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

May 11, 2005

Family of Australian Hostage Starts a Blog

The family of an Australian man taken hostage in Iraq has started a blog. The Douglas Wood Family Website makes an appeal to Wood's captors to release him and is written in both English and Arabic. The site appears to use a standard blogger template.

It's an interesting approach to helping free Mr. Wood. Let's hope it works.

The family has announced that it has made a 'large charitable contribution to the people of Iraq' in an effort to free Douglas Wood. I'm not sure whether that is a veiled way of saying they paid ransom or if the family expects Wood's captors to view him more favorably because of it. It seems a bit out of touch with reality, though.

There are two types of hostage takers in Iraq. First are terror groups. They care about using the hostage situation only in so far as it serves their propaganda needs. Second are criminal gangs. They care about using the hostage situation only in so far as it seves their financial needs. In neither case would a charitable donation mean anything.

We hope and pray for Mr. Wood's quick release, his good health, and that his captors meet a swift and violent death.

Posted by: Rusty at 09:06 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 217 words, total size 2 kb.

Mennonite Terrorist, Ijju Sheikh, Arrested in India

Clinton Watson Taylor, who you may remember had me on his radio show, has this piece up at the American Spectator. What is so interesting about this is that I had never heard of Ijju Sheikh until today, but I should have. India is our natural ally in the GWOT. India has been fighting Islamist forces since the day it was granted indepence. Both Pakistan and Bangledesh were carved out of India and then largely ethnically cleansed of their Hindu and other religious minority communities. Unfortunately, though, the Cold War imperetive forced the U.S. to become allies with Pakistan:

While the recent arrest of Abu Faraj al-Libbi, Al Qaeda's number-three man, is a significant victory in the war on terror, another largely overlooked arrest gives even more reason to rejoice. Ijju Sheikh, a fugitive suspect in one of India's worst terrorist attacks, was arrested in Mumbai (formerly Bombay) on April 29. His capture shows that the noose is tightening on a sinister transnational mafia that both supports al Qaeda's existence, and imperils India's.
On March 12, 1993, a series of explosions ripped through the streets of Mumbai, killing 257 Indians and injuring 713. The serial attack, presaging Al Qaeda's coordinated-bombing modus operandi, involved nearly simultaneous detonation of car-bombs across the city in crowded bazaars and near major hotels and Mumbai's stock exchange. While India is no stranger to political violence, the attack has been retroactively dubbed "India's 9-11" for its shock and devastation.
Ijju Sheikh stands accused of smuggling the RDX explosives used in the bombing. Once a hotelier and sarpanch (city council chief) with political connections, Sheikh fled to Dubai after the bombing and only recently snuck back into India. He is also accused of smuggling gold and weapons, as well as being a top henchman to international gangster and terrorist Dawood Ibrahim.

Posted by: Rusty at 08:24 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 317 words, total size 2 kb.

FedEx Bombs California

(Danville, California) No one was injured, but many people called police to complain when airplane parts fell from the sky in several residential neighborhoods. From the ContraCostaTimes:

Airplane pieces fell from the sky over Danville Monday night, surprising residents and FedEx and causing damages to at least one house, but injuring no one.
FedEx spokeswoman Sally Davenport said this morning the flight from Oakland landed safely as scheduled in Dallas-Fort Worth with two pilots and an assortment of packages aboard.
Officials with the Federal Aviation Administration said three pieces came off the MD11 jet.
A FedEx spokesman called the incident highly unusual and plans to be in contact with homeowners in the area about the debris.

So, despite missing some parts, including one that was about 10 feet long, the plane flew all the way to Dallas and landed safely. And, inexplicably, the pilots didn't know that their plane was falling apart. According to FAA spokesman Donn Walker, the parts came from an engine thrust reverser.

Maybe I'm being overly critical, but the fact that the pilots didn't know they had a problem is somewhat troubling. It begs the question of just how much of the plane has to become dismantled in flight to achieve the threshold for pilot awareness. Is it okay for five percent of the plane to fall from the sky without pilot knowledge? Ten percent? Twenty?

Companion post at Interested-Participant.

Posted by: Mike Pechar at 06:59 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 240 words, total size 2 kb.

1 If you look at WWII pictures of returning B17's, you'll see planes landing safely with 90% of the rudder shot off, major structural pieces of the wing missing, several of the engines not running, etc. and so forth. Modern aircraft are intentionally over-designed such that they can continue to fly safely even with some amount of damamge (after all, they can't just pull over and call AAA). The corollary would be you driving down the freeway, unaware that the reverse gears were stripped until you actually stopped and tried to back up. It's not so much the pilots I'm worried about as the maintenance crews that are supposed to check the plane between flights.

Posted by: dodgeman at May 11, 2005 07:55 AM (fRt6P)

2 Reverse thrusters are only used after touch down and all tyres have made contact with the runway, or during an emergancy and you have to abort the takeoff. It is not uncommon for a trailing edge to get ripped off and the pilot not even know it because of the force at which an actuator (along with force of air flow) will sever off a part from the plane. Parts fall off of aircraft, its a fact of life ... most of the flying population doesnt even know because 99.99% of those items were not mission critical or would even cause any situation to develop into a catastrauphic in-flight situation. you dont even want to tell the flying public about the number of incidents that occur national evey year from the following sitations that could just as easily bring a plane out of the sky: Bird Impacts, Storms (to include lightning, and hail), wind sheers, turbulance. Any one of these items could pull plane parts off in a heartbeat. The worst thing that the average passanger will most probably ever get during their whole life will be bad food, fat passengers, and cramped knees.

Posted by: Salamander at May 11, 2005 08:26 AM (D4mP3)

3 Yeah, being an ex-employee of the Boeing Commercial Aircraft company I'll have to say this is pretty much SoP.

Posted by: Editor at May 11, 2005 10:07 AM (adpJH)

4 Salamander, Don't forget the flu or cold passed on by other passangers. I really hated to do it, but when I went to pick up my fiancee from Warsaw, I had a very bad flu. But had I not shown up at the U.S. Embassy, there would of been a good chance my then fiancee (now wife) would of not received her visa. So I had to travel to Warsaw and back to Dallas, blessing everyone in coach with my flu. When we took off, I was the only one coughing and suffering from the flu. When we landed, about 1/5th of the people in the plane was. Funny thing is my wife who sat beside me the whole way never got sick.

Posted by: Butch at May 11, 2005 11:13 AM (Gqhi9)

5 This is the begining, or end, of a divergent timeline. Did any of the debris hit Donnie Darko?

Posted by: ADMIRAL Rusty Shackelford at May 11, 2005 03:25 PM (PX+vn)

6 Question for Butch: Why on earth did you want to go to Poland? There's nothing to see or do there, unless you're into cheap box-like cars, WW2-museums, churches or Russian mafia and prostitution.

Posted by: A Finn at May 12, 2005 04:24 AM (cWMi4)

7 Oh, sorry, didn't read the text properly. So why was your wife in Poland? (surely you didn't buy her there?)

Posted by: A Finn at May 12, 2005 04:27 AM (cWMi4)

8 Finn, No I mailed order her out of Ukraine, but they said they could only deliver as far as Warsaw. (The US embassy in Ukraine is to small, so fiancee visas go thru Warsaw.)

Posted by: Butch at May 12, 2005 12:08 PM (Gqhi9)

9 ...Man, I never knew you could mailorder women from other places than southeast Asia.

Posted by: A Finn at May 13, 2005 01:52 AM (cWMi4)

10 FROM.MISS.ESTHER BAMBA 01 BP COCODY 01 BP ABIDJAN COTE IVOIRE. WEST AFRICA. E-MAIL/ estherbamba77@yahoo.fr HELLO, PERMIT ME TO INFORM YOU ABOUT MY DESIRE TO GO INTO BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP WITH YOU. I HAD THE REVELATION THAT YOU WILL SUCCESSFULLY ASSIST ME. I AM MISS.ESTHER BAMBA, AN IVORIAN (IVORY COAST) NATIONALITY.ME AND MY BROTHER MR.BOB BAMBA OF MR AND MRS. JOHN BAMBA OUR FATHER WAS A VERY RICH COCOA MERCHANT, BASED IN ABIDJAN; THE ECONOMIC CAPITAL OF IVORY COAST BEFORE HE WAS POISONED TO DEATH BY HIS BUSINESS ASSOCIATES ON ONE OF THEIR OUTINGS TO DISCUSS ON A BUSINESS DEAL . WHEN OUR MOTHER DIED ON OCTOBER 24, 2002, OUR FATHER TOOK US SO SPECIAL SINCE WE ARE MOTHERLESS . BEFORE THE DEATH OF OUR FATHER ON MARCH 26,2003 IN A PRIVATE HOSPITAL WHERE HE WAS ADMITTED, HE CALLED US SECRETLY TO HIS BED SIDE AND TOLD US THAT HE KEPT A SUM OF $16 500 000 (SIXTEEN MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND UNITED STATES DOLLARS) IN A BANK IN ABIDJAN COTE D'IVOIRE HE ADVICED US TO RUN OUT OF THE COUNTRY IMMEDIATELY. MEAN WHILE THAT HE USED MY NAME AS THE NEXT OF KING IN DEPOSIT OF THE FUND . HE ALSO EXPLAINED TO ME THAT IT WAS BECAUSE OF THIS MONEY HE WAS POISONED BY HIS BUSINESS PARTNER AND THAT I SHOULD SEEK FOR A FOREIGN PARTNER IN A COUNTRY OF MY CHOICE WHERE I WOULD TRANSFER THIS MONEY AND USE IT FOR AN INVESTMENT PURPOSE, SUCH AS : REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT OR STOCK MARKET INVESTMENT . SIR, I AM HONOURABLY SOLICITING YOUR KIND ASSISTANCE AS FOLLOWS. : 1) TO PROVIDE A BANK ACCOUNT WHERE THIS MONEY WILL BE TRANSFERRED TO. 2) TO SERVE AS THE GUARDIAN OF THESE FUND, SINCE I AM A GIRL OF 23 YEARS OLD AND MY BROTHER 19 YEARS. 3) TO MAKE ARRANGEMENT FOR US IN YOUR COUNTRY TO CONTINUE OUR EDUCATIONAL CAREER AND TO PROCURE ME A RESIDENTIAL PERMIT IN YOUR COUNTRY. I AM INCLINED TO OFFER YOU 20% OF THE TOTAL SUM AS A MODE OF COMPENSATION FOR YOUR EFFORTS AFTER THE TRANSFERRING OF THESE FUND TO YOUR NOMINATED ACCOUNT OVERSEAS. PLEASE, SIR I WILL BE VERY HAPPY IF THIS TRANSACTION WILL BE CONCLUDED WITH IN SEVEN (7) WORKING DAYS FROM NOW. I AM EXPECTING HEARING FROM YOU AS SOON AS POSSIBLE .N.B: SIR, I WILL LIKE YOU TO GIVE ME YOUR DIRECT TELEPHONE AND FAX NUMBER IN YOUR REPLY OF THIS PROPOSAL MAY ALMIGHTY GOD BLESS YOU AS YOU DO CARE FOR US AMEN. THANKS FOR YOUR UNDERSTANDING. BEST REGARD MISS.ESTHER BAMBA

Posted by: esther bamba at May 18, 2005 08:12 AM (P1Z+C)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

May 10, 2005

Andrew Sullivan: All the way gay*

So Andrew Sullivan tries to act all hetero for a few posts. Dude just doesn't get it. Stick with the gay thing man. HETERO MOMENT II:

Are you straight guys as irritated as I am by the metrosexual craze? Please please please don't remove a single hair from your body. Ignore Queer Eye. We homos aren't all crazed, plucked product queens.

The idea of AS being into hairy guys......My eyes!! They burn!!!!!!!!

Then AS links to The Superficial, which is cool since they've linked to me in the past and given me a ton of hits. But to call such a site hetero?? HETERO MOMENT I:

Here's a great blog obsessed with - and very funny about - the lives of very hot, twenty-something famous babes. My friend Jay Jaroch and others on the Bill Maher writing team alerted me to it. It's hilarious and obsessive and very bloggy.

Yeah, nothing says heterosexual more than a blog devoted to celebrities...... more...

Posted by: Rusty at 03:53 PM | Comments (31) | Add Comment
Post contains 175 words, total size 1 kb.

1 He's so gay. When you can go from pro-Bush foreign policy hawk to Kerry supporter just because of gay, then you're too gay.

Posted by: Carlos at May 10, 2005 04:58 PM (8e/V4)

2 OK, IÂ’ll start it off: In the immortal words of Butch in a post last weekÂ…Â” No one was ever born with a feeding tubeÂ” Butch 5/2005 First thing I thought of when I read this threadÂ….Â” No one was ever born with a tube of K-Y JellyÂ”. Â….Brad 5/2005 BoysÂ’, playing the back nine is against the rules. Wanting to do it is forgivable; doing it without asking forgiveness is a ticket to eternity in a very nasty place. Just want to warn ya. Aint none of us perfect, but all of us sinners can turn it around. Filthy Allah, I made fun of your goats a couple of weeks ago, and IÂ’m damn sorry about it.

Posted by: Brad at May 10, 2005 05:14 PM (aUEhc)

3 Yeah, Andrew is the C3PO of the 'sphere: So gay, acts like he's on the good guy's side, but when it comes down to the Jawas telling him what to do he puts on his knee pads like a good droid.

