Is Rove guilty? Dunno. Do I care? Not really. What Rove did was not treason as the lunatics over in the head-up-their-asses community are so fond of pontificating. Criminal? Maybe, in that everything-inside-the-beltway-that-some-pencil-neck-finds-offensive-is-illegal way, but not treason or anything even smacking of treason.

Anyway, it's time for Rove to go. Last time I checked we were in a f*cking shooting war and the last thing the Commander-in-Chief needs is a low-life political opportunist in his inner circle. If for no other reason he should go because his actions are creating a political scandal. And it's not like were talking about the Secretary of Defense here, Rove is a pollster and a political strategist for crying-out-loud. So, Bush finds another low-life political opportunist to replace him--but one that knows to keep his mouth shut. Alright, easier said than done but, really, who really gives a rat's ass about Karl-freaking-Rove? I hear Clinton's low-life pollster and political strategist is looking for work these days.

I dunno about the rest of the world, but I for one did not vote for Karl Rove. I voted for George W. Bush. And I didn't vote for him because I was worried about indexing the alternative-minimum-tax to the inflation rate. I voted for Bush because I want a President who will respond to threats against the United States with force and without hesitation. Rove will only prove to be a distraction to the pussies on the Left looking for any excuse to appease our enemies. So, Mr. Bush, fire Karl Rove and then do what we elected you to do: Kick. Some. Terrorist. Ass.

Posted by: Rusty at 12:37 AM | Comments (115) | Add Comment
Post contains 278 words, total size 2 kb.

1 But you just listed all the (few) reasons I like Rove. He is a huge diestraction for the left, who would put more resources into honest-to-goodness things if he weren't around. And I doubt W. is taking any time out of his schedule on this. Good press, little substance. And the whole "I didn't vote for Karl Rove" argument could be held to a boatload of people running things. I didn't vote for Condi Rice either, but you knew she was part of the package, in some respect, going into the second term. Hell, I don't know of anyone that voted for Hillary in the 90s, and I am f***ing sick of that argument. Couldn't agree with you more on kicking ass, but when you're dealing with an opposition that want to coddle the prisoners in Gitmo or release them AND a press that is actively working to undermine your administration, you have more problems that dwarf this non-event. Yeah, minimize the liabilities, but at some point you have to tell them to go to heck. So you cut Rove loose. Guess what. There will be a new outrage that takes its place the next day.

Posted by: Chrees at July 12, 2005 12:57 AM (jjSiK)

2 It's not time for Rove to go until he no longer causes DNC/MSM meltdowns. And besides, lets remember that he's being accused and condemned by the same idiots who unwittingly delivered Dan Rather's head earlier this year. Now, if he suddenly gets caught actually sneaking classified top secret documents out of their libraries by tucking them into his socks, then we can start kicking him around a bit.

Posted by: ccwbass at July 12, 2005 01:00 AM (a1Hm0)

3 Nah, without Rove the leftards might find something of substance to cry about. He's like a babysitter; he keeps the brats occupied while the adults save the world.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at July 12, 2005 01:05 AM (0yYS2)

4 I agree.

Posted by: HundredPercenter at July 12, 2005 01:30 AM (bPVCX)

5 If Rove lied time for him to go. My thoughts: Strange that the liberals loonies can be very understanding about a president that goes on television and says ( I did not have sex with that young woman, no, not one time) while shaking his finger at the whole country. A week later he admits to having sex with this bimbo, in the white house where his family lives. Conclusion. Liberal leaders can tell whopping lies concerning sexual affairs while living in our most honored institution. He must stay. A minor conservative, who may or may not have lied, must be fired. Liberal equals sick, sick, sick. After all. They continue to worship that fat bastard liar Kennedy who killed Mary Jo and continues to lie about it.

Posted by: greyrooster at July 12, 2005 01:51 AM (CBNGy)

6 LMAO @ "Kick some terrorist ass" you fucks are retarded! Yeah, Bush "without hesitation" fights back. What a joke!. I seem to remember that on 9/11, after finding out about the first tower being struck, he proceeded to sit down & read a book to a bunch of kids. THEN, after learning of the second tower being hit, continued to sit there for several minutes with a dumbfounded look on his face. Yeah, definately a strong leader with quick resolve and "no hesitation". YOU FUCKING MORONS! Osama has been forgotten. What you fail to see is that Bush is in fact the real terrorist. Look @ Iraq. He accomplished his agenda of removing Saddam from power. Why are we still there? I mean other than oil? (even though i just paid $2.50 a gallon to fill my car). We have accomplished nothing in Iraq except terrorizing innocent people & losing american lives (let's not forget all of the troops that are mutulated for life to). There is no end in sight either. We are destroying a country and rebuilding it. We are closing schools and hospitals in America & opening them in Iraq. This is all a mess, and the only reason we are there is for Bush's agenda NOT TERRORISM! I love how the length of the ordeal is blamed on the "insurgents". I wonder, if we were occupied by another country, and used our guns to fight back, would we be "insurgents" or patriots? Bush Qaeda is the worst thing to ever happen to this country, and our only hope is to impeach him or shoot him. I vote for the later.

Posted by: Rich at July 12, 2005 03:09 AM (xtkbs)

7 Wow. That is one fat, steaming pile of righteous outrage, Rich. It must have taken you several hours to pinch that loaf. Pray tell us, what exactly is Bush's agenda. You know, I have yet to see it spelled out. Coherently. This is particularly revealing: Bush Qaeda is the worst thing to ever happen to this country, and our only hope is to impeach him or shoot him. I vote for the later.May we safely assume that you're commenting here because you're being temporarily banned from your usual haunts? Whatever the case may be, based on your post I find myself obliged to ask: [1] Do you have a police record? [2] Do your masturbation fantasies involve acting out in violence towards animals or people? [3] Have you ever tortured small animals? [4] Do you still wet your bed, or, if not, did you stop wetting your bed only as you approached your middle-late teenage years? [5] Is your weight somewhere between 155 - 175 pounds? [6] Is your shoe size app. 10 - 11? [7] Are you socially awkward? [8] As you were writing your comments, were you aware of feeling angry, sullen, and determined to retaliate? [9] Did you have ever commit acts of arson when you were a child? [10] Are you blogging from Louisiana? I'm just curious. I'm not implying anything.

Posted by: ccwbass at July 12, 2005 03:39 AM (295tL)

8 (1)no (2)no (3)no (4)no (5)no (6)no (7)no ( plead the 5th (9)no (10)no BTW....your daughter makes some killer pancakes. Her pussy stinks though. So i just fuck her ass. She loves it. No doubt she got that from you

Posted by: Rich at July 12, 2005 03:57 AM (xtkbs)

9 Rusty, I apologize. I'd forgotten that some species of vermin are best left ignored.

Posted by: ccwbass at July 12, 2005 04:12 AM (295tL)

10 Republican people = SHEEPLE

Posted by: Rich at July 12, 2005 05:03 AM (xtkbs)

11 Rove should be fired and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Posted by: greg at July 12, 2005 05:12 AM (YgjBA)

12 Screw it, fire BUSH and let Rove go back to his pigsty!

Posted by: Downing Street Memo at July 12, 2005 05:34 AM (ScqM8)

13 "U.K. Wants Massive EU Monitoring of E-mails, Cell Phones Newsmax | July 11, 2005 In the wake of the deadly London terrorist attacks, British Home Secretary Charles Clarke says millions of personal e-mail and mobile phone records could be stored and shared with police and intelligence officials across Europe to help thwart future attacks, according to an Observer report." And in a related story: Government to monitor when we fart.

Posted by: greg at July 12, 2005 05:44 AM (YgjBA)

14 Speaking of pink piggies, it is time for the milky payoff! "Shit, my wife just retired...Shes more man than you." The cockshockrocker admits the truth! A few years ago, the warty-palmed chicken beater was dressed up in his white pointy-headed Klan suit deep in some forest. He was hunched over a barrel watching some African Americans playing in the park with bad thoughts in mind. A confused man who was too unstable for the military, the Cock-of-the-wall became feather dust.. Love finds all and then he felt two arms on his shoulders - a blind date? Next thing the sheet was ripped apart as a wild, hairy boar drove himself home into the Klanrooster lin a wild sausage-packing frenzy! The bristly belly of the beast was slapping down onto his back while making a bellowing grunting sound.. the hooves locked tight around Rooster's neck and when he spun his head around in shock, he could smell the breath of the boar and feel it's tongue licking his right cheek. Grunt! Grunt! Grunt! Damn, this boar is more man than me! A hogtied morass of a racist bond gone mad!

Posted by: Downing Street Memo at July 12, 2005 06:36 AM (ScqM8)

15 As the boar stuck around and finished his deed, the disheveled Klansman screed, "I am the a**hole king! I can stink up anything!!"

Posted by: Downing Street Memo at July 12, 2005 06:39 AM (ScqM8)

16 The left has no right to "demand" Rove's termination or anything based on their own behavior. If Rove is terminated, it will be because he's causing more damage than good. Period. Is he guilty? I don't know either. If he is, he should not be exempt from any laws. To demonize the entire party and lay blame for everything, including soggy cereal, at Rove's feet is wrong. However, Democrats continue to copy his tactics. The challenge to the Florida vote in 2000? They copied Rove's tactics on that down to the letter. Rove did the same thing 10 or 15 years ago for a judge somewhere in the south (Alabama, I think it was). The only difference is that Rove was successful. There are other instances of their copy-catting if you just give it a little thought. Rusty's right. Political strategists are just what they are. And we all have similar feelings about most politicians. But, where do they get their ideas? Guys like Karl Rove. All we should worry about is when they cross the line from strategy to breaking the law.

Posted by: Oyster at July 12, 2005 06:55 AM (YudAC)

17 Is Rove really Rooster?

Posted by: Downing Street Memo at July 12, 2005 07:46 AM (ScqM8)

18 Does not matter a bit that Rove is innocent. The loonie left will strap on their tin foil hats and cry "CHARGE" in move into the breach once again as they did with CBS's forged document case.

Posted by: Filthy Allah at July 12, 2005 07:58 AM (yBHNA)

19 Now Rusty, I do not see how appeasing the left does W any good. F- the left. ROve did nothing wrong. Zip. Do you really think Pelosi, Kennedy, The Cyclops and Harry Reid will allow business to move forward if Rove is fired? THey will lead you to believe that but, as sure as The Cyclops attended lynchings, no fing way dude.

Posted by: Filthy Allah at July 12, 2005 08:02 AM (yBHNA)

20 No offense, Rusty, but it sounds like you think Rove did something which may or may not have been legal last week rather than back in 2003 and for that he should resign or be fired. Sorry, that may work for you, but doesn't for me. Any distractions provided by Rove will be to the Democrats and to the press, I don't think Bush will be distracted at all. Come on - Bush is a bone-head and bone-heads don't get distracted. Bush planned on taking out Iraq back in 1999 - he did that. He's planning on putting the US in a position to win the war on terra, and he's doing that. Bush is a 'Set and Forget' kind of President. Nor do I think the Joint Chiefs, or Theater Commanders, or the people stationed in Iraq will be distracted because a year and a half ago a person who worked at the CIA and may or may not (it's still not clear) have been an agent or an officer, but - hey - the D.C. Cocktail Circuit knew. So long as none of those parties were catered or hired bartenders, that vital information was secure. fwiw - the blowback on Wilson is going to be interesting. Not from any political point of view, but as issues about the substance of Wilson's statements regarding Bush's policies about terrorism.

Posted by: BumperStickerist at July 12, 2005 08:07 AM (DHSXc)

21 CHICKENHAWKS OF THE WORLD UNITE - JOIN THE ARMY!!

Posted by: Downing Street Memo at July 12, 2005 08:40 AM (ScqM8)

22 Boy, and you guys accuse the left of crazed ranting! There's so much foaming at the mouth at this site, it's coming out of my computer screen. But you seem to ignore the fact that without Herr Karl, your dear leader wouldn't even be in the White House.

Posted by: zen_less at July 12, 2005 08:53 AM (BkYcc)

23 Bush should keep Rove for no other reason than it drives Leftists bonkers. Think of all the Bushrovian conspiracy theories they've amused us with the last few years. All gone.

Posted by: Carlos at July 12, 2005 09:19 AM (8e/V4)

24 I think W should keep Rove around if only to drive the party of the Klan nuts. Byrd wouldn't comment, he was at a lynching this weekend.

Posted by: Filthy Allah at July 12, 2005 09:23 AM (yBHNA)

25 Zen: what happened to consistency? first diebold was how Bush got elected, then "Herr Karl" make up your mind?

Posted by: dave at July 12, 2005 09:24 AM (fsJ2z)

26 >>>"But you seem to ignore the fact that without Herr Karl, your dear leader wouldn't even be in the White House." shorter zenless: Rove was Bush's campaign manager.

Posted by: Carlos at July 12, 2005 09:31 AM (8e/V4)

27 Come on. You don't cavalierly shove out the door someone who knows where are the bodies are buried. And starting with TANG service questions, continuing through the SC primary campaign against McCain, and through the 9-11 fiasco and the Iraq house of lies, there are plenty of them bured. Best they stay where they are, no?

Posted by: John Dillinger at July 12, 2005 09:44 AM (7J3OH)

28 "our only hope is to impeach him or shoot him. I vote for the later." The First Amendment does not protect incitement to violence. And everything about Rich's comments indicates that he is sincere. There's no sarcasm or humor or tongue-in-cheek. Besides, he can't even spell "latter."

