I hear someone cry about the atrocity of a beheading, I wonder if the same person cries about about the deaths in Abu Grahaib? Is beaing starved or beaten to death inside a body bag somehow more human than a beheading? It's all wrong. And it all needs to stop. I think we need to stay in Iraq until the job is done -- we owe that to ourselves, our interests and to the Iraqi people. We don't get to go in and turn a country into rubble and anarchy and just leave. However, I think it required within a democracy to hold our elected officials accountable for every lie, every bit of witheld data, every exaggeration when it comes to starting a war. Calling this administration to task for bungling this effort is the MOST patriotic thing we can do. I think we all, liberals, convservatives alike work best we we stick to an issue and refuse to make assumptions about each other.

Posted by: Brad at December 01, 2005 01:08 PM (s2yPb)

14 There have been no Israeli hostages in Gaza.

Posted by: Ripper at December 01, 2005 01:21 PM (/qozD)

15 Brad's full of it...he makes assumptions about the President he can't -- and will never -- prove. Brad, there's no such thing as an honest liberal. Like you, Liberals are full-bore traitors who are oh-so-sensitive about being recognized as traitors.

Posted by: Tom at December 01, 2005 01:26 PM (ywZa8)

16 The claim, it seems, is that this is an IDF soldier's head.

Posted by: Rusty at December 01, 2005 01:27 PM (JQjhA)

17 Tom, Just the kind of non-helpful comment that reduce discussion to name calling. Calling me a traitor? Based upon what? The last traitor I recall was the one who outed an acting CIA agent. I wonder if that person was a liberal? And Tom, I'm not making assumptions, only reacting to data as it's publicly available. I didn't question the president's motives -- that can't be known. What I do question are his administrations actions: 1. Allowing Rumsfeld, Cheney and Wolfowitz to "trump" senior military planners at the outset of this war. Bad decision. At least he's accepted a more realistic assessment of the war during his recent speach an Annapolis. 2. Claiming that Iraq had unmanned aircraft that could drop biological weapons on the US East coast. They didn't have them. The administration spoke too soon and without the full story. 3. The aluminum tubes -- the administration claimed that "had to be for use within a nuclear (excuse me 'nooo-cue-ler') weapons." They weren't and it was only a matter of weeks before all the facts were in. 4. "We have found the WMDs" No they didn't. They found mobile helium producing labs. 5. "Medicaid reform will cost a maximum of $400B" Nope. Costs over $700B, and our friend Scooter was caught threatening to fire the government accountant who was going to notify congress of the true numbers. Tom care to discuss any of these in detail? Or are you going back to your Ann Coulter inflatable love doll?

Posted by: Brad at December 01, 2005 01:38 PM (s2yPb)

18 Tom, You reacted to one portion of my original post -- were there other parts you agreed with?

Posted by: Brad at December 01, 2005 01:44 PM (s2yPb)

19 "However, I think it required within a democracy to hold our elected officials accountable for every lie, every bit of witheld data, every exaggeration when it comes to starting a war. Calling this administration to task for bungling this effort is the MOST patriotic thing we can do." [emphasis mine] Boy, this one would require a full post. First, you're assuming there were lies, withheld data and exaggerations. Second, to hold "this administration" to task for anything without a mere mention of the lies, withheld data and exaggerations including subversive tactics, accusations and all else perpetrated by many in the House and Senate simply for a political advantage - is disingenuous. And I haven't even started on anything related to "when it comes to starting a war". Or even executing a war. Don't get me started on THAT.

Posted by: Oyster at December 01, 2005 01:47 PM (fl6E1)

20 Oyster, I should have clarified my post -- I didn't mean to assume that lies were told. We got a bunch of things wrong, but to call them lies assumes things I don't know. I do think there is enough "smoke" for an investigation though. Only partisans would have something to fear from an investigation. We spent more money investigating a blow job than we have the lead up to this war. I do wish the president and cheney had testified to the 9/11 commission under oath and without each other present and without the ban on note taking or recording devices -- that kind of condition makes me suspicious. Too, I wish Bush had accepted either of Rumsfeld's two resignations. If we really want to support our troops, a good place to start would be to find a more appropriate job for Mr. Rumsfeld. I find the entire process sickly. The Dems abdicated their roles so they could point fingers later. The Repubs circle the wagons every time and refuse to admit any mistakes -- even honest ones. Sometimes I think our government is a sham and the Repubs and Dems are just playing good cop / bad cop with the public.

Posted by: Brad at December 01, 2005 02:00 PM (s2yPb)

21 Hey Brad, you can take your apologetics for terrorist scum and stick them up your liberal ass. You are a prime example of why liberals don't fucking deserve to live, and I pray for the day you decide to start your precious revolution that I keep reading about on bumper stickers (right next to the ones that say Free Mumia!), so I can watch you die by the hundreds. If you love your goddamn terrorists so much, why don't you just go to Iraq and join the jihad? I bet some Marine would love to meet you under such circumstances, as would I.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 01, 2005 02:18 PM (0yYS2)

22 lol, IM sounds just like a terrorist.

Posted by: Venom at December 01, 2005 02:23 PM (dbxVM)

23 As a "Brit" I do find Americans squabbling about their president rather a sign of weakness and decadence. Speaking as a former leftie, we all hated Nixon, but now he looks like the best leader you ever had, we all loathed Mrs Thatcher, but now I must admit she was necessary medicine, we all detested Reagan, but now it has to be acknowledged that he liberated hundreds of millions from Soviet tyrrany. What we will think of Bush in 20 years is as yet completely unknowable. This is one point where I cannot help but see current Bush-hating as a meme-generated gesture of liberal conformity. What you Americans fail to realise ( just as liberals in Europe also fail to realise ) is that you cannot judge the behaviour of your own people abroad by the same standards as at home. The writ of domestic legality and justice does not extend to a madhouse like Iraq and its crazy to expect Americans in such a place to act as though it does. Those "victims" in Abu Grhaib didnt get there by accident. Moreover, what happenned there is exactly what happens wherever one group of people are given unchecked power over others. It was firmly demonstrated in the US Navy research conducted by Alexander Zimbardo ( or was it Delgado, I forever confuse the two )at Stanford thirty years ago. When one bunch of student volunteers needed no prompting to torment and abuse another bunch of student volunteers within days of being given authority over them in a simulated prison. It soon became such a dangerous madhouse that the experiment had to be abruptly cut short. I bet there are prisons in the US where far worse happens than at Abhu Grhaib. The idea that Bush and Rumsfield had to have been directing it from afar is totally batty.

Posted by: booyakka at December 01, 2005 02:24 PM (YV12+)

24 Just to clear a possible misunderstanding and to avoid a possible “killing in error”, there is still a poor spelling more conservative Brad in the Northwest who has nothing to do with the “potential target” Brad who just showed up today.

Posted by: Agent Brad? at December 01, 2005 02:26 PM (3OPZt)

25 Taking these pictures and putting them together with all the other daily reports of violence, corruption, intimidation and general chaos, how could anyone every justify giving these people their own state?

Posted by: Graeme at December 01, 2005 02:34 PM (uGWeY)

26 If I saw my next door neighbor pulling a head out of a bag and getting some high 5Â’s from his kids I think I would build a very high wall between our properties.

Posted by: Agent Brad at December 01, 2005 02:38 PM (3OPZt)

27 All muslims are evil...it's the ones that pretend not to be that we should worry about more, as the little rats sneak into our societies and wreak havoc. It is so obvious that islam and civilized society have nothing in common. The savage head waving thing is part of our dark past but hey, we have moved on and these savages are still living that past.

Posted by: Jester at December 01, 2005 02:38 PM (wBDaS)

28 The last traitor I recall was the one who outed an acting CIA agent. Oh, really? can you show me a URL of a story, where he was indicted for exposing a covert agent?

Posted by: dave at December 01, 2005 02:54 PM (CcXvt)

29 hmmm...which country was founded by genocidal maniacs offering cash rewards for settlers who brought in pieces of body parts of Indians? Decapitated heads were the most valuable, which would then be put on a stick in the town square for all to see??? Oh yeah...Amerikkka. I would be happy too if you brought me the head of a soldier who killed my friends and family members and shoots Palestinian children indiscriminately emptying entire clips of ammunition into their dead lifeless bodies. If you are proud to be an Amerikkkan, then accept your history (and current policy) of genocidal murder that makes this video clip look like Sesame Street.

Posted by: Jawa and all Jawa supporters....Suck! at December 01, 2005 03:04 PM (/3n/k)

30 I feel myself aquiring a highly unfavorable negative opinion of Mr. Sucks.

Posted by: Howie at December 01, 2005 03:06 PM (D3+20)

31 you can hate me now but I won't stop now the truth hurts huh Howie?

Posted by: Jawa Sucks at December 01, 2005 03:11 PM (/3n/k)

32 Mr Sucks you scumbag. I was making the point that this kind of behaviour is in the dark past but we have moved on. It's your lot that keep up the barbaric ways...let me think, stoning for adultery, hanging for being gay, chopping off hands for stealing and chopping off heads for being even remotely western. Then there's covering up your women and oppressing them.

Posted by: Jester at December 01, 2005 03:19 PM (wBDaS)

33 In 1688, the French-Canadians began paying for every enemy scalp. This encouraged the emergence of groups trying to make a business out of scalping settlers. The British responded in 1693 by announcing that they would pay money for the scalps of Frenchmen and their Indian allies. As much as £100 was obtained for an important scalp. Blame Canada!

Posted by: dave at December 01, 2005 03:21 PM (CcXvt)

34 Yawn..

Posted by: Howie at December 01, 2005 03:22 PM (D3+20)

35 JS, The truth might hurt, but when are you goint to tell it? Haven't seen anything from you yet but rhetoric. You would be better served to peddle your bullshit over at Kos. They are stupid enough to believe it.

Posted by: jesusland joe at December 01, 2005 03:24 PM (rUyw4)

36 What Jawasucks forgot to mention is that the call for Indian body parts, and their display, FOLLOWED the Indians massacre of women and children settlers, who, if left alive, were carried off as slaves. Moreover, if there was genocide in America, it was one Indian tribe against others. They were far more brutal to enemy tribes than settlers ever were to them. They seem to have invented the practice of backboning, which is exactly what it sounds like. They cut to ribbons those they captured. They also invented the artful technique of pulling a guys balls off by tying a rope around them, from which was suspended a basket, and then pissing into the basket until the weight finished the job. More reality and fewer flights of rhetoric-wrapped fantasy please.