Posted by: Editor at May 10, 2005 08:15 PM (WUwLB)

4 So, Brad: if your wife puts on a strap-on and gives you a good time--that's a sin, huh? All right. And if you use her "back entrance" that's a sin as well . . .? I'd be interested in seeing where that's written in the rule book, 'cause I've never seen it there. It's intriguing that you're tempted, of course. I wonder whether that temptation pertains to back-door action, or homosexuality. Perhaps a little introspection is in order? Rusty: I like the fact that Sullivan tried to explain that stereotypes were just stereotypes, that he isn't the way gays are portrayed in the media, and your reaction was essentially "yes you are! you just don't want to admit it!" Plenty of men like guys who have hairy, masculine bodies (that is, after all, a classical part of the gay male experience: liking men). And in my town lots of men do follow the lives of celebrities. Rusty, Rusty: I love the work you do in terms of documenting some of the brutal murders going on in the Middle East, but on some issues you seem awfully naive. To all: I understand that a lot of the readers here are philosophically opposed to homosexuality, but I cannot think that our Lord would approve of the way some of you formulate this disapproval, or the stance you take toward homosexuals. We're told that Jesus hung out with prostitutes. I think that matters. And I wish some of you guys would lighten up.

Posted by: Attila Girl at May 11, 2005 01:48 AM (FAdyB)

5 Which brings me to the question: What is Rusty Shackleford? Homo/lesbian/straight/male/female/shemale or perhaps an energy being programmed to act human and gather useful propaganda to a website?

Posted by: A Finn at May 11, 2005 03:12 AM (cWMi4)

6 The biblical "rule book," has many references to activities that are condemned, including homosexual activity: Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. Romans 1:24-27 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind (Note: aresenokoitais: A sodomite, or homosexual), for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; 1st Timothy 1:8-10 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. Jude 1:7 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind (Note: aresenokoitais: A sodomite, or homosexual), Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. 1st Corinthians 6:9-11 About half the states still have laws, based upon the above, against sodomy on the books.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at May 11, 2005 07:15 AM (x+5JB)

7 Just to clarify: Rusty is gay, just not all the way gay.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at May 11, 2005 08:15 AM (JQjhA)

8 I'm getting the impression that a large percentage of Zionazis have got the gay.

Posted by: greg at May 11, 2005 09:12 AM (/+dAV)

9 Attila hon, I have been married 17 years. If I came up to bed and found my wife had strapped on what I think you are talking about, I would go running and screaming out the front door. Good God, Is this whatÂ’s going on out there? Hey YBP, great post. Are you a Deacon at your Parish?

Posted by: Brad at May 11, 2005 09:27 AM (pO1tP)

10 greg, but that kind of gay just HAS gay. But the other kind of gay IS gay-- it's entirely who they are and everything under the sun is about them being gay.

Posted by: Carlos at May 11, 2005 09:28 AM (8e/V4)

11 Good God, Is this whatÂ’s going on out there? hehehe! Yup. People are bored out of their minds. They'll be fucking their dog Spot before long.

Posted by: Carlos at May 11, 2005 09:30 AM (8e/V4)

12 Â“but that kind of gay just HAS gay. But the other kind of gay IS gay-- it's entirely who they are and everything under the sun is about them being gay.Â”-Carlos Probably just my naivetÃƒÂ© but I fail to appreciate the difference. Too nuanced for me to understand. Has gay?

Posted by: greg at May 11, 2005 09:42 AM (/+dAV)

13 Hi Brad: I'm not a deacon--yet. Merely continuing in my unofficial secular capacity as Lord High Curmudgeon Heresy-Finder General.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at May 11, 2005 09:56 AM (x+5JB)

14 greg, HAS gay means it's not your entire life. It means Bush's stance on gay marriage is irrelevant to your foreign policy views. Andrew Sullivan, who comments extensively on foreign policy, was unable to separate the two. He IS gay, so his view on foreign policy changed depending on where Bush stood on gay marriage. That doesn't happen to someone who merely HAS gay.

Posted by: Carlos at May 11, 2005 10:07 AM (8e/V4)

15 Errr, Ahhh, Okey Dokey. Are you sure this isn't just a way for My Pet Jawa Fags to rationalize their homosexuality? Where I come from a fag is a fag is a fag.

Posted by: greg at May 11, 2005 10:13 AM (/+dAV)

16 The big catch that wasn't? Pakistan's arrest of Libyan Al Qaeda suspect not as big a breakthrough as first thought. http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0510/dailyUpdate.html The first American newspaper to admit what the rest of the world already knows, namely that the Libyan who was captured and said to be the #3 Al Qaeda man is just small fry. Why would the rest of the American MSM remain silent on this? Because they are complicit in this war of lies and theyÂ’re trying desperately to make lemonade out of lemons.

Posted by: greg at May 11, 2005 10:31 AM (/+dAV)

17 greg, aren't you posting that on the wrong thread? LMAO!

Posted by: Carlos at May 11, 2005 10:53 AM (8e/V4)

18 Sorry, but I just can't take this Has Gay v. Is Gay thing seriously.

Posted by: greg at May 11, 2005 11:03 AM (/+dAV)

19 greg, it's not meant to be taken all that seriously. Just a little bit seriously. Like a kernel of truth seriously. And FYI, the CSMonitor agreeing with a couple of Lefty eurorags is hardly news.

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

20 Foreign Press Reporting that Zarqawi is Dead http://www.proche-orient.info/xjournal_pol_der_heure.php3?id_article=40639#htdepage

Posted by: greg at May 11, 2005 11:18 AM (/+dAV)

21 greg, is there a particular website where you pick up those foreign sources? I'd like to check it out.

Posted by: Carlos at May 11, 2005 11:19 AM (8e/V4)

22 Whatreallyhappened.com & Bushwatch.net Enjoy!

Posted by: greg at May 11, 2005 11:23 AM (/+dAV)

23 greg, my loony buddy turned me onto propagandamatrix dot com check it out.

Posted by: Carlos at May 11, 2005 11:28 AM (8e/V4)

24 I'm familiar with it. It's not a bad site. Thanks though.

Posted by: greg at May 11, 2005 11:34 AM (/+dAV)

25 Gee thanks Brad, I was not sure if any besides Greg, chicken little brain ever read my posts. But if the first thing you thought of after reading my post is about K-Y jelly, well I have to wonder bout you now, and I hate to spoil your fantasies, but I am not that type. Now the next point I have is most of you are yelling that homosexual activities are a sin in the Bible. Repent, or thou are doomed to hell. Right? But what if you are not a Christian? Also why are Christians basing their whole salvation on just one book. One book that was not written down until 3 centuries after Jesus died. True the oral traditions have been around for ever, but have they really never been changed from the begining? Fact, I heard of a story about a 30 year old man, goes off into the desert and is tempted by an evil being. This man of course turns down the temptation and follows the good god. Sound familiar? It did to me, but then I found out the man was not Jesus, but Zoroaster, who lived like 400 years before Jesus. The magies that came to visit the child Jesus, they to , along with guardian beings (angels), all came from Zoroasterism. Now this is not so suprising considering that the Romans, the most infamous plagiarizers ever, complied the bible. When it comes down to it, religion is a private affair, between oneself and ones diety(or dieties). As such, we should respects everyone's own beliefs as long as those beliefs do not threaten society. Unfortunately the Moral Majority does not like this idea. They want everyone to believe as they do and want laws to enslave everyone to follow them. Abortion is evil, lets outlaw it. Gay marriages are evil, lets outlaw it. Mercy killing (when truly needed.) is evil, lets outlaw it. Reading Huck Fin is evil, lets burn it. Mypetjawa is evil (according to Google,

) lets close it down.

Posted by: Butch at May 11, 2005 11:52 AM (Gqhi9)

26 Just as the Holy Spirit guides the election of the pope, so it guideed the Bible, regarded by Christians as infallible. Non-Christians will be judged by not by Christian precepts, but whether or not they have faithfully followed the law written upon their heart. Zoroaster. No one denies the existence of pagan religions/cults before Christianity. And many New Testament incidents had "types," or forshadowings in the Old Testament. Morality as a private matter leads to chaos, with loony fathers justifying the stabbing their children because they broke curfews. We've all heard this before: "Your right is not my right." And 2+2=5, by the way. The thing to remember is that Christianity deems it sinful to FORCE anyone to comply with its teachings.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at May 11, 2005 12:53 PM (x+5JB)

27 Hey Butch, I was just having a little fun. Honestly, I donÂ’t give my team much hope to stop abortion, promote religion in public arena or just put some reasonable restraints on the gay juggernaut. The left is winning all these battles not us. You should be basking in your victories. I throw up a comment about the Gay thing every now and then. Man the response can be just overwhelming. ItÂ’s probably a cheep shot, but its fun seeing the explosion that follows. Hey, did you call Greg Â“chicken little brainÂ”? I thought you two were bros.

Posted by: Brad at May 11, 2005 01:08 PM (aUEhc)

28 Bourbon/Brad: Difficult to discuss without violating the PG rule, but plenty of straight men like to have their prostate glands tickled. That's sensation, not orientation. And I saw *nothing* in your scriptures that said anything about the prostate gland (or how to get there).

Posted by: Attila Girl at May 11, 2005 03:09 PM (FAdyB)

29 Brad, no, Chicken little brain is aka greyrooster. Who has not been around lately. Honestly I take very little out here seriously. This is a way for me to pass the time at work when I have slow time. To You YBP, I did say as long as it did not society. (aka killing kids because of late curfews.) Once again I say, no matter how saintly you or Pope John Paul II is/was, neither of you can ensure me a place in heaven. Only my relationship with my God,(or gods) can do that. It is cool for people of like beliefs to get together and worship as long as it hurts no one, (sorry human sacrifices are out). And if it is a sin to force Christianity on to people, help bout telling that to MR. Bushie, and friends up in D.C.

. As far as your right is not my right. Well some time this is true. If we are in the same room, and you say it is too cold, and I say it is to hot, which of us is wrong. Neither, due to the fact we each perceive the temperature differently. I guess that is my main point, is that one's perception of something is not necessarily wrong, but it can be different.

Posted by: Butch at May 11, 2005 03:13 PM (Gqhi9)

30 Butch: If a person says that the room is the "right" temperature, that's not really what we're talking about here. We're talking about "right" and "wrong" within the contect of morality. I agree--the pope or any other Christian can't save anyone, be can show the way to holy living and eternal life through his office as Vicar of Christ. Attilla Girl: Plenty of straight men cheat on their wives, but that doesn't make it morally permissable.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at May 11, 2005 04:45 PM (nU3B/)

31 >>>"...but plenty of straight men like to have their prostate glands tickled." What a load of politically correct crap.

Posted by: Carlos at May 11, 2005 04:55 PM (8e/V4)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Eschaton aranoid Idiotarian of the Day

Ok, I don't really have time to post, but I read this over at Eschaton's place.....talk about freaking nutty!!! Look, Atrios is just your run of the mill left-wing activist in the Democratic party. I've never considered him part of the tin-foil brigades, just part of the gay-hating pretending to be gay-loving gay-outing partisan left. But whoever this guy Avedon is.....man, this guy takes the cake!

Here is the post in question where he (she?) accused the Republican party of rigging elections. Evidence? Well, why else would they be so confident that judicial fillibusters won't be needed in the future if they aren't completely sure they will be in the majority for the foreseeable future. Idiot. more...

Posted by: Rusty at 02:46 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 328 words, total size 2 kb.

Utah Webhost Killing American Soldiers

I know it's not possible for Orem, Utah based United Online Web Services, Inc. which runs the 50megs.com free webhosting service to police all of it's sites, but come on!

We are talking about the worst sort of jihadi site here, the type that trains insurgents to kill American soldiers using Improvised Explosive Devices.

If the link doesn't work that's because I filed a complaint with the company, but Open Source Intelligence took a screenshot.

If the link still works it's either because a) they haven't gotten around to taking down this disgusting site because of manpower issues or b) they are a bunch of idiots who in the name of 'free speech' are willing to see their friends and neighbors killed.

If b, then I suggest somebody go down to 1253 N. Research Way, Suite Q-2500, in Orem Utah and raise bloody hell!

UPDATE: Site down!

Posted by: Rusty at 02:32 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 157 words, total size 1 kb.

Blog Sabbath Caption Winners (UPDATED)

Is it just the pinkeye talking or does that photo seem just a little more gay on the second posting? Anyway, thanks to all for cheering me up in an otherwise dismal week.

See-Dub: While North Korea may soon test a nuclear warhead, White House sources reported, their manual delivery systems remain primitive and easily blocked.

Carlos: Starving N. Korean hordes fight desperately for the last remaining food aid donated by the U.S.A.

Graeme: In this rare photo, North Korean military personnel attempt to split Uranium - 235 atoms to initate a fission reaction during an above ground test of the country's first nuclear weapon. The IAEA has since prohibited the exportation of Red Bull to North Korea in an attempt to stop its nuclear weapons programme.

UPDATE: D'oh! I never announced last week's winners from the Blog Sabbath Caption Contest: Worship Me Edition. Sorry.

Amicus Curae: No, honestly, who called for the proctologist?

Lookitup: ...and suddenly George Lucas realizes to his embarrassment that this indeed was NOT Star Wars convention. Quickly he consults the convention map and realizes that this is the Ostrich Impersonators Convention in the next hall over.

Buckley F. Williams gets the most offensive, yet funny award: And remember, whoever finds my Barry Manilow tie clip gets a sturdy goat and a one month supply of chick peas.

Posted by: Rusty at 01:45 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 232 words, total size 2 kb.

Hostage Released for Pizza

I don't think Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has his sights set so low. Ananova:

An Australian prison guard held hostage for two days was released after a ransom demand for pizzas was met.
Up to 20 inmates at the Risdon Prison in Hobart, Tasmania, seized the guard in a protest over conditions in the maximum security jail.
Initially they made 24 demands to authorities, but eventually gave up their hostage after agreeing to 15 pizzas, Coke and garlic bread instead.
"At midnight, the final sticking point with the inmates was that they were requiring pizzas to be delivered. Our staff member was negotiated out with the delivery of 15 pizzas," Graeme Barber, Tasmania's director of prisons, told The Advocate newspaper.

Posted by: Rusty at 11:54 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 126 words, total size 1 kb.

Hostages Update

No word from the Army of Ansar al-Sunna on Japanese hostage Akihiko Saito. Then again, their websites were sort of taken down last night. I wonder how that could have happened? Anyway, our original story is here along with screenshots of the now defunct website's announcement that Saito had been captured. Since these sites go down quickly, Vlad had the foresight to mirror the orginal here.