Posted by: The Commissar at July 12, 2005 09:51 AM (8UnDt)

29 The ignorance and stupidity of the right-wing is appalling. The lot of you should be shipped to an island somewhere to wallow in your idiocy. The fact is that you are a bunch flag waving pseudo-patriots who are brain dead and donÂ’t deserve to live in this great country of ours. If Washington, Jefferson, Franklin and Adams were in charge today, they'd probably have you all executed on the spot. With all of your high-moral-values macho knee-jerk support-the-troops superficial BS, I ask you: Where is Osama? Your intellect doesn't permit you to have the capacity to even contemplate the following notion: IRAQ IS EXACTLY WHERE OSAMA WANTS US. You are traitors. You are traitors because you aid and abet the enemy. The proof is that you have managed to manipulate our country into meeting every one of OsamaÂ’s goals for America and the free world: 1) Start a Muslim vs. Christian war 2) Live in fear 3) Put our children in debt to fight fear 4) Fight among ourselves and 5) Remove our own personal freedoms. You small-dicked wishing-you-had-bigger-ones morons believe in your pea brains that we are now safer then we were on September 10, 2001. Listen, why donÂ’t you take a shortcut to the live-by-the-sword-die-by-the-sword axiom: cut off your heads and ship them to your fearless leader, Bin Laden.

Posted by: Joe Jackson at July 12, 2005 09:55 AM (HuAid)

30 Joe, are you questioning my patriotism? I'm hurt.

Posted by: Carlos at July 12, 2005 09:59 AM (8e/V4)

31 How can I report a threat towards a protectee? Contact your nearest USSS field office (listed in the "Emergency Numbers" section in the front of most phone books. The Secret Service does not desire or solicit information pertaining to individuals or groups expressing legitimate criticism of, or political opposition to, the policies and decisions of the government of government officials. However, we are interested in legitimate information relating to threats, plans or attempts by individuals, groups or organizations to harm USSS protectees. http://www.treas.gov/usss/faq.shtml#threat

Posted by: dave at July 12, 2005 09:59 AM (fsJ2z)

32 Joe, Are you just angry you got banned on dailykos? since all those bans occurred this site has seen an influx of angry cocksmokers like yourself. get a grip.

Posted by: dave at July 12, 2005 10:05 AM (fsJ2z)

33 Libs caged the nips back in WW2 as a just in case, why are the libs not demanding we cage the beardos now?

Posted by: Filthy Allah at July 12, 2005 10:21 AM (yBHNA)

34 Judith Miller, Robert Novak and the NY Times all know what the truth is on the Plame issue. Is there even one word spoken about forcing them to tell the rest of us? No, of course not. Not when the Bush hating part of the left has Rove in its sights. No, better to cling to these partisan rants about the right being ALL THAT IS EVIL IN THE WORLD and to use their voices to lie, obfuscate and appease those that would gladly kill them if given the chance. Reading some of the comments in this thread leaves me no doubt how the tyrants in our past got ordinary people to commit acts of unspeakable horror against their fellow man. It seems that there are some who would have no problem seeing it happen again. I worry that my children will not get to know the country that I knew. That if some have their way, the constitution will be shredded and those that do not tow the party line will be labeled unworthy of existence. There is a real enemy in this world and it is trying to silence the cry of freedom, and while this happens others will gladly shift the focus from them to those who merely have a difference of opinion. These are sad days for us all.

Posted by: Defense Guy at July 12, 2005 10:30 AM (jPCiN)

35 Dave: I think you're on to something. They can't rant among their buddies whilst patting each other on the back so they scatter and wreak havoc elsewhere. Wouldn't it be more satisfying, if not sustaining, to be amongst one's peers? Or does this carousing satisfy an inner urge to create anarchy? It think it's both. They spend time at Kos to get the affirmation they need before jumping into create and impart hostility among those who are simply of a different mind. There doesn't seem to be any other purpose. They certainly haven't changed my mind. The last thing I'll do is reconsider anything presented by one who tells me I'm an idiot in the same breath.

Posted by: Oyster at July 12, 2005 10:30 AM (fl6E1)

36 Two things are fun here: 1. People saying Rove did nothing wrong. Well, if he is responsible for revealing the identity of an undercover CIA operative, that is a felony. Also, the revelation of Plame's identity affected national security, since she worked with the group trying to reduce the spread of weapons of mass distruction throughout the world. So if Rove did it, he definitely did something wrong. Also, some people are saying that Rove's felonious actions and lies about them are somehow comparable to questions that never should have been asked about a topic that should never have been raised about Clinton's sex life. Clinton got away with actions that had no affect on the security of our country, so Rove should get away with actions that were felonious in and of themselves, and which threaten our securtiy. Yeah, right. 2. People from both sides of this argument reference the sexual proclivities, equipment, and practices of those who have differing views. To me, that says a lot more about the sexual proclivities, equipment, and practices of the people who post such comments than it says about the people about whom they are commenting.

Posted by: Biff Usually at July 12, 2005 10:31 AM (sWea+)

37 Karl Rove did not just out Valarie Plame. He also destroyed the asset called Brewster-Jennings, a CIA front which has been established for 20-30 years. In doing so, the status of dozens of agents have been compromized. Rove is a traitor. He should be shot.

Posted by: POed Lib at July 12, 2005 10:32 AM (EjPK6)

38 The CIA gave Novak permission to print the article 'outing' Mrs. Plame. Given that, I'd really like to know where the crime is.

Posted by: Defense Guy at July 12, 2005 10:41 AM (jPCiN)

39 off topic, but... All Bombers Died in Attacks

Posted by: Editor at July 12, 2005 10:47 AM (adpJH)

40 So much "disassemblng." The CIA did not authorize Novak. As a matter of fact, they were the agency who referred the outing matter to the Justice Department. And God help Republicans if we learn Bush and the White House knew of Rove's little tete-a-tetes with reporters about Plame. What's good for the goose, will be good for the gander. The law of "karma" may well bite Republicans who demanded Clinton be impeached for lying about what should have been a private matter. Finally, for friends of George, pray that Bolton is not called before the special prosecutor. I am very suspicious that his requests for names of secret intelligence communiques may well have been an attempt to find out the poop on Plame. Moreover, I think he's probably the one who told Rove, and possible Miller and Novak about Plame's status as a CIA operative.

Posted by: Mimi Schaeffer at July 12, 2005 10:57 AM (5MWcN)

41 The only reason Bush should not fire Rove is to piss off the demented Bush haters. That's the only reason. Otherwise fire the guy.

Posted by: Carlos at July 12, 2005 11:04 AM (8e/V4)

42 Where did all the lefties come from? Seriously. How did you guys stumble onto my little sandcrawler of a site? I'd be really interested to know. Anyhoo, Rich has been banned for insulting CCWBASS who is a friend of mine and was reading this site back when it was still my little pet jawa and my sitemeter said 10 hits a day.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at July 12, 2005 11:04 AM (JQjhA)

43 Mimi - I'm a wait and see person on whether Rove is guilty of anything. That said, nothing that happens in the White House, particularly the Oval Office is a "private matter" in the way you imply. Clinton lied under oath. I don't care if he lied about the color of his tie. And the constant focus by the left on the blow job is simply ridiculous. Let's talk about facilitating the passage of nuclear secrets to China, Whitewater, Travelgate, and pardoning the likes of Mark Rich to name a few.

Posted by: Oyster at July 12, 2005 11:07 AM (fl6E1)

44 "108,000 Iraqis Killed in 2003 Alone, 39,000 Killed in Fighting, New Swiss Study Finds Mon Jul 11, 2005 2:35 PM ET By Irwin Arieff UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Some 39,000 Iraqis have been killed as a direct result of combat or armed violence since the U.S.-led invasion, a figure considerably higher than previous estimates, a Swiss institute reported on Monday. The public database Iraqi Body Count, by comparison, estimates that between 22,787 and 25,814 Iraqi civilians have died since the March 2003 invasion, based on reports from at least two media sources. No official estimates of Iraqi casualties from the war have been issued, although military deaths from the U.S.-led coalition forces are closely tracked and now total 1,937. The new estimate was compiled by the Geneva-based Graduate Institute of International Studies and published in its latest annual small arms survey, released at a U.N. news conference. It builds on a study published in The Lancet, a British medical journal, last October, which concluded there had been 100,000 "excess deaths" in Iraq from all causes since March 2003. That figure was derived by conducting surveys of Iraqi mortality data during the war and comparing the results to similar data collected before the war. Britain's government rejected The Lancet's conclusions shortly after their publication. The Swiss institute said it arrived at its estimate of Iraqi deaths resulting solely from either combat or armed violence by re-examining the raw data gathered for the Lancet study and classifying the cause of death when it could." Those lying Swiss bastards should stick to making chocolate milk. Gosh!

Posted by: greg at July 12, 2005 11:10 AM (ggN0L)

45 >>>"The Swiss institute said it arrived at its estimate of Iraqi deaths resulting solely from either combat or armed violence by re-examining the raw data gathered for the Lancet study and classifying the cause of death when it could." So the new study is based on the old study that has already been discredited. I'm convinced.

Posted by: Carlos at July 12, 2005 11:15 AM (8e/V4)

46 Greg, does that count include Iraqi deaths from IED's detonated by insurgents? or is this solely casualties caused by coalition activities?

Posted by: dave at July 12, 2005 11:16 AM (fsJ2z)

47 Well since we're talking about presidential pardons, can we include Cap Weinberger and five other convicted Iran-Contra felons Bush Sr pardoned just ahead of him leaving the White House...? I just finished doing a paper on propaganda and its use through mass media by the government. And it goes back to slavery and beyond, "Birth of a Nation," the yellow scare, war on drugs, the built-up of correctional institutional elites, now replaced by military elites, and so on. In fact, I'm beginning to think there may not be as wide a moral gap between Democrats and Republicans; and we need to take $$$$ out of politics and give free air waves to all candidates. If not, corporate power brokers will continue to manipulate the public to its detriment. And for that reason, if McCain should run and win his party's nomination, I will vote for my first Republican presidential candidate since Gerald Ford.

Posted by: Mimi Schaeffer at July 12, 2005 11:17 AM (ywZa8)

48 "The CIA did not authorize Novak. As a matter of fact, they were the agency who referred the outing matter to the Justice Department." In which case, I got some bad information. It happens on occasion. So, would someone be so kind as to tell me exactly which law was broken and which fact proves that Rove was the leak? Or are we now saying that speculation based on a loose collection of 'facts' is now all that is needed to convict someone?

Posted by: Defense Guy at July 12, 2005 11:20 AM (jPCiN)

49 39,000 rotting Iraqi bodies, $300,000,000,000. The joy in the neocon heart, Priceless!

Posted by: greg at July 12, 2005 11:28 AM (im3Ig)

50 I totally agree with taking the dollars out of politics, the constitution does not say that the President should come out of one, of two parties. Time to tear down the two party system with equal funding, and campaign finance reforms.

Posted by: dave at July 12, 2005 11:32 AM (fsJ2z)

51 Yes, much better to save all that money and let Saddam just keep on killing and oppressing.

Posted by: Defense Guy at July 12, 2005 11:33 AM (jPCiN)

52 >>>"39,000 rotting Iraqi bodies" why stop there when 39 kabizillion bodies is so much worse!

Posted by: Carlos at July 12, 2005 11:33 AM (8e/V4)

53 Boy just the mention of Darth Rove's name brings the leftard minions out like bees from a hive. They must Google his name every day looking for any mention so that they can swarm in and spew their moronic drivel then sumgly retreat and feel as if they've just delivered a monumental monologue of crushing logic. It's funny really. I read the crap they write and wonder if they are not really patients at a mental hospital somewhere who have been given internet access for therapeutic purposes, considering their complete ineptness at rhetorical argument, their inability to comprehend logic or reason, their total detachment from reality, and the fact that many obviously need their meds adjusted. I will demonstrate: 1)The sky above greg's house is filled with Jooooos in Black Helicopters™, who spy on him constantly because he knows their secret plans to rule the world, and who use mind control devices on him, against which an aluminum foil hat is the only protection. He believes that there is no worldwide islamofascist terrorist movement, but rather the Jooooooos and Republicans are going around using their mind control devices on poor, unsuspecting muslims to get them to commit crimes for Israel. 2)DSM is a pyromaniac who likes to burn small creatures to death, and has some sort of obsession with greyrooster, thinking he is in the KKK, though greyrooster is far less acerbic toward him than I. 3)Any of a number of transient morons who show up to spout their inanities then leave. They have different arguments, accusations, and conspiracies every week, yet their message is always the same; they hate America, they hate prosperity, and they hate freedom. They will unconditionally support any murderous lunatic anywhere as long as they seek to destroy civilization.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at July 12, 2005 11:36 AM (0yYS2)

54 Smugly, that is.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at July 12, 2005 12:16 PM (0yYS2)

55 All right, I'll leak the news. Lefties and progressives are posting comments 'cause your site was listed by salon.com. The same site who broke the story of Bush being wired during the debates.

Posted by: Mimi Schaeffer at July 12, 2005 12:24 PM (5MWcN)

56 Mimi: And what, pray tell, was salon.com's reason for the listing?

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at July 12, 2005 12:30 PM (x+5JB)

57 >>>"The same site who broke the story of Bush being wired during the debates." Salon "broke the story" like when Dan Rather broke the story about some phony documents?

