(Gaza City) Here's a followup to previous reports (here and here) regarding the kidnapping of French television journalist Muhammed Ouathi.

From the Khaleej Times:

A French television journalist abducted by Palestinian gunmen in Gaza a week ago was freed unharmed on Monday, witnesses said.

The kidnapping of Mohammad Ouathi, a soundman for France 3 television, was the longest in a series of abductions of foreign journalists and aid workers in Gaza. No group claimed responsibility. Ouathi is a Frenchman of Algerian origin.

His release was announced by the Popular Resistance Committees (PRC), an umbrella group of Palestinian militants that said it helped mediate an end to the abduction.

Interestingly, the PRC, which is dominated by Fatah gunmen, claimed it helped free Ouathi. It's believed by others that the PRC was directly responsible for the kidnapping.

Posted by: Mike Pechar at 01:58 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 159 words, total size 2 kb.

Somehow I feel responsible for the mu.nu site going down. Nah, forget it. I blame Bushitlermchimpyhaliburton! Because of the hypocricy!

Posted by: Rusty at 01:34 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 28 words, total size 1 kb.

This post, by Jeff Jarvis, describes the parameters of the "Information Reformation" that's taking place:

The war is over and the army that wasn't even fighting - the army of all of us, the ones who weren't in charge, the ones without the arms - won. The big guys who owned the big guns still don't know it. But they lost.

In our media 2.0, web 2.0, post-media, post-scarcity, small-is-the-new-big, open-source, gift-economy world of the empowered and connected individual, the value is no longer in maintaining an exclusive hold on things. The value is no longer in owning content or distribution.

The value is in relationships. The value is in trust.

And this post, by Donald Sensing, lays out the case for a wartime Civilian Intelligence System, although he doesn't actually use that term:

Yet a scandal can race around the world while good news and success stories are still tying their shoes. The Bush administration has allowed the information status quo of the war to be maintained too long in the public eye. The information agenda has been set by the mainstream media (MSM), attenuated to a significant but not large degree by bloggers. I think the administration should begin immediately a vigorous domestic-information program to do these things:

-remind the American people "why we fight."

-inform the public of successes achieved.

-educate the public of the national objectives being sought, and how.

I have no grand plan on exactly how such a program should be carried out, but its success would depend on sidestepping the mainstream media. None of this information has been unavailable in the public arena. The MSM could have been reporting such stories objectively all along but have deliberately avoided doing so.

What I've had trouble understanding is why, if Jeff is right, we need to await a government lead-out in order to establish this new Civilian Intelligence System? (h/t: Winds of Change)

Read the rest!

Posted by: Demosophist at 01:23 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 327 words, total size 3 kb.

When I heard that Pat Robertson said that maybe we might want to assassinate Hugo Chavez, my first reaction was, Wow, did he say that out loud? You see, I think Pat Robertson is right, we really ought to assassinate Hugo Chavez. He said what a lot of us think all the time.

What makes Robertsons statememt foolish is not that it's a bad idea, but that Pat Robertson is a public figure. Since I don't really qualify as a public figure, I'll go ahead and second Robertsons motion. Hugo Chavez must die. While we're at it, I hope the CIA saves a bullet for Fidel Castro. No, I don't think the CIA will actually kill the pair, but that doesn't mean it's a bad idea.

Why is political assassination such a bad idea? Only those who view the world from an international law paradigm could make such a case. Political assassinations, it is argued, destabilize the international legal system. Besides, they say, if you begin to justify the political assassination of that two-bit dictator, what is to stop our enemies from justifying assassinating our President?

Good point. But

a) There is no such thing as an international legal system. International law is a fiction slightly less believable than the notion that Sasqatch communicates with a woman in a double-wide trailor on the edges of Boggy Creek, LA. Where there is no force there is no law. When the U.N. can begin to enforce its will, come back and then we'll talk. Just because you wish there was such a thing as international law does not make it so.

b) If you believe all nations are essentially equal, then you and I have a major disagreement. What is good for the goose is not good for the gander. What is the difference, for instance, between the U.S. having a nuclear warhead and Iran? If you cannot see the difference between the U.S. and Iran than you are an idiot. Just because many in the world are blind to these differences, does not make the differences any less real.