Also, the deadline for Australian hostage Douglas Wood has passed. Still no word as to his fate.

Posted by: Rusty at 09:55 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 87 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Praise be to Amaterasu, the Jap is free.

Posted by: A Finn at May 11, 2005 02:59 AM (cWMi4)

2 So... what's قال تعالى (قَاتِلُوهُمْ يُعَذِّبْهُمْ اللَّهُ بِأَيْدِيكُمْ وَيُخْزِهِمْ وَيَنْصُرْكُمْ عَلَيْهِمْ وَيَشْفِ صُدُورَ قَوْمٍ مُؤْمِنِينَ * وَيُذْهِبْ غَيْظَ قُلُوبِهِمْ وَيَتُوبُ اللَّهُ عَلَى مَنْ يَشَاءُ وَاللَّهُ عَلِيمٌ حَكِيمٌ

التوبة الآية 14-15 الله أكبر الله أكبر الله أكبر ... تمكن إخوانكم المجاهدين وبعد وصول معلومات حول خروج عدد من السيارات من قاعدة الأسد الأمريكية العسكرية التي تحمل مقاولين ومخابرات غربيين تساندهم قوات الردة متخفين بملابس مدنية وسيارت صالون طبيعية فكمن لهم المجاهدين كميناً عند وصولهم في منطقة بالقرب من هيت، وعند وصولهم تلك المنطقة خرج عليهم المجاهدين كالأسود حيث كان عدد المرتدين 12 عراقي إضافة إلى خمسة أجانب متسلحين بأحدث أنواع الأسلحة الرشاشة والرمانات اليدوية، ودارت معركة طاحنة استدعى خلالها المرتدين والأجانب إلى إمدادات القوات الأمريكية وبالحال أرسل المجاهدين إمدادات فوصلت مفارز المجاهدين قبل وصول المروحيات الصليبية فهجم عليهم المجاهدين هجوماً كاسحاً أدى إلى إصابة العديد منهم إصابات بالغة مما اضطرهم إلى الاستسلام في هذه الإثناء وصلت المروحيات الأمريكية فقام المجاهدين بأسرهم وقتلهم بالحال باستثناء أحدهم وهو ياباني الجنسية كما مبين في وثائقه إدناه وهو الآن في قبضة المجاهدين إلا أنه مصاب بإصابات بالغة وسنقوم بتصويره ونشره قريباً، وكذلك سنقوم بنشر وثائق وصور الذين تم قتلهم أما المجاهدين فقد من الله عليهم بالنصر وبفضل الله لم يصب أحداً منهم، وعند انسحابهم قامت المروحيات الأمريكية in English/any reasonably understandable writing?

Posted by: A Finn at May 11, 2005 04:21 AM (cWMi4)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Happy Orgasm Day

Does Hallmark have a card for this one? Just one more reason to love Brazil. AP:

Sex rarely makes the news in Brazil's conservative Northeast Â— until a small town declared an official Orgasm Day on Monday.
Espertantina Mayor Felipe Santolia endorsed the May 9 holiday, which he said was intended to improve relationships between married couples.

You can't make this stuff up. Hat tip: Discarded Lies

Posted by: Rusty at 09:12 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 71 words, total size 1 kb.

Who was worse, Stalin or Hitler? Six of One, Half Dozen of Another

The difference between Stalin and Hitler? Hitler lost. WaTimes:

Amid all the chitchat, commentary and controversy over this week's celebrations marking the end of World War II, there is a question that has never been far from the surface, though it has rarely broken through: Which was really worse -- communism or Nazism?
One answer, a sensible one at that, is that both systems were so degraded, disgusting and unpalatable that it is impossible to establish a hierarchy of value in which one could possibly stand higher, or lower, than the other. When you've reached the deepest pit in Hell there's nowhere lower to go.
Unfortunately, though, that conclusion is often lost in a quagmire of ignorance and historical distortion. Not because anyone this side of decency really doubts the horrors of Nazism. But, sadly, because there are still large numbers of people (and judge for yourself which side of decency they stand) who still refuse to face up to the horrors of communism.
Take veteran Guardian columnist Jonathan Steele, writing in that paper just last week. In an irony that would certainly escape him, he makes it clear that one purpose of his polemic is to combat the "denial" in the West about the role of the Soviet Union in defeating Hitler. In attempting to foreclose on the argument that "Nazism and communism were somehow two sides of the same evil coin" he reaches a crescendo with the following, extraordinary statement: "Mass terror and purges," he says, "were not intrinsic to Soviet rule, as was clear after Stalin's death."

True, but if you are to use this comparison then one would need to call 'Nazism' a particular manifestation of fascism. Hitler is to fascism what Stalin is to communism.

Yet, no one says, "Hey, those fascists weren't really all that bad. It was Hitler that perverted fascism." See how this works? As if any paper would stand up and call Mussolini a reformer, Franco an anti-Hitlerite, or Juan Peron an idealist.

Soviet mass terror, by contrast, was a feature of the regime right from the beginning. Lenin's core principle of Red Terror was applied in the slaughter of up to half a million class enemies in the very first years of Soviet rule. And that is before we add in the millions of victims of a civil war which was the direct result of communist despotism.
In Lenin's own words, the new Soviet system was "a special system of organized violence against a certain class." The use of terror against class and ideological enemies was thus a central, defining part of the communist system.
Lenin's Commissar for Justice Issac Steinberg well remembers in his memoirs a telling conversation with Lenin in which he (bravely) expressed reservations about the scale of that terror. "Then why do we bother with a commissariat of Justice?" he asked Lenin. "Let's call it frankly the commissariat for Social Extermination and be done with it!" Lenin jumped at the idea. "Well put," he said. "That's exactly what it should be...but we can't say that."
The full death toll, most of it accumulated in peace time, at the hands of Lenin and his political and ideological successor, Stalin, is estimated by the best authorities at somewhere between 25 million and 30 million people. Not bad in a system for which mass terror and purges were not "intrinsic" parts. In what passes for Steele's argument, he suggests the scaling down of the terror after Stalin's death is evidence the system was not inherently terroristic. Does it not occur to him that there was no one left to kill?

And why do people still engage in this debate?

But by far the most significant category is made up by people who have a deep ideological need to save the reputation of the one by showing up its "better" qualities in comparison with the other. Neo-Nazis have thus long sought to stress the crimes of Stalin while diminishing or denying entirely the crimes of Hitler. It serves their perverted aims to do so. The old, Western Left has participated in exactly the same kind of enterprise in reverse. The difference is, of course, that they continue to get away with it, avoiding the contempt that both groups, not just one, so richly deserve.

Parenthetically I was at a May Day rally in Moscow once. The crowd was maybe 100,000 strong. There were pictures of Stalin everywhere.

One of the main speakers was an American from the CPUSA. Had he been 5 feet closer I would have punched that SOB right in the mouth. The utter drivel coming out of his mouth about how Russians were so much better off under the Soviet Union and how they enjoyed such a higher standard of living than Americans.

Being a Leftist is a lot like being a member of a cult. But at least in a cult they need to make you eat low-protein gruel to lower your resistance to suggestion. Leftist seem willing and able to buy into the ideological nonsense of their own free will.

Hmmm, I take that back. Maybe kashi (mush) and shi (cabbage soup) were Communist inventions to get the masses on board with the Fearless Leader's glorious seven year plan?

Hat tip: Kevin Aylward

Posted by: Rusty at 09:06 AM | Comments (21) | Add Comment
Post contains 900 words, total size 5 kb.

1 My brother, your classic old school Liberal, said he would have preferred live under the bolsheviks than the czars. I told him the czars didn't have gulags and kill tens of millions. He said, "really? hmmm."

Posted by: Carlos at May 10, 2005 10:21 AM (8e/V4)

2 Remmeber, if you kill 100 million with "humane intentions" you are "better" or "equal" to someone who kills 21 million with racist intentions. A serial muderer with good vibrations is better than a racist who kills just one person. Leftists say 1+1=3. Bow down to it.

Posted by: Leftism is slave morality at May 10, 2005 10:37 AM (Gi7oA)

3 Carlos, your classic, old-school, Liberal brother is guilty of exactly what Robin Shepherd, the author of the piece Rusty quotes, speaks of; by showing up the "better" qualities of one in comparison with the other. Even though he has no idea what those "qualities" are. Life under the Czars was pretty bad. Forced labor camps, debtor's prisons, high unregulated taxation, etc.

Posted by: Oyster at May 10, 2005 10:48 AM (fl6E1)

4 Life under the Czars was pretty bad. Forced labor camps, debtor's prisons, high unregulated taxation, etc. Oyster, I know it was, and I'm not apologizing for the czars. But under the commies it went from bad to worse. I've already mentioned gulags and political repression, but I forgot to mention the millions of peasants that starved to death when Stalin collectivized their farms and robbed their food.

Posted by: Carlos at May 10, 2005 11:01 AM (8e/V4)

5 Which is better Communism or Fascism? That should be an easy choice for you Zionazis. Clearly you prefer fascism.

Posted by: greg at May 10, 2005 11:59 AM (/+dAV)

6 Why is it whenever this subject comes up, the options quickly become limited to deciding and choosing the lesser of two evils? Sure, life under the Tsars sucked, but so did life under Communism. How come nobody ever brings up the prospect of true freedom? It seems to me those on the left, call them soc***ist, progressive, fascist, communist, whatever are best defined by their pessimism and idealism, both of which are unrealistic and lead to cognitive dissonance. They can't deal with reality, so they turn petty and violent, or are at least willing to overlook violence and repression, because in their diseased minds, it's the only thing that can work. Freedom is good for everyone, though not everyone is ready for it. Patience is the key.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 10, 2005 12:18 PM (0yYS2)

7 "That should be an easy choice for you Zionazis. Clearly you prefer fascism." hahaha! made me laugh.

Posted by: Carlos at May 10, 2005 12:35 PM (8e/V4)

8 Rusty, you are absolutely right about there being no meaningful difference. And it's just as true of the intent as well as the process. There's another reason this argument is moot. It ignores the PRC. No, we don't have the wealth of records and testimony available from the Soviet and Nazi regimes (It's almost laughable to remember what meticulous records were left by the Nazis) and no Chinese Solzhenitsyn has, or seems likely, to surface. The picture given by Paul Johnson in Modern Times seems to give the impression that while Stalin and Hitler went about their business grimly and methodically, Mousie Dung laughed all the way, as if one billion people were his private toys. Fifty-six years down the road his heirs are playing brinkmanship with Taiwan (Thanks, Dick) and perhaps letting North Korea act as the muleta. Anyone for Ping-Pong?

Posted by: Mr. Kurtz at May 10, 2005 12:37 PM (Gl8kN)

9 Carlos, I thought that comment would smoke you out. Your attention is needed at http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/080358.php

Posted by: greg at May 10, 2005 01:11 PM (/+dAV)

10 Q to Mr President: Who was worse, Stalin or hitler? Bush reply: easy, it's a trick question; Saddam was worst

Posted by: IM at May 10, 2005 01:19 PM (a9tRx)

11 Your attention is needed at http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/080358.php ;-) Dude, that thread is all tapped out.

Posted by: Carlos at May 10, 2005 02:37 PM (8e/V4)

12 Carlos, I accept your unconditional surrender. The single spoil of war that I shall take as my trophy is the knowledge that I'm right and you're wrong. He ain't the #3 man.

Posted by: greg at May 10, 2005 02:50 PM (/+dAV)

13 greg, I surrender to your superior dogged stubborness, not your logic nor your conclusions. :-)

Posted by: Carlos at May 10, 2005 03:07 PM (8e/V4)

14 Greg, its long past time to grow up. Move out of the parents' house and quit masturbating to Lyndon LaRouche screeds. The anti-semitic stuff doesn't get you dates outside of KKK rallies.

Posted by: Robin Roberts at May 10, 2005 07:06 PM (xauGB)

15 Being anti-Russian due to the long history of war against them, I must say Stalin was worse. Even if he didn't cause WW2 that cost somewhat 40 million human lives and huge environmental damage, he did terrorize and ruin an area three or four times the size of US for many many years longer than Hitler waged war on world. He had ethnic cleansings that make Milosevic look like a saint. He actually had entire nations "cleansed" of the original inhabitants and reinhabited by poor Russians. Plus he tried to take over Finland twice costing him only 3-4 million dead Russians and gigantic amounts of captured/destroyed military hardware, but for us huge material damage, loss of land, about 40'000 dead and several hundreds of thousands injured. So he messed up Russia and had even bigger amounts of innocent people systematically killed than Hitler. Hitlers wars cost more people, yes, but only the concentration camps and soldiers count as Hitlers fault, the rest are from the maniacal revenge bombings that leveled entire cities, and the A-bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki done by the Allied after 3te Reich started losing. If you don't count those and the people Japans sunrise cost in Hitlers killing, Stalins terror cost ~2,8 million people more than Hitlers.

Posted by: A Finn at May 11, 2005 02:53 AM (cWMi4)

16 Hmm... perhaps this should lead to Bush=right-wing-Stalin. Oh yeah, 16-year-old Swede broke into NASAs computers, naananaananaaanaaa.

Posted by: A Finn at May 11, 2005 02:56 AM (cWMi4)

17 "...16-year-old Swede broke into NASAs computers, naananaananaaanaaa." A Finn, and that's cool?

Posted by: Oyster at May 11, 2005 05:56 AM (YudAC)

18 Robin Roberts caused the electric grid blackout last year with an over use of her electric vibrator. She has since converted to a turbo deisel vibrator. PLAUP PLAUP PLAUP PLAUP!