Posted by: Carlos at July 12, 2005 12:38 PM (8e/V4)

58 Does anybody doubt that if something like this had been done by a Clinton staffer that the Republicans would be screaming "Treason" at the top of their lungs, and pointing the finger not at the staffer but at Clinton himself? But no matter. The media seem obsessed with whether Rove was sneaky enough to evade the intent of the law against revealing the identity of American undercover operatives. In fact, he seems to have done a pretty good job of protecting himself, such as being careful to identify Plame without ever actually "naming" her, making it abundantly clear that Rove knew exactly what he was doing. But that's not terribly interesting, either. Far more interesting than whether Rove will face justice is what the case reveals as to the roots of the Bush Adminstration's many catastrophic intelligence failures in Iraq. The lengths to which the Administration was willing to go to retaliate for what we now know to be correct intelligence about Iraq's nuclear program is symptomatic of an administration that projected hostility toward any intelligence that did not support their preconceived notions. Ultimately, what resulted was a self-reinforcing system in which intelligence analysts were careful not to challenge the Administration's prejudices. Does it matter if Rove steps down or even goes to jail? Somehow, I doubt if it will end his influence in Washington. And while Rove is remarkably good at the dirty tricks business, I don't think that he is solely to blame for the Administration's "tell-me-what-I-want-to-hear" attitude toward intelligence. This sort of pathology comes down from the top.

Posted by: tgibbs at July 12, 2005 12:44 PM (4r59I)

59 Rusty, I dont know about this sudden wash of people with different opinions, but it probably has something to do with teh fact that your site is one of the few rightwing sites that allow for comments. Why there are so few, I will leave to others to discuss. But I assume some of the new readers are here for the same reasons as I am: to see another side of the story, read differing opinions, etc. Some of your regulars have some good and interesting stuff to say and are relatively open to arguement. Of course quite a few fall back on personal attacks and rants about jewish paranoia and are frankly unreadable and I just skip over them. But all in all, look at this as being a good thing, keep the name calling and frankly stupid threats against our president to an absolute minimum and I think we will all benifit from it. Cheers

Posted by: Max at July 12, 2005 12:59 PM (HFKAk)

60 What I like is the defense out there that he didn't actually reveal her name... he just said it was "his wife". Yeah, 'cuz that's hard to track down right?

Posted by: Linny at July 12, 2005 01:00 PM (EFx7r)

61 Max, all rightwing blogs allow for comments. Some require registration, others do not-- just like Leftwing sites.

Posted by: Carlos at July 12, 2005 01:06 PM (8e/V4)

62 Okay, let's assume that the actus reus is factual; that Rove actually said what is alleged. Now, what was his mens rea? Why did he supposedly blow the cover of a CIA analyst? I think it's a case of "the dog in the night".

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at July 12, 2005 01:18 PM (0yYS2)

63 IM: The curious incident of the dog in the night?!

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at July 12, 2005 01:20 PM (x+5JB)

64 It's elementary, my dear Watson!

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at July 12, 2005 01:38 PM (0yYS2)

65 Forget it IM, if you want to bring the actual law into the argument you will find that suddenly no one has an opinion anymore. The law is a mere inconvenience to some righteous bush/rove hatred.

Posted by: Defense Guy at July 12, 2005 01:41 PM (jPCiN)

66 Rusty, sorry for the trouble. In Rich's defense - though it pains me to make it - I did blithely accuse him of being a serial murderer. I think what we're seeing here is the exodus of Daily Kos's and MoveOn.org's moonbats. As soon as they get the all-clear, they'll scutter back to their favorite ponds.

Posted by: ccwbass at July 12, 2005 01:41 PM (y6cNI)

67 IM: Any SILly notions reVERberating around in your head as to the BLAsted story that's from, or is it a haZE?

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at July 12, 2005 01:52 PM (x+5JB)

68 I wish I had time for further discourse, but I am afraid, Watson that I shall have to go... but not to Dartmoor, rather to Abram's Creek. Ta ta!

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

69 And just like Ashcroft (remember when it was all Ashcroft's fault?), he didn't get my dishes clean in the dishwasher last night, either.

Posted by: Jeff Medcalf at July 12, 2005 02:18 PM (go2A+)

70 IM: Hey, I'M Holmes!

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at July 12, 2005 02:22 PM (x+5JB)

71 Rove should be congratulated and given the Presidential medal of freedom. The Dems just want to deprive the President of a valued advisor and friend. Plame and Wilson pulled a scam on the government. She gets her husband sent to do a job he was not qualified to perform. He comes back with poor quality information that is justifiably disregarded. He then LIES about his information in a letter in the NY Times. Also, isn't Judith Miller in jail because she refuses to divulge her source? So, according to the times, they have to protect her source, right? So, if Karl Rove is the source, the Times is doing a freaking bad job of protecting them. The Times KNOWS who Miller's source is and the information that was given. If Rove is the source, then the Times is violating the ethical principle that they claim to be honoring by going after him. Unless of course Rove is NOT the source. But, you know, it is not as if Rove had low level civil servants fired, investigated by the FBI, and prosecuted for a non-existent crime...oh...that was Hillary Clinton and the White House travel office. As always, a Rep J-walks and gets investigated. A Dem commits murder and yells in his defense, "Look, that Republican J-walked!" and the Republican gets investigated.

Posted by: hugh59 at July 12, 2005 02:22 PM (NjHG9)

72 YBP: A little subliminal messaging there?

Posted by: Oyster at July 12, 2005 02:26 PM (fl6E1)

73 subliminibible? ;-)

Posted by: hugh59 at July 12, 2005 02:32 PM (NjHG9)

74 Bush is the only president to head into office with a criminal record

Posted by: Buckeye at July 12, 2005 02:33 PM (1BGJ7)

75 Oyster: Was it obvious?!

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at July 12, 2005 02:39 PM (x+5JB)

76 I'M SPARTACUS!

Posted by: hugh59 at July 12, 2005 02:57 PM (NjHG9)

77 "I'M SPARTACUS!" Hugh59: Great film despite obvious homo-erotic undertones...

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at July 12, 2005 03:01 PM (x+5JB)

78 "Okay, let's assume that the actus reus is factual; that Rove actually said what is alleged. Now, what was his mens rea? Why did he supposedly blow the cover of a CIA analyst? I think it's a case of "the dog in the night". Improbulus - I believe because the dog's husband was the one who revealed the whole "yellow cake" / Iraq shopping for plutonium scam was BS and just an excuse to dupe the American Public into going to war with Iraq due to their rather large pile of "Weapons of Mass Destruction".

Posted by: Whirly at July 12, 2005 03:05 PM (wUILq)

79 Buckeye my brother you are so right! And not only that, Bush and rove are also responsible for this: After frantically trying to stifle the Democratic People Republic of Korea and its Juche-centered system of Korean-style socialism by using satellites to provoke droughts across the land of Juche, the US imperialist criminals of the Bush clique of horrible capitalist contraptions, no doubt at the behest of Karl Rove the puppeteer, are now using hail storms to destroy the rice fields that the Korean people were just finished planting with rice seedlings. This is a clear attempt by the US imperialist monsters at destroying the crops, starving the Korean people. They are changing the weather Buckeye, and they have ruined the crops in the DPRK just like the crows did in the “Little House” books.

Posted by: Tom Tuttle at July 12, 2005 03:10 PM (3OPZt)

80 The reason most of the bigger conservative blogs don't allow comments can be seen easily in this thread - the trolls come out in droves. Michelle Malkin had comments for the first month or so and it was vicious. Much of it sexist, pornographic, and racist, I might add. Even my relatively small site has its trolls, but nothing like this thread. For most bloggers, it's too much of a headache to manage. If more commenters were like Max, I believe there would be more conservative blogs with comments. I comment very rarely on lefty blogs, mostly because I don't see any reason to converse with people who'll insult me.

Posted by: MartiniPundit at July 12, 2005 03:18 PM (fLdsW)

81 Clinton only President accused of Rape. Hillary Clinton, only female senator with a penis bigger than her husband.

Posted by: OBsnooks at July 12, 2005 03:22 PM (yBHNA)

82 Rusty, you just made CNN.

Posted by: IreneFingIrene at July 12, 2005 03:25 PM (DyTGg)

83 Hey...it's not TREASON if you have a REASON! Republican Party chief Ken Mehlman: " ...The bottom line is that Karl Rove was discouraging a reporter from writing a false story based on a false premise and the Democrats are engaging in blatant partisan political attacks." I personally find it SO refreshing that Rove was more concerned with journalistic accuracy than with National Security. Kind of makes me feel all warm and fuzzy about the guy. www.pettyrage.com

Posted by: LeftyJones at July 12, 2005 03:25 PM (JdEtR)

84 "Clinton only President accused of Rape. Hillary Clinton, only female senator with a penis bigger than her husband." Ok, I say Karl Rove raped me. There, now Karl Rove is an "accused rapist". Accusations don't mean squat unless they are proved. And by the way, no agents or agencies of the USA were harmed by Clinton's blowjob - so everyone can stop comparing Rove's screwup with Bubba's. As for wanting to look at Hilary naked to get your other info - I can only speculate at the stages of your mental illness... [shudders]

Posted by: Whirly at July 12, 2005 03:46 PM (wUILq)

85 AAh yes, the face of the modern left, decidedly pro-adultery. Also, let us not forget the brave stance he took in lying to the American public and then not being quite sure what the definition of ‘is’ is. Let us also forget that if Clinton had taken up the offer to have Bin Laden handed to us we wouldn't be looking for him now. In addition, his courageous stance at running away from Somalia is used as proof by Bin Laden that we are just a paper tiger. You are right, there is absolutely no comparison. But hey, Chimpy McHaliburton probably was responsible for all that too, or was it his little dog Rove?

Posted by: Defense Guy at July 12, 2005 03:54 PM (jPCiN)

86 Then again, I voted for him --- twice. Sorry.

Posted by: Defense Guy at July 12, 2005 03:55 PM (jPCiN)

87 I voted against him--twice!

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at July 12, 2005 03:59 PM (x+5JB)

88 Interesting way to make sure the lefty-blogosphere links to you. Now why didn't I think of this? I think I will rush back to my site (http://www.socalpundit.com) and write something along the lines of MR. BUSH PULL OUT OF IRAQ NOW!!!! A headline The Jawa Report can be proud of!

Posted by: Kevin at July 12, 2005 05:22 PM (Fg7uL)

89 To the person who asked what Bush's "Real" agenda is: To steal from the poor and give to the rich. Next!

Posted by: Robert at July 12, 2005 06:42 PM (XE8HR)

90 Scum, Rove may be. But there is no Bush without Rove.

Posted by: Sirkowski at July 12, 2005 07:06 PM (dsREQ)

91 Defense Guy: Don't feel too bad. I voted for Ross Perot. The next election I hated everyone so I wrote myself in.

Posted by: Oyster at July 12, 2005 07:34 PM (YudAC)

92 I hate everyone every election Oyster, but I bite the bullet and push the damnable button anyway, because "none of the above" isn't an option. The only exception I'll probably ever make is Condi '08, she's smokin' baby!

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at July 12, 2005 08:12 PM (0yYS2)

93 Spoken like a true Chicken Hawk, Rusty. The day you'd ever pick up a weapon and back up your tough talk is the day I start drinking 46 oz. Mountain Dews in one sitting. But I suppose no leftists, no liberals ever defended this country. Only my brother, who has been "over there" for more than one tour, and who wisely thinks this war and everything you think should happen on the GWOT front is just freaking pathetic.

Posted by: Professor Peter Von Nostrand at July 13, 2005 01:24 AM (h9w01)

94 Of course, perfesser, of course. Perfesser of what anyway, Transgendered Afro-Aztec Gay Asian Women's Studies in a Postmodern Deconstructionist Context as Observed by Chomsky, Interpreted on the Conga Drum 101? By the way, Rusty isn't the warmonger, I am. And I'm a ten year, medically retired, Gulf War vet, and I can nail you through your tinfoil hat from 600 yards with open sights. You chickenshit traitors have nothing to say but "chickenhawk", as if producing a trump card and declaring victory. All you leftards know is how to repeat a slogan or buzzword ad nausem, i.e. the tactics of the Big Lie, but we are smarter than you are, and we know your tricks. Your days are numbered and the Hour of Doom approaches. Neither you nor your terrorist friends will survive the coming cleansing.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at July 13, 2005 01:37 AM (0yYS2)

95 Bush will not fire Karl Rove. Ever. Karl was the "Architect" of Bush's campaign, and nothing points to any wrongdoing by Rove. The President is a man who believes in loyalty, and he's not going to fire a good friend, and one of the best strategists and advisers in the business.

Posted by: Art Green at July 13, 2005 03:50 AM (G7DKH)

96 Grunt Grunt!!

Posted by: Downing Street Memo at July 13, 2005 06:45 AM (ScqM8)

97 As erudite and eloquent as always, DSM, you are a fine spokestroll for the leftards. And you morons wonder why you keep losing elections.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at July 13, 2005 11:54 AM (0yYS2)

98 So Rove released Cooper from his pledge of confidentiality. Yet Judith Miller is still in jail because she won't talk. Did Rove specifically decline to release Miller, perhaps because he wasn't as careful to evade the letter of the law in his conversations with her?

Posted by: tgibbs at July 13, 2005 02:42 PM (4r59I)

99 Hey Rusty, Check out Improbulus Maximus. These are the sort of freaking radical morons you are inciting. Proud?

Posted by: Professor Peter Von Nostrand at July 13, 2005 02:45 PM (h9w01)

100 Von Nostrand: Trust me--IM doesn't need inciting.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at July 13, 2005 02:55 PM (x+5JB)

101 I have to add about salon reporting on Bush being wired. Sweethearts, they had the pictures to prove it!!!!!!!

Posted by: Mimi Schaeffer at July 13, 2005 09:25 PM (M7kiy)

102 I have to add about salon reporting on Bush being wired. Sweethearts, they had the pictures to prove it. You know, like Monica's dress and Cooper's emails.