Posted by: Zippy at December 01, 2005 03:33 PM (bzsk5)

37 Hey IM, Where does reality intrude in your life? Where did I apologize for a terrorist? Where? And who the hell is Mumia? If you were smarter than wood, you'd notice that I support the war, that I think we should stay, and that I believe it's in our best interest to ensure a free, prosperous Iraq. Since you're not smarter than wood, it's impossible for you to understand the notion of supporting a war effort while wanting to hold the administration responsible for bungling the efforts accountable. And yes, I'd be happy to meet you or any Marine that served in Iraq. Perhaps you could explain to them why Rummy and Tricky Dicky sent them to war expecting "flowers to be thrown at their feet" and without properly armored vehicles (Google up Rummy's response to that issue -- there are more marines waiting to punch him in the face than you can count). And finally you fascist parrot, our soldiers are dying for the kind of freedom you, as a piece of wood, can't understand. Jesus loves you anyway, brad

Posted by: brad at December 01, 2005 03:37 PM (s2yPb)

38 He also forgets I'm part Cherokee. Well a small part but granfathers Grandmother Got married so she could stay off the trail of tears we still have her recipe book.

Posted by: Howie at December 01, 2005 03:38 PM (D3+20)

39 Dave, Turns out it's not illegal to reveal a CIA agent. It is bad form though -- don't you think? He's being tried for obstruction and lying about the outing of a CIA agent. Pretty fine line there.... but hey, at least he didn't cheat on his wife -- just his country. I'm tired of Bush apologists blinded by Fox News and the conservative editorial pages of this country. He's not god, he's not perfect, he's not even very bright. He's not all bad either. What he, and his followers, are is incabable of admitting a mistake. b

Posted by: Brad at December 01, 2005 03:49 PM (s2yPb)

40 Jawa and all Jawa supporters....Suck! , You Sucked into lies about Israeli's are killing babies. The most organized army in the world and have to actually fight terorist Palanimals everyday. And digging up what the settlers did to the Indians 400 years ago is a sign of desperation.

Posted by: MB at December 01, 2005 04:10 PM (7aT9T)

41 Brad, your comment at 2:00 was a bit more conducive to discussion. I'll ignore your beef with others for now. Yes, some Dems and Reps find it hard to admit error. We do have a few honorable men and women though on both sides. I, for one, would welcome a thorough investigation. And when I say thorough, I mean thorough. I don't mean to go back and stop at January 20th, 2001 for we all know the world did not begin then. And the 9/11 Commission was a joke. As far as getting a bunch of things wrong - I've tried to put myself in the shoes of a President. I know it sounds ludicrous, but it gave me a little more insight. I read the Butler Report and many other intelligence assessments and I could see why Blair and Bush, who were responsible for the well being and security of hundreds of millions of souls, would make the decisions they did. Even if some think it was a mistake, if they just put armchair quarterbacking aside, I'm not convinced many others wouldn't have made the same decisions had they been in their shoes. It's no laughing matter or one to be bantered about lightly or even thought of within a political framework. Use not what we hear from the papers, or want to hear, but good information from solid sources without partisan influences. I did this to the best of my abilities because I could not in good conscience argue for or against without introspect and came to the conclusion that they made the only decision they could.

Posted by: Oyster at December 01, 2005 04:19 PM (fl6E1)

42 Brad, Come up with another nick. There is a Brad from Seattle who posts on this blog who is a decent guy. You're giving him a bad name. Try Bad Brad. I like the sound of that, and it better describes you. And I don't listen to Fox News. But it would be better than those neo-lib sites called ABC, CBS, NBC and worst of all, PBS. As for Bush making mistakes, hey, we all do, and I'm not covering for him or anyone else.

Posted by: jesusland joe at December 01, 2005 04:19 PM (rUyw4)

43 Actually it is illegal to expose an active CIA agent, but there are allegations she was mothballed as a CIA covert agent due to the fact she may have been exposed by Aldrich Ames before his arrest in 1994. I'm not sure if that will ever be verified, but there is a time period in which you can be prosecuted (I believe five years) for leaking the name of a covert agent.

Posted by: dave at December 01, 2005 04:21 PM (CcXvt)

44 Wrong, Brad-o Scooter Libby did not out a CIA agent, which is not a crime, and didn't out an undercover agent, which is a crime but since she wasn't an undercover agent, the law is inapplicable. He is being 'tried,' if you want to call it that (persecuted by someone lashing out in impotent frustration that he couldn't get anyone for doing anything, you know, actually ILLEGAL, would be a better name for it) for telling investigators that he didn't remember telling a journalist anything. Two years prior to being asked. Do you remember every little conversation you have? And, since you brought up your Hero, Clinton, and his wife-cheating ways, and compared them to cheating his country (which Libby didn't do, even if he were guilty of lying to investigators), how 'bout that Chinese donation to the Democrats? Pretty smooth how the Chinese were donating to Dem's, who were taking these bribe... Sorry, donations illegally, and suddenly, our policy towards China, a communist beligerent, changes to allow them all kinds of top secret information. Who cheated on his country, again?

Posted by: DaveG at December 01, 2005 04:34 PM (Yc3rs)

45 Brad, don't waste the pixels trying to argue, because we all know what you are. You said: "Every time I hear someone cry about the atrocity of a beheading, I wonder if the same person cries about about the deaths in Abu Grahaib? Is beaing starved or beaten to death inside a body bag somehow more human than a beheading? It's all wrong. And it all needs to stop." Wah, wah, fucking wah. You're a typical bedwetting liberal who doesn't have the balls to admit that it's right to kill terrorists, and would rather appease them and let them have Iraq so they can start a new terrorist empire.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 01, 2005 04:41 PM (0yYS2)

46 IM, You're the one who speaks in broad generalities. All liberal lie. All should be killed, blah, blah, blah. Again, I know facts don't matter, but I've stated publicly twice on this thread that I support the war. Repeat that last sentence a few times. I just find it odd that we call one form of execution barbaric and other civilized -- especially when all cultures have used on or onther form at one time. You assume all kinds of things about me without basis. It's nutbags like you who fuel wars -- take your posts to some terrorist board and your writings would seem right at home. You disagree that "it all needs to stop"? You're hatred has colored your world little man. I'm not your enemy. In fact we probably agree on most issues. If you could stop your assumptions and name calling long enough you might figure that out. Bad Brad

Posted by: Crazy Libbie Brad at December 01, 2005 05:03 PM (UdAUu)

47 "This should serve as a reminder that beheading those deemed 'infidels' and 'apostates' has a long tradition in Islamic culture and in Palestine" why should a discrete instance serve to indicate anything monolithic about something as dynamic and complex as the way billions of people relate to each other under shared principles - religion. man, if you have hate in your heart, then let it out. don't mask it in reductive and poor logic. get over the "see they are evil" and just say you hate them, instead of finding reasons to justify your hate. be balls out about it, homie. your like a closet hater. boo....

Posted by: ummak at December 01, 2005 05:13 PM (jooJq)

48 Abu Grahib compared to beheadings? Brad, please provide us with the links of A.G. serial torture(ie starvations and beatings to death). Really, even on the most liberal sites I have yet to see it, but I am fascinated by these lefty slurs and where they come from.

Posted by: Wyatt Junker at December 01, 2005 05:16 PM (V8c6l)

49 I love it. Brad makes a great point comparing the response to Abu Ghraib, to the response to Islamic terrorists, and IM responds with "wah wah wah". As usual, he has no valid response because he knows he's beaten. Sure, we need to hold the Clinton Administration to higher standards, but the Bush Administration is just fine when it comes to invading defenseless nations, torturing innocent people, and sending our once respected nation into the hell that it's in. At best, this Administration is guilty of being inept and incompetent. At worst, they lied to us to gain support. Eventually it will proven so. The proof is there. I have no problem killing terrorists. I do have a problem with our country "importing" terrorists to Iraq to justify our being there. BTW, how's the search for Osama bin Laden going? You remember him? The man responsible for all of this? The hero of terrorists everywhere? Cue the excuse.... "but-but-but-CLINTON!"

Posted by: CountryBeforeParty at December 01, 2005 05:17 PM (1bR8I)

50 I have problems with the statements that "all liberals should be killed" and "all liberals are traitors." Now, MANY liberals ARE traitors. Crazy Libbie Brad is blind to that (obviously) and suffers from BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome, again obviously). He believes every Dumbocrap talking point about the War and GW, guaranteed. However, for a moonbat, he seems fairly sane. And certainly is not a traitor, at least because he probably doesn't realize the positions of people like him are used by the Islamicists to further their efforts and that type of bullshit demoralizes out troops. Traitorousness requires intent. That's in stark contrast to that Jawa... Sucks scumbag. Now THAT is a traitor to the US and Western civilization as a whole. Although anyone stupid enough to believe the jihadist propaganda that the IDF "shoots Palestinian children indiscriminately emptying entire clips of ammunition into their dead lifeless bodies" might be too damn stupid to count as a traitor. (Hey Jawa...Sucks, you are aware that the famous clip of that kid getting shot by the IDF was staged by the Palestinians, right? Moron.) But even that scumbag doesn't deserve to be killed. At least unless he takes the next near step in his progression into lunacy, namely taking up arms against our guys or giving actual (i.e., financial or physical) aid to the terrorists...

Posted by: MoonbatBane at December 01, 2005 05:35 PM (rVegH)

51 CountryBeforeParty (gee, guess what party he's referring to) says: "I love it. Brad makes a great point comparing the response to Abu Ghraib, to the response to Islamic terrorists, and IM responds with 'wah wah wah'." That's because "wah wah wah" is all it deserves, you moron. Or are you (a) too damn stupid and/or (b) too consumed with BDS to realize the difference between (alegedly) abusing prisoners who were captured on a battlefield trying to kill our soldiers (bad) and killing civilians, including men, women, and children just going about their lives on busses, in pizzerias, at dance clubs, etc., as an intentional tactic to cause terror (a whole different level of downright evil)? The responses to those two incidents should by different because they are fundamentally different. Don't get that, though, do you? BTW, I'm betting on (c), both too stupid and too consumed with BDS...

Posted by: MoonbatBane at December 01, 2005 05:43 PM (rVegH)

52 MoonbatBane, I'm voting for (c) also. The guy seems pretty stupid to me, and he is definitely obsessed with Bush. They all are.