Posted by: greg at May 11, 2005 10:09 AM (/+dAV)

19 Might've been NSAs computers, but yeah, it's nice to know anyone can go see what they're doing.

Posted by: A Finn at May 12, 2005 12:56 AM (cWMi4)

20 On a pure statistical standpoint, one may point out the percentages regarding the total loss of lives compared to the population. In relation to their populations before the war started, the losses were almost the same. The USSR lost about 10.4% of their people while Germany lost 9.5%. And on that note, Poland, which we all should know was a main focal point in the holocaust lost 17.2%, 6 million civilians, 123 thousand military personel. The commonly accepted count for the holocaust death toll is 6 million Jews and 5 million other minorities (gypsies, blacks, mentally ill). That's eleven million innocent civilians that had no plans in taking over any governments. Russia's civilian death count is 7 million. Most Russians were killed in battle, not in a camp made for the sole purpose of purging a race. By all means, Stalin was a schizophrenic mass political murderer as much as Hitler was psychopathic racist Parkinson's patient. And I'm not ashamed to say that at times I almost wish that Germany would have reached Moscow before we got there, but in the end, Hitler killed more unmorally throughout the war than Stalin did. They both had great strengths that got them as far as they did. Hitler was a great speaker and motivator. Stalin was actually a very skilled military leader (granted anybody could win with the Red Army). All in all, I forgot my point. I still say Churchill saved the world.

Posted by: A Scot at May 25, 2005 01:43 AM (gCx4y)

21 Right okay, I dont know where this fits in with all of your beliefs and i dont care too much, but evil is evil, how can there be a lesser of the two? I understand that there is but surely just because one is worse it doesnt make the other any better. Stalin killed a hell of a lot more people than hitler did, as ludicris as it seems, nazism had some sort of logic, stalinism was completely illogical. By no means does this make Hitler or nazism any less terrible, it does shed some light on stalin though. He killed millions of his own people, no reason, lies made up by his followers, Hitler when he killed germans made sure that there was some reasoning behind it, whether they had jewish blood within them or were somehow linked however small to treason. Both men(not that they deserve such a title) were tyrants. However while it is not even considered for someone to even joke about Hitler, it seems that stalinsim is somewhat celebrated, there are cigerettes that celebrate a concentration camp that killed 100,000 russians, songs that can be found still such as 'stalin, freund, genosse' you would have to look a damn sight harder to find a nazi song, there are also stamps with the heads of significant figures from stalins era who killed thousands. Why is it that stalin is considered somewhat of a hero? Its a twisted society that portrays this man as anything other than a crazy man who had the power to ammuse himself and rid himself of his insecurities and paranoia.

Posted by: Danni at August 23, 2005 04:20 PM (wc357)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

That's nothing, I wept at the trailor

Spielberg Weeps At Star Wars Screening

Posted by: Rusty at 08:44 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 20 words, total size 1 kb.

Me Love You Long Time

Go here. Scroll down. Put down all liquids. Watch video.

Posted by: Rusty at 08:42 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 20 words, total size 1 kb.

Pink Eye Blogging Day 4

Beig sick sucks. Finals week sucks. Being sick during finals week really sucks. I apologize for not e-mailing many of you back the last few days.

Posted by: Rusty at 08:40 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 36 words, total size 1 kb.

May 09, 2005

Pink Eye Blogging

Never use worcester sauce after midnight. Trust me.....

Posted by: Rusty at 02:26 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 14 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Sounds very personal

Posted by: Tom at May 09, 2005 03:23 PM (FtOhk)

2 Reminds me of the time I was cutting up peppers and scratched my eye. Ouchies.

Posted by: phin at May 09, 2005 05:42 PM (DGPlf)

3 When I was about 11 we were eating lots of salsa-slathered Tex-Mex of some kind. Then I had to pee. Aiieeeeee! They always said to wash your hands after, but...

Posted by: Mr. Kurtz at May 09, 2005 05:47 PM (cCPcl)

4 You guys have nothing on me: I was chopping jalapenos for a salsa once...forgot to wash my hands before taking a piss (all the coronas I was drinkin') and my stuff caught on fire. I panicked and jumped in the shower, which only spread it around. I remembered that dairy products help, so this leads to me screaming in pain as I'm pouring a gallon of milk on my dick in the tub just as my girlfriend walks back in from the store...yup. Top that.

Posted by: steven baber at May 09, 2005 07:11 PM (ruF1Q)

5 Steven WAY WAY to personal... But it sure has me laughing.

Posted by: Tom at May 09, 2005 07:44 PM (FtOhk)

6 Steve; did you offer to share? Maybe that would have doused the fires!

Posted by: Brian H at May 09, 2005 08:10 PM (8AabM)

7 This is my first time to participate in this, im an arab sunei Iraqi and now am living in dubai but i used to live in abbadan in iraq, i just want to say to all arabs just leave us alone. our people were killed by thousands and thousands by the fucker saddam and no one of you have ever done or even said anything and now you love us soo much and wants what good for us!!! the picture is clear the arabs have a black cloud covering their eyes they cant c the right from wrong they call his two pussies= his sons shohadaa they say they were killed for good cause. thats the mentality that youre dealing with (if U say the sky is blue they'll say no its red) thats why we did not move even one step for the last hundred year im an arab and ashamed to say this but this is the truth,leave islam out of this mess because its the only good thing that is left in our region. All those who says that they represent Islam they are not they only represent themselves. And i was the happiest man on earth when president Bush was re elected im saying again and again for all arabs and dump extreemest who made all the world hate the name of Islam because of their act stop this, and start building ure country rather than thinking of killing all the time. last thing i wanna say is that those people who R shown in the media covering their faces and calling themselves jehadyeen are either arabs who never knew what really is happening inside iraq for the last 20 years or some ex iraqi militant especially who call themselves fedaayee sadam (army of sadam) who used to have all the power before at the time of his regime and now they've lost everything. We the iraqis know those assholes who i swear to god feal fun when they kill someone and thats not a joke because they were like this from an early age. fainally i say again for all arabs mind Ure own business.

Posted by: kathem Ali at May 10, 2005 12:51 AM (vBN2f)

8 I hope these recent Arab writers aren't fake. It would be extremely interresting to get a point of view that isn't influenced by western way of thinking.

Posted by: A Finn at May 10, 2005 04:02 AM (cWMi4)

9 Never heard of any illness like pink eye here on the other side of the Atlantic ocean. What's it like? Well, eyes go pink I guess, but other symptoms?

Posted by: A Finn at May 10, 2005 05:34 AM (cWMi4)

10 A finn : Pink eye comes from cows or somtimes just from getting dirt in your eye. Yep its pink. It itches and when you get up you have a lot of goop in your eye. Its an infection of the tear ducts. Eye drops or a salve is required to cure it. Bet Rusty got it when he had to pick up his young un from school. I went to the gas station once and put some gas in a gallon milk jug for the mower. My jug was leaking a bit near the top. Not wanting to drip gas on the nice carpet in the car I let the drips fall on my leg while I held the jug on the way home. Only had about 2 miles 4 or 5 minutes till I got home. First minute OK. Next four very long. Inside of right leg & scrotum exposed to gasoline. I made a trip to the shower very much like steven there except it was my mom asking me what the hell I had done. Had to be 20 years ago and I I'll never forget that lesson learned. Mr Ali. Best of luck to you and your people. You are a credit them. A thinking arab, neat.

Posted by: Howie at May 10, 2005 08:39 AM (D3+20)

11 A Finn Dont you get a programme called South Park over there?

Posted by: sparky at May 10, 2005 05:53 PM (F1nba)

12 Yes, South Park had a good pink eye episode. Think its cancelled in here these days. Did they stop making it?

Posted by: A Finn at May 11, 2005 12:56 AM (cWMi4)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Army of Ansar al-Sunnah Takes Japanese Hostage

UPDATE 5/28/05: The Army of Ansar al-Sunnah has posted a video and images of Saito Akihiko's dead body. Apparently, Mr. Saito was killed in the initial battle.

News, links to the video and Ansar al-Sunnah website, and images from the video may be FOUND IN THIS UPDATED POST HERE.

If you are looking for the latest information about hostages and terrorists in Iraq, please GO TO THE MAIN PAGE HERE.

------------------------------------
Begin original post:

The Army of Ansar al-Sunnah claims to have taken a Japanese man hostage. The man, Akihiko Saito, is alleged by the al Qaeda linked group to have been taken from a convoy 'during a fierce battle in Western Iraq,' in what might be a reference to earlier reports of a successful U.S. attack near the Syrian border. The group also posted a photo of Akikiko Saito's passport and promised more photos would be forthcoming.

Scotsman:

Iraqi militants claimed today they took a Japanese security contractor hostage after ambushing a convoy of foreigners and Iraqi troops in western Iraq.
The Ansar al-Sunnah Army identified the Japanese hostage as Akihito Saito, 44, and posted a photocopy of his passport, including his picture, on the groupÂ’s official website. It said Saito was Â“severely injuredÂ” in the fight.
The report could not be independently confirmed. Junji Gomakudo, First Secretary at the Japanese Embassy in Baghdad, said officials were trying to confirm a report of a kidnapped Japanese citizen but said they did not know if the claim was true.
The group posted other photo ID cards allegedly belonging to Saito, with one identifying him as a security manager of Hart GMSSCO, a British-based firm that provides security in Iraq. Another document seemed to be a weapons permit....
JapanÂ’s Kyodo News agency said Saito was employed by a security firm from Cyprus and may have been working as a security officer at a US facility.
The group said Saito was seized after Ansar al-Sunnah fighters ambushed a convoy of five foreign contractors, protected by 12 members of the Iraqi security forces. It claimed all of them were killed in the fight except for the Japanese. It said some of the foreigners were intelligence agents.

The Army of Ansar al-Sunna routinely claims every one they capture is an 'intelligence agent' or works for the 'CIA'.

If Akihiko Saito is still alive, he won't be for long. His life only serves the propaganda purposes of Ansar al-Sunna. The group just released the videotaped murder of a dozen or so Sudanese worders last week.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's al Qaeda in Iraq (formerly known as Tawhid and Jihad) murdered Shosei Koda last year in a gruesome beheading video. Ansar al-Sunna has close ties to Zarqawi and often collaborates with him.

UPDATE: Screen shot and more photos from Ansar al-Sunna website below along with more photos and announcement. (Thank to Vlad and Polish Expert for links)

Developing......

Others: John Little, Chad at In The Bullpen more...

Posted by: Rusty at 01:48 PM | Comments (57) | Add Comment
Post contains 546 words, total size 5 kb.

1 I think that the terrorists keep making stupid mistakes. If they think that kidnapping and killing Japanese citizens will make Japan pull out of their promise, they are sadly mistaken. The Japanese, at least those in the military, still hold to Bushido, and they are our greatest ally in our fight against terror. The Japanese peacekeeping forces, as well as the South Korean's, won't put up with people killing their citizens, and one day, I'm sure, there will be a cleaning out of the terrorists hideouts. Those of us, who hold our allies very dear, pray that this man will be returned to his country alive and in good condition.

Posted by: A Texan at May 10, 2005 01:12 AM (LtbPK)

2 NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Not Akihiko Saito! Why, oh why is this world such a bad place? He was only 44 years young, he shouldn't die yet... rofl

Posted by: A Finn at May 10, 2005 02:19 AM (cWMi4)

3 You people just dony understand islam - no matter what you do there will always be frredom fighters (so called 'insurgents') willing to scarifice their lives to stop the US forces oppressing the iraqi people. YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND ISLAM AND FOR THAT REASON YOU WILL NEVER SUCCEED!!

Posted by: sbhgvvr at May 10, 2005 02:46 PM (bXAtD)

4 Nice. I guess beheading prisoners of war is acceptible in Islam? Oh, I forgot, Mohammed started the practice.......

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at May 10, 2005 04:34 PM (JQjhA)

5 I'm currently stationed in Baghdad, and have dealt with Iraqi's and have some understanding of what's going on over here. The only ones doing the oppressing are the insurgents. As far as Islam is concerned, the insurgents are twisting it around for their own purposes. For the most part, Iraqi's and those who practice Islam are good people who want to make a better life for themselves. They just keep getting screwed over by extremists who try to destroy anything made by the USA and the other foreign governments over here. They end up killing more Iraqi's and Muslims then anyone else.

Posted by: T at May 10, 2005 07:40 PM (2kVHQ)

6 http://www.infovlad.net/mirror_alansar_alsunnah/

Posted by: yoshiya at May 11, 2005 12:47 AM (llpaM)

7 Its good that this people are kidnapping person in Iraq they should not be there. the Americans started it we this people will finish it. I want them to be take and abuse. The Americans do it to us why should we not do it to them. The Americans are going to lose.

Posted by: Bin Ladan at May 11, 2005 04:20 AM (DSmIQ)

8 Fuck you bin laddin. Why are you hiding. At least Bush doesnt hide. The Samurai never ran away either. You are a peace of shit, and when the US catches you I hope they kill you and your mother. You fucking pussy. I think that towel cut off the circulation to your brain. FUCK YOU BIN LADDIN AND YOUR BITCH SADDAM

Posted by: stars and stripes at May 11, 2005 06:33 AM (gU97i)

9 ━━━━━(ﾟ∀ﾟ

━━━━━ ━━━━━(ﾟ∀ﾟ

━━━━━

Posted by: samurai at May 11, 2005 08:26 AM (E42pC)

10 sinunaaaaa--

Posted by: miiii at May 11, 2005 08:49 AM (S/s9I)

11 情報ありません。　心配です。　いやな予感がしますが、生きて帰ってきてほしいです。

Posted by: みーーー at May 11, 2005 08:51 AM (S/s9I)

12 おｋｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗ

Posted by: かつわ at May 11, 2005 09:08 AM (lhikR)

13 生きて帰って来い

Posted by: japanese at May 11, 2005 09:11 AM (R1GgB)

14 どうか　ご無事でありますように

Posted by: japan at May 11, 2005 09:38 AM (OrcHk)

15 Spelling is wrong Not "Akikiko" He is A k i h i k o Don't Kill him Please

Posted by: Japanese at May 11, 2005 10:36 AM (R1GgB)

16 don't know why you guys keeping this Japanese guy. What's the point? Don't involve any inoccent people like this! I fucking hate Iraq and U.S. In you two will fight, fight till all die. I don't fucking care these son of a bitch. The U.S.Armies got money to do their job, they die for their job, and they get money for it. Just finish their job and finish this fucking struggle. It's all about money and oil. Who cares, man?