This may sound simplistic, but we are the good guys and they are the bad guys. I want the good guys to prevail.

All nations are not equal and neither are their leaders. If you wish to put your faith in an international system which equivocates between the King of Denmark and the King of Saudi Arabia, be my guest. I don't buy it.

c) I am an American. Ultimately, what is good for America's national interest is the highest moral metric that I am interested in. This may not be a popular position to hold these days, but it is one that I believe in wholeheartedly. This does not mean that I wish national interest to trump moral concerns whenever the two are at odds, but some times what is in our interests must trump what is good. If you wish our leaders to always do the moral thing rather than the right thing, I suggest electing a slate of Buddhist monks to Congress.

Fortunately, I believe that what is usually in America's national interests is also what is usually moral. The spread of democracy, captalism, and liberalism are both moral and in our national interest.

I certainly don't wish to set aside America's national interests for the sake of some false sense of morality which rests upon the baseless equivocation the U.N. makes between nations and their leaders. If the U.S. could have taken out Saddam Hussein with a single bullet, breaking international law in the process, I would lose no sleep.

In the shootout at the O.K. Corral, which is the international stage, I, for one, root for Wyatt Earp to win. I really could care less that the Clantons and McLaurys were deputized: they were the bad guys. When the law begins to equivocate between the good and the bad, then that law has no legitimacy in my eyes.

So, if any policy makers are reading this post, and I doubt if they are, then do us all a favor and take out a few of our enemies. Only, if you do it right, make sure that it looks like another one of our enemies did it. If there's anything The Godfather taught me about life, it is that it is always a good thing to make one enemy look bad while taking out another one.

Oh, but keep your traps shut. Thinking, planning, and executing the political assassinations of America's enemies is not necessarily bad. Talking about it, though, is.

UPDATE: Jeff from The Shape of Days agrees. Check out his post in which he recounts the crimes of Hugo Chavez. Even though Jeff makes the claim to fame that he was first since he wrote his post eight ago, I'm going to have to remind you that my server was down. I thought this post up nine hours ago. I swear. No I can't prove it.......

UPDATE II: Brian B. makes an excellent point here.

Posted by: Rusty at 06:58 PM | Comments (34) | Add Comment
Post contains 855 words, total size 5 kb.

1 I'm sure they've got the "keeping your traps shut" part worked out already. And you can never be quite sure who's reading, unless you're paying close attention. Someone in the DOJ drops in and reads my blog from time to time, I've learned from the server logs. Someone in the NSA dropped by once. I also have regular readers all over the armed forces, including in the Pentagon. You just never know, when you put your words out on the net, who's going to run across them.

Posted by: IO ERROR at August 23, 2005 07:25 PM (HaVXj)

2 Good. Follow my recommendations and then find some sort of plausible deniability.

Posted by: Rusty at August 23, 2005 07:37 PM (JQjhA)

3 This may sound simplistic, but we are the good guys and they are the bad guys. I want the good guys to prevail. This instantly shuts the moral equivocators up. Their jaw drops and they don't even know what to say. They actually think everybody believes we should treat America and Iran the same and that we should be "consistent". Morons. Yes you assholes, America and Israel can have nukes-- Iran can't. End of discussion.

Posted by: Carlos at August 23, 2005 08:22 PM (8e/V4)

4 Good to see you are back up and running.

Posted by: Jay at August 24, 2005 01:27 PM (2FcUc)

5 Some people just need killin.

Posted by: Howie at August 24, 2005 01:29 PM (sknEY)

6 Carlos, sometimes you just make me feel redundant.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 24, 2005 01:30 PM (0yYS2)

7 And you too Howie.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 24, 2005 01:40 PM (0yYS2)

8 While I have no problem with seeing Hugo leave office in a pine box, I'm not convinced it's somehting the government could do without severe domestic repercussions, given the current political climate. Having said that, I wish the people, including my fellow conservative bloggers, who are screaming about "Religious Intolerance" just because this came out of Robertson's mouth would just shut up. Robertson wears two hats, one as a religious figure and one as a political pundit. You'd do well to pay attention to which one's on his head when he's talking. Furthermore, there's a world of difference between espousing the view that the assassination of a brutal dictator is in the strategic best interest of the United States, and calling for Jihad against all unbelievers. Hyperventillating about "Fatwahs" just make you sound like a n overreacting schoolgirl.