Posted by: jesusland joe at December 01, 2005 06:00 PM (rUyw4)

53 I believe the appropriate word for ..sucks is, Checkmate.

Posted by: MathewK at December 01, 2005 06:07 PM (pVHqF)

54 Hey, people, Brad's on our side! He wants us to win. The rest is just domestic politics, so lay off!

Posted by: Tom on the rez at December 01, 2005 06:55 PM (I9l3I)

55 To Wyatt Junker, Wyatt, a quick search on Google for interrogation deaths will get you a list. A few more searches will get you more details. You asked for links, here are a few: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/02/AR2005080201941.html http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/12/13/afghan9837.htm http://www.kwtx.com/home/headlines/1406067.html Of course this takes the discussion a bit off topic. I'm not trying to compare us to them. I was merely commenting upon the notion that one culture barbarism is not another's. It seems as if the middle east is just 500 years behind. Countries in Asia executed people by having elephants step on their heads in the 1900's. The British used to hang people (as do many countries now) or have them drawn and quartered. We used to burn people at the steak, drown them, etc. The bible calls for death by stoning. Lethal injection, hanging, electrocution -- all end with the same result. I guess calling out this distinction makes me unworthy of living (according to IM), or makes me a Clinton Lover (huh?)... Folks like IM and dave have an agenda and turf to protect and attack anyone with honest questions about this administration. b

Posted by: Bad Brad at December 01, 2005 06:59 PM (FAK/U)

56 http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20266 You should really try balancing your argument with reality.

Posted by: Wyatt Junker at December 01, 2005 07:31 PM (V8c6l)

57 Brad, what you don't understand, coming in here cold, is that we have suffered a rash of attacks against us personally and any of our ideals by a number of people with, um, no brains. While a couple of us have seen through your attempts at discourse, you weren't exactly, how should I say, diplomatic? That's something I always take into consideration as a newbie anywhere. Starting off with a repertoire of Bush bashing wasn't exactly a wise move. Actually many of us have legitimate issues regarding some of his domestic policies like border control and caving to the democrats on social security, among other things. But this war? You started off with a couple of fallacies and even a bit of moral relativism right off the bat and you made some enemies real quick. Maybe you didn't intend it, but it sure sounded that way. I'm just saying.

Posted by: Oyster at December 01, 2005 07:32 PM (YudAC)

58 This one is much better than your links. It has pictures too. http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=2444 I love this site. Number one because its almost as interactive as gay porn. And number two because I don't see torture here. What I do see is a barking dog. A human pyramid. A bloody guy on the ground. GI's playing you snooze-you-lose with prisoners. Prisoners with panties on their dome and a guy wearing a dunce cap. Please, point out the torture though. I've seen worse things on Fear Factor. And I also suppose that I shouldn't have rushed a frat. I broke the geneva convention and shit.

Posted by: Wyatt Junker at December 01, 2005 07:39 PM (V8c6l)

59 Wyatt Junker: that was a good piece you linked to.

Posted by: Oyster at December 01, 2005 07:43 PM (YudAC)

60 There is nothing wrong with moslems. there are everything wrong with islam, the religion needs to be fixed instead of killing one billion people.

Posted by: KhoraSUN at December 01, 2005 07:57 PM (nwANJ)

61 KhoraSUN, I sure can't argue with that statement. But until Islam is remade, the jihad will continue unabated.

Posted by: jesusland joe at December 01, 2005 08:10 PM (rUyw4)

62 The way I reckon this discussion is Rodney King, 1991. I think it parallels. And it also shows a thinly cut cross section of the turbo-lib frontal lobes under scurtiny. Now, Rodney King got his $2.9 mil of LA's finest tax money from organized lib guilt(the infamous white man's burden). He also summarily blew it up his nose in short order. But Rodney King shouldn't have gotten squat shit. Au contraire. He should have gotten more baton blows IMO. And here's how the media angles its line and slips the worm on the end of its hook. Its the same with Abu Grahib. First, they crop an image. They circumcize it. Reduce it if need be. They also (the embed journal whores) take the word of terrorist captive prisoners before and above our GIs. They assign nice little names to them in the reports for the NYT and the WaPo. Like Agent 07 or Agent 08 or Agent 09. Convenient. Then, like writing a soap opera, they inject their slant replete with a bunch of anonymous supporting actresses(prisoners), then the media 'wraps' all this in the formality of a 'military investigation' which they think will lend it an air of legitimacy. But here's the thing. Back to the comparison diversion. Rodney King was NOT abused. He was doing triple digits in his riceburner zipping through rezi areas, clipping lawn hedges with his front bumper and flooring it through the 'burbs. He was also 'lit up' more than a Whitesnake concert. The MSM didn't 'show' that. They also didn't 'show' the many voice commands that told Mr. King to GET DOWN which he ignored. And after several baton whacks, the MSM carefully edited out his attempt to get up again and again and(yes, I know) AGAIN. All they showed were the baton blows. And they showed it 24/7 for 60 days straight. Bush is a divider not a uniter, right uh, Pelosi? Check that, MSM. Anyway, sorry for the diversion, but Rodney King illuminates a bit of what's going on here with the continaul A.G. stories of 'torture'. Rodney King was not abused either. If anything he should have gotten a bigger can of whoop A. You know what I could have done with $2.9 million judgment pre-tax? And I don't even get high on crack, speed thru neighborhoods and defy police voice commands. Bottom line: Rodney King was not abused by the police. Also, the photos of Abu Gahrib do little to impress me other than to suggest that we also take down OWNED.COM on the you-snooze-you-lose tab feature for breaking the Geneva Convention.

Posted by: Wyatt Junker at December 01, 2005 08:14 PM (V8c6l)

63 Brad, The difference is the West was horrified and outraged by Abu Gahraib... you understand the difference between cheering in the streets and wholesale condemnation, of course, so can the specious argument. "All the killing needs to stop" is the standard lib blather that fails to recognize the difference between intrinsic evil and a solitary, unsanctioned evil act. None of the kids in my neighborhood were dancing in the streets when the AG photos hit the news...

Posted by: dg at December 01, 2005 09:07 PM (ApuLH)

64 DG -- you're right, the bulk of the west was horrified, and the military is prosecuting several soldiers for murder. That's a huge difference, it's wrong and we're willing to police ourselves. Much of the far right conservative movement played off the activities as "fraternity stunts" (limbaugh and O'Reilly) or as troops having "fun" (Hannity). And that's from the nation's most listened to talk radio show and the most popular news / editorial station ... you've also seen that here. If we're to win hearts and minds -- we have to be better. We tossed one to the insurgents there and gave them all the ammunition they needed to claim we're no different than Saddam. The actual approved interrogation techniques were published last week by an ex-CIA offer who had used them. Real soldiers like McCain have stated torture doesn't work and that if we're to expect our troops to be treated well, we have to reciprocate. Tell me, how did Cheney have the balls to attack McCain on that issue? The techniques are definitely not "frat stunts." I know some here will jump to the conclusion that I'm a pussy for opposing torture of suspected terrorists. There's a bigger issue here. First, I haven't seen anyone outside of Cheney saying torture actually works. It most often leads to bad intelligence. I want to "WIN" this war. All this B.S. from the Bushies about "few bad apples", then "we don't torture" (While Cheney was lobbying congress for just that right to be continued), to "it isn't really torture" to "well we just might need to" (cheney) is B.S. There are toops in jail now for executing Rumsfeld-approved interrogation techniques. Bullshit. I've said several times I support the war, but am dissapointed with how this administration planned and executed the task. I think they're more on point now -- but wow were there some whopper mistakes made. I did come into this discussion without tact -- but follow the threads. IM called for my death almost immediately. Dave quibbles on who's really a CIA agent and what's "acting" vs. just employed. I'm called a traitor immediately. Perhaps a sticker that says "I support the war more than you do!" on my car would help. I also tried to stay on issues. Wyatt Junker asked for links to any deaths resulting from our interrogations (How could you have missed that! Fox news?) and I provide them. Instead of saying "we were wrong" I get pointed to links about other people torturing "worse" than we were! And jokes about soldiers with panties on their head. Perhaps Wyatt should ask some of the Military personnel who are prosecuting some soldiers for murder. Do facts matter here? Sad day when we have to defend the USA as LESS of a torturer than others.... I'll stick to specific issues from now on. And not respond to trolls like IM and dave. Six months from now the truth will be out about how prewar intelligence was used -- perhaps well, perhaps not. The CIA and DIA are investigating now. Since Bush worked so hard to prevent the 9/11 commission from investigating how the intelligence was used, I suspect they had something to hide. Oh yeah, one prediction. The Bushies have been tossing around the "cut and run" phrase a lot lately. My take is they're accusing others of exactly what they're planning to do -- so that if they're accused of same it'll seem just partisan. We're out of there before Nov 2006 -- the Repubs won't stand to be unpopular for that long. The conservatives will blame the exit on the libbies for protesting -- but the truth will be different. They haven't cared about libbies since day one. Why care now?

Posted by: Bad Brad at December 01, 2005 09:38 PM (FAK/U)

65 Bad Brad, I started a point by point reply to your post, but dangit, it's after 10:00, Sportscenter is about to be on, and my hearts just not in it. I might try again tomorrow, but I might not, as I have gotten weary of all the fuss. I do have some advice for you. This is a blog where people of all beliefs come and argue. Sometimes the rhetoric gets hot and heavy, but you should not take it personal. That's something I've learned over the years, as I used to get real pissed by some things people said to me. But hey, it's a place to let off steam, and that is what people do here.