Posted by: kuso again at May 11, 2005 12:04 PM (P7xWX)

17 yes yes! testing

Posted by: kuso again at May 11, 2005 12:04 PM (P7xWX)

18 As for this case, the situation is special I understand a reason to kill The reason is to protect oneself However, you must not forget "Koda" The armed organization killed "Koda" of a private citizen Do not repeat tragedy It is my wish Stop it and bomb terrorism Please! I understand the reason why you kill a soldier well But I do not understand a reason to kill a citizen

Posted by: Japanese at May 11, 2005 08:22 PM (8Jl8u)

19 >Stop it and bomb terrorism Please! A correction Please stop bomb terrorism It is hard to use Web translation

Posted by: japanese at May 11, 2005 08:27 PM (8Jl8u)

20 Mastermind Ansar al-sunnnah! It is happy to murder peaceful people what. You die without fail. Liberate all people who are securing it as a captive unconditionally and immediately. Peace doesn't come to you if it doesn't open it. Peace to the world!

Posted by: Suck Terrorist at May 11, 2005 09:31 PM (pc2SS)

21 >>Mr. Suck~ Please stop words stimulating

Posted by: Japanese at May 12, 2005 03:40 AM (LWtDV)

22 ALZHEIMERS' EYE TEST (this is for you ansar al-sunnah) Count every "F" in the following text: FINISHED FILES ARE THE RE SULT OF YEARS OF SCIENTI FIC STUDY COMBINED WITH THE EXPERIENCE OF YEARS... (SEE BELOW) HOW MANY ? ..................... 3? WRONG, THERE ARE 6 -- no joke. READ IT AGAIN ! Really, go Back and Try to find the 6 F's before you scroll down. The reasoning behind is further down. The brain cannot process "OF". Incredible or what? Go back and look again!! Anyone who counts all 6 "F's" on the first go is a genius. Three is normal, four is quite rare

Posted by: kill bill at May 12, 2005 07:26 AM (jtsqu)

23 The Japanese that been capture isnt a civilian. He is a Foreign Legion ( a unit of French military consists of foreigner) If u dumb enuf not knowing what it is go to www.wikipedia.com and search about it. There ia a foto on YahooNews today show that Akihiko isnt civilian and he is a soldier. So war kills soldiers. What are u guys whining of then?

Posted by: Koro at May 12, 2005 08:29 PM (GorT0)

24 Love & Peace! 愛こそすべて!

Posted by: neko dai suki♪ at May 14, 2005 09:03 PM (uSJOm)

25 if the iraqis suffered decades of abuse from the former persident and they failed to over throw him what chances have they got against the US and UK the two best, trainned and equiped armys in the WORLD! no chance guys! wake and smell the coffee! insurgents kill people working with the coalition forces, what for they are only trying to earn some money to make a living to re build there own lives! why is this a bad thing and why are they punished for wanting a life? screw the resistance you WILL fail

Posted by: jayce at May 16, 2005 07:01 PM (/Sf1E)

26 Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA! Fuck USA!

Posted by: Dominus Vis at May 20, 2005 10:06 PM (wHusB)

27 i want to see all kills by ansar alsune

Posted by: nwekar at May 21, 2005 02:05 AM (RUoH+)

28 well

Posted by: think and guess at May 22, 2005 09:09 AM (PoHSU)

29 i cant find the site for ansar al sunnah.american thje real enemy of freedom has blocked it. i wonder if bush(or better known monkey bush)knows the meaning of freedom.then he wants to present it.

Posted by: think and guess at May 22, 2005 09:12 AM (PoHSU)

30 W bush is saying the world is safer...hahahahaha thats wrong...just like 1 st may "ACCOMPLISHED MISSION" . bush wil go in 3 yrs but the iraqis people will hate american peopel for more than 100 yrs because for he mess they are doing to their country..when an amrican will be harmed in iraq just because he is american then he will remeber this unjust war and how many innocents befor him was harmed for what?? for nothing

Posted by: ghost at May 23, 2005 08:40 AM (A0uYs)

31 No aprendemos de los errores. Nazis, SS,KKK,Moros, cristianos...todos son la misma mierda

Posted by: spanish at May 28, 2005 03:49 AM (ALYUG)

32 not show that http://www.infovlad.net/?p=124. display that Service Temporarily Unavailable The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to maintenance downtime or capacity problems. Please try again later. as usual.

Posted by: 4655 at May 28, 2005 04:22 AM (tThzn)

33 Video and pictures have been released by Army of Ansur al-Sunnah of what they claim is Akihiko Saito. I have them over at Diggers Realm

Posted by: Digger at May 28, 2005 04:23 AM (c2i02)

34 fucking pigs!! DEAD TO ISLAM!! long leave the CID! kill all the MOROS!!!

Posted by: asdsa at May 28, 2005 06:08 AM (CL6/Q)

35 ご冥福をお祈りいたします。

Posted by: にほんこく at May 28, 2005 07:28 AM (it85/)

36 I guess if you strenghten the civilian institutions, boost local security forces, address the unemployment, and shoot suspected terrorists on sight you can get somewhere. But it will of course take time. There are enough fundamentalists in the region to support a very long low-intensive civil war. Maybe in a couple of decades you can get to the point where the fundamentalists are playing a very small role in society, like ETA in Spain. Or it could go worse, like Chechnya.

Posted by: Me at May 28, 2005 08:07 AM (Lsn9L)

37 戦争の犬が死んだ。それがなにか問題なのか。それが悲しいなんてあり得ない。

Posted by: 理路整然 at May 28, 2005 10:57 AM (h8cXo)

38 I SAY FUCK THE BULL SHYT AND BLAST ALL THEM MOTHERFUCKERS TO HELL SHOOT EM UP.THEY KILIN US BUT WHAT THE FUCK WE DOIN. SHIT, I SAY SPRAY THEM HO'S AND BOMB ON THEM MOTHERFUCKERS.TO SHOW THEY CANT FUCK WIT US. SHOW EM WE AINT NO PUSSIES AND JUST BLAST THEM BITCHES.

Posted by: JR at May 28, 2005 03:15 PM (Kn1uw)

39 well if half of you pussies would go and fight a war instead of bitching about "freedom" and mr monkey bush maybe you would understand the depth of the conflict instead of just bling about it,you have an issue with the republican policy stop whining and bitch at your congressman you have an issue with the iraq war stop being a baby next time they bomb your house and kill your loved ones all that said sgt a.screll 1st Battalion, 75 th Ranger Regiment

Posted by: adrian at May 28, 2005 04:30 PM (nUMI2)

40 ÃƒÂ Â”ÃƒÂ±Ã‚Â°ÃƒÂ‡ÃƒÂƒÃƒÂ‡Ã‚Â»ÃƒÂ‡Ã‚Â¢ÃƒÂ©ÃƒÂ„ÃƒÂ‡Â…ÃƒÂ¥Ã¢Â€Â°ÃƒÂ±Ã‚ÂªÃƒÂ¯ÃƒÂ¼ÃƒÂ‡?ÃƒÂ…B

Posted by: Ã¥>=Ã³bÃ¯? at May 28, 2005 06:16 PM (4CgFr)

41 USA is TRASH USA is TRASH USA is TRASH

Posted by: viewer at May 30, 2005 02:10 AM (WVDzq)

42 i think the US is the real terrorist, and no matter what they do, this fight will never end, they are in for a more deadly and bloody Vietnam. The so called terrorrist or insurgents are for me freedom fighters trying to free their land of occupying forces and they are doing well. for this to end the US must pull out of iraq because their main reason for going there is the oil and not WMD as claimed by bush. Shame to them!

Posted by: nickky at May 30, 2005 04:30 AM (0ekdE)

43 it is a right moment.we r all muslims with u . we pray for ur long lives .God bless u .amin

Posted by: hayatullah at June 09, 2005 01:23 PM (xS23m)

44 ALL I CAN SAY IS FUCK USA, FUCK BUSH< FUCK EVERYRY SINGLE AMERICAN THAT SUPPORTS WAR< AND HOPE BINLADEN SOON ATTACKS USA< BUT THIS TIME MAKE HARDER JUST BLOW THE MOTHER FUCKERS BRAINS OUT LIKE LITTLE TINY PIECES OF SHIT LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL FUCK USA

PEACEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Posted by: FUCK USA at June 14, 2005 03:50 PM (fgfbW)

45 iraqi resistance has the right to defend thier land, what we see now is just the begining of long term fight..

Posted by: Hans at July 02, 2005 12:29 PM (ZkOcs)

46 PEACE

Posted by: R.G. at July 10, 2005 01:07 PM (Rz0j6)

47 And as look at these comments i think to myself, why are you all sinking down to the level of grouping the United States with the poor decisions of one man. Not all of the US supports the war and i certainly do not. I only fight for the country being as i am in the army and i dont support it. I WORK FOR THE GUY. I think all of you need to reflect what you are say and stop judging. Not all US citizens or military are bad and want to kill everyone. Some of us want it all to end so dont judge. Its not healthy.

Posted by: ArmyofOne at July 13, 2005 01:39 PM (jCQ+I)

48 La aq msabi!!!!

Posted by: Anna at July 19, 2005 11:12 PM (Xo52o)

49 I say cut the Shia's & Kurds loose...let them wipe out the Sunni Shits...They are the ones bombing people for Saddam and Bin Laden... You Sunni Jerks don't know what your in for...!! -Jimbo

Posted by: Jimbo at July 20, 2005 10:11 AM (0ViRJ)

50 You people dont understand shit. Bush is not the greatest president and I did not vote for him. That doesnt say kill the americans for the one person that is behind it all. This is a fucking joke, if they didnt want us in there country they should of had brains enough to run it. They didnt so we went in. Was it a smart move, no the smart move would of been to make them glow green at night. Is that a nice thing to say but neither is 1900 dead americans who are fulfilling there duty. You want us out then grow some brains instead of making bombs. Act like fucking human beings. You people are the dumb son of bitches that are instigating this shit.

Posted by: Real American at August 03, 2005 12:18 PM (tuSoy)

51 Wow, about 90% of these posts are pure dribble that appear to be written by people with an IQ of 80 or less. It's little wonder why that part of the world is so fucked up. Just for the record, the American people give more to the world in aid than all other countries combined. We cherish freedom. That means that while we may disagree with your dribble, we AGREE that you have a right to your own opinion. We also believe that you have the right to CHOOSE how to worship, or even to CHOOSE not to worship. The reason you will lose in the long run is because you don't have nearly the willpower that truly fee people posess. Once true freedom is experienced, you will never accept anything less. If you have the ability to actually think and reason, I would suggest you read a copy of "Man's Search for Meaning" by Viktor Frankel. You will truly come to understand that you can never win this struggle.

Posted by: Vectorprime at August 03, 2005 04:07 PM (axqbP)

52 bin laden is a good guy american and british foreign policy is to blame on all suffering of the people in this world from palestine to africa if your goverment changes the way they conduct their foreign policy there will be peace in this world otherwise your will carry on suffering the way we suffer dont forget iraq is going to be another vietnam long live mujahaeeden and all marty of islam

Posted by: michael jackson at August 05, 2005 02:24 AM (tQ//i)

53 fuck islam and all the dirty weak gutted CUNTS that preach it! Fuck the extreemists and their piss ant courage.Fuck everyone of you bitch assed muslim CUNTS,your coward acts and your dirty whore mothers!!!

Posted by: foxhound at August 09, 2005 02:18 AM (r285Q)

54 All you stupid americans just all shut up!!! you dont know any thing about this howle war! the only thing you beleve is the sensort media made by those zionist jew's! The truth is that america whants oil and that the jews what to oppress all muslims! beside jew's what more and more might in our world it was a better way if al jews where killed in the 2nd world war! but still the zionists whants muight and power and they what to dominate our world oppress every one how tells his comment and that is wat its all about! dont know if you know but almost everyone execpt rumsfeld is an zionist in your goverment! so dont lissen to there lies! Allah Akbar

Posted by: Al-Qudar at August 30, 2005 07:12 PM (0+RcQ)

55 May Allah's curse be upon all the apostates of God. Peace for Prophet Muhammed and all Praise is for Allah swt. Allahu Akbar

Posted by: Ansar at September 26, 2005 08:44 PM (4/YXH)

56 It is sad to read so much hatred in just one site alone. I agree that Iraq should take care of its own people. Yet what they are doing is killing their own people! USA is not to blame for all of the wars in the Middle East. You all have always been in conflict - Just read any historical bible- regardless of religous backround! Hate is not the solution. Isalm doesn't promote hate- why then do you have a heavy heart full of hate?

Posted by: Against Hate at September 30, 2005 06:43 AM (aKSwY)

57 Guess what. Allah sucks my cock right now.. and he's pretty good at it. I bet he exercised at Osamas lil wiener.

Posted by: Hatred at October 07, 2005 06:05 AM (61nnb)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

75 Bad Guys Killed in Iraq

Hooray for our side!

U.S. forces have killed 75 insurgents so far in a new offensive in Western Iraq near the Syrian border, the military announced Monday.
The offensive, being conducted with U.S. air support in a desert area of Anbar province north of the Euphrates River, was targeting a sanctuary for foreign insurgents and a smuggling route.
As part of the offensive, Marines on Sunday battled insurgents in Ubaydi, in northwestern Iraq, and other nearby areas. The Marines, supported by Cobra attack helicopters, came under mortar and small-arms fire, according to a reporter accompanying the units.
Col. Stephen Davis, commander of Marine Regimental Combat Team-2, which is responsible for western Anbar province, said one Marine was killed and at least seven were wounded in the fighting.
A number of fighters were wearing flak jackets, which Davis said was unusual for Iraqi insurgents and reflected the influence of foreign fighters.
The offensive reflects the view of senior U.S. commanders who are giving higher priority to combating foreign fighters and Iraqi jihadists in response to the recent upsurge in suicide attacks and other developments that indicate a more prominent role in the insurgency by these radical groups.
Also on Sunday, the military announced that U.S. forces have arrested the alleged mastermind of last month's assault on Abu Ghraib prison and the organizer of recent lethal car bombings in Baghdad, the Iraqi government and U.S. military said Sunday.
Amar Adnan Muhammad Hamzah Zubaydi, detained Thursday in an early morning raid on his home, was described as an associate of Jordanian-born militant Abu Musab Zarqawi, according to separate statements issued by the Iraqi government and U.S. military officials.