Posted by: Mimi Schaeffer at July 13, 2005 09:25 PM (M7kiy)

103 Black muslims stink.

Posted by: greyrooster at July 13, 2005 11:22 PM (CBNGy)

104 White racists stink even more...

Posted by: osamabeenthere at July 14, 2005 02:28 PM (1zM97)

105 Wow. I'm frankly a little disturbed at the hatred here. For just a moment, kindly drop your party affiliation and look at this situation as an American rather than as a Dem, Rep, lib, con, etc... This is a relatively simple matter: If Rove knowingly gave up information that led to Plame's outing, he broke a federal law. And a big one. Now, as to his reasons, I think intimidation serves as a reasonable motive. In an administration that has no desire to hear opinions, however well-founded, that oppose its policy, intimidation is often used to suppress would-be dissenters. Can we extrapolate from the evidence so far that that's what happened? Not exactly. Would it be wiser to learn the facts of the matter before assuming that any indiscretion took place? Certainly. Will it make a damned bit of difference in the long run? Probably not. If you don't mind my saying so, you do your like-minded fellows a disservice with the sophomoric name-calling. It's simply not constructive, cathartic as it may be. Appreciating the concerns and viewpoints of different-minded people is a virtue, and you can't claim to have a reasoned opinion if you have to resort to characterization based on somebody's political beliefs. There ought to be room in this country for a blend of viewpoints and solutions to problems. Until you can accept that somebody else may have a valid answer, you're basically counting on being right 100% of the time. What's your batting average? Don't bother with the character bashing on my account - I just surfed in here, and I won't be back, but all this trash talk just gave me pause, and I felt like posting. Thanks for the bits.

Posted by: FirstTimePoster at July 14, 2005 03:42 PM (xTkua)

106 There is no point firing Rove. The lefties are going to complain about everything... This is just going to encourage them.

Posted by: forrest at July 14, 2005 04:20 PM (Xucpy)

107 Read Downing Street Morons posts above. Once again I am right. Nothing but ghetto trash. Damn they are easy to spot. Back on de porch monkey.

Posted by: greyrooster at July 16, 2005 11:30 PM (V+tDH)

108 MIMI: I'm glad you're finished with your paper. Do you think perhaps it is leaning to one side?

Posted by: greyrooster at July 16, 2005 11:41 PM (V+tDH)

109 FIRST TIME POSTER: Very well written post. Must be nice to be able to surf in for a few moments and be able to understand the history behind many of the blogs and why they act as they do. Why not spend a little time and listen to some of the pro terrorist, anti American crap, then post again.

Posted by: greyrooster at July 16, 2005 11:46 PM (V+tDH)

110 Figured that one would draw you out. THANK GOD FOR THE SICKLE CELL.

Posted by: greyrooster at July 16, 2005 11:49 PM (V+tDH)

111 I love everyone. And prace God who will make sure evil and fear does not win over faith. Yes, from a Southern Baptist, born-again Christian who is left/center politically.

Posted by: Mimi Schaeffer at July 17, 2005 12:38 AM (ywZa8)

112 Ain't it funny when someone from the right gets caught doing "something bad" they always seem to blame the "liberal press" for reporting on it? As far as I know the "liberal press" didn't make Rove out Plame - he did it all himself. But let's not let that stop us from shooting the messenger.

Posted by: someguy at July 18, 2005 10:38 AM (wUILq)

113 Mimi- Faith and God is what got both sides into this mess to begin with. When people stop trying to declare who's imiginary friend is bettter than someone else's imiginary friend, the world will be a much better place.

Posted by: organizedreligionsux at July 18, 2005 10:40 AM (wUILq)

114 Karl, get your dick over here and stick it back in my ass. How does it feel to have a cock in the presidents ass? Left Wing = Conservative Bush lovers. Christians, vote with your brains, not your penises stop looking at Britney Spears and vote for us RIGHT WINGers!

Posted by: I need it in me at July 19, 2005 11:32 PM (N89Uw)

115 speaking of idiots. . To the " RICH " man.. What a moron ! hahaha BUSH WASN'T READING TO THE CHILDREN, THE CHILDREN WERE READING TO HIM. . If you can't get a face that simple straight, then don't even bother trying to argue.

Posted by: Paul at July 21, 2005 10:43 AM (o0jsT)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

A video has emerged connecting the London bombing to Islamist forces. While this might be old news to some, you may recall that I was on vacation and I hadn't seen this anywhere else. Images from the video are posted below. To download the entire video, go here then scroll down to "London blast" on July 8th. Another Islamist produced video can be found here on July 9th.

The first video features images from the blast results and what appears to be footage on a moving bus with audio of jihadi sermons. The second video features images from the blasts results juxtaposed with casualties of the Afghanistan and Iraq war suggesting that the bombings were just retribution--a song popular in al Qaeda movies is playing in the background. Osam bin Laden is also shown preaching in the second video.

Images below. more...

Posted by: Rusty at 11:43 PM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 167 words, total size 2 kb.

1 BUSH Qaeda Yeah, that's right you twisted right wing fucks! If you all werent twisted tyrants and mindless sheep, you would have figured this out yourselves. Your "commander-in-chief", the ever manipulating George W Bush, is infact the most dangerous and powerful terrorist in the world. No, contrary to what Bush has told you, it's not Osama BEEN FORGOTTEN. Bush uses fear to manipulate you "sheeple" (as i like to refer to you retards), to get you all behind him so that he can carry out his agenda. I believe the 9/11 attacks & even the London bombings are the work of Bush Qaeda (although i have no proof)but hey, who needs proof these days? Bush can make up a story about WMD's to justify attacking a country that was never a threat to us, then blame it on poor intelligence. You fucks make me sick, still driving around with your Bush 04 stickers and your support our troops bumper stickers. My favorite is "red, white & blue!....these colors dont run"...haha...how much more redneck can you get? Now dont get me wrong, i want the troops to make it home safe, after all, i'm not an evil tyrant or a war mongar like good 'ol Bush, but to say that they are there fighting for freedom is bullshit! they are there fighting for Bush's agenda. Bush cares about him and his oil tycoon buddies(the Saudi's) getting rich and that is all there is to it. He could give a shit about you, me or the troops. Here is an idea for a bumper sticker "SUPPORT OUR TROOPS...ASSASSINATE BUSH" haha....I would buy that. Bush is the worst thing to happen to America. I can only hope that people wake up sometime soon and impeach this cocksucker. After all, you twisted right wing fucks tried to oust Clinton for lieing about a blow job for christ sake! what's worse?, lieing about your sex life or lieing about WMD's and countless other things? It's sad that so many people follow such a total moron like Bush. It doesnt say much for all of you.

Posted by: Rich at July 12, 2005 02:26 AM (xtkbs)

2 Rich CHILL OUT Greg Do you think that maybe Bush recorded that video with his good mate Tony/off

Posted by: sparky at July 12, 2005 04:48 AM (F1nba)

3 Sparkstress, The video isn't evidence of muslim involvement in the bombings. Similar videos are being shown on the news channels here in Italy. It is merely evidence that that quarter is celebrating the incident. Rich, Be careful what you say about Bush. My good buddy received a visit at work by two Secret Service Agents because he had made comments on the internet that could be construed as threatening to Bush. They interrogated him for a few hours and then let him go. My friend's boss then fired him.

Posted by: greg at July 12, 2005 04:58 AM (YgjBA)

4 Thanks for the warning greg. I believe it. Bush's doesnt like us having rights. He claims he stands for freedom, but those of us who know better, know that is just one of the many things he lies about. He is a filthy whore to the Saudi's, nothing more.

Posted by: Rich at July 12, 2005 05:10 AM (xtkbs)

5 Yes, you're right Rich Since when did these "Nazi Gestapo" "Secret Service" agents protect a sitting President? This might be a startling revelation for someone who babbles incoherent about a President, but the Secret Service have been investigating pinheads that threaten the President since their inception! Seeing as you just threatened the President with your "bumper stricker" motto, I can only hope these "BUSH=HITLER" goons take you to the backroom and sodomize you with a cowprod

Posted by: dave at July 12, 2005 06:42 AM (fsJ2z)

6 Greg Enjoy your holiday

Posted by: sparky at July 12, 2005 07:10 AM (F1nba)

7 Go to conspiracy planet.com those wackos are having a field day over there,the bombings were done by mossad,psyops,tony blair,etc....its allthe Isrealis and the U.s. fault,not the low life rag heads that cant even read the stupid koran.....heh...heh...hehe....dumbass muslims living in a cave like animals...he...hee...ho...hah..hah..

Posted by: tim at July 12, 2005 08:25 AM (FWGcT)

8 >>>"They interrogated him for a few hours and then let him go. My friend's boss then fired him." LMAO!!!! HAHAHAHA!!! couldn't have happened to a better guy. The other day I got an email from a Bush hater with his e-signature at the bottom. He was going off like a regular moonbat (see Rich above). I seriously considered forwarding it to his boss just to get him fired. But I felt sorry for the stupid loser.

Posted by: Carlos at July 12, 2005 09:27 AM (8e/V4)

9 Carlos: You could have felt sorry for him AND had him fired!

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at July 12, 2005 10:31 AM (x+5JB)

10 Carlos I am glad you showed restraint. In this country, everyone is entitled to whatever opinion that they wish to have, so long as it does not lead to violence or subjugation of their constitutionally protected rights. This is one of the things that irritates our enemies the most.

Posted by: Defense Guy at July 12, 2005 10:37 AM (jPCiN)

11 This conspiracy stuff is really out of control. Why aren't any of them blaming the Spanish government for blowing up the Madrid Train Station? Why aren't they blaming the Moroccon Government for the car bombs in Casablanca? Why aren't they blaming the Bali government for the Bali nightclub bombing? Why are they exempt from these conspiracies? These were all done by Islamic fanatics as well as the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and The London tube. I'll tell you why. They are TOTALLY disconnected from reality.

Posted by: Oyster at July 12, 2005 10:40 AM (fl6E1)

12 What conspiracy? Everyone knows that everything that's happening is as called for in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, right greg? All together now: It's the JOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooos!!! Today I'm going to eat lunch at a kosher deli, drop by the local temple to give the Rabbi a big hug and leave a donation for Israel, then buy an IDF sweatshirt here: http://www.israelmilitary.com/ . Later today I will go the bookstore, as is my wont, and hang out in the political books section. When I spot someone with a moonbat book, I will walk silently past and whisper "The Jews are watching.", then slip away with a nervous glance over my shoulder. It will be a good day.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at July 12, 2005 12:27 PM (0yYS2)

13 IM: Remember the famous graffito scrawled in chalk on Goulson Street near a victim in the Jack the Ripper case? "The Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing."

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at July 12, 2005 12:49 PM (x+5JB)

14 Oyster The only reason they only blame us is because they can and we let them.You must have figured out by now that all the worlds problems lie with us and yourselves WE BAD Sticks and stones may break our bones but names will never hurt us

Posted by: Sparky at July 12, 2005 01:03 PM (F1nba)

15 "The Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing." Precisely! The double negative shows that they will be blamed for everything, which of course proves that they are guilty of nothing but being different.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at July 12, 2005 01:41 PM (0yYS2)

16 Greg's making up stories again. Rich is just obviously pro-terrorist.

Posted by: SPQR at July 12, 2005 09:23 PM (xauGB)

17 Morons of a feather flock together.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at July 13, 2005 01:38 AM (0yYS2)

18 Dirty stinky foul mouthed black muslims like Downing Street Moron should be hanged.

Posted by: geyrooster at July 13, 2005 11:27 PM (CBNGy)

19 Rich: Since you start using cocksucker and such you now belong with the traitor group which includes Greg, babler, downing street moron and butch. Why not just E-mail them direct. You guys should have fun.

Posted by: greyrooster at July 16, 2005 06:56 PM (CBNGy)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Evan Kohlmann of the Counterterrorism blog e-mailed telling me he had done some interesting research on a suspect in the London bombings, Abu Musab al-Suri (a.ka. Mustafa Setmarian Nasari). It seems that al Suri has that whole "I wasn't involved in that act of terrorism, but I wish I had" thing act down to an art.

-He denies involvement in 9/11--but praises it and laments the fact.
-He denies involvement in the Madrid train bombings--but praises it and calls it a legitimate act of resistance.
-He denies working with serial infidel beheader Abu Musab al-Zarzawi--but prays for his safety.

But here's the money quote:

...It is not a far cry from justice to adopt the slogan, 'Dirty Bombs for a Dirty Nation [the U.S.]....Let the American people--those who voted for killing, destruction, the looting of other nation's wealth, megalomania, and the desire to control others--be contaminated with radiation! We apologize for the radioactive fallout."

Posted by: Rusty at 09:30 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 214 words, total size 2 kb.

Where do I think bin Laden is? more...

Posted by: Rusty at 04:51 PM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 15 words, total size 1 kb.

Backlash? Terrible if true.

I hate to use the word but when speaking of something as horrible as a mosque firebombing. It seems like so much moral equivocation.

[Insert one act of injustice here] but [insert even greater act of injustice here].

In fact, I heard a British imam on NPR's Talk of the Nation using this tactic today. Condemning the London transportation bombings but noting that the Bush-Blair policies in Iraq and Afghanistan were so much worse and really the catalyst for the bombings. You know, the bombings were backlash against the war in Iraq. Daniel Benjamin makes much the same argument.

So be careful when using the word but and comparing two unequal wrongs.

Having made that disclaimer let me note that irrational backlash is wrong, but:

Incidentally, so long as we're so concerned about "backlash" -- the anti-Christian anti-Jew anti-Hindu anti-"apostate Muslim" "backlash" seems to have a much greater bodycount than the alleged anti-Muslim "backlash."

It sure would be nice to see Muslims have 1% of the concern for the "backlash" against the non-Muslim world -- the world that is actually experiencing mass-butchery at the hands of Muslims -- as they do for the hypothetical, always-on-the-horizon-but-never-quite-arriving "backlash" against themselves.