Posted by: jesusland joe at December 01, 2005 10:22 PM (rUyw4)

66 Shut down the Greek system now! http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5012154

Posted by: Wyatt Junker at December 01, 2005 10:45 PM (V8c6l)

67 All attempts at "discourse" are bullshit. The only realistic option in this war is the only one that ever existed in any war; total victory. I don't care if they have to skin the bastards alive and roll them in broken glass and Tabasco sauce in Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo. Whatever it takes to save the life of one more American soldier is okay by me, and if we have to nuke a few cities to make a point, and kill a few million people, well that's good too, because as Nagasaki and Hiroshima showed us, brute, crushing force is the only thing that works. If the goddamn wussy liberals had been in charge in 1945, we'd still be fighting the Japanese and Germans. Victory or defeat; there is no third option.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 01, 2005 11:19 PM (0yYS2)

68 Here's an excerpt from http://www.markdanner.com/nyreview/062404_Road_to_Torture.htm ..................... "In October 2003, DETAINEE-07, reported alleged multiple incidents of physical abuse while in Abu Ghraib. DETAINEE-07 was a [military intelligence] hold and considered of potentially high value. He was interrogated on 8, 21 and 29 October; 4 and 23 November and 5 December. DETAINEE-07's claims of physical abuse (hitting) started on his first day of arrival. He was left naked in his cell for extended periods, cuffed in his cell in stressful positions ("High cuffed"), left with a bag over his head for extended periods, and denied bedding or blankets. DETAINEE-07 described being made to "bark like a dog, being forced to crawl on his stomach while MPs spit and urinated on him, and being struck causing unconsciousness." On another occasion DETAINEE-07 was forced to lie down while MPs jumped onto his back and legs. He was beaten with a broom and a chemical light was broken and poured over his body. DETAINEE-04 witnessed the abuse with the chem.-light. During this abuse a police stick was used to sodomize DETAINEE-07 and two female MPs were hitting him, throwing a ball at his penis, and taking photographs. This investigation surfaced no photographic evidence of the chemical light abuse or sodomy. DETAINEE-07 also alleged that CIVILIAN-17, MP Interpreter, Titan Corp., hit DETAINEE-07 once, cutting his ear to an extent that required stitches. He told SOLDIER-25, analyst, B/321 [Military Intelligence Brigade], about this hitting incident during an interrogation. SOLDIER-25 asked the MPs what had happened to the detainee's ear and was told he had fallen in his cell. SOLDIER-25 did notreport the detainee's abuse. SOLDIER-25 claimed the detainee's allegation was made in the presence of CIVILIAN-21, Analyst/Interrogator, CACI [Corporation], which CIVILIAN-21 denied hearing this report. Two photos taken at 2200 hours, 1 November 2003, depict a detainee with stitches in his ear; however, we could not confirm the photo was DETAINEE-07. Based on the details provided by the detainee and the close correlation to other known MP abuses, it is highly probable DETAINEE-07's allegations are true. SOLDIER-25 failed to report the detainee's allegation of abuse. His statements and available photographs do not point to direct [military intelligence] involvement. However, MI interest in this detainee, his placement in Tier 1A of the Hard Site, and initiation of the abuse once he arrived there, combine to create a circumstantial connection to MI (knowledge or implicit tasking of the MPs to "set conditions") which are difficult to ignore. MI should have been aware of what was being done to this detainee based on the frequency of interrogations and high interest in his intelligence value." ................................ end of excerpt. Now, if one were to suckle the MSM baby formula, these reports would appear scathing and yet for people that actually like to think first and emote second, all we REALLY get from these 'reports' are reports from detained anons, and hey... what motive would a Syrian terrorist have to lie? Right? Now, detainee number 7 is a great supporting actress. He's a detail man with a vivid imagination(actually it came right out of the Zarqawi handbook that was later found by our GIs that when you get caught by the infidels, WHINE). Remember, Zarqawi was a student of Vietnam. Zarq was good and spot on. He told his minions to bang your head onto the cell floor for Allah until a nice welt formed and then go cry to a reporter. Also remember that Zarqawi knows that the average blue state voter is a down-with-the-man lib bot who is just looking for an excuse to rail. He also knows that he can pry that clay-like demographic away from the more responsible, thoughtful pack with sugar-laden treats of 'conspiracies'. Remember, we are the land of the gullible and not only do we want to believe in the latest JFK theories, we have a compulsive NEED to, like the Scrabble hobbyist. Zarqawi knows American culture very well, the way she will react, what will cause her to lose her resolve etc. etc. We have found this freak's spiral ring Hello Kitty notebooks. I am not making this up. Now, back to the excerpt. Read the above carefully, not with your Oliver Stone hate-America-reading-glasses either. Read it with the vague language used, that to the site owner is apparently real 'ammo'. Its not. Here's why. Note, that the entire investigation, a MILITARY INVESTIGATION mind you, is a result of what detainee no. 7 has to say. Note also the obscure language that employs the diction of statistics. It is 'highly probable' that abuse occured. Detainee 07 'alleged' this and 'alleged' that. Well give this diva a bottle of Perrier and an Oscar. And also that the photo of D 07 is not confirmed as actually him nor is it described nor verified how he was injured except by D 7's own blather. I could go on and on with similar dipshitteries. The MSM doesn't ask the tough and very obvious questions. They didn't in Rodney King. They didn't with Hurry Cane Katrina. And they never did with A.G. either. Remember, the MSM wants 'the dirt' at any cost. As to the Baathist former 'general' and Saddam's personal assassin... Something that gets overlooked in the article is how he, when placed into a 'stress position' in front of his peers, naturally slipped into the role of 'tough guy'. Not to mention him being involved in real time insurgencies and uncooperative about the next roadside blast. He didn't claim ignorance either. He played mime with the interrogators and then channeled the typical Arab brouhaha card of quasi machismo that is organic to their pathetic mysogonist culture. Another more pressing and relevant question would be: Do terrorists deserve Geneva Convention shelter at all? No? Thank you. I have no problems with a Sunni getting GC shelter who tries to go man to man. But a defiant terrorist who splodeys up kids and old ladies that aren't in recognized war zones? The GC is silent. What do you want libs? To reinvent what's not even in the Geneva Convention? Or maybe a Syrian terrorist in Iraq should, like Harry Reid and Ted Kennedy have already suggested, be afforded not only the rights of the Geneva Convention but the very rights of the US Constitution and be read Miranda law and given an attorney on the spot. And then Susan Sarandon can play the nun and try to get 'em off fer good behavior and a guvnah's pardon(right after the conjugal). They should just be lucky they didn't get double tapped in the temple for trying to blow the legs off school children at daycare centers.

Posted by: Wyatt Junker at December 01, 2005 11:25 PM (V8c6l)

69 Fool me once. Pissed on Koran that got flushed down a toilet. Shame on you. Fool me twice. Abu Ghraib. Shame on me.

Posted by: Wyatt Junker at December 01, 2005 11:31 PM (V8c6l)

70 Improbulus Maximus -- WRONG AGAIN! "and if we have to nuke a few cities to make a point, and kill a few million people, well that's good too, because as Nagasaki and Hiroshima showed us, brute, crushing force is the only thing that works. If the goddamn wussy liberals had been in charge in 1945, we'd still be fighting the Japanese and Germans. Victory or defeat; there is no third option." Harry Truman was a Democrat and a LIBERAL! He attacked corporate corruption and cronyism. He ordered ordered atomic bombs dropped on cities devoted to war work. He presented to Congress a 21-point program, proposing the expansion of Social Security. He proposed a full-employment program, a permanent Fair Employment Practices Act, and public housing to end slums. The program, Truman wrote, "symbolizes for me my assumption of the office of President in my own right." It became known as the Fair Deal. IM, I hate to ruin your world view with actual facts. Guess that damn MSM didn't report the real "limbaugh-truth" about Harry Truman. Perhaps you could enlighten us how "nuking" Iraq's major cities would end the insurgency? Killing the citizens of the country would help? Oh, I get it, you know all the terrorists are in one particular city. Do you want to win this war? Or do you just want to kill all Muslims. We already know you want to kill anyone you deem liberal (with or without fact).

Posted by: Bad Brad at December 02, 2005 12:08 AM (FAK/U)

71 Wyatt, Your poem cracked me up! I've heard enough of fundamentalist Muslims crying about the "descration" of the Koran and insisting that someone go to jail or be killed because of it. Note to the Overly Religious: You don't get to kill people because they don't treat your 'magic book' nicely! A Quran in the toilet? So what. Get over it. A bible used as kindling? Same deal. Perhaps a blog "Where in the World is the Quran" with photos of it at topless bars, BBQ joints, out in the rain, under a christmas tree...would there be a jihad against the blog owner? You might like this: http://www.tshirthell.com/store/product.php?productid=490 b

Posted by: Bad Brad at December 02, 2005 12:19 AM (FAK/U)

72 For details on the approved interrogation techniques: http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1322866 We're not beheading anyone -- but beheading isn't torture (you're not going to get much information from someone once their head is separated from their body..) it's an execution.

Posted by: Bad Brad at December 02, 2005 12:45 AM (FAK/U)

73 He is more beautiful in death then they are in life. I cry for the sacrifices the Israelis make every day. Strength is the only answer to this provocation, so we must all support one another.

Posted by: adele at December 02, 2005 02:53 AM (W1ouE)

74 Agent Smith warns readers that Hamas is hazardous to your health.

Posted by: Agent Smith at December 02, 2005 08:11 AM (fLJDr)

75 Thanks Wyatt, there is no longer any need for me to reply to Bad Brad. You obviously know much more about the situation than me, and were much more eloquent in your response. Enough said.

Posted by: jesusland joe at December 02, 2005 10:30 AM (rUyw4)

76 Yes Jesusland Joe, Disecting one detainee's report and creating lots of doubt about it's veracity is all that is required. That makes it all okay and absolves you off any further inquiry. In fact all the reports of abuse are false, that's why the military is trying several solderier for murder. That's why they're investigating this. Heck only 27 detainees were killed, that's not too many. Of course they were all guilty. Who needs all the data when you're mind is made up?

Posted by: Bad Brad at December 02, 2005 10:52 AM (FAK/U)

77 I'm not sure who is Brad and who is Brad Brad, but anyway, to Brad Brad at 10:52am. It's not that I or anyone here seek to deny any and all charges. It's simply that all charges are not true simply by virtue of the stories being told. So I think maybe you're being too harsh in your assessment against Joe. As reasonable people, many of us look at individual cases on their merits, rather than just believing and repeating everything we hear. Somwhere there is truth between all allegations being true and all being false.

Posted by: Oyster at December 02, 2005 01:31 PM (YudAC)

78 No, Bad Brad, the real problem is that you are so ready to believe anything these insurgents(terrorists) say. I would be the first to admit that some things that have happened in Iraq were and are wrong. But most of the allegations are just that, allegations, and with instuctions from their leadership to say and do just exactly that, then excuse me it I doubt the veracity of MOST if not all the allegations of these people.

Posted by: jesusland joe at December 02, 2005 04:17 PM (rUyw4)

79 Jesusland -- How does readng documents on the military's own internal investigations lead you to believe that I'm "ready to believe anything these insurgents say"? I never quoted any insurgents -- just US military officials reports on the issue. I figured that the US military would not accuse it's own people of these acts without serious evidence. Shit we're on the same side on these issues! I know there is a significant portion of the population that believes airing our own dirty laundry is unpatriotic and somehow helps the enemy -- I'm not one of them. We can prosecute a war with grim determination and effectiveness without allowing ourselves to skirt our own laws.

Posted by: Bad Brad at December 02, 2005 07:03 PM (FAK/U)

80 That's just it Brad Brad. You're quoting what you read in the military's own documentation. That's not the damn point! The point is that you're focusing/i> on the the documentation without giving the benefit of the doubt by thinking that simply because something is under investigation it implies guilt! Stop it! We don't even do that in county courts. Again, I will say that not all allegations are false. But then again they are not all true. Don't you get it? This isn't a civil trial. This is a war. This ain't the playground and it ain't office politics. It's far more grave than that. And your fixation on one small aspect detracts from the whole. When I think about all the guilty people who go free in our courts in the course of any given day because of our system which allows for one innocent person to escape persecution unjustly, I can't help but think that it's sad that in the fog of war we can't allow the same courtesy for our own against such a depraved foe.