Posted by: Rusty at 09:11 AM | Comments (53) | Add Comment
Post contains 287 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Good news! Plus twenty-three in Afganistan. Plus lots more "detained."

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at May 09, 2005 09:22 AM (x+5JB)

2 Your 'tuna' is 75% 'dolphin'.

Posted by: greg at May 09, 2005 09:39 AM (/+dAV)

3 This good news is bound to often some Lefty out there.

Posted by: Carlos at May 09, 2005 09:40 AM (8e/V4)

4 Â“Abu al-Faraj al-Libbi, the alleged al-Qaeda leader arrested in Pakistan last week, is not the terror network's N. 3, according to European secret service sourcesÂ” http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level.php?cat=Terrorism&loid=8.0.164365478&par=0 Told you.

Posted by: greg at May 09, 2005 10:15 AM (/+dAV)

5 It seems it was ANOTHER case of mistaken identity. 25% tuna and 75% dolphin.

Posted by: greg at May 09, 2005 10:21 AM (/+dAV)

6 Captured Al-Qaeda kingpin is case of Â‘mistaken identityÂ’ Â“THE capture of a supposed Al-Qaeda kingpin by Pakistani agents last week was hailed by President George W Bush as Â“a critical victory in the war on terrorÂ”. According to European intelligence experts, however, Abu Faraj al-Libbi was not the terroristsÂ’ third in command, as claimed, but a middle-ranker derided by one source as Â“among the flotsam and jetsamÂ” of the organisation.Â” http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1602568,00.html Why isnÂ’t the American media reporting this update? Because theyÂ’re complicit in this war of lies. PRESSTITUTES!

Posted by: greg at May 09, 2005 10:41 AM (/+dAV)

7 Told you. greg, this unidentified eurowuss should identify himself, otherwise who gives a crap what he thinks (if he even exists). This seems to confirm that a cigar is usually just a cigar after all: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4513281.stm

Posted by: Carlos at May 09, 2005 10:44 AM (8e/V4)

8 3rd in command or 300th. The guys captured, and that's what counts.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at May 09, 2005 10:50 AM (x+5JB)

9 Carlos, Your citation is from last Wednesday. Get with the program

Posted by: greg at May 09, 2005 10:52 AM (/+dAV)

10 greg, your two sources contradict each other-- not that this ever matters if you're a Leftie/dissenter. Their only goal is to discredit the official version, not to be consistent (Instead they discredit themselves). Your first source claims they got some Paki dude with a similar name, but the wrong guy. Your second source claims something entirely different-- that the guy they caught just isn't that high in the AQ hierarchy-- a "middle-level leader." Which of the sources you offered is the more accurate? Both can't be true. But that doesn't matter, right? -- not if your purpose is only to discredit the official version. You continue to bleed credibility, my friend.

Posted by: Carlos at May 09, 2005 10:54 AM (8e/V4)

11 Carlos, The two citations do contradict one another. What's certain is that this guy wasn't the #3 man. I doubt he's even Al Qaeda.

Posted by: greg at May 09, 2005 10:59 AM (/+dAV)

12 greg: "The two citations do contradict one another." Then why did you cite them?

Posted by: Carlos at May 09, 2005 11:05 AM (8e/V4)

13 While they contradict each other on a point they agree that he's not #3.

Posted by: greg at May 09, 2005 11:10 AM (/+dAV)

14 Yeah, that's right Greg, he's not #3... anymore, dipshit.

Posted by: Editor at May 09, 2005 11:13 AM (adpJH)

15 While they contradict each other on a point they agree that he's not #3. greg, but for different reasons, which in the end just sounds like wishful thinking. Do you also wish he isn't #3?

Posted by: Carlos at May 09, 2005 11:15 AM (8e/V4)

16 Carlos, When Jawa Report first brought this to our attention I said then that I doubted the claim that he was #3 because I had never heard of him. Turns out I'm right. He ain't #3.

Posted by: greg at May 09, 2005 11:18 AM (/+dAV)

17 Turns out I'm right. He ain't #3. greg, This goes back to my assertion about the thinking of conspiracy theorists-- they reach a conclusion, and then look for anything that might confirm it, no matter how silly it might be. Here, you reached a conclusion, and then latched onto two contradictory sources to "confirm" it. The fact that you would base your conclusion on two entirely contradictory sources says something about the muddled thinking of conspiracy theorists.

Posted by: Carlos at May 09, 2005 11:30 AM (8e/V4)

18 Carlos, No. I based it originally, last week, on the fact that I'VE NEVER HEARD OF HIM BEFORE. If you still think he's #3 then you are the conspiracy theorist.

Posted by: greg at May 09, 2005 11:35 AM (/+dAV)

19 I'VE NEVER HEARD OF HIM BEFORE. Greg, for admitting this, you are even a bigger idiot than any of us could ever have imagined.

Posted by: Editor at May 09, 2005 11:36 AM (adpJH)

20 greg: "No. I based it originally, last week, on the fact that I'VE NEVER HEARD OF HIM BEFORE." Because "greg" hasn't heard of him before. hahaha! good one.

Posted by: Carlos at May 09, 2005 11:36 AM (8e/V4)

21 Carlos, You think you're eating tuna but you're chowing down on dolphin. ENJOY!

Posted by: greg at May 09, 2005 11:40 AM (/+dAV)

22 greg, I don't consider your way of thinking to be healthy skepticism. It's irrational cynicism.

Posted by: Carlos at May 09, 2005 11:44 AM (8e/V4)

23 The DU isn't happy... lol http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1455911

Posted by: Ariya at May 09, 2005 11:52 AM (IXXEm)

24 Carlos, I know you desire him to be the #3 man. It's just wishful thinking on your part. If only wishes were horses...

Posted by: greg at May 09, 2005 11:55 AM (/+dAV)

25 >>>"The DU isn't happy... lol" Ariya, nope, they aren't. They've chosen a side, and it ain't ours. Everything they see, hear, read is filtered through that reality.

Posted by: Carlos at May 09, 2005 12:00 PM (8e/V4)

26 greg, I read your stuff precisely because I don't want to base my stuff on wishful thinking. And on occassion I'm dissuaded of those wishful thoughts. But rarely, and here is a pretty good example of why not.

Posted by: Carlos at May 09, 2005 12:03 PM (8e/V4)

27 One of my predictions for 2005 was hot pursuit across the border into Syria. I'm sticking to it.

Posted by: Dave Schuler at May 09, 2005 12:14 PM (GGDE0)

28 Carlos, He ain't the #3 man. Now wake up and smell your underwear.

Posted by: greg at May 09, 2005 01:38 PM (/+dAV)

29 greg, you've given no reason to doubt the official version.

Posted by: Carlos at May 09, 2005 01:56 PM (8e/V4)

30 Amusing that only Greg thinks his ignorance is evidence of anything.

Posted by: Robin Roberts at May 09, 2005 02:18 PM (xauGB)

31 Carlos, I believe the one and only point Greg is stating is that the guy caught was not the Number #3 man in Al Qaeda. Both sources Greg cited, both supported his claim. It makes no different if they contradict each other, as long as they don't do so on the point Greg is making. Off the subject, while everyone is talking about underwear on people heads, I do believe some people might like it, depending on whose underwear it was. I mean, Goldie Hawn or Farrah Fawcitt undies might not be to bad.

Posted by: Butch at May 09, 2005 02:19 PM (Gqhi9)

32 "the official version."-Carlos Not ready to smell your underwear yet, eh? Can't say that I blame you. What makes your version the official version?

Posted by: greg at May 09, 2005 02:23 PM (/+dAV)

33 ah, greg is just mad because the man isn't still out planning the murders of innocents. In short, he hasn't yet killed enough jews, he is small fish, we should throw him back and let him work his way up to a bigger terrorist.

Posted by: Defense Guy at May 09, 2005 02:48 PM (jPCiN)

34 Defense Guy, At least you're not holding on to the fantasy that this joker was the #3 man.

Posted by: greg at May 09, 2005 02:53 PM (/+dAV)

35 It makes no different if they contradict each other, as long as they don't do so on the point Greg is making. Butch, it makes all the difference. If the reasons both sources gave were consistent, then their claim could hold some weight. Given that they aren't consistent, the claims hold less weight. It comes off as just more flailing wildly in the dark. Much of the anti-Bush stuff is just that.

Posted by: Carlos at May 09, 2005 03:04 PM (8e/V4)

36 "Much of the anti-Bush stuff is just that."-Carlos Carlos, What the hell does this have to do with Bush? I've given you 2 credible sources that this isn't the #3 man. Even the source that Rusty quoted initially noted that this man was not on the FBI's most wanted list. You're just being IGNORant.

Posted by: greg at May 09, 2005 03:11 PM (/+dAV)

37 "Yet the backslapping in Washington and Islamabad has astonished European terrorism experts, who point out that the Libyan was neither on the FBIÂ’s most wanted list, nor on that of the State Department Â“rewards for justiceÂ” programme. Another Libyan is on the FBI list Â— Anas al-Liby, who is wanted over the 1998 East African embassy bombings Â— and some believe the Americans may have initially confused the two. When The Sunday Times contacted a senior FBI counter-terrorism official for information about the importance of the detained man, he sent material on al-Liby, the wrong man. " http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1602568,00.html What a bunch of bumbling idiots. Enough said.

Posted by: greg at May 09, 2005 04:21 PM (/+dAV)

38 16 different brands of tuna chicken of the sea and big cahuna packed in oil packed in water dolphin friendly and dolphin slaughter.

Posted by: Howie at May 09, 2005 04:27 PM (D3+20)

39 Howie, Don't you know? Chicken of the sea is not tuna, but chicken. I have Jessica Simpson's word on it. And we all know that pop stars are the smartest people in the world. So she should know.

Posted by: Butch at May 09, 2005 04:42 PM (Gqhi9)

40 Yea she is a bright one. But mmmmm. I've been pretty busy just saw gregs post about tuna and dolphin. Just leavin my mark so Ya'll know I'm still out here.

Posted by: Howie at May 09, 2005 04:56 PM (D3+20)

41 I've given you 2 credible sources that this isn't the #3 man. greg, Amazing. How can both be credible when they directly contradict each other? They can't. One of them is INcredible. The only question is which. But you use BOTH to prove your case, when either one taken in isolation contradicts the other's logic.

Posted by: Carlos at May 09, 2005 05:13 PM (8e/V4)

42 Regarding "Abu Anas" al-Libbi; Read this report from the BBC on 19 March 2002. Does anybody know if his caprure was ever confirmed? And several sources, especially those in the ME are still saying Abu Farraj Al-Libbi is No. 3. That he wasn't high up the ladder until recently. Maybe he's just No. 3 in Pakistan and only places No. 100 on a world-wide scope. They're beating the hell out of him too in Pakistan. And he still hasn't talked.

Posted by: Oyster at May 09, 2005 05:56 PM (YudAC)

43 Greg, Carlos, get a room!

Posted by: cindy at May 09, 2005 09:37 PM (o9c3W)

44 Surely 50,000 innocents had to die in the massive carpet bombings to get these poor "minutemen". If only we had an independent Italian communist to tell us what really happens!

Posted by: RicardoVerde at May 09, 2005 10:44 PM (3DOby)

45 Cindy, my post was the last. I WIN!

Posted by: Carlos at May 10, 2005 01:30 AM (8e/V4)

46 What is really happening: Monkeys run/fly/drive around a desert looking for monkeys with turbans on their heads so the wrinkly little mighty-monkey lets them go home to their little monkey wives or bitches, perhaps some monkey babies or farm animals. Well, now that I've written that, I must say a good thing about Bush (earlier referred to as mighty-monkey). It really meant a lot to countries under Soviet rule after WW2 (not Finland, since we actually beat back the Ruskies and tried to invade 'em a year after that, getting the whole world against us) when Bush made it publicly clear that the West thinks they were not liberated, but occupied and put under Soviet oppression. The statement turned some of the tension between EU and you into tension between Russia and you, therefore effectively turning eastern Europeans less anti-american (still not Finland, since we just don't seem to care about things outside the 1000km radius from our borders).

Posted by: A Finn at May 10, 2005 04:23 AM (cWMi4)

47 Your first source claims they got some Paki dude with a similar name, but the wrong guy.-Carlos Your second source claims something entirely different-- that the guy they caught just isn't that high in the AQ hierarchy-- a "middle-level leader."-Carlos Carlos, The 2 sources don't contradict the point that "they got some Paki dude with a similar name". (See below). While the first source says it is simply a case of mistaken identity, the second source suggests that although he isn't the man they thought he was he still may be a lower level operative. It doesn't contradiict the first source it gives additional information. "Another Libyan is on the FBI list Â— Anas al-Liby, who is wanted over the 1998 East African embassy bombings Â— and some believe the Americans may have initially confused the two. When The Sunday Times contacted a senior FBI counter-terrorism official for information about the importance of the detained man, he sent material on al-Liby, the wrong man."

Posted by: greg at May 10, 2005 08:32 AM (/+dAV)

48 Carlos, I accept your unconditional surrender.

Posted by: greg at May 10, 2005 02:52 PM (/+dAV)

49 greg, my not responding to your posts can have several implications. Sometimes I don't respond if I agree and I consider the matter closed, or when there's nothing to respond to, or when your post is so weak it doesn't warrant a response and I consider the matter closed as well. In other words, not responding to your post could very well mean you have been measured and found wanting and not worth responding to-- NOT that I've surrendered. I'm not necessarily making a judgement about your last post, only that when I don't respond, it doesn't mean what you think it means.