I'm far more worried about Islamic backlash than about any other type of backlash. Backlashes there be a plenty in a world of action-reaction.

Pop quiz. Which is worse?

a) Theo Van Gogh's backlash against mysogeny in the Islamic world in the form of his controversial film Submission.

b) Mohammed Bouyeri's backlash against Theo Van Gogh's controversial film Submission.

Posted by: Rusty at 04:36 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 256 words, total size 2 kb.

Ok, the source for the story seems pretty iffy to me and the alarmist nature of the report seems way over the top, but I was a Boy Scout and was always taught to be prepared for the worst case scenario. If true, this would definitely qualify as worst case. Anyway, interesting reading when taken with the proper skepticism. WND:

According to captured al-Qaida leaders and documents, the plan is called the "American Hiroshima" and involves the multiple detonation of nuclear weapons already smuggled into the U.S. over the Mexican border with the help of the MS-13 street gang and other organized crime groups.

Al-Qaida has obtained at least 40 nuclear weapons from the former Soviet Union – including suitcase nukes, nuclear mines, artillery shells and even some missile warheads. In addition, documents captured in Afghanistan show al-Qaida had plans to assemble its own nuclear weapons with fissile material it purchased on the black market....

But the most disturbing news is that high level U.S. officials now believe at least some of those weapons have been smuggled into the U.S. for use in the near future in major cities as part of this "American Hiroshima" plan, according to an upcoming book, "The al-Qaida Connection: International Terrorism, Organized Crime and the Coming Apocalypse," by Paul L. Williams, a former FBI consultant.

According to Williams, former CIA Director George Tenet informed President Bush one month after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that at least two suitcase nukes had reached al-Qaida operatives in the U.S.

"Each suitcase weighed between 50 and 80 kilograms (approximately 110 to 176 pounds) and contained enough fissionable plutonium and uranium to produce an explosive yield in excess of two kilotons," wrote Williams. "One suitcase bore the serial number 9999 and the Russian manufacturing date of 1988. The design of the weapons, Tenet told the president, is simple. The plutonium and uranium are kept in separate compartments that are linked to a triggering mechanism that can be activated by a clock or a call from the cell phone."

According to the author, the news sent Bush "through the roof," prompting him to order his national security team to give nuclear terrorism priority over every other threat to America....

According to Williams' sources, thousands of al-Qaida sleeper agents have now been forward deployed into the U.S. to carry out their individual roles in the coming "American Hiroshima" plan.

Bin Laden's goal, according to the book, is to kill at least 4 million Americans, 2 million of whom must be children. Only then, bin Laden has said, would the crimes committed by America on the Arab and Muslim world be avenged.

There is virtually no doubt among intelligence analysts al-Qaida has obtained fully assembled nuclear weapons, according to Williams. The only question is how many. Estimates range between a dozen and 70. The breathtaking news is that an undetermined number of these weapons, including suitcase bombs, mines and crude tactical nuclear weapons, have already been smuggled into the U.S. – at least some across the U.S.-Mexico border.

The future plan, according to captured al-Qaida agents and documents, suggests the attacks will take place simultaneously in major cities throughout the country – including New York, Boston, Washington, Las Vegas, Miami, Chicago and Los Angeles.

Posted by: Rusty at 12:48 PM | Comments (68) | Add Comment
Post contains 553 words, total size 4 kb.

1 Time for some serious investigative work. I wonder if the conspiracy buffs on the Left will pooh-pooh stories like this.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at July 11, 2005 12:57 PM (x+5JB)

2 YBP, I can't speak for the left, but I've been called a nut for reporting stories much more credible than this one. If fanatics had a bomb in the US, they would have blown it up by now. Why wait to coordinate attacks? Just blow them up as they become available. One bomb would be plenty to get our attention. By delaying the attacks so that they can be coordinated, the terrorists risk being discovered, especially now that it is being discussed on weblogs. This is just more booga boooga designed to make us more compliant to a government with designs on abolishing the Constitution. I was a VFD in the Hays, Blanco County area for many years. If I were a terrorist, I'd buy 100 Bic lighters and an SUV and travel around the country starting fires every 50 miles. You wouldn't get caught. Imagine a thousand wildfires set off in July and August. There isn't enough water in the US to fight 1000 major wildfires. Either the 'terrorists' have no imagination or there are no terrorists.

Posted by: greg at July 11, 2005 01:20 PM (iWcdC)

3 Either the 'terrorists' have no imagination or there are no terrorists. Oy - I was going to say how Farah's reliability was almost zilch, some of the worst I've ever seen, but then Greg opened his mouth and totally took the steam right out of my argument.

Posted by: Editor at July 11, 2005 01:25 PM (adpJH)

4 But we deserve it. Our military industrial complex destroys lives blah blah blah Haliburton blah blah blah Chimpy lied blah blah blah Chomsky said so. Etc.

Posted by: Leopold Stotch at July 11, 2005 01:25 PM (/sTqi)

5 Greg--I think a fire or two might get started before witnesses would start to come forward to identify your SUV.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at July 11, 2005 01:29 PM (x+5JB)

6 All you've got to do is look in your review mirror and if the coast is clear, you flick your cigarette out the window. Hell, I've probably started fires without even knowing it back in my smoking days. In Texas, the dead spring grass is so dry in the summer that if you pull off the side of the road, your muffler starts a fire instantly. If I wanted to, I could have the whole state burning in 5 days. Imagine what 20 firebugs could do.

Posted by: greg at July 11, 2005 01:40 PM (iWcdC)

7 If I wanted to, I could have the whole state burning in 5 days. Sounds like you've thought about this a little too much, Greg. You should really choose your words a little more wisely - those are classic words of a psychopath.

Posted by: Editor at July 11, 2005 01:55 PM (adpJH)

8 Editor: I truly don't think Greg is a psychopath. Not certifiable, at least. Greg: I think a lot of people thought they could get away with crimes if they just looked in their rear-view mirrors. You'd be surprised how witnesses seem to come out of the woodwork.

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

9 MOST people get caught who commit major crimes. (Whether the ACLU gets them off, though, is another story.)

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at July 11, 2005 02:08 PM (x+5JB)

10 If I was AQ, I'd want to blow all my nukes at the same time for maximum effect. If they only blow one at a time, it's likely this country would be locked down so tight they'd be unable to move additional nukes without getting busted. Even greg would be out looking for those guys (or maybe he's still be blaming Bush, I don't know).

Posted by: Carlos at July 11, 2005 02:14 PM (8e/V4)

11 No greg, there are no terrorists, it's all a Joooooooish plot designed to distract us while they... well what is it they want to do? Something involving Black Helicopters™, I'm sure. You are possibly the most moronic, idiotic, stupid Chicken Little I've ever heard of. You're even stupider than kos, and that says a lot.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at July 11, 2005 02:16 PM (0yYS2)

12 As much as I hate to say it, I must agree with greg with this one, as he said a single bomb would be enough for a mass casualty event. isn't it also funny how the same gangs that are being targetted by the 'minutemen' (MS-13) and with the same agenda (crossing the mexican boarder) are also mentioned in this article. If they had forty weapons, I doubt they would need to build more. This smells like "seal the boarder" scare mongering from here.

Posted by: dave at July 11, 2005 02:19 PM (fsJ2z)

13 From a logistical perspective one would assume that AQ would pursue this track with complete abandon. The PR victory from a nuke attack on the US would be priceless. Now whether or not they have these bombs is another story. If they did, why not wait? They would assume an attack of this magnitude could be a final and descisive blow. Imagine every single major shipping port in the US being nuked. L.A., Boston Harbor, etc. etc, throw in a couple of refinerys for good measure, and as the cherry on top remove 5% of the work force. You just might initiate a very long downward spiral. It would be tough to recover from something of that magnitude, if we truly ever could. Anty

Posted by: Anty at July 11, 2005 02:20 PM (K/zPN)

14 "The PR victory from a nuke attack on the US would be priceless." Yes, until the reprisals began. There would be mass slaughter of muslims in America, and probably massive bombing of cities in Iran and Syria just for starters, and possibly nuclear retaliation against several countries. America would survive, but it would be the beginning of the end for islam.

Posted by: Imrpobulus Maximus at July 11, 2005 02:24 PM (0yYS2)

15 I have heard rumors--and they are only rumors--that back channels were opened to bin Laden after 9/11 that threatened dropping a nuke on Mecca if a WMD was ever used in the U.S. A MAD logic with Islamist extremists. That could explain why they don't detonate.... Then again, the most likely reason they haven't used nukes is that a) they don't have them or b) they haven't been able to smuggle them into U.S.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at July 11, 2005 02:33 PM (JQjhA)

16 subject: Councilman ejected from studio T. Bubba Bechtol, part time City Councilman from Midland, TX, was asked on a local live radio talk show the other day just what he thought of the allegations of torture of the Iraqi prisoners. His reply prompted his ejection from the studio, but to thunderous applause from the audience. "If hooking up an Iraqi prisoner's scrotum to a car's battery cables will save one American GI's life, then I have just two things to say": "Red is positive" "Black is negative"

Posted by: eyerocker at July 11, 2005 02:39 PM (rLMxn)

17 'Misguided Criminals'[BBC Lead today] OK Folks, I do know that G2 does attrackt it's share of tin foil types but from time to time there is good stuff that comes from there. See my comment over at Wizbang: WB Link Other venues have discussed for several years the Soviet suitcase nukes that don't seem to be accounted for. As to why AQ has not struck in the US, I heard somewhere from a Pundit [NEWS channel] is that AQ is very aware of the MAD theory. There is a manuscript that was found in one of the Baltic countries that detailed this plan of attack. That's why they struck in Spain when they did and also last week in London. Just enough to twitch our noses a little and to get the LL and the MSM rolling again on the meme "It must be all our fault for the 'misguided criminals'[BBC Lead today]"

Posted by: Ron Wright at July 11, 2005 02:39 PM (mrka3)

18 1. On 9/11 the SAC Base where Air Force One landed in Lousiana was conducting an exercise & the bombers were armed & ready! 2. If you check closely enough you will find reports that cancer patients riding mass transit in NYC are carrying letters from their doctors, because they are tired of being strip searched for setting off the RADIATION monitors that we DO NOT HAVE!

Posted by: Sine Nomine at July 11, 2005 02:42 PM (kLzBj)

19 I have no doubts that they wish to obtain nuclear devices, I have doubts they have received any. even if they were offered I doubt they could identify a real device, from fake: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/02/27/wdupe27.xml&sSheet=/news/2002/02/27/ixworld.html where they purchased irradiated containers, containing metal.

Posted by: dave at July 11, 2005 02:54 PM (fsJ2z)

20 As any astute investor knows, the worst case scenario is as likely as the best case scenario. That doesn't mean that there isn't a threat or that we should all assume Al Qaeda won't try something of this magnitude. BUT, I'd say the "worst case scenario" of multiple nukes is far less likely than other scenarios (say, one nuke). Which, again, doesn't mean that it's nothing. One nuke is more than enough. Now, assuming this story is true, wouldn't we have expected a total fucking roundup of every MS-13 gang member and have their asses hauled down for some serious interrogations? Surely there are rap sheets on these fucks and some kind of validation could be done one way or the other. In all honesty, I think the article is a lot of fear-mongering. The government needs to be on guard for these kinds of things, for sure, but I'd say that if this article is as legit as its author claims, then a lot of work has already been done behind the scenes. It's definitely unsettling stuff, regardless.

Posted by: Venom at July 11, 2005 03:00 PM (dbxVM)

21 "I have heard rumors--and they are only rumors--that back channels were opened to bin Laden after 9/11 that threatened dropping a nuke on Mecca if a WMD was ever used in the U.S. A MAD logic with Islamist extremists." I can't see someone so evil (bin Laden) caring about this.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at July 11, 2005 03:03 PM (x+5JB)

22 Editor pissed me off with his snide remark, so I did some investigating and have identified him. I shall now reveal his identity to everyone: http://www.wackedup.com/Rants/head%20up%20ass.jpg

Posted by: greg at July 11, 2005 03:05 PM (Di+L7)

23 http://www.globaloptions.com/news_5-22-03.htm Look Al Qaeda are going to attack cheap medication from Mexico and Canada!!! How is it that some of these warnings happen to coincide with other agendas? e.g nuclear bombs + MS-13 + Mexico border (along with the minutemen whom claim the same) Then cheap medication, just so happening around the same time the Medicine companies were attempting to ban all imports of medication from both Canada and Mexico?

Posted by: dave at July 11, 2005 03:09 PM (fsJ2z)

24 Greg talks to friends via CB, on the topic that WTC7 was "Pulled" http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y32/mryoop789/tinfoil-hat.jpg

Posted by: dave at July 11, 2005 03:15 PM (fsJ2z)

25 http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y32/mryoop789/tinfoil-hat.jpg

Posted by: Editor at July 11, 2005 03:27 PM (adpJH)

26 Bush went "through the roof." I'd believe that more if he wasn't so keen on keeping the Mexico border porous. Not that I don't doubt the gist of the rest of the article, unfortuantely.

Posted by: Chrees at July 11, 2005 03:30 PM (ofjz/)

27 Bull$hit! If these beheading arab-terrorist-buttrammers had a single nuke many of us would already be dead. If they had 70 they would not hang around and plot, they'd blow one or two and threaten to spark the rest unless demands were met. I ain't skeered.