Posted by: Oyster at December 02, 2005 09:12 PM (YudAC)

81 Oyster -- Agree. You're right, they are only trying these individuals, they haven't been convicted. Your note made me realize that I was assuming guilt because I also assumed the military would be reluctant to prosecute it's own people -- especially considering the circumstances of war. Have you read Colby Buzzel's book "My War"? It vividly illustrates the "fog of war" you mention. His book is based upon a popular blog he started as a soldier: http://www.cbftw.blogspot.com. Thanks Oyster for pointing out my false assumption. Brad

Posted by: Bad Brad at December 03, 2005 02:08 AM (FAK/U)

82 Hey stupid libtard troll fucks, you can stop arguing, because nobody here buys your terrorist apologetics bullshit. You're so obsessed with Bush and your hatred for America and its armed forces that you're willing to excuse and forgive any atrocity by any terrorist, and to accept the deaths of as many innocent people as needed as long as it makes America looks bad, so fuck off. I don't care you think of me, just as I don't care what a garden slug thinks of me. To me, you are just a slimy little subhuman wad of crap that I wouldn't bother to scrape off my shoe. Call me names, pretend to beat me in argument, whatever, I don't care. It might mean something coming from someone with a brain, but you are so competely inconsequential that anything you say just doesn't matter. You are the dung beetles of humanity, rolling around little balls of shit, thinking you've struck gold. You would be funny if you weren't so pathetic, and if reality weren't so grim. People are dying every day and all you can think about is how to excuse the savages who use car bombs to murder children and soldiers, while blaming those who are trying to stop them. You are beneath contempt, and I wouldn't piss on one of you if you were on fire, so fuck off.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 03, 2005 10:26 AM (0yYS2)

83 I have to agree with IM. According to the blue cities, America can do no right and no good is ever afforded nor acredited to her. Look at the initial post of this blog. It wasn't about America. It was about a very sick culture who glories in serial death. And it only took how many posts to pull out the Abu Ghraib card from a lib's assahewl? And a lib has so many international injustices/crimes to choose from; the way Russia brutally expunged Chechynan 'insurgents' or China's gross and immoral slavery of Tibet and its current dick throb for Tawain, or Syria or Lebanon for that matter, the way they incite and instigate terror across the globe, or Iran's current nuke building hard on, or Mugabe or in the Sudan, the way the Janjaweed runs rape rooms and institutionalizes child slavery. I could go on and indeed I should, because the libs really don't give a shit. The only thing a lib cares about are two words. Abu Ghraib. Oh yeah, I forgot. Three words. Let's toss in Halliburton as the biscuit in the middle. You see, moral relativism, to the turbo-fired-up-lib is all that matters. There is no concrete good. There is no concrete evil. These are merely mythologies that your Sunday School teacher used to keep you in line. America could do 99% right. And the lib would grab ahold of the 1% wrong and shake it like a baby rattle, screaming and bashing it against the bars of their crib. Libs are emotionally incarcerated, psychologically they are locked in when the biological bumps begin to develop, bulge and drop in their privates. They are in a chronic state of peer pressure and just as a teen's room is pasted with Marilyn Manson posters, their brains are coated with romantic disenfranchisment. They enjoy chewing this bone, even if the balls attached to the bone are about to spahlooge. Libs, the turbo-charged-Kucinich variety, get real uncomfortable with right and wrong. Their universe doesn't comprehend nor have a place for an America that acts as a stabilizing global force. The arrested nature of the lib demands a kind of working down-with-the-man, mindless union driven trope. They require, they NEED a psychological grid where the underdog gets freebies under the table and the 'superpower' acts as a kind of polarizing father figure. It is nothing short of collectivized transference from the bedwetting phase that hasn't broken free. No need to mention how France, Germany, Russia and China were all major players against the Iraq invasion, the only reason being selfish gain, barrels of oil and weapons smuggling. No. Its not relevant. Chris Matthews, John Stewart, Aaron Brown - these fuck monkeys won't mention it twice let alone once. No. Only big bad 'Merica. A war for oil, greed an imperialism. You got that lib? Now go pay your $10 movie fee to watch George Clooney's Syriana. Its a rite of passage, you know like Moore's shitty movies. And Clooney even did the trite thing that garners shiny awards and shit. He gained 40 pounds. In the actors' world, that means 'he's serious'. HAHAHA. What a sick dick. And he also mentioned 'Oil'. He's a fukkin shoe in. Give the man a Pulitzer and pull his finger. The lib wants America to go down like Paris Hilton on Aaron Carter. Its just a rock concert to them. And besides, America can take it, right? She's a superpower. Fuck her.

Posted by: Wyatt Junker at December 03, 2005 12:33 PM (V8c6l)

84 IM -- you're responses have no connection to my posts. I just agreed with Oyster and I get creamed by you again. You've assumed much about me without any data nor with any real discourse. When you're completely off base and wrong (comments about liberals and WWII) you don't respond. You resort to name calling and attacks. You call me an idiot, threaten my . To me, people like you are the real danger to a democratic America. You're so certain you're right that you're willing to judge without fact. To condemn without listening. You're completely unwilling to consider facts that conflict with your world view. Wyatt -- yes we libtards condemn the atrocities committed by nutbag Islamacists, as does most of the world. We're just willing to insist that we don't commit similar crimes. We have to be better than them. Integrity means facing and fixing your own faults no matter the situation. Read IM's comments. He's adovcated killing millions, including other Americans who disagree with him. Yet he can't put together a factual argument in support of any of his positions. And when faced with facts he can't refute he just attacks the messenger. IM -- you don't know me. You don't know my views on a multitude of issues. Ask me a question without calling me a traitor and I'll answer. You know I support the war. I think we need more troops on the ground. I think we should RAISE TAXES or at least postpone further cuts to pay for this war and get our troops the very best -- we've missed the notion of public sacrifice in the support of a war. I think Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Cheney messed up huge (ChickenHawsk all!) and didn't listen to experienced military personnel (Powell). Their errors and Rumsfeld's arrogance have cost our troops in the field. People who dance at the sight of a severed head sicken me. People who suggest we nuke a few million people are no better. No sense talking to you. Facts don't matter to you. As long as you can paint someone an enemy you'll be happy. Go read Orwell's 1984 -- you're living it dude. Oyster -- best to you dude.

Posted by: Bad Brad at December 03, 2005 06:06 PM (FAK/U)

85 Agent Jones thinks Bad Brad is a patriot.

Posted by: Agent Smith at December 03, 2005 09:58 PM (VDGim)

86 So.... 1. Where is this video shot. 2. What proves it's original and not just a photoshop fake. 3. Where does it say filmed in Gaza. 4. What faction does the man belong to... with all that equipment.

Posted by: More Propaganda at December 04, 2005 03:20 AM (S0hFE)

87 Hey IM! When you were busy hating Clinton, did you hate America? No? So it's possible to disagree with an administration's policies / leadership without hating the country? You're a troll. No one could actually be as stupid and hateful as you are. You're just like one of those little yip-yap dogs that barks and snarls at everything with no thought or reason -- and a brain the size of a golf ball. Keep barking you brainless, rabid little toy poole.

Posted by: bad brad at December 04, 2005 08:57 AM (FAK/U)

88 Does this worry anyone else: http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/002669.html#002669 They remind me of the kids in the middle east schools...

Posted by: bad brad at December 04, 2005 09:28 AM (FAK/U)

89 Brad Brad, uh, that would be "chick", but thanks. ;-)

Posted by: Oyster at December 04, 2005 10:16 AM (YudAC)

90 Actually, "God's Interns" doesn't worry me. It's the exploititive aspect of it that sould be addressed. Most of those participating will snap out of it. At least it's peaceful, indoors and beats the hell out of being subjected to ugly, naked people marching down the street with Bush=Hitler signs, inflated scrotums and shouting invectives. But the intern thing will be portrayed as more evil and insidious by the media. One commenter on that site said: "How on earth did America get to this stage? I'm British and after watching that I can't honestly tell wether it was piece on Washington 'interns' or interns in Tehran. Obviously the lack of beards and the speaking of english gave it away slightly " I'm reminded of the "log in one's own eye" adage. Yeesh.

Posted by: Oyster at December 04, 2005 11:33 AM (YudAC)

91 lets look at the facts america was and is anchored on domination. it started with indians who were fooled by thinking that the new settlers were coming in peace through freedom of religion, this then lead to a movement of merchants and then protection of their merchantys by goverment millitary force which resulted in the strong arm take over of indian land. oh yeah let's not forget that they shackeled africans to work the stolen land. and called it humane. be real american is a big bully trying to take what it can but boy would it be a sad day when other super powers decided to figth back. hate is hate and it may take diffrent forms but it has only one objective self gradification.

Posted by: real at January 06, 2006 10:59 AM (Md0gi)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Scott Baio's #1 fan and blog-son of The Jawa Report, Filthy Allah, finally makes the big Time. No, I mean that literally. He got a mention in Time magazine. And this actually made it to their print version. Yeah, I thought they had standards too. Apparently not!

Posted by: Rusty at 09:16 AM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 61 words, total size 1 kb.

I got my official White House Christmas card yesterday. It seems that the Commander-in-Chief is not exactly leading by example in the Christmas vs 'holiday' debate.

Even though I'm not as emotionally invested in this debate as others, I do think it's nice to acknowledge a specific holiday, and would have liked to see a Christmas wish. I've never understood why people shy away from it. I've lived overseas and was always glad when someone wished me well on holidays-- even ones I didn't celebrate.

Here is the card I (and a bajillion others) received. Click for bigger view.

PS-I like the whole Bible quote thing, but it's kind of generic for a 'Christmas' card, isn't it?

Posted by: Rusty at 08:48 AM | Comments (65) | Add Comment
Post contains 129 words, total size 1 kb.

In reading my morning news, I came across this article about the most recent abortion/parental notification debate in the supreme court. While reading this article, I was totally stunned by the twisting of facts going on and the lack of understanding shown by even the judges in the case. One of the biggest reasons we have not progressed further in this debate is because we let complete fallacies stand as fact. The first and foremost falsehood is the so-called "health of the mother" exception in every abortion law. This is what stands at the center of the current debate and what has stood in the way of many other debates in the past. Abortion proponents insist that every law even being attempted contain broad exceptions for the "health of the mother." What they don't want you to hear, however, is that:

1. The "health" of the mother is a judgement call based upon each individual doctor's interpretation. It doesn't mean that she's going to die if she doesn't have an abortion. It could mean something as trivial as her body won't be in as good a shape as it was before she had the baby.