Posted by: Brian B at August 24, 2005 02:12 PM (CouWh)

9 Rusty, for some reason, with regard to Pat Robertson, I can't help but remember your recent comment that the right has its crazies under control. Regarding the substance of your post: a) There is such a thing as international law, it just only applies when the U.S. desides it should, which means it is more show than substance. Exactly the recipe for draining American moral authority (soft power) around the world. International law could exist in a real way if the leading superpower in world history got behind it by supporting the UN (similarly to the way the states legitimized a central power by supporting the Constitution - the prominent states were crucial in gaining legitimacy), joining the International Criminal Court, and lending objective support to the Declaration of Human rights and other established international codes. This is the project we should be involved in. b) You're suggesting that the U.S. be allowed to employ any means, including the use of nuclear weapons and assassination, to enforce its will. This is precisely the sort of arrogance that has spawned radical Islamic terrorism. And, it is precisely the course of action that Osama bin Laden would love for us to (continue to) take. c) The problem is, your do not leave any room for the idea that your definition of the American national interest might be profoundly wrong. I would think that the history of how radical Islam rose in the first place would suggest that military options do far more short term and long term harm than good. It also suggests that you think that American institutions always justify an anything goes approach (since it makes us the good guys), which is extremely dangerous. You are simplifying the way the world works to the extreme and your Saddam assassination suggestion is really quite telling; the result of such an act would have resulted in either a) another strong man similar to Saddam taking power, or b) a civil war, not unlike what we see right now happening in Iraq (capturing Saddam has not lessened this in the least). Your Godfather reference is far more appropriate. As long as we can all see very clearly that your aspirations for American foreign policy amount to little more than thuggery, then we can dispense with all the rhetoric about bringing freedom and democracy to the rest of the world.

Posted by: Professor Peter Von Nostrand at August 24, 2005 02:22 PM (BueBw)

10 Oh, come now. Without leaders like Chavez, Castro, Jong Il, and the Ayatollah, life would be very boring for neocons.

Posted by: Venom at August 24, 2005 02:24 PM (dbxVM)

11 lol...and now Robertson's apologizing for his remark.

Posted by: Venom at August 24, 2005 03:00 PM (dbxVM)

12 Is it a crime to threaten a foreign nation? For example, if someone went to the Chinese embassy website and threatened a Chinese interest would that be a crime under American law?

Posted by: Hedgy at August 24, 2005 03:20 PM (A8rF5)

13 Peter, Sorry, but I'm a realist at heart. I'm not sure you know the history of radical Islam, which has been around since, er, Muhammed's day. We did nothing to cause it, it has always been there.

Posted by: Rusty at August 24, 2005 03:59 PM (JQjhA)

14 I'm afraid I'm with Feisty Republican Whore on this one. (See the post that got her fatwa'd.) Even if we were to bump off Chavez, that would probably just hand the reins of power over to one of his lackeys, and who's to say he won't turn out just as bad, or worse, than Hugo himself? No, we really would need a full-scale invasion to get rid of him and the mess he's made of Venezuela. Trouble is, of course, the U.S. military is just a tad preoccupied at the moment. Bigger fish to fry, don'tcha know.

Posted by: Joshua at August 24, 2005 04:32 PM (XPnN/)

15 duh. we can't do assassinations. the Clinton adminstration passed a law against it.

Posted by: matoko kusanagi at August 24, 2005 06:56 PM (DsETa)

16 Rusty, "I did not call for the assassination of that man."

Posted by: IO ERROR at August 24, 2005 08:06 PM (HaVXj)

17 Robertson has been around for a long time. If you note the first sentence of his statement. He did it on purpose. He has a history of making, well wild statements. He knew exactly what he was doing he needed/wanted attention for Pat just as much as he wanted attention for the Chavez issue. He won on all fronts no better publicity than bad.

Posted by: Howie at August 24, 2005 08:50 PM (D3+20)

18 They can shout death to America. They can kill Americans. They can scream death to our President. (By they, I mean Chavez and his friends, Castro, Irans leaders and such). But when one over zealous American says the same its a big deal. Liberal crybaby assholes. If you're on the other side move there.