Posted by: King at July 11, 2005 03:40 PM (DIg3w)

28 That and why would MS-13 want to nuke thier cash cow the US? I think that not covering the borders is a gamble that is being played by the politicians. Whether or not it will payoff is another story. But I don't have to sneak across the mexican border to pop off a "Red Pill" in Boston harbor. Hell a zodiac coming form intl. waters can do that better than some coyote running across the desert. Anty

Posted by: Anty at July 11, 2005 03:40 PM (K/zPN)

29 King, do you believe that there are AQ cells in the US right now? If so then your argument does not hold water. Any of these cells has the capability to bomb a mall pretty much unfettered. But a functioning US AQ cell is worth a a lot more than a bus bomb. Especially if AQ thinks that they can get nukes into the country. Why risk exposure on some small operation when you got bigger things in the works? But in the end, there is only 2 ways we will know if they got a nuke in. Anty

Posted by: Anty at July 11, 2005 03:52 PM (K/zPN)

30 Um. This really does seem to be a piece of garden-variety fear-mongering. Farah is not above implicating the President in assisting, whether knowingly or not, in facilitating an attack that probably would devestate the US. Were it true. These are serious allegations. I want names, dates. Which Al-Quaida leaders? Documents captured when? Where? [googles] Okay. Farah's ONLY source appears to be Paul L. Williams, and this story first came out almost a year ago. No, wait - Almost three years ago. Call me an ass, but I have to ask: Seems to me that IF the story is true (though note that some elements of the story come and go and change over time), wouldn't it be technically easier to coordinate a multiple nuke attack than it was to coordinate and pull of the 9/11 attacks? Seems to me that Al-Quaida has no shortage of willing mass murderers. What they may lack is actual nukes. Still, once again - IF this story is more or less true - why would any Allah-fearing holy man want to engage in an action that according to rumor would only result into the turning of Mecca into a vast sheet of glass? I ain't buyin' it. Of course, if it's true there aint a damn thing we can do about it. Oh - except freak out about our border with Mexico, which, as far as I'm concerned, is Farah's reason for resurrecting an old story.

Posted by: ccwbass at July 11, 2005 03:52 PM (Y/mSQ)

31 CCWBass, Agreed.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at July 11, 2005 03:58 PM (JQjhA)

32 IM:2You are possibly the most moronic, idiotic, stupid Chicken Little I've ever heard of. You're even stupider than kos, and that says a lot." IM, I can't remember the last time you made an intelligent contribution on this forum. All you do is expose the inner most sanctity of your sick and violent dreams. Upon your nightstand, one would find a squirt bottle full of blood-based lubricant and a box of Kleanex that you use to slather off to your necrophiliac fantasies. You're one sick cookie. You claim to be a veteran with a medical discharge. Obviously, it is of a psychiatric nature. I feel for you. Our country and the VA have betrayed you and countless others. You deserve and need help.

Posted by: greg at July 11, 2005 04:00 PM (Di+L7)

33 Gawd, Greg, your projectionist tendancies are getting a little outta hand, today. I'm sure if things were bothering you enough you could set me on fire... you know, if you wanted to.

Posted by: Editor at July 11, 2005 04:09 PM (adpJH)

34 jihad = 1,000,000,000 smoking muslims. if they nuke us, they will bow to the Trident, instead of Mecca.

Posted by: Mr. K at July 11, 2005 04:26 PM (fMcnZ)

35 A more holistic approach is needed in terrorism, rather than targetting a state to "answer" for an attack, the underlying parties need to be identified, and destroyed. You cannot continue to attack countries in response to terrorism, instead adopting the attitude of Mossad, in which terrorist leaders are preemptively assassinated or kidnapped, which is a much more precise and targetted method than using the army to crush a country.

Posted by: dave at July 11, 2005 04:50 PM (fsJ2z)

36 Do not assume the specific motivations of your enemy. If AQ wanted to remove America as a world power, and they thought they could set off a nuclear warhead in every major city, they would do so. They are very patient people. We got into trouble with 9/11 because we assumed Terrorists would never do such a horrible thing. Assuming that terrorists would be plenty satisfied just causing a little mayhem by bombing one city as opposed to many cities is making the same mistake. And, yeah, the southern border is an absolute joke. You could sneak a tank across it if you were patient enough.

Posted by: Jeremy at July 11, 2005 05:59 PM (QUY3Q)

37 Soviet Suitcase Nukes? Bullshit. Fuckin lazy commies couldn't make a nuke small enough to drive around in the bed of a pick up... and you better not be around it for more than an hour or 2- you'll die from radiation poisoning.

Posted by: Col. North at July 11, 2005 07:11 PM (PX+vn)

38 Greg is a phychopath. Thats why he thinks of crap like that. Does he really think every 12 year old in the country hasn't already thought of the same. Shock affect of fire, 0%. Shock affect of bomb, 100%. Deaths from bombs. A bunch. Deaths from fire. Near 0. Someone needs to grow up. If I seriously believed the muslims were going to nuke us. I would say nuke the ragheads first. Nuke them all. 1,000,000 of these treacherous animals are not worth one American. Excluding Greg of course. He is the only creature I place beneath a cowardly, child raping, goat screwing, Islamofacist piece of camel shit.

Posted by: greyrooster at July 11, 2005 07:32 PM (CBNGy)

39 By the way. God bless you Brits. We know you will hold your heads high and continue the fight. Great Britain is called GREAT for a reason. If the bombers and murdering dogs turn out to be muslim assholes living in England I hope you Brits to seriously into ending the problem before Britain in know more. Look around.

Posted by: greyrooster at July 11, 2005 07:39 PM (CBNGy)

40 Greg is a phychopath. . Nuke them all. 1,000,000 of these treacherous animals are not worth one American. Irony meter: unreadable, result to high.

Posted by: dave at July 11, 2005 07:42 PM (fsJ2z)

41 Damn margaritas.

Posted by: greyrooster at July 11, 2005 07:44 PM (CBNGy)

42 Dr. Shackleford-- There *was* allegedly a nuclear threat reported after 9/11, but it was quickly debunked. http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2002/03/03/20020303_154419_flash.htm My guess is the folks behind this story knew this, and ran with the fancy. I take nuclear terrorism as seriously as the next guy, but I don't buy this guy's story. For. One. Second. Let's worry, yes, but let's worry in the right directions-- and this ain't it. Cheers, Dave at Garfield Ridge

Posted by: Dave at Garfield Ridge at July 11, 2005 09:07 PM (mrpxK)

43 Look in the dictionary under dumn ass: you will find the photo's of Greg and Dave.

Posted by: jihad in the west at July 11, 2005 10:12 PM (DDXXI)

44 I gotta say that this sounds like BS. Make no mistake, there is a definite desire to aquire nukes and use them on US soil. However, I feel that if they had nukes that they would have detonated by now. Whether they were able to get them on US soil or not. To avoid detonation on US soil we do need to close the borders.

Posted by: Dissenting Patriot at July 11, 2005 11:00 PM (rZ/3j)

45 Jihad in the west:'Look in the dictionary under dumn ass: you will find the photo's of Greg and Dave.' Jihad, I'll bet you $1000.00 American you won't find the word 'dumn' in an English dictionary. And the word "photo's" shouldn't be possesive; you meant to say photos. Now, whose the dumb ass?

Posted by: greg at July 12, 2005 12:48 AM (aNzQP)

46 Greg: Make that "WHO'S the dumb ass?"

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at July 12, 2005 07:35 AM (x+5JB)

47 YBP, Oops. I guess I am 'dumn'.

Posted by: greg at July 12, 2005 09:21 AM (PawLA)

48 Forgive me, Greg. Once an English teacher, always an English teacher.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at July 12, 2005 09:36 AM (x+5JB)

49 Oh - that was priceless.

Posted by: Oyster at July 12, 2005 10:56 AM (fl6E1)

50 Greg, you have never made a valuable contribution to this blog, but rather make childish remarks and provide links to sites that sell tinfoil hats. The only help I need is a clear field of fire and you to stand more or less still at any range up to and including about 600 yards. I will be hunting choades like you one day soon, and taking trophies.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at July 12, 2005 08:32 PM (0yYS2)

51 i dont agree that if they had them here they would let one rip already. 9-11 took great planning and patience, which these guys are known for. if they get 10 setup and all go at once i dont think the country survives. and that is the goal. not just a bomb but devastating the west. think about it, 10 go off.... stock market crash, housing crash, international investment all pulled out... game over here.

Posted by: rayfer at July 14, 2005 10:24 PM (7h66y)

52 I only started reading this blog today. Seems it attracts a lot of folks who have very strong, albeit not always well reasoned, opinions. I am a retired intelligence analyst from the US Army. I'm no more certain than anyone else if the story is true about the nukes, but the lines of reasoning for it not being true that some of you have expressed do not stand up under logical scrutiny. For example, to say that if they had even one nuke they would have already set it off is totally undermined by the 9/11 attacks. Al Quaida could have used only 4-5 folks to have sent one jetliner into one tower of the World Trade Center (WTC) and have achieved a definite goal of proving to Americans that they could attack us on our own soil, but they chose to launch simultaneous attacks on both towers of the WTC as well as on what turned into an attack on the Pentagon (probably originally intended for either the White House or the Capital) with one attack being thwarted that would have also been aimed at either the White House or the Capital. They were shooting for not only maximum terror, but also an attack that, had it gone according to their original plan, would have thrown the United States into total chaos with the deaths of hundreds of lawmakers at the Capital and possibly the President and a good portion of his staff at the White House. None of us here can pretend to understand the terrorist mindset. Also do not assume that a threatened destruction of Mecca would deter these people for even a moment. In actuality, if we were to follow through on that threat, it truly would launch an all-out war between Islam and the West, which is what bin Laden and his fellow maniacs actually want in the first place. Many of you need to think the scenarios you suggest through to their logical conclusions before using them to support your arguments, regardless of which side you are attempting to support. I have not seen any posting on here that suggests the person posting it has the background, knowledge, or experience to truly analyze whether or not al Quaida actually has the capability or the will to use nukes to further their cause. You hould probably leave that analysis to those folks with the appropriate credentials and access to classified information that probably none of you have.

Posted by: MIChiefGCB at July 20, 2005 08:21 AM (Wvt+E)

53 I agree about the probable problems with this scenario posted earlier. Realistically, If they do ever hit us (even with one nuke); that will be the end of the middle east fascist/secular states. The next president would be elected in a landslide victory with a purpose to utterly destroy the negative muslim countries completely (or ask for total surrender from the islamofascists). We would go to a world war II style draft and configure for total war. There would be a slight danger that world war III might occur because India, China and Russia might get involved or attack their own enemies, percieved or otherwise. It would be a real mess, not just for us but for the whole civilized world. Hopefully Bin Laden, though a nut, isnt that stupid - However, I think if he had a suitcase nuke, he might detonate in a remote area in the midwest (like say northwestern Texas/Colorado area) - and decimate a small isolated town of around 40k people - not enough to destroy our economy but enough to make his point without taking us to the brink of complete nuclear retaliation. In that worst case I still believe we would retaliate massively - If anyone objected - my attitude is we would respond with a diplomatic "who wants some next?!!!!!!!!!!". Dave the Barbarian

Posted by: David Dodge at July 20, 2005 06:19 PM (Oji+9)

54 Well... one reason for not nuking could be that we just completed an election year. They might not have wanted bush to gain popular support and get re-elected. Just a thought, it's also backed in curt weldons book. Whether or not they do not have a nuke in the US would be more dependent on whether or not they have nukes! What I mean is, if they have nukes, bringing them through mexico would be literally no problem. Our borders are designed with nice BIG sand walls that protect our country well. Listen to intelligence officials, it's an if not when situation, so dont shun the possibilities. It's been 4 years, the clock is ticking.

Posted by: Michael at July 20, 2005 09:33 PM (flAPS)

55 Also, to Dave. If Osama had suitcase nukes, your idea of an explosion being made in a small town is ridiculous. Why would he nuke 30,000 people when he could nuke millions? In an attack on a city like New Yok, we wouldn't be able to live in the vicinity for decades. You should put yourself in Osama's place and add into the equation his absolute insanity, and his desire to completely an utterly ruin our society. You might not be able to comprehend that because you are a decent human being, but the facts are, we are fighting a group of people led by a complete lunatic.

Posted by: Michael at July 21, 2005 12:32 AM (flAPS)

56 I agree with the theory of nuking a small city instead of major metropolitan areas. If I were a terrorist and I wanted to totally terrorize a country the size of the US, I would want to prove to the citizens that nowhere is safe. If I only attack major cities, people in the smaller rural areas or small cities may not totally relate to something that occurs in New York City. On the other hand, if I were to attack several small cities and a few rural areas simultaneously with either a nuke or some conventioanl means, I may cause every citizen in the US to re-evaluate their individual situation. In other words, if I can make the entire country feel vulnerable, I can cause the US leadership a lot more problems since they now cannot concentrate only on the major cities. That translates into larger expenditures of funds and causes much more of a negative economic impact in other ways as well. If no place in the country is safe, then investors will become much more reluctant to invest which in turn could cause the country to go into a deep recesssion if not a full blown depression. If that occurs, you will start hearing calls from the citizenry for the US to turn inwards and totally isolate itself from the rest of the world. That in turn causes chaos for the other countries with whom we are allied. You could keep extrapolating the reactions outward, but you get the idea. The entire scenario I just described would certainly support the stated aims of al Qaida and bin Laden.

Posted by: MIChiefGCB at July 21, 2005 09:08 AM (Wvt+E)

57 well if they did attack the west with a nuke ,if you think they would use a nuke it would most likely be in paris the center of europe, fall out would reach neighbouring states. i would go over there and blow up their place of prayer or attack there relatives i would not think twice. They are killing the normal joe what they should be doing is going for policy makers not normal people like ourselves. what he is doing is creating hate towards his own race.

Posted by: noname at July 21, 2005 10:39 PM (eFuj0)

58 One thing I think about to is that AQ is patient. The first WTC bombing was in 93. They wated till 01 to finish the job.