Posted by: Carlos at May 11, 2005 01:10 AM (8e/V4)

50 Carlos, Upon closer inspection my two sources aren't contradictory at all. I was so busy with work yesterday that I agreed with you before double checking for myself. The first post claims that the Americans have confused the identity of the prisoner. The second post ALSO claims that the Americans have confused the identity of the prisoner but goes on to say that he may be a low level member of AQ. This is not a contradiction, it is additional analysis. If I tell you I'm 40 and then I tell you I'm 40 and was born in March, have I contradicted myself? No, I've simply given additional information. I urge you to take an honest look at the two posts.

Posted by: greg at May 11, 2005 08:33 AM (/+dAV)

51 Numbers always come out of one mouth and thats America's, who is struggling to save its pride and is sacrificing its sons and daughters and yes ofcourse they project the numbers when 10 Iraqis become shaheed they say 100,same happened during the Vietnam War, the U.S. military released body counts of enemy and friendly dead to the media which reported them same no investigation of the truth. Invariably, the militaryÂ’s dataÂ—showing more enemy than friendly deadÂ—was designed to give the illusion that the United States was winning the war.Similarly, in Iraq, the U.S. military cheerfully reports that attacks against U.S. soldiers have dropped by more than half since their peak in November of last year and that firefights between U.S. soldiers and Iraqi guerrillas in Iraqi towns have also diminished. But like the body counts in Vietnam, the American public is in illusion of winning the war against the resistance much larger. http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/10703534.htm

Posted by: Fahd at May 12, 2005 12:38 AM (HAykV)

52 calos,keep your save the whale crap to yourself

Posted by: U.SRobotics at May 23, 2005 09:09 AM (YlL+X)

53 carlos,keep your save the whale crap to yourself

Posted by: U.SRobotics at May 23, 2005 09:09 AM (YlL+X)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Tin-Foil Brigades in Congress

Break out the tinfoil, 88 members of Congress have signed a letter to the President requesting an investigation into a 'secret meeting' in which Tony Blair and G.W. Bush plan to invade Iraq and come up with justifications for it later.

Have Congressional Democrats gone completely moon-barking batty??

Here is the letter as published by Raw Story. (Hat tip to Rob at Say Anything) more...

Posted by: Rusty at 08:53 AM | Comments (57) | Add Comment
Post contains 812 words, total size 5 kb.

1 Hard to dismiss 88 members, that's a nice chunk of change. Was justification for the war manufactured? Is the pope German? George Bush's legacy will be that of a liar.

Posted by: greg at May 09, 2005 09:26 AM (/+dAV)

2 But it's so much fun watching the donks implode! It seems that the dems strategy is to become more anti-American. Is this how they are going to get those "value voters" into their camp? This is just like a car accident, you want to look away but you just can't.

Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at May 09, 2005 09:39 AM (xkIHW)

3 One thing is for sure. Greg is still a boobie.

Posted by: Filthy Allah at May 09, 2005 10:02 AM (yBHNA)

4 That there is a list of blithering idiots.

Posted by: Ob Snooks at May 09, 2005 10:03 AM (yBHNA)

5 There are so many things fundamentally wrong with that letter I don't know where to start. I'll let someone else tackle it point by point. It kills me that they're STILL saying that justification for the war had to be "created". We would first have to say that 12 years of defying sanctions and non-compliance with resolutions wasn't enough. Openly administrating payments by cheque to families of terrorist "martyrs" wasn't enough. Repression, imprisonment, torture, assassination, and execution of his own people wasn't enough. Everyone was content to let the US foot the bill for years in the containment of Saddam's forces while being accused of starving Iraqi children. In that case you'd have to deny the OFF scandal existed too. His regime was, by Iraq's own constitution, illegitimate. And John Kerry didn't sign it? What? Is he going soft? Clinton didn't sign it? Nor did Biden, Byrd, Pelosi, Boxer, Ted [hiccup] Kennedy, etc? Greg's legacy will be, "At least he was consistent."

Posted by: Oyster at May 09, 2005 10:03 AM (fl6E1)

6 Saddam was either faking a WMD program, or he was fooled by his own scientists into thinkin he had one. In either case, that's how he was behaving. So serves him right.

Posted by: Carlos at May 09, 2005 10:19 AM (8e/V4)

7 Saddam said he had no WMD. Saddam let the inspectors look wherever they wanted. The inspectors looked high and low and found no WMD. The WMD story was a LIE. Can you say, "Bush is a liar"? Bush lied, people died.

Posted by: greg at May 09, 2005 10:25 AM (/+dAV)

8 I agree with Oyster on some stuff. The only thing we really needed for justification to invade Iraq was the continual breaking of the UN resolutions. All of the U.N. should of joined us on that. But I also say that Bush, should have impeachment proceedings brought against him because he did "lie" about WMD. Shoot, they try to impeach Clinton for a B.J., which really only effected 3 people, (Hilary, Bill, and Monica), when George's lie effect millions of people and Billions of Dollars?

Posted by: Butch at May 09, 2005 10:36 AM (Gqhi9)

9 Moonbats are out in full force. Greg, you are such an ass. I think you are full of shit and there is no way in hell you are as educated as you claim. Put down the weeeeed, stop beating off to Nick Jr. Magazine and go get a job you degenerate hippy.

Posted by: Earl Dittman at May 09, 2005 10:38 AM (yBHNA)

10 Better impeach Kennedy, Hillary, Kerry, Pelosi, Biden and the rest of the degenerate lib scum for "lying" about WMD as well you f-ing piece of shit.

Posted by: Ob Snooks at May 09, 2005 10:40 AM (yBHNA)

11 Kennedy, Hillary, Kerry, Pelosi, and Biden relied on "intelligence" reports provided by the Bush administration. They were lied to just like the rest of us. Bush started a war based on lies. He knew they were lies. He twisted the arms of his intelligence providers to paint the story he desired. He manipulated the evidence to start WWIV. Bush should be impeached.

Posted by: greg at May 09, 2005 10:49 AM (/+dAV)

12 Well, the London Times went to press with it, so it must be true. And relevant, rather than the possibility of poor wording. Not like the British Press has an agenda or has pulled out "fake but accurate" documents or photos before. Am I surprised that local rep Tammy Baldwin signed on? Not at all. Note that Russ Feingold didn't. He's got a career based on integrity to uphold. She's got to use whatever comes out of the dem playbook.

Posted by: tee bee at May 09, 2005 10:49 AM (q1JHF)

13 Greg you douchbag. CLinton Intel said the same thing. So did French and german and russian intel. So, f- off gregg.

Posted by: filthy allah at May 09, 2005 11:12 AM (yBHNA)

14 Actively demonstrating that they weren't serious about terrorism helped marginalize the Dems. To keep revisiting this over and over confirms their near-Freudian desire to fail. Guys, it's nearly over. You may never get your wish to stick your "Vietnam" label on this.

Posted by: Gordon at May 09, 2005 11:26 AM (SN0Ew)

15 Clinton, the French, the Germans and the Russians were not confident of the intelligence assessment. They felt it prudent to exhaust the weapons inspection process. Saddam let the innspectors have a free hand in looking for WMD. There were none. But Bush had to have his war anyway 'cause he doesn't give a shit about America only his corporate buddies at Halliburton etc. Filthy Blood Lusting Nazis.

Posted by: greg at May 09, 2005 11:26 AM (/+dAV)

16 Greg, you are not even worth the energy.

Posted by: ob snooks at May 09, 2005 11:48 AM (yBHNA)

17 Obsnooks, go back to sleep precious.

Posted by: greg at May 09, 2005 11:51 AM (/+dAV)

18 This is for greg who wouldn't know the truth if it bit him in the a** "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998 "This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others "Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002 "Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998 "(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998 "Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002 "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002 "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002 "What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002 "The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998 "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002 "I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003 "Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998 "Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002 "The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002 "I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002 "Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002 "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002 "Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002 "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002 "There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002 "I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002 "The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002 "(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating AmericaÂ’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003 "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002 "Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002 "Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002 "As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998 "Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998 "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002 "SaddamÂ’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against IraqÂ’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002 "Whether one agrees or disagrees with the AdministrationÂ’s policy towards Iraq, I donÂ’t think there can be any question about SaddamÂ’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at May 09, 2005 12:35 PM (xkIHW)

19 OH MY! ALL those filthy Libs lied and people Died! Ohhhh the Humanity! Hey Greg, grow up.

Posted by: Filthy Allah at May 09, 2005 12:40 PM (yBHNA)

20 "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of m@ss destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of m@ss destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998 "He will use those weapons of m@ss destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 "We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of m@ss destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry ( D - MA), and others Oct. 9, 1998 "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of m@ss destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 "San Fran Nan" "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of m@ss destruction and palaces for his cronies.." - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 "There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." - Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001 "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of m@ss destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 "Iraq's search for weapons of m@ss destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should @ssume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of m@ss destruction! ." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of m@ss destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F.. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of m@ss destruction." - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do." - Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002 "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapon stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, ! 2002 "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of m@ss destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation .. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of m@ss destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of m@ss destruction is real." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 What could this mean? Greg?

Posted by: Harold T. Fancypants at May 09, 2005 12:45 PM (yBHNA)

21 "We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction." - Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 Ohhhhhhh She Lied and People Died!! OhhHhHhh I just blotted my panties!

Posted by: MOONBAT GREG at May 09, 2005 12:47 PM (yBHNA)

22 "...they try to impeach Clinton for a B.J.,..." This is factually wrong. They went ahead with impeachment procedings against Clinton for "obstructing justice". He was eventually only dis-barred for the same reason. Apparently the bar association thought it was serious enough to kick him out. Greg, Saddam did NOT give the inspectors free reign. The IAEA even went so far as to allow him to "self-declare" what his arsenal inventory was at one point. And inspectors were thrown out entirely for years. You know what? As far as the Bush and Blair "alleged conspiracy" goes, a little critical thinking might be in order; do you really think it would have been smart to say, "Hey, we're going to invade you if you don't comply by oh, say, March next year, is that okay?" This 'new and revealing' information means nothing. In the event Saddam did-not-finally-comply after more than a dozen years, plans for an invasion had to be in place. You don't tell someone you're coming after them and then sit around and plan afterwards. This talk of a "rush to go to war" is BS. As it was, we waited too long. Saddam had many years to comply. Too many.

Posted by: Oyster at May 09, 2005 12:49 PM (fl6E1)

23 Greg, you're giving Bush too much credit for assuming he could twist his policy advisors to lie. Anyone with a shred of intelligence knows dubya had false info fed to him by Cheney et. al, and tried to pass that off as the truth.

Posted by: Venom at May 09, 2005 12:54 PM (dbxVM)

24 Well, I suck (aka Ob snook), the reason we don't impeach Kennedy, Hillary, Kerry, Pelosi, and Biden, is because they are not the ones in power. They are not the one who initiated a war and lied to the America Populace. What I am saying is what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Clinton lied, impeach him, Bush lied, lets impeach him. As I stated earlier, I believe there were two reasons to go to war, 1, help the Iraqis escape the tyrant Saddam, 2, Saddam ignored the U.N. resolution repeatedly. Now I do support the war, and I do support our troops, what I don't support is two lying, cheating, stealing thieves who happens to occupy our nations top two executive positions, Bush and Cheney. The Bush adminstration makes Grant's adminstrations looks like choir boys. That is really sad due to the fact that I, as a Texan, will not support a fellow Texan.

Posted by: Butch at May 09, 2005 01:03 PM (Gqhi9)

25 Fancy Pants and Cap. Infidel, Impressive collections of quotes.

Posted by: Butch at May 09, 2005 01:11 PM (Gqhi9)

26 Butch, you are an idiot. You must be one of those inbred texans the libs always talk about.

Posted by: Filthy Allah at May 09, 2005 01:11 PM (yBHNA)

27 Neither will this Texan. And so what if a bunch of Democrats bought into the lie. It was still a lie. The Democrats are as gutless as the Republicans are liars.

Posted by: greg at May 09, 2005 01:19 PM (/+dAV)

28 Whaaaoo unto any Democrat that doesn't embrace Bush's Nazi Movement. The Libertarian Party is where it's at.

Posted by: greg at May 09, 2005 01:26 PM (/+dAV)

29 Whats the difference between Filthy Allah and a camels? Camels have humps, Filthy humps camels. You are right about two things, I am a Texan and a Liberal. Much better then being a right wing slaver.

Posted by: Butch at May 09, 2005 01:44 PM (Gqhi9)

30 Butch, you are nothing but a dick. I have a tin foil hat for you. Loonie whacko-

Posted by: Harold T. Fancypants at May 09, 2005 01:48 PM (yBHNA)

31 WoW Butchie! Did you make that one up yerself? Your trailer has a flat boy-

Posted by: obsnooks at May 09, 2005 01:50 PM (yBHNA)

32 "Filthy humps camels."-Butch LMFAO I can see Filthy now on top of a stepping stool, and yet still straining on his tippie toes to get his stumpy little dick lined up with Ms. Camel's ''gina.

Posted by: greg at May 09, 2005 01:59 PM (/+dAV)

33 Okay, Harry Gaypants, tried to pay you and Cap Infidel a compliment, what do I get, abuse. I really thought you and Infidel did a good job of looking those up. But since, you can not take compliments, I will be sure not to insult you in the future with compliments. And you are wrong again, I am not a dick, I am a pussy. And you know what they say, "You are what you eat, DICK."

Posted by: Butch at May 09, 2005 02:07 PM (Gqhi9)

34 You know Greg, I could be wrong. I am assuming that Filthy is the dominate one. It might just be that the camels are humping Filthy. I am sure they are humping Harry Gaypants.