2. Health exceptions always include mental health. If a doctor determines that a woman may be mentally unstable because she's pregnant, he can use the health exception to perform an abortion. This has included cases where the woman was simply "unhappy" with her pregnancy.

And yet these are the types of things that don't get talked about during the debate. Instead, we get this "inspired" line of questioning from Justices Souter and Bryer: more...

Posted by: Drew at 08:47 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 1580 words, total size 9 kb.

Susan Hallums, ex-wife of former hostage in Iraq Roy Hallums, left this comment on my post here:

I was deeply saddened to hear that more hostages were taken. These men were good Christian men trying to help promote peace in Iraq. I will pray for their safe release and for their families. There is such devastation to the families , I know this horror... I pray for them , I wish I could help in some way.

I replied to Ms. Hallums via email, here is what I wrote:

Please do not take any criticism I have for the CPT organization as a whole to mean that I have no empathy for the plight of these people.

I do not believe for one minute, no matter what brought them to Iraq, that anyone should be subjected to what Mr. Hallums went through.

I've watched what happened to Nick Berg and the others, I know full well what these people are capable of, and I wish that on no human being.

I still pray for Mr. Hallums', and your, good health, although I know you may never fully recover from his ordeal.

Ms. Hallums was kind enough to reply, however, since I don't have permission, and it's irrelevant to this post anyway, I won't publish it.

Look, kids, I spent a healthy chunk of my dwindling free time yesterday perusing the CPT website, and I wholeheartedly disagreed with just about, well, no, absolutely everything they do. From the Adopt a Detainee campaign to opposing any kind of enforcement of our national sovereignty on the border.

But I still won't wash my hands of these hostages. Here's another nugget I found this evening:

The organization is supported by several Protestant denominations, including the Mennonite Church, that believe Christianity forbids all war-making and violence. It has sent activists into war zones, including Bosnia and Haiti, since the late 1980s. It has about 160 members around the world and about a dozen in Iraq.

Folks, based upon their website, I was under the impression that this group was far larger than it really is. Had I known this, I wouldn't have spent so much time on that website. The influence they wield is precisely nil. Jane Novak, one woman with a blog, has had more global impact in a year than these people have in 20.

So what is the lesson here? First off, as Rusty said in his reply to Ms. Hallums' comment, and I paraphrase, "I believe they're misguided, but they're victims nonetheless." Second, I draw from my own experience. I've written posts about local stories on my home blog about murdered children, and twice the mothers of those children, like Susan Hallums, commented on my post. And like Susan Hallums, I've had a nice exchange of email.

These hostages, whose politics and ideology I may wholeheartedly disagree with, are still human beings. They have, from what I know right now, committed no evil acts that have placed them in the situation they're in. Granted, running around in Iraq as a member of the Christian Peacemakers may not be the smartest thing to do in this day and age, but it's surely not evil.

There's that, and there's what I've been alluding to this whole time. These people have families and friends. They more than likely have family and friends who, like me, totally disagree with the mission they undertook, or the views they hold. But, be that as it may, the loved ones of these people probably don't care one whit about those political views right now. They surely don't believe that these people deserve to be in the place they are.

And neither do I. Granted, this all may turn out to be one big stunt, but at this point, I could care less. If it is, all I'm out is the fact that maybe I cared a little too much. I can live with that.

What I couldn't live with is if I were making statements like the ones I've read, on this blog and others. Glib, making flip comments, only to see these people get the Nick Berg treatment. If it were my brother (quite a moonbat in his own right, I must say) over there, and I stumbled upon some of what I've read both here and elsewhere, I would be disgusted.

If you still can't find empathy for these four based on their ideology, that's fine, I can't control what you think or feel. But at least pause for a moment and consider their families.

F.E.T.E

Posted by: Vinnie at 11:51 PM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 786 words, total size 5 kb.

IMPORTANT UPDATE: The Fox News Store is now selling Christmas ornaments for Christmas trees.

Real Teen has tipped me off to a story that is just somewhat baffling. The FOX News Shop is selling ornaments this year but not just any ornaments holiday ornaments; not Christmas tree ornaments:

You'd think a cable news channel with Bill O'Reilly who has been saying that Christmas is under attack and that he doesn't think it's right and then you have John Gibson who has a published book titled, The War on Christmas: How the Liberal Plot to Ban the Sacred Christian Holiday Is Worse Than You Thought would be smart enough to have Christmas tree ornaments for sale.

The ultra-liberal blog, Daily Kos is calling Bill O'Reilly a hypocrite and thinks that all of us Conservatives will follow suit giving Fox News a pass on this one. I have to say that those Kos readers will be sadly disappointed when they realize that Christmas is here to stay and that no store or news network will get a pass on this one.

Real Teen is lobbying bloggers to call for a boycott of the Fox News Channel if they don't change the wording from holiday tree and holiday ornament to Christmas tree and Christmas ornament. The boycott will start on Saturday, December 3, 2005 at 1930 EDT. You should express your concern to those at Fox News via one of these methods:

Fox News Contact Page
(88 369-4762
comments@foxnews.com
1211 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036

I'm sure if reilly@foxnews.com">Bill O'Reilly and John Gibson were alerted to this they'd be furious too so you might as well drop them a line.

Merry Christmas,
Chris Short

UPDATE: PROGRESS! Already the titles of the products have been changed to Christmas Ornament but the term holiday tree still exists. The boycott stands until holiday tree is changed to Christmas tree:

Originally Posted at

Posted by: Chris Short at 07:43 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 327 words, total size 4 kb.

A senior delegation of U.S. lawmakers, led by Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Ill., the powerful chairman of the House International Relations Committee, was snubbed by Venezuelan authorities at Maiquetia International Airport in Caracas. The delegates were not allowed to disembark from their plane and eventually left.

Venezuelan officials denied reports that the incident happened, however, U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the Venezuelan government had in fact apologized for the incident.

It's my perception that Hugo Chavez's attitude toward international diplomacy will soon be indistinguishable from the attitude of North Korea's Kim Jong Il.

 

Companion post at Interested-Participant.

Posted by: Mike Pechar at 06:12 PM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 124 words, total size 1 kb.

Indication #1: 50 Cent plays a bat mitzvah

Indication #2: Celebration of absolutely dreadful writing

Indication #3: Sen. Kerry still sees himself as an important voice for policy matters (ha, the joke's on him though... he was never important)

Indication #4: Rusty gives me the key to this place. Certainly some will recognize me, as I have been around here since the beginning. My comments usually make no sense and involve the International Jewish Banking Conspiracy in some way, or are latent with extreme hostility.

In order to prevent the fall of the west, I will do the one thing I know how. I will rant with furious anger, babble with furious anger, and bring this blog back to it's core and true foundation -- ethnic slurs and Star Wars. Expect lots of both. You have been warned.

Wine-aholic

UPDATE: Rusty reminds me that I should always make room for "religious slurs" as well as ethnic ones. Tally-ho, sir. I couldn't agree more.

Posted by: wineaholic at 03:43 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 175 words, total size 1 kb.

I just downloaded Firefox 1.5 and although I try to keep personal stuff out of this blog, can I just say how much I love Firefox. The Jawa Report looks so sweet with Firefox 1.5. That little glitch which doesn't allow IE users to copy and paste text from The Jawa Report is fixed in Firefox 1.5. Even writing this post seems like a better experience. And it is soooo much faster than my IE browser ever was!

And the best part? This little Jawa logo that the good folks at Mozilla have somehow managed to add to The Jawa Report url field:

Posted by: Rusty at 03:06 PM | Comments (24) | Add Comment
Post contains 109 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Dude, it doesn't take much to please you. Firefox didn't put that little icon there. Your webmaster did. Firefox just allows it to be displayed. IE will too if it's coded right in the head of your HTML.

Posted by: Oyster at November 30, 2005 03:16 PM (fl6E1)

2 Really? Cool. I didn't know that.

Posted by: Rusty at November 30, 2005 03:17 PM (JQjhA)

3 Konqueror is my browser of choice, it has a lot of the features that Firefox has, plus a whole lot more: 1. on the fly disabling/enabling of Java/Javascript/cookies via click on the toolbar, or a global per domain ACL of the above. 2. icon on toolbar allows me to change browser string, or I can configure it to do it on only certain sites (e.g sites that insist you use IE) 3. w3 tools (via konqplugins) ! 4. enable/disable caching using toolbar icon. 5. Tabs configured to have a close button, or favicon, can arrange tabs with Ctrl and configure to open new tab after current window or before. etc 6. Autorefresh, can select from toolbar menu to refresh page in 1/2/3/4/5/ minutes etc. good for webmail. 7. Speaking Plugin: sounds like a cross between Alf, and Robby the robot but speaks webpage! pretty small footprint in ram too, which is one of the reasons I do not use Mozilla, its quite a memory hog.

Posted by: dave at November 30, 2005 03:25 PM (CcXvt)

4 You what on the what?

Posted by: Rusty at November 30, 2005 03:31 PM (JQjhA)

5 One thing to remember about Firefox is that every so often it will spontaneously download and install the latest version, and if you don't have your bookmarks backed up, it will wipe them, and months of links to the best interracial tranny midget horse pr0n will be lost. Or so I've heard...

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 30, 2005 03:46 PM (0yYS2)

6 I also forgot the fact that it will store each of my bookmarks with the favicon (like the cool little jawa) which makes it really easy to visually go through the bookmarks to see what I want to select. It also has a built in "link checker" that goes through my bookmarks and shows me when the last time a page was updated, or if it's a 404 and needs deleting etc.

Posted by: dave at November 30, 2005 03:48 PM (CcXvt)

7 Welcome to my world Rusty.

Posted by: Chris Short at November 30, 2005 04:01 PM (0OCQY)

8 Been using Firefox for a while now, much better than IE.

Posted by: MathewK at November 30, 2005 04:02 PM (pVHqF)

9 I can see we'll have a lively discussion here on the merits of each browser - except Rusty. ;-)

Posted by: Oyster at November 30, 2005 04:53 PM (YudAC)

10 Admiral Rusty, Seven times we have come to you, olive branch in hand, only to be rebuffed and to meet you on the field of battle. We come now before you, the eighth time. If you rebuff us again you might consider the following: The life of an insur-gent is cheap by your standards. American lives have much more value, even to an insur-gent. You have your high tech gadgets and we, our toys. But we are willing to die by the millions if necessary. 5 digits and you're out. So it's a situation of bidirectional asymmetry. Ultimately, you will feel the weight of our penal code if you persist in your ways. We bring the convicted to the main square, in a cage. The children and elderly then pelt the convict repeatedly with water balloons. Kids, huh, huh. Sometimes they fill the balloons up with urine. The women stay home. They have seen it before and have better things to do. The men look on, smoking their pipes and taking in the scene. They remark on the athletic skills of little Billy or Bobby. We are a peaceful people but we will take up the balloon if provoked. We offer the following suggestions: 1). Come up with a clear set of rules. Define the limits of discourse. Delineate acts that are grounds for banishment. (Might we suggest that Posing should be one such act.) 2) Enforce the rules even-handedly. We will think you just and you will have our blessings.