Posted by: Seven Man Sled at July 22, 2005 07:57 AM (tUCgZ)

59 7 Man Sled, It's not just a coincidence, IMO, that from '93 to 2001 (the 8-year reign of the most inept slacker left-wing terrorist enabling idiots, the Klinton administration) that all this terrorism had the chance to flourish world wide. Is it?

Posted by: Slight Of Tongue at July 22, 2005 05:06 PM (a+qfI)

60 Perhaps we need to step back and assess this situation from a more objective stance. By that I mean that maybe a summit meeting can be arranged between ALL concerned without threats of violence therein. Yes, even Al-Qaeda can attend. All in attendance can pick their own representative(s) to speak for them. This summit would have to be under conditions of a truce or "cease fire" to be effective. Everyone's voice MUST be heard, without threat of persecution, and a mutual concensus reached. Surely we, as sentient beings, can sit down at a roundtable and have an intelligent and meaningfull discussion without blowing each other to smitheriens beforehand. Failure to accomplish this will ultimately result in true Armogeddon for no one wins in a nuclear exchange. The world is truely a beautifull place. Let's all try to work together for the common good and keep it that way. TJ in Pa.

Posted by: Craig at July 22, 2005 11:35 PM (3V0Fr)

61 You guys seems to cover all the bases except you seem to forget that AQ doesn't use your logic. What if they really want the world to revert back to the dark ages when they (the Muslims) ruled? What better way to do it than to cause an all out MAD Event (WW III)by starting the war with the remaining 2 super powers (China and Russia) and America the ONLY military HYPER POWER.

Posted by: LT at July 24, 2005 09:07 PM (RdpBx)

62 i thought voting W in was going to save us from the terrorists... somehow i'm not surprised that the man who failed to stop 9/11 from happening has now failed at stopping nukes from being smuggled in to our own contry to be used against us. you neocons voted him in and when millions of americans are killed on our own soil you will have only yourselves to blame.

Posted by: cb1ocker at July 24, 2005 09:09 PM (9NO+i)

63 Just, remember the last days of the Roman Empire, this would be pretty enlightening for some of you...

Posted by: Malik at July 26, 2005 10:49 AM (iBkIq)

64 Has anyone read Bin Laden's letter to America? He doesn't sound insane to me. Evil, yes, but not insane. He soundly states what his intentions are.

Posted by: jenny at July 29, 2005 10:07 PM (aP0iS)

65 I shudder to think of it but you should expect an exponentially larger backlash than what happened after 9/11 if nukes were used against any US city. I would seriously fear for my safety if I were an arab (anywhere in the world) after such an attack. Especially knowing how many yahoos there are in this country and how many have guns. Every arab or muslim would have a bull's eye on his/her head. The backlash would be almost as bloody as the WMD attack itself. Let's all pray it never happens. And, if it does, remember that the guy who runs the gas station or convenience store, or the family down the street who happens to be muslim, or anyone with a tan complexion is not your enemy! And..No. I am not a liberal! Far from it.

Posted by: schlomo at July 31, 2005 06:10 PM (I0mGB)

66 When I first heard this I had a sinking feeling. Simultaneous nukes in major American cities would be just the thing AQ would want after 9/11, which had the same feel -- simultaneous strikes at WTC, Pentagon, Washington. Their intent is to destroy the country. They are doing first-strike. If our "useful idiot" liberals and the politically-correct MSM are still around (didn't get nuked), I think they would again aid and abett the enemy, and diffuse our response, like they did after 9/11. 9/11 was the Pearl Harbour of Islam's war against America, and the West. Why Islam and not just Al Qaeda? AQ was just executing the ideology, Islam. Islam has two tenets that are taught in every mosque, and it is cast in stone in the Qur'an. These tenets are: 1. All of humanity are to be brought into submission to Islam. Every non-muslim is to be given 3 choices: become a muslim, pay a jigza tax, or die. 2. Non muslims are "without sanctity", their "blood, possessions, and land" are licit for a muslim to take. These two tenets are the basis of all Islamic terrorist acts. Now you know how it is that the friend and families of the muslim terrorists always say they became more pious before they went off and killed innocent civilians. They have two other tenets you should be aware of when you hear the muslims speak after these atrocities. These doctrines are calledd taqiyya (deception and dissimulation), and kitman (concealment of malevolent intentions). Islam institutionalises deception. And they call this a religion. Dr Tawfik Hamid, who came out of the terrorist group that AQ's No.2 was in, said Islam produces two kinds of people: the active terrorists and the passive terrorists. The passive ones are those we call "moderates". They are all indoctrinated with these tenets, they are just not now acting on it. Some one said, "The difference between a muslim terrorist and a 'moderate muslim' is that the 'moderate' has not tried to kill you. Yet." 9/11 was the moment when we should have ripped Islam out of the nation and ban it from the land. Did we do that? No. Why? Because our leaders called the enemy the "Religion of Peace", surprising even the muslims who were preparing to split to Cananda. It must have amused the muslims that they can attack America, and her response is to coddle them instead of driving them off the land. Now they are emboldened. They are doing a terrific job in promoting themselves as the "RoP", suing anyone for criticising the ideology, being two faced, telling the public how peaceful they are, and telling their own people in private to do what Islam commands. A muslim cleric in Australia said the terms "moderate", "fundamentalist", "Islamist" are Western concepts, there is no such concepts in Islam. In Islam there is just "muslim or non-muslim". And he is right. We are not out to lynch innocent people. Our fight is against the ideology and its executors. Islam is an ideology that is a threat to every civilized society. Islam incites and sanctions murder, mayhem and sedition. We should get legislation to ban it from the land. I'll let the muslims speak for themselves here: MURDER & MAYHEM Sheikh Abu Hamza, muslim cleric: “Murder, bank robbery and looting are legitimate weapons against the enemies of Islam. SEDITION Sheik Omar Bakri, muslim cleric: "The ultimate goal is the imposition of Sharia on Great Britain...Someday the black flag of Islam will fly over 10 Downing Street" Omar Ahmed, chairman CAIR: "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faiths, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth." Islam is currently working on fulfiling its goal of making the whole planet Islamic via a two prong approach -- active terrorists like AQ to cause mayhem and destruction to non-muslim nations, and passive ones within the nation, to excuse them and promote their agenda. After 7/7 what did the muslim leaders say Blair should do? Surrender. Do exactly what the terrorists wanted of Blair.

Posted by: skidd at August 01, 2005 09:43 AM (xnBXS)

67 To skidd: I have been telling people in Sweden abou the "world domination at any cost" desire inherent in Islam. A friends wife refused to talk to me calling me paranoid and a racist. Until the London bombs, which served as dramatic evidence for my claims. People just don´t want to accept that we might be facing a threat as big as if not bigger than the nazi and soviet threat. Everyday muslims are pouring into Europe. Like you I have nothing against individual but I am against the fascist islamic ideology, which at its inception was violent and has never changed. The public needs to be informed. Muslims should only be allowed to stay if they (1) leave their so-called faith (hate) or (2) agree that violent verses in the koran are not valid (there will not be much left). If the public really knew, then muslims will be unfortunately lyched in the street of Britain. I see no easy solution. A nuke attack on the US, would trigger massive unrest in Europe, muslims will be killed/expelled. India, China,Russia and others will be worried that they will be next and they will most likely join the US in a war to occupy and tame the Islamic world. You should see. www.faithfreedom.org

Posted by: Indo-brit-in-Europe at October 08, 2005 12:53 PM (gJkE2)

68 i dont believe this partially because their is no evidince,the u.s.a's defense budget is 490 billion and without the u.s.a they would have no funding source because the world would go into a global depression

Posted by: az at November 05, 2005 08:40 PM (sfBH+)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Via Andrew Cochran, this Times of London article lists the names of those killed and missing in the London bombing attrocities. Apologies for copyright infringement, but I have reprinted the entire list because many online newspapers take down archived articles after a few weeks. The list is in the extended entry.

Remember, what happened was an attrocity not a tragedy. Never use the word tragedy to describe the deliberate acts of evil men. Attrocities are committed, tragedies happen. more...

Posted by: Rusty at 11:17 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 1334 words, total size 8 kb.

John at Crossroads of Arabia notices that Saudi Arabia will soon prosecute several extremist clerics for issuing fatwas, or religious edicts, which justify terrorist acts. A good start. Now if they'd only prosecute those that preach in favor of the fascism of Sharia law. Oh, wait......

Bill Dauterieve passes along the news that AL-QAEDA is secretly recruiting affluent, middle-class Muslims in British universities and colleges to carry out terrorist attacks in this country, leaked Whitehall documents reveal.

Mohammad al-Garbuzi sought by investigators in the London and Madrid bombings. No confirmation on rumors that he is part of a radical Mennonite faction.........So, who was responsible? Bin Laden? Nope. It was the J-O-Os. Don't you know it's always the J-O-Os??

Knock-knock.
Who's there?
My Vagina.
My Vagina who?
My Vagina says the war in Iraq was illegal and Bush-Hitler is a war criminal.

Downsizing troop levels in Iraq? A new leaked memo seems to indicate that by this time next year we'll have half as many troops on the ground. [UPDATE: Rob, guest blogging over at Wizbang, backpeddles on the leaked memo]Oh, and attacks are down in Iraq--you won't see that on the news tonight.

The CBC doesn't realize the song is 'Blame Canada' not 'Blame America'.

Anti-war movement resorts to spam attacks.

The Carnival of the Liberty is up.

Jay at Stop the ACLU interviews a former member of the fifth column.

Forget Downing Street, check out "The Pinelawn Road Memo". It may be fake, but at least it's accurate.

Confederate Yankee has all the hot, wet, blowing action. (Hurricane humor, dumbass!)

Posted by: Rusty at 10:01 AM | Comments (21) | Add Comment
Post contains 268 words, total size 3 kb.

The Taliban had announced that the missing Seal had been captured and then beheaded. This just goes to show how full of shit the Taliban are. The Seal was killed in action and was not captured. Rest in Peace. WaPo:

The body of a missing U.S. commando has been located in eastern Afghanistan, the military said Monday, bringing an end to the desperate search for the last member of an ill-fated, four-man special forces unit that disappeared last month.

One of the four men was rescued on July 3; the other two were found dead the next day.

The body of the fourth U.S. Navy SEAL was found Sunday in Kunar province by a search and rescue team, the military said in a statement. It said all indications are that he died in fighting, despite a claim by Mullah Latif Hakimi, a purported Taliban spokesman, that he was captured alive and beheaded.

"The location and disposition of the service member's remains indicate he died while fighting off enemy terrorists on or about June 28," the statement said.

U.S. military spokesman Col. James Yonts repeatedly denied Hakimi's claims.

"There have been claims of being dropped on a mountain wearing red clothes, there have been claims of being beheaded," he said. But "there was no indication supporting the claims. ... This individual was never in custody, he was never defamed or disgraced."

Posted by: Rusty at 09:28 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 245 words, total size 2 kb.

Five hundred mosquito bites later and I'm still alive. Did I miss anything? Oh, yeah, THAT.

I was up getting ready for my camping trip at about 5 a.m., just as the news was breaking. Let me thank the whole Jawa crew for doing a fantastic job covering the London bombings and especially Mike Pechar and Chad Evans for their live updates. I had to travel 11 hours to get to where I was going and listened to breaking news most of the day and Mike's post was just outstanding. Thanks!

P.S-I have like 500 unread e-mails. If you sent me something in the last few days or so I might not be able to get back to you. Sorry.

Posted by: Rusty at 09:22 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 124 words, total size 1 kb.

(Gardez, Afghanistan) Here's some good news if you are interested in seeing Afghanistan become united on the path toward freedom and democracy. Sadly, the elite media seems to be ignoring the story.

From the Army News Service:

Eighteen of Gulbiddin Hekmatyar’s Hezb-e Islami commanders turned themselves over to government officials in the Paktia Province June 12.

Under the terms of the Afghan government’s reconciliation program, Pakhm-e Sohl, the former commanders returned home after years of living in Pakistan.

Upon meeting with Governor Abdel Hakim Taniwal, Provincial Reconstruction Team or PRT Soldiers, and government representatives, who explained the provisions of the program to them, the commanders pledged their loyalty to the Karzai government by signing statements.

The loyalty statement to the Afghan government includes an agreement not to possess heavy weapons or take up arms against the Afghan government or Coalition forces. The commanders received new reconciliation identification cards and were embraced by Taniwal who welcomed them back to Afghan society.

So, by any measure, the Hezbi Islami is a major military element in the country. However, it has also been a prime political and ethnic leader for the large Pashtun segment of the Afghan population (42 percent). Consequently, by laying down arms and ending hostilities, Hekmatyar's commanders have given heightened authenticity and authority to the democratic Afghan government.

In my opinion, the fact that Gulbiddin Hekmatyar’s Hezbi Islami has chosen to become part of the new Afghanistan should be heralded by the international media as a major step toward pulling the country into the 21st Century. It should also be heralded as a win in the battle against backwardness, and a victory for freedom and democracy. So far, the elite media hasn't mentioned it. Maybe I'm making too big a deal about it.

Tipped by Captain's Quarters.

Posted by: Mike Pechar at 08:17 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 376 words, total size 3 kb.

Well I have been arguing with myself for a couple days about this. As many of you are aware Mike Pechar hit a home run on the London bombings the other day. He had more trackbacks than a dog has fleas. Also he was drawing comments from the world over at an astonishing rate. Well that was until a couple comments seemed to slow many others down or drive them away all together. IÂ’m really trying hard to say this in fair and unbiased manner. So if I piss anyone off I just want to say up front that is not my intention. I hope that we can all enjoy the web site and have our comments read by the widest possible audience.