Posted by: Butch at May 09, 2005 02:13 PM (Gqhi9)

35 Greg remains a slanderer and a liar. There have been several investigations of the intelligence pre-war in both the US and Britain and none have found any evidence that President Bush or Tony Blair lied about the intel involved. But we have a lot of evidence that greg is a liar. QED. Meanwhile, this bag of nutbags and their letter are demonstrating their need for an aluminum foil deflector beanie prescription. None of the list of allegations is actually anything wrongful. And none of the allegations are actually within Congress' power to investigate.

Posted by: Robin Roberts at May 09, 2005 02:24 PM (xauGB)

36 Butch, Filthy can play offense or defense in a pinch. I'm quite certain you're correct about Gaypants and would add Obsnooks and Earl Dittman to that list.

Posted by: greg at May 09, 2005 02:28 PM (/+dAV)

37 Oyster, you are correct. Technically I do believe is was for either obstructing justice or perjury, since he lied under oath. But what I want to know is what justice was he obstructing by denying a b.j. That question should of never have been asked. Don't get me wrong. If they would of found anything improper with white water or true misuse of his powers as Gov or Pres, string him up. It just goes to show that the Texan has the right idea about government. Let them meet as little as possible, that way they can only screw you so much.

Posted by: Butch at May 09, 2005 02:34 PM (Gqhi9)

38 Camel pussy doesn't sound so bad when Robin Roberts' Ga-gina is in the house.

Posted by: greg at May 09, 2005 02:38 PM (/+dAV)

39 Mission Accomplished. I declare victory and don't I look cute strutting around in my cod piece.

Posted by: greg at May 09, 2005 03:35 PM (/+dAV)

40 Once again, Greg takes advantage of the fact that there are no consequences for his foul little mouth and cowardice.

Posted by: Robin Roberts at May 09, 2005 03:46 PM (xauGB)

41 "But what I want to know is what justice was he obstructing by denying a b.j." You didn't pay too much attention to what was happening, did you? Butch, don't get me started on Whitewater. Both Clintons were guilty of what they were "suspected" of. The idea that he was not found guilty simply doesn't hold water with all the evidence. The fact that the Rose law firm conveniently "lost" (read that - shredded) paperwork and Madison Bank & Trust Co. neglected to fill out the proper paperwork at all is the only thing that saved them. Very little paper trail. All they had to go on was hearsay evidence and whatever minor corroboration they could dig up. That shredded paperwork has probably since been recycled and we've all used it as toilet paper. You can't defend a guy who isn't sure what "is" means.

Posted by: Oyster at May 09, 2005 03:59 PM (fl6E1)

42 I guess a blow job is out of the question then.

Posted by: greg at May 09, 2005 04:01 PM (/+dAV)

43 MAybe not Greg, Ask Butch.

Posted by: filthy allah at May 09, 2005 04:28 PM (yBHNA)

44 Oyster, I am not saying Bill is not guilty in whitewater. (Although, my personal opinion, Hilary is more so then Bill.) What I read was that they (the GOP) were able to bring about and impeachment due to Clinton lying about the B.J. under oath. I agree, I think slick Willie, was probably to slick, and as able to make a lot of the stuff disappear. But just to clearify my points, they are: 1. I believe he was impeached due to perjury. 2. Clinton perjured himself only on the B.J. (The only lie we know 100% to be a lie.) 3. If this was the only thing the G.O.P. could get on Clinton, where is the justice in this for getting a B.J. Once again, if there was other perjured statements Clinton made, I did not see them. I do not love the Clinton's adminstration any more than Bush's. I do hate Bush's admistration more then Clinton's. (I love no adminstration, I tolerate some more then others.)

Posted by: Butch at May 09, 2005 04:38 PM (Gqhi9)

45 Butch, you are grossly misrepresenting what Clinton lied about. In a deposition for a civil action involving Clinton's alleged sexual harrassment of an Arkansas state employee, Clinton was asked about other sexual relationships with his employees. He denied having any relationships with employees in a series of questions. Those denials were the lies - lies he perpetuated in order to win a court case and deny justice to a woman who had sued him. That was an impeachable offense and one that would have gotten him removed from office had the Democrats any integrity.

Posted by: Robin Roberts at May 09, 2005 04:55 PM (xauGB)

46 Whats moonbatty about this. Do you think those UK memo's aren't real?

Posted by: actus at May 09, 2005 07:00 PM (0HUw1)

47 I guess that pesky memo is going to come out after all, eh?

Posted by: carla at May 09, 2005 07:20 PM (kuXYV)

48 I think the far left has gone so far left, that they will do anything to make Bush look bad. They've fallen so under Soros' spell and Moore's stupidity that they'll forget that they took an oath to defend the constitution from all enemies domestic and foreign. Just this week, we've heard that Iran is going to develop nuclear weapons and will use them on us. They have already test fired ICBM's and have already stated that they'll use them to fire Electro-magnetic pulse weapons that will shut down all the electronics in the northern Hemisphere. That means that they'll shut down every computer, TV, Radio, and Cardiac pacemaker in our sphere. Now, do you think the democrat lefties will actually allow us to conduct a first strike against the terror leaders? Of course not, in fact, I'd wager that the left loonies would be standing in the dark screaming in victory that someone had finally shut us down, and in the process killed millions of people in hospices and hospitals. And they call Islam a religion of peace. right.....

Posted by: A Texan at May 10, 2005 01:21 AM (LtbPK)

49 Damn this greg guy really is a nut case. You know 10 years ago all these conspiracy case people would have been laughed out of their own towns, I mean the stuff they preach is harder to believe than a Science Fiction movie. As far as WMD...none was found. Does it prove there wasn't any as everyone says, NO it doesn't. I been to Iraq. Let me tell you is someone wanted to hide something in that country they could. I could take 2 football statdiums, bleachers and all, and you wouldn't find it after giving me 1 month to do whatever I wanted. It'd still be in the country, you just would never find it.

Posted by: Daniel at May 10, 2005 02:53 AM (kYw+W)

50 Hah! I knew it. You did just invade Iraq because you hated Saddam and wanted the oil. Only WoMD was Husseins ass gas...

Posted by: A Finn at May 10, 2005 05:15 AM (cWMi4)

51 Robin, I am not trying to misrepresent anything. I am just saying that I thought, and I could be wrong, Clinton was impeached for lying about his sexual relationships during his deposition for the Whitewater hearings. I am certain he lied else where, but I thought the impeachment was for his perjury during that hearing only. If this is true, and they only thing Clinton lied about (that the GOP caught him on) was this one issue, then the GOP should of just walked away. Now if you are saying that Clinton needed to be impeached because he did lie, no matter when or on what he lied, then the same should hold true for Bush and Cheney. Once again I want to point out,I am not a loyal fanatic of Clinton or Bush. My political philosophy is politicians = Liars, Cheaters, Thieves and Evil. Governments = unfortunately a necessary of life. The less a govenment meets = less they can still, lie, cheat the people out of the peoples stuff.

Posted by: Butch at May 10, 2005 04:44 PM (Gqhi9)

52 Butch, and you are wrong. The deposition was related to a civil suit for sexual harrassment - where the questions were plainly relevant and within the scope of discovery. As the judge ruled at the very moment they were asked. And no, I'm not saying that Clinton should be impeached for lying - which is sometimes necessary to run a government ( and I don't agree that Bush or Cheney have themselves lied ) - but he should be impeached for the obstruction of justice he engaged in. Something you seem to continue to wilfully not understand.

Posted by: Robin Roberts at May 10, 2005 07:12 PM (xauGB)

53 Robin, I admit, and I said before, Â“IÂ” was only aware of his lying under oath. I have just gone back and looked up the point you are trying to make, and I now see that his impeachment process came about in this order: Gov. Clinton had and encounter with Paula Jones in hotel. Clinton elected President. Paula sues Kenneth Starr appointed Independent Counsel to investigate a real estate deal called Whitewater. Clinton and Lewinsky fool around. Lewinsky subpoenaed by Jones lawyers. Starr is now authorized to investigate Lewinsky. Starr reports on the Lewinsky matter to Congress. Congress votes to hold impeachment hearings on two accounts, Obstruction of justice and perjury charges. Senate votes, 45 to 55 in ClintonÂ’s favor on perjury charges, 50 to 50 on obstruction charges. Clinton Cleared. Now my questions is why was Starr, who was suppose to investigate Whitewater, now has been given permission to investigate a totally unrelated event. (Sex and real estate, yes I can now see the connection, NOT.) Once again, I do not, and did not care if Clinton was found guilty or not. What I am saying is that although Clinton did some very shady deals, Bush and Cheney are a lot worse and should be brought under the microscope also. And if Bush is as good as Clinton, then he can get his Republican Senate to let him off also.

Posted by: Butch at May 11, 2005 08:50 AM (Gqhi9)

54 Butch, everything that Ken Starr investigated was referred to him by the Clinton Attorney General. The Clinton administration decided early on to keep refering most but not all of the new scandals that arose to Starr because they didn't want to have new independant counsels appointed - after all they'd done to discredit Starr. For that reason, Starr ended up investigating a lot of stuff outside of Whitewater because the Clinton administration wanted him to be the investigator. The Clinton white house preferred Starr because the reality was that he had ethics that prevented him from fighting back against the Clinton's smear PR campaign against him as much as he should have. Each time, the new matter had to also be approved by the 3 judge DC circuit panel that supervised Starr under the old now-expired independant counsel statute. That is how for instance Starr investigated the crooked billing of Webb Hubbell and the apparent suicide of Hillary's former law partner and White House counsel Vincent Foster. The White House travel office scandal, etc. etc. In each and every case, Janet Reno referred the matter to Starr. And every time, as Starr's office spent more money investigating ever more Clinton admin scandals, he was attacked by the very White House that had referred the scandal to him. The Lewinsky matter was a little different. When Linda Tripp learned from Monica Lewinsky that there were phone calls from Clinton to Monica regarding what she should say to the Jones' lawyers, this was reported to Starr's office. Starr's office immediately reported this to the Clinton Dept of Justice who decided that Starr should investigate it. Starr then did investigate the matter and turned over what he found to the House of Reps for their consideration. Starr's successor also reached a plea bargin with Bill Clinton regarding the obstruction of justice charge. The Clinton partisans liked to claim that Starr went looking for this stuff on his own - and usually coupled that false claim with a swipe at Starr's religious principles. Those were blatant Clinton admin lies. Starr didn't work that way and they knew it. As a contrast, the independant counsel who investigated Iran-Contra during the Reagan administration spent about as much money investigating that one matter ( with a very cooperative White House ) as Starr spent investigating many different Clinton admin scandals against a non-cooperative, even obstructing White House.

Posted by: Robin Roberts at May 11, 2005 01:51 PM (xauGB)

55 Yap Yap Yap

Posted by: greg at May 11, 2005 02:45 PM (/+dAV)

56 There I go pissing off greg again by using words of more than one syllable.

Posted by: Robin Roberts at May 12, 2005 03:53 PM (xauGB)

57 I'm afraid to leave a message because I'll be torn to bloody shreds (this is a very nasty, kick em in the crotch discussion) I'm actually quite conservative and have supported the Bush Administration the entire time. I have said dozens of times that Saddam was a tyrant, Saddam defied sanctions, It's a reality of our economy to protect oil interests etc. (I'm not claiming that I have an educated opinion - so please don't humiliate me if I've said something asinine)...BUT 1 year ago my little brother joined the army as a infantryman. On some level I still hold to the political beliefs mentioned above, but when I think of giving my precious little brother's life to the cause it suddenly takes on a different light. Not saying that we should never go to war...ever - that's not realistic. But it does make me re-evaluate my ideals. If my little brother dies for this war and Bush really did lie and misrepresent the facts to manipulate or motivate the nation to war(even if Saddam deserved it), I don't know if I'll ever get over it or forgive Mr. Bush.

Posted by: Whitelock at June 10, 2005 05:48 PM (tiPh2)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Time Running Out for Duglas Wood

The deadline set by the terrorist bastards for Australia to pull out of Iraq has expired. Thankfully, the Aussies will not negotiate with terrorists. Let's hope it is not too late for Douglas Wood........

Posted by: Rusty at 08:29 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 46 words, total size 1 kb.

Internet Cafe Bombed in Afghanistan

Honestly, I don't know why the jihadis would be interested in blowing up an internet cafe in Kabul, Afghanistan. As we've reported here previously, internet cafes are fast becoming the method of choice for the online jihadis to upload their propaganda and snuff films.

Maybe this guy didn't get the meme about that? Or maybe he was just angry at the downloading speeds of porn and stockquotes in Afghanistan's capital?

The Guardian:

U.N. engineer from Myanmar was among three people killed when a suicide attacker walked into a Kabul Internet cafe and blew himself up, officials said Sunday, in the first fatal attack on a U.N. staffer in the capital since the fall of the Taliban in 2001.
The bombing on Saturday followed a series of kidnap attempts on foreigners and the killing of a British development worker, deepening a sense of insecurity in the city just as a Taliban-led insurgency revives in the south...
The U.S. ambassador condemned the targeting of an Internet cafe as an attack on ``Afghans' desire to be part of the larger world.''
``The fact that this terrorist chose a place where Afghans and visitors visited to freely gather and exchange information is not surprising,'' Zalmay Khalilzad said. ``These tyrants fear truth.''
Officials said witnesses recalled a man entering the Park Internet Cafe in the upscale Shahr-e-Naw district on Saturday afternoon and going straight to the restroom. The explosion occurred just after he re-emerged....

What's really interesting about the article is that it keeps referring to the jihadi as members of a 'criminal group' rather than the Islamic terrorists that they really are.

Posted by: Rusty at 08:07 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 277 words, total size 2 kb.

232kb generated in CPU 0.0708, elapsed 0.2617 seconds.
135 queries taking 0.2201 seconds, 568 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Search Thingy

Monthly Traffic

Pages: 229861
Files: 452
Bytes: 2.4G
CPU Time: 365:59
Queries: 23713226

Content

Posts: 5690
Comments: 76627

Feeds

May 11, 2005

May 10, 2005

May 09, 2005

Search Thingy

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives

Blogroll

Monthly Traffic

Content

Feeds