Posted by: Insur-gent at November 30, 2005 05:12 PM (KzOsW)

11 this is his site faggot he doesn't have to do one thing you suggest, if he does not like you he can moderate you, ban you or whatever he feels fit. if you don't like how he runs his site feel free to go elsewhere. You would be better over in the echo chamber of dailykos anyway, where you could feel free to don your tinfoil hat and talk about the j00o0s and 9/11 and whatever nutcase conspiracy theories you all have.

Posted by: dave at November 30, 2005 05:22 PM (CcXvt)

12 If we're taking a vote, off with his head, I say. I assure you, the "olive branch" has thorns. He has no honor.

Posted by: Oyster at November 30, 2005 05:29 PM (YudAC)

13 Greg is nothing but a troll, and should have a lifetime ban imposed on him.

Posted by: jesusland joe at November 30, 2005 05:40 PM (rUyw4)

14 So now I can copy and paste from Jawa and pretend it came from me? I wondered why I couldn't do that before. Schweet! PS Thank you for the nomination of honorable mention for my Cindy Sheeman caption. It's an honor. *tears of joy* Did I win any cash or something cause I've been waiting to hear back?

Posted by: thirdee at November 30, 2005 05:44 PM (WE00T)

15 Thirdee: "Sheeman"? Did you do that on purpose? Because it's pretty funny.

Posted by: Oyster at November 30, 2005 05:49 PM (YudAC)

16 Gregorio, Dude, what is your fascination with my blog? We enjoyed having you around for awhile, but you have overstayed your welcome. Your childish antics were annoying but your comment spam is abusive. I have unbanned you in the past, but your present abusive behavior is too much.

Posted by: Rusty at November 30, 2005 07:40 PM (JQjhA)

17 Give me all the info you have on him Rusty, I'm gonna make a road trip to Vegas next year, and I could swing by his way to personally limit his internet usage capabilities.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 30, 2005 08:01 PM (0yYS2)

18 Rustito, There are too many lies to discredit. The 9-11 truth movement was recently bolstered by a paper in press, authored by Dr. Jones of BYU. http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html He has a testable hypothesis that explosives, such as thermite or RDX, were pre-positioned in WTC1, 2 and 7, thus, bringing them down on 9-11. He actually proves the hypothesis in the course of his paper. The official version of 9-11 is a lie. Americans must understand the nature of the beast that governs them.

Posted by: Insur-gent at November 30, 2005 08:43 PM (KzOsW)

19 Hmmm...could have sworn this was a comment area on the browser topic...Or did I miss the sign that said "Idiot Libs with no balls to comment in other posts for fear of getting ripped a new one post here" sign?... The site looks great in SAFARi as well Rus !

Posted by: Tarheel at November 30, 2005 09:13 PM (GYxT8)

20 I get all of that with Safari...

Posted by: Ariya at November 30, 2005 10:10 PM (noCGr)

21 Ariya: Of course you do, and here's why: In kicking off the Macworld Expo keynote, Apple CEO Steve Jobs unveiled a new Macintosh web browser named Safari. Jobs said the browser was "based on standards", "works with any Web site", has much-improved performance over IE (page-loading speed is "three times faster", JavaScript performs twice as fast and it launches "40% faster" - comparisons to Netscape 7.0 shows similar performance gains on the Macintosh platform). The KDE connection: "[f]or its Web page rendering engine, Safari draws on software from the Konqueror open source project. Weighing in at less than one tenth the size of another open source renderer, Konqueror helps Safari stay lean and responsive." The good news for Konqueror: Apple, which said that it will be "a good open source citizen [and] share[] its enhancements with the Konqueror open source community"

Posted by: dave at November 30, 2005 10:31 PM (CcXvt)

22 The 9-11 truth movement was recently bolstered by a paper in press, authored by Dr. Jones of BYU. Yes Greg, along with his paper about Jesus being in North America? http://www.physics.byu.edu/faculty/jones/rel491/handstext and figures.htm Im guessing that means it happened to right? because the illustrious Dr. Jones "bolstered" the theory by writing a paper on it. damn you're a moron.

Posted by: dave at November 30, 2005 10:38 PM (CcXvt)

23 Well, at least greg finally gave himself a befitting name.

Posted by: Oyster at December 01, 2005 08:41 AM (fl6E1)

24 McGovern attacks the press. More importantly, he goes further than any high ranking government official has gone before on 9-11, and on identifying the real criminals behind our money system and our government. Note: This audio interview was not available live on the 29th due to "problems with the computers", so it was rebroadcast on the 30th, but again "problems" occurred. And it is not available on the GCN archives as of the 30th! Could it be that some group is worrying that too much serious information is making it to the public? Please download and post these audio files! http://www.iamthewitness.com/DarylBradfordSmithInterviewsMcGovern.html

Posted by: Insur-gent at December 01, 2005 12:52 PM (KzOsW)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Far too many people are unclear on the concept of propaganda. In their minds, propaganda is equated with intentional lies spread by governments. This is wrong. From Merriam-Webster we learn that propaganda is:

2 : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
3 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect

Propaganda is not a problem, it is what that propaganda is used for that is a problem.

So, when the Left villifies the use of propaganda in furthering the goal of winning the war in Iraq, they are a) unaware of how to use the term properly, b) unaware that all armies--by definition--must engage in the spread of propaganda because facts are meaningless without some context, c) are hypocritically comfortable with a Marine killing a terrorist but not with a Marine paying a newspaper to say that the terrorist is bad, or d) are only comfortable when propaganda is prepared by them--in which case they don't believe the propaganda is really propaganda, because we all know that the objective truth is whatever the Left says it is--in which case we return to (a) since this means that they are unclear on the definition of propaganda.

Earlier today a Leftist reader e-mailed me a story from the L.A. Times which claims the U.S. pays Iraqi newspapers to publish stories favorable to the U.S. By definition this is propaganda. What is vexing, though, is why any one would have any objections to this unless they are making any of mistakes a-d listed above?

Jeff Goldstein is always a good man to go to in a pinch when semantics are at issue.

I’m not so sure I see “largely factual” pro-American “propaganda” as too much of a problem if it helps to burnish the image of Americans in the eyes of skeptical Iraqis long under the boot heel of a tyranical dictator—and in doing so, helps save soldiers lives and expedites the victory on the ground and the establishment of a strong and viable Iraqi government.

Also, it bears noting here the the US military is working with willing Iraqi newspapers in an effort to thwart the insurgency by defeating them not just on the battlefield, but in the sphere of public perception.

Questions: have we used these same techniques in other wars? Certainly. Should we? Absolutely—particularly if it could save US soldiers’ lives and help end the insurgency. [READ THE REST]

Except, of course, the news isn't "fake." Biased? Yes, but it's supposed to be - it's part of the propaganda campaign. Propaganda is important in any war, but it's vital in a media war.

That's not fascism; that's fighting a battle where no one gets shot at and no one gets killed.

What made the Nazi propaganda of Josef Goebells and Tokyo Rose so wrong (and why both were legitimate military targets) was not that it was propaganda but that it was propaganda meant to undermine the victory of the United States millitary.

Propaganda is a weapon in war. When any weapon is in the hands of our military, it is an asset. Weapons are bad only when they are in the hands of the enemy.

Which makes one wonder why Leftists, so-called 'moderates', or even some on the Right, would consider a weapon in the hands of the U.S. military a bad thing? Unless, of course, they considered the real enemy to be.......

Not that I would ever question anyone's patriotism....

(via Glenn, who I'll hat tip even though I would have got to Steve and Jeff's post had not "I" come before "P" and "V" in my RSS reader)

More below if you're really into the philosophy of contextualized and hierarchical rights in a state of war. more...

Posted by: Rusty at 02:23 PM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 2758 words, total size 16 kb.

1 the trap of depending on propaganda is that it seems to validate the lie that the deception that the will is free and within that 'freedom' the emotions of another can be manipulated for the desired result: more words as 'info'/'intel' as grist for the mill of a supposed 'free' will intelligence community. Which is merely a set up for worse evils down the road.. the 'propaganda' on-going in the US as policy both secretly and openly is the anti-Christ that Islam is real faith and not an outight deception/lie. The US is psy-oping itself with a lie and all other 'propaganda' proceed from that one lie. Proverbs 10:24 The fear of a wicked man , it shall come upon him; but the desire of the righteous shall be granted. In the Name of Jesus Christ, Amen

Posted by: here and there at November 30, 2005 03:39 PM (6krEN)

2 My RSS reader lets me sort unread items by date. Which is usually good, except that a lot of feeds out there don't have proper dates!

Posted by: IO ERROR at November 30, 2005 03:46 PM (iQUq8)

3 From one Burkean libertarian to another: outstanding. Imagine what the left, or Reason magazine, would have had to say about Abe Lincoln, who simply closed presses and locked editors in prison. That all ended when the Civil War did, and appears to have been necessary at the time. War has its own imperatives, and we are at war. Again, superb post.

Posted by: Mona at November 30, 2005 03:48 PM (FUJZ7)

4 Good point Mona; Lincoln understood that the freedom of the press means freedom to express opinion and report fact, but not advocate for the enemy.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 30, 2005 03:57 PM (0yYS2)

5 While I agree with your philosophy here, more than you can know, the idea of censorship is an much larger hurdle today. Why? The Internet.

Posted by: Oyster at November 30, 2005 03:57 PM (fl6E1)

6 I tell you, Rusty, you have attracted some 'dandies' with these posts on the CPT hostages. Whoa! And that 'here and there' guy is more there than here, if you know what I mean.

Posted by: jesusland joe at November 30, 2005 04:00 PM (rUyw4)

7 Joe, I was gonna say that. I don't understand what it is he's trying to say: What's that, Lassie? There's a rabbit trapped in the well?