I noted that the thread was accumulating comments left and right. We were picking up new readers. All our statements and comments were being read not only by regulars here but also potential new readers as well. People from all over the world. Then came the insults to the queen and the profanity. Personally I thought that the insults the queen were particularly in bad taste considering the events of the day. After that it became the Greg and Carlos show. Other comments especially from new readers seemed to vanish. I think MikeÂ’s thread could have easily went over two hundred comments had we just thought about it for a few more seconds before we hit that post button. See not only did Mike loose readers so did you. I know several of you like to go around and piss on every post like a dog on patrol. That is fine and dandy with me. For the most part I enjoy most of it. If you would just take a couple minutes to consider what thread you are on and also that you are shitting in your own nest. You not only drive off MikeÂ’s readers, which was totally unfair to him. You also drive off readers of your own comments and ideas.

IÂ’m not really into banning and if you think that deleting comments is that hard IÂ’m sure I can figure it out should I choose to. I have pretty much free rein as far as permissions go. And itÂ’s mostly a matter of point and click and taking the time to do so. All I ask is that you consider the thread and if you want to piss all over one choose an appropriate thread. Any thread is OK with me after the other comments have died out a bit but this one was still pretty active. Like I say you not only drove off MikeÂ’s readers but yours as well. I see you guys out here every day and I know and understand what is jest and what is not(well at least some days). But other readers especially on a day when we have the potential to grow our audience are not used to that and may be quickly put off.

So this is just some friendly advice. Carlos and Greg are just the examples of the day and are by no means the only ones. In fact they come up with some really good stuff some days. I think a lot of people come here just to read the arguments and your comments are welcome on my threads and appreciated. Characters like Greg that people love to hate draw an audience to a certain extent. IÂ’m not sure where the line should be but I think we may have crossed over it the other day. So IÂ’m not trying to pick on you guys itÂ’s just that on that day you happened to be the ones I noticed. Also YBP seems to have a pretty good sense of what is a little too much and I appreciate his attempt to bring order to the thread.

For any new readers itÂ’s just that way and you may have to overlook a few things but donÂ’t let it discourage you from posting a comment. Just ignore it if you can. Should you confront them, that is just more encouragement for them. They are pretty good at arguing so you may loose that fight. Well thatÂ’s all the preaching I have in me for today. IÂ’m sure Rusty will have his own opinion about this. I really donÂ’t know what that will be he is pretty tolerant as I am. Just a few more seconds of thought and all of us could have picked up more readers for all the authors and also the commentators. Radical statements do get attention both good and bad and I see that some of you make them just to get notice. Be careful that you attract readers and donÂ’t drive them off. ItÂ’s a thin line for sure and walking it is difficult, try not to get too carried away. I thought about addressing each of you on a personal level by email. So please by all means feel free to email me or post your dissent or agreement below.

And YÂ’all have a good one.

Posted by: Howie at 12:47 PM | Comments (34) | Add Comment
Post contains 857 words, total size 5 kb.

In addition to the following, there likely will be more reports of incidents of backlash against Muslims, adding challenges to law enforcers who already have their hands full.

From The Statesman:

Fire broke out in a mosque in Leeds and a Gurdwara in Kent, amid the first indications of a possible backlash against British Muslims as police said tension in the country was increasing. About 70 incidents against minorities have been reported across the country since yesterday, police said, adding they ranged from the fires in the prayer halls to two possible assaults, cases of verbal abuse and threatening calls. Kent Police are investigating two assaults on Muslim men in Dartford.

(Auckland, New Zealand) Prime Minister Helen Clark and other government officials condemned "mindless and stupid vandalism" which has occurred at about 14 Islamic places of worship in Auckland between Thursday and today.

From National Nine News:

Auckland's Muslim community found six mosques vandalised and walls tagged in graffiti with the message 'Londoners RIP' following the terrorist bombings in London that killed more than 50 people.

In what appeared to be a coordinated series of attacks in central, south and west Auckland, vandals smashed glass windows and doors and left variations of the same message in black paint on walls facing the street.

Companion post at Interested-Participant.

Posted by: Mike Pechar at 06:43 AM | Comments (66) | Add Comment
Post contains 269 words, total size 2 kb.

Jeff Quinton has news that the entertainment district in Birmingham, England has been evacuated due to terrorism threats. A sad fact that after a big terrorist attack, which 7/7 was, is that there are other terror threats issued in the aftermath.

British Broadcasting Corp. television reported that police had carried out several controlled explosions, a precaution to disarm objects suspected of being explosive devices. (source)

Jeff Goldstein reports that 30,000 people were evacuated which gives credence to the threat having enough legitimacy to evacuate such a large population. With detonated items, this can mean there was explosive material found or the threats were deemed legitimate enough and specific enough to conclude bombs may be found in certain items.

The London Times reports London police are concerned that terrorists might strike again tonight. Investigators are convinced only one of the bombers of 7/7 was killed, the possible suicide bomber in the double decker bus, and that other still remain in England. As with every investigation however, there are multitudes of people connected and if this was the work of Al Qaida or an Al Qaida linked group, the connections will be numerous.

Update:
Bongo Vongo, who lives in Birmingham, has some in depth reports including that a suspicious package on board a bus was detonated by police. California Yankee reports of the response by British officials.

Update:
Via Jeff Quinton comes the police press release.

The bomb disposal squad has carried out 4 controlled explosions on a bus in Corporation Street, near the Square Pegg public house. This turned out to be a false call. The bomb disposal squad are however, still investigating another suspicious package in the Broad Street area.

This appears to be more of a precaution and a false threat than an actual incident to me, and thankfully so.

Cross-posted at ITB. As this story breaks, I will try to update both this post and the post on my site.

Posted by: Chad at 05:36 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 336 words, total size 3 kb.

I thought this post by Dean Esmay was pretty good. At the top of his site it says “Defending the liberal tradition in history, science, and philosophy”. If he is liberal he certainly is not your typical militant liberal as he really has it in for dailykos. Who apparently did a mass banning. I also note Dean does not link our site. He might get a few bad comments here but I really think it’s worth the read. I also note he supports the war effort.

Carping that strategy X is "failing" is a child's game. Grownups analyze and say, "Okay, maybe strategy X isn't perfect... but can I name a better strategy?" If you can't, then, quite seriously, all you're doing is being a defeatist--and, in this case, acting as an apologist for fascists.

I noted that Dean wasnÂ’t getting many trackbacks to his position on this issue from other liberals or anyone for that matter. IÂ’ll give him one.

Related chain of posts.

Interesting huh?

You know I really donÂ’t care much about a personÂ’s political leanings. Stupid has to be the greatest enemy. Followed closely by apathy. When it comes to the war we canÂ’t afford political childishness. I was worried that we had forgotten this is a war and started playing the same games we play with other issues. But I guess we all got a big reminder this week didnÂ’t we. LetÂ’s not slip back there again. WeÂ’ve got to push on because at least one commentator here I know worries about his child having to fight. I hope he doesnÂ’t have to and there are people working very hard right now to make sure he doesnÂ’t. I work with a gentleman, his son is in his fourth month of a 12 month tour in Afghanistan. People are fighting and dying every day. Too much mercy on the enemy is cruel to everyone including them. It prolongs the war for everyone. We can sort that out after we win which we will after much struggle and heartache. Will it be worth it? Well only time will tell us that one but the fight is in progress NOW.

Also Michelle points out some bad comments made on NPR. I listen all the time. If fact I'm wearing my WKMS tee shirt right now. IÂ’ve especially enjoyed liberals stuttering along the last few days. Shields on the News Hour last night was especially having a tough time. It was great. They all want to say see I told you we would be attacked. But the lack of sophistication of the London attack shows the weakness of the terrorists. Primitive at best and possibly carried out by just a few people. I dare to say maybe even just one. While a success it was at best a limited one. I donÂ’t want to get too cocky here though it also demonstrates a danger. More and larger attacks are possible in my opinion. Not to belittle the suffering and my gratitude for EnglandÂ’s support, but it could have been much worse. Some are saying how sophisticated. Well they were just bombs and timers. In my opinion if you have the stuff it doesn't take a rocket scientist. I wish ABC would stop it with the fear mongering.

more...

Posted by: Howie at 10:13 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 572 words, total size 4 kb.

(London) While rescuers hold on to threads of hope that they may still find survivors, they wearily struggle to access rat-infested Underground tunnels, threatening to collapse. Police and emergency workers continue to warn of possible additional victims as citizens desperately search for about 25 missing friends and relatives. In the meantime, there's some breaking news on the investigation of who is responsible for the terrorist acts.

Chad Evans at In The Bullpen has the scoop on a group called Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades which claims to have awoken sleeper cells for the bombings.

In the group's communique asking their European sleeper cells to wake up (get active), they reference Fes which I concluded at the time must be a reference to a Moroccan prison where it is reasonable to assume there are members of Abu Hafs Brigades in prison.

Where it gets interesting though in relation to Morocco is that the primary suspect at this point in time is Mohammed Guerbouzi who is from Morocco. Guerbouzi is believed to be the leader of a Moroccan terror cell which has been broken up in the Netherlands, Italy, Belgium, Spain and France.

From ABCNews Online:

Although investigators have not pinpointed any suspects sought in connection with the worst attack London has known since World War II, media reports say police have requested European counterparts seek out information on radical Moroccan cleric Mohammed al Garbuzi.

Garbuzi is leader of the Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group (GICM) and lived in Britain for 16 years, before vanishing from his north London home last year.

It is believed he may have travelled to France.

His group is blamed for attacks that killed 45 people in the Moroccan city of Casablanca in May 2003.

London police have refused to comment on reports they are hunting Garbuzi, but British dailies the Daily Mail and the Independent say in their Saturday editions that police have made "a Europe-wide request for information" on the 45-year-old awarded asylum in Britain a decade ago.

The Independent says Garbuzi is linked to Abu Qatada, a Palestinian cleric based in London who is considered the spiritual head of Al Qaeda in Europe.

Current status of the casualty count is more than 50 dead and 22 people remain in serious or critical condition. About 100 injured were hospitalized for a second night.

Two Underground lines remain closed while most of the city's transportation network is back to normal.

[Update] GeoBandy writes that a Moroccan court convicted Garbuzi in absentia and sentenced him to 20 years in prison for the Casablanca bombing in 2003. Moroccan authorities sought extradition from Britain but, for some unknown reason, the UK did not comply.

If Garbuzi is implicated in the London bombings, it will be difficult to explain away the aforementioned.

Companion post at Interested-Participant.

Posted by: Mike Pechar at 07:21 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 521 words, total size 4 kb.

I've been quite busy writing a well researched, personal experience article about a cult I was forced to be involved in as a child. Now is as good a time as any to expose the cult that is Human Service Alliance and/or Center for Purposeful Living.

The motivation at this point is to inform the masses about the evil nature of these people and to maybe save a potential "student" from their grips.

Posted by: Chris Short at 06:35 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 79 words, total size 1 kb.

Just heard Peter Bergen, author of the piece in the New York Times about how London exports terrorists on CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 Live.

Bergen, who judging by his accent is British himself, raised the sobering point, as he did the Times op-ed, that the US offered simplified admission to EU passport holders without a consular interview or visa application. But it would be logistically impossible and politically untenable to demand those safeguards for every European visitor.

But that's not insurmountable, Bergen told Cooper. For example, we could do some sort of profiling...

And then they cut to the next story.

Posted by: seedubya at 06:33 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 115 words, total size 1 kb.

(Lodi, California) The Lodi mosque connection to al-Qaeda story broke last month with the arrest of two Muslims, Hamid and Umer Hayat, accused of lying to federal agents. Since that time, investigators have been busy building a case for prosecution. However, as a consequence, several new suspects are being investigated for the possibility that they attended terrorist training camps in Pakistan in addition to Hamid Hayat.

From the SacBee:

According to federal court documents obtained by The Bee, Hamid Hayat and his father, Umer, claimed the suspected Lodi jihadists reported to Muhammed Adil Khan and Shabbir Ahmed, two imams they say came to the Lodi Muslim Mosque from Pakistan to groom students for terrorist training camps.

Khan and Ahmed are being held for allegedly violating immigration laws, and through their attorney have denied being involved in terrorist activities.

In the documents, the Hayats are said to have outlined the following chain of command:

The alleged Lodi-area jihadists "would take their direction" from Shabbir Ahmed, who answered to his former madrassah (religious school) teacher in Pakistan, Adil Khan. Khan, in turn, took orders from the operator of the terrorist training camp near Rawalpindi, Fazler Rehman - whose "boss" is Osama bin Laden.

The Hayat's trial is scheduled to start Aug. 23, however, the government filed a motion on Wednesday to have it postponed to allow investigators to review the mountain of files and data that were seized during a search of the Hayat Lodi residence. The prosecutors are looking for violations of the Patriot Act. Interestingly, the reporting thus far on the update to the Lodi story has indicated a possible six additional suspects, but only two have been named, Adil Khan and Shabbir Ahmed.

Companion post at Interested-Participant.

Posted by: Mike Pechar at 05:30 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 338 words, total size 3 kb.

By Demosophist

I haven't been able to interest Pat at The State of Jefferson in a little geography/history quiz, inspired by the history that inspired his blog name. So rather than exercise any further restraint, I'm spilling the beans. Here was the question:

One area of the country managed to initiate a "successful" secession movement, not in the sense that the secession stuck, but in the sense that the movement achieved its objectives. The place also happens to be the only area of the "deep South" that fought on the side of the Union during the Civil War.

For fun and valuable prizes can you name the place, time and circumstances of the secession movement? (Hint: Check the title of this post.)

Posted by: Demosophist at 04:30 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 424 words, total size 3 kb.