Posted by: Oyster at November 30, 2005 04:57 PM (YudAC)

8 Yeah, I just figure incoherent comments like here and there's are kinda par for the course.

Posted by: Rusty at November 30, 2005 05:00 PM (JQjhA)

9 Rusty: The idiosyncratic use of the term "propaganda" by the left is entirely consistent with the doctrinaire Marxist use of the term "ideology." In Marxist parlance, "ideology" is strictly something that the ruling class uses to pull the wool over the eyes of the unsuspecting proletariat, creating what Marx called "false consciousness." Thus, the term "ideology" can't be used to refer to Marxism, since it is simply the truth, and is about the reinstatement of "true consciousness." So it isn't that the don't understand the term, it's that they have a very idiosyncratic meaning of which they are well aware, provided they're well schooled in their own basic principles.

Posted by: Demosophist at November 30, 2005 06:04 PM (7sM+R)

10 Not that I would ever question anyone's patriotism ... Whyever not? Surely by refusing to even consider the possibility, you are ceding the playing field to those who define 'patriotism' rather loosely. There is nothing wrong with questioning someone's patriotism. There is something wrong in not defining what you mean by the term and then accusing others of not measuring up. For example I think the LA Times story was un-patriotic in the most fundamental sense as it deliberately undermined its own Nation in a time of conflict. And for no good reason to boot.

Posted by: dougf at November 30, 2005 08:44 PM (STFua)

11 Agent Smith says beware of anyone who finishes any statement that ends with "in the name of Jesus". Agent Jones says, "including Agent Smith".

Posted by: Agent Smith at December 01, 2005 06:45 AM (Ww5es)

12 Agent Jones in a "Frenchman Moment" discovered this in an article from Salon.com: "The notion that reporting on the guerrilla war in Iraq abets terrorism is typical of the logic of any extreme right-wing political movement. All censorship by all military regimes in the Middle East has been imposed on the grounds that journalists' speech is dangerous to society and could cause public turmoil (fitna). Rumsfeld's reasoning in this regard would be instantly recognizable to any Arab journalist from their experience with their own governments." http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/113005Q.shtml

Posted by: Agent Smith at December 01, 2005 06:55 AM (Ww5es)

13 "The notion that reporting on the guerrilla war in Iraq abets terrorism is typical of the logic of any extreme right-wing political movement." (For one thing, let's look at the author, Juan Cole. Partisan extraordinaire.) It's horsesh*t and you know it. It's not the reporting. It's the one-sided reporting that abets them. Nice how you bought into that so quickly and used it as an argument. That's so "typical of the logic of any extreme left-wing political movement". But I'm not questioning your patriotism ...

Posted by: Oyster at December 01, 2005 07:35 AM (YudAC)

14 There is a compelling argument for propaganda during war, but Bob Steele makes an even more compelling counter argument for modern information operations which is the following: "Modern IO is not about the old messages of PSYOP, but rather about empowering billions of people with both information tools and access to truthful information. It is about education, not manipulation. It is about sharing, not secrecy. It is about human understanding to create wealth and stabilize societies, not about the threat of violence and the delivery of precision munitions. IO substitutes information for violence." Education would be to accurately represent the merits and disadvantages of BOTH sides of any argument. You don't get this with Propaganda. You only highlight the benefits of your idea and the disadvantages of the other idea while suppressing the disadvantages of your idea and the advantages of the other ideas. And so it is an issue of proportionality and emphasis that makes propaganda deceptive and manipulative. So while you may be able to gain some short-term advantage with propaganda as a communications strategy, in the long-run it's a losing battle in winning the hearts and minds of the people as well as empowering them with the critical thinking skills necessary to be able to govern themselves as a viable democracy. There's also a lack of transparency that eventually makes your strategic message less credible as soon as people realize that they are being propagandized and not educated. In war, you could make an argument that the benefits of that short-term time period are critical to the mission. And that may be true. But as soon as you reach a critical mass of Iraqi citizens who realize that they're not getting a full picture of reality, then the messenger really starts to loose credibility. In an online draft of his book called "INFORMATION OPERATIONS: All Information, All Languages, All the Time" Bob Steele advocates that Open Source Intelligence (OSINT) should be the backbone to any type of Information Operations (IO) -- and that Strategic Communications has to be based upon this "ground truth." "IO content can be thought of in two parts: Strategic Communication (the message) and OSINT (the reality). The first cannot be effective without the second. It is not possible to craft the right message, nor to deliver that message to the right person at the right time in the right context, without first understanding “ground truth” at a sub-state level of granularity (tribes, villages, neighborhoods). OSINT is the horse seeing the path, Strategic Communication is the cart carrying the message. One before the other." The problem with propaganda is that is prioritizes strategic communication above and beyond the ground reality.

Posted by: Kent Bye at December 01, 2005 10:45 AM (IOLlO)

15 I understand the argument, but it's all just pie in the sky stuff. As long as there are those who use propaganda nefariously, ie laced with lies or half truths, then being honest more often just gets lost in the wind. Plus, people hear what they want to hear and have no problem with refuting absolute truths. And I hope no one is criticizing the propaganda we employ in Iraq without knowing any of the content. Oh wait ... of course they are. Even though, I suspect any propaganda we use is simply to counter what has been wrongly portrayed already.

Posted by: Oyster at December 01, 2005 02:04 PM (fl6E1)

16 Rusty wrote:As long as we are in a state of war, the media must act in ways consistent with winning and bringing back a state of peace. If they cannot do it themselves, they must be forcibly censored... To think that content censorship would continue after we have defeated the threat of Islamofascism is to overlook WWI and WWII. In both cases we had direct censorship. In both cases the censorship eventually ended. Of course that brings us back to the fact that this war, unlike any other war the U.S. has ever waged, could drag on for decades or even several generations, which still leaves the Left with the same argument it uses against detaining captured enemy combatants until the war is over - specifically, that we're talking about holding these prisoners, and curtailing the media's free speech, for, well, decades or even several generations on end. The problem is that the American public is likely to be a good deal more sympathetic to the Left's argument when applied to free speech in wartime, than they are to the same argument applied to enemy prisoners. In other words, most Americans probably couldn't care less that we might let a bunch of Islamofascists rot in Gitmo or wherever for 50 or 100 years, if the war drags on for that long - but they won't necessarily put up with restrictions on speech/media for the same 50 or 100 years, even if those restrictions are geared toward the same goal. If the war doesn't end until after everyone alive today has passed on (a very strong possibility), then any wartime restriction of speech/media enacted today would not be merely a temporary measure; it would, for all intents and purposes, be permanent, at least from the perspective of everyone alive today. It would also have an unpredictable effect on the attitudes of not-yet-born children who would grow up, and quite possibly live out their entire lives, in an America that pays lip service to a free press, but does not practice it due to the ongoing war. And when the war does finally end, will the American people really be that anxious to restore those press freedoms when they've never known what it's like to have them in the first place? Mind you, this is not an attack on Rusty's position, with which I otherwise have no argument whatsoever; rather it's to point out that there's a good deal more to consider than just the role of the press in time of war when the war is likely to replace peace as the new "normal" state of American life for the foreseeable future.

Posted by: Joshua at December 01, 2005 02:39 PM (2c7xL)

17 I totally agree with Joshua. And I concede to Oyster that I haven't seen the actual propaganda being used in Iraq. And you could argue that it's a realist perspective to say that "being honest more often just gets lost in the wind" -- but isn't this what democracy is supposed to be about? I mean, I know our own politicians have rationalized themselves into corner by valuing spin and perception over truth, but can't we do better than this rather cynical take on the truth? I also think that only focusing on violent conflict resolution as being rather short-sighted as well. Again, I quote Robert Davis Steele who has been pushing for Open Source Intelligence for the last 17 years. "In an era when information converted into intelligence and knowledge is a substitute for wealth, violence, energy, water, and everything else, only the: the United States of America has the power to execute this practical vision. DoD is the catalyst for its achievement." Steele argues that we're at a strategic dead in that: "the United States of America finds itself with a military optimized for force-on-force confrontations between nation-states, and a national intelligence community optimized for stealing secrets through technical means, with an extremely narrow range of focus and almost no flexibility." So Steele is advocating for a complete paradigm shift in how we resolve conflict with what he calls information peacekeeping -- and with information operations (IO). "Modern IO is the seed crystal for a total transformation of the American way of war, a new American way that practices information peacekeeping, and reflects a new commitment by America to stabilize the world intelligently rather than violently. It is a holistic mission that must be accomplished by the J-3 using a civil affairs mind-set, with the J-2 limited to internal validation and support. There are not enough guns on the planet to force our will upon other or to protect our quality of life for future generations. IO is the new way of war, and of peace." At the root of IO is open source intelligence and a grounding in truth and education. So even though there may be some compelling arguments here in this thread for using Propaganda within the context of a traditional war, I don't think that this it's a winning strategy for the long-term challenges that we're facing. It's the 21st century, and we're in the information age now. It's time for our political culture and defense strategy to start catching up with the technical innovation and new media revolution.

Posted by: Kent Bye at December 01, 2005 04:54 PM (IOLlO)

18 Hrrmmm.... Gee Rusty, I hope you won't call me a "Lefty" for this, but I keep reading your post and every time I get to the implicit "There's nothing really *wrong* with paying news sites to lie for you in a Good Cause", this little voice in the back of my head has a *cough cough* bulllshit! *cough cough* moment. Ah'm jest sayin', is all. I've heard of "surrendering the Moral High Ground", but it's been a long time since I've seen so many bloggers leap to their deaths from it. It's almost as amusing as Pajamas Media. ;]

Posted by: Ironbear at December 04, 2005 12:04 AM (2qhVP)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

The first female Chancellor in German history has come out shooting. In a 180 degree turnaround from her predecessor, the first words out of Angela Merkel's mouth to the newly constituted parliament:

"This government, this parliament will not let itself be blackmailed," Merkel said. "It (terrorism) is directed at everything that is important to us, at the core of our civilization. It is directed against our entire value system."

Can some one please tell me how any one in the MSM--in even the most conservative of publications--can call a group or an individual threatenting to murder a hostage a 'militant'?

Posted by: Rusty at 01:28 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 148 words, total size 1 kb.

Rumors of Osama's death in the Kashmir earthquake are nothing new and nothing secret. I had heard this a long time ago and it's not surprising Harry Reid did as well.

The video clip linked from Pajamas Media has an anchor indicating that Reid is just speculating here, and then shows him saying, "Well I'm not sure he's alive anymore. I think it's possible that the earthquake in Pakistan...took him down as well."

No law against his saying that. Even if he were briefed at a top-secret level about Osama's demise, what he said is available through open sources and therefore fair game. But I think he's just speculating.

Posted by: seedubya at 01:12 PM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 117 words, total size 1 kb.