Posted by: greyrooster at August 24, 2005 08:53 PM (CBNGy)

19 Rusty, I don't think you're a realist at heart. I think you're a neocon at heart, which is really something quite different, unless you want to make the argument that neoconservatism is a radical form of realism. Hugo Chavez is the democratically elected president of Venezuela, so it is pretty strange (not to mention counter to much of your rhetoric on this site) that you'd agree with Robertson on this. Or do you join him in apologizing today? Also, I do not see how eliminating Chavez would serve U.S. national interests. Could you explain that to me? If you do take this up, I think it will become clear that the "U.S. national interest" you favor actually benefits a small minority of American citizens and corporations (i.e. very few of the readers of The Jawa Report). Regarding radical Islam: You are correct to note that it has been around since the early days of the religion, but this is a minor point (The U.S. government might as well base its entire approach towards Mormonism on the fact that there are still radical Mormons marrying 13 year olds by the dozen in Utah and northern Arizona). You should know that I was referring to the rise of radical Islam as a political force significant enough to support 9/11 style terrorist attacks and garner sympathy from those otherwise moderate Muslims upset with U.S. policy. If you don't see the U.S./European role in prodding the development of that sort of radical Islamic terrorism I really don't know what to tell you other than that you should read Mark LeVine's excellent new book Why They Don't Hate Us.

Posted by: Professor Peter Von Nostrand at August 24, 2005 09:00 PM (BueBw)

20 IM: you're indispensable.

Posted by: Howie at August 24, 2005 09:03 PM (D3+20)

21 Oh one other thought. If Robertson really approved of this policy and thought it was possible he just made it about as improbable as it can possibly get.

Posted by: Howie at August 24, 2005 09:17 PM (D3+20)

22 Sigh.... I miss my trolls....

Posted by: Howie at August 24, 2005 09:23 PM (D3+20)

23 Professor Von Nostrand: Is international law positive or natural? If positive, what is the legislative body? If natural, what ethical theory does it derive?

Posted by: John "Akatsukami" Braue at August 24, 2005 09:51 PM (SNKfY)

24 Hugo Chavez is the democratically elected president of Venezuela,..." hahahaha. Sure he is. Jimmah said so.

Posted by: Oyster at August 24, 2005 10:06 PM (YudAC)

25 I don't necessarily disagree with points A and B... but I do think that there is a sense of "if the U.S. does it, it is okay." If we do it and are caught doing it...it gives other nations carte blanche. So, we can't give the U.S. the power to assassinate with impunity if we don't also trust, oh, say, Iran with the same power. Unfortunately, the US has to play by the same (or at least similar) rules as which it would like others to play. Finally, maybe you trust the current administration with this power... but how do you know you'll trust future administrations with this power. No, we'll just have to do it the old fashioned way. Have operatives pose as locals and foment a coup. ;-)

Posted by: ArmyArtilleryWife at August 25, 2005 09:39 AM (14kpv)

26 I don't necessarily disagree with points A and B... but I do think that there is a sense of "if the U.S. does it, it is okay." If we do it and are caught doing it...it gives other nations carte blanche. The problem with this logic is that it assumes that other countries never have, are not, and never will attempt to use assassination, and that it's only some code of ethics that stands in their way. The only problem is, we KNOW that other countries have and are and will try it. So, we can't give the U.S. the power to assassinate with impunity if we don't also trust, oh, say, Iran with the same power. Depends on who you mean by "we". If you mean "We, the People", my response is, why not? It's not like Iran is waiting for our permission anyway. Unfortunately, the US has to play by the same (or at least similar) rules as which it would like others to play. No, the US is expected to play by a set of rules much much stricter than that by which everyone else DOES play. And while the rest of the world commits the most egregious of offenses, even the most minor of infractions by Americans is greeted with howls of indignation. Let's face it -- nothing we do, no matter how far we bend over, no matter how much we could grovel and prostrate ourselves, would make a dent in the demonization of the US. So I am left wondering why we keep worrying about international opinion when it's obvious that it's prejudiced to begin with. We're the Great satan? Fine. Just don't be surprised when we actually start wielding that pitchfork. Finally, maybe you trust the current administration with this power... but how do you know you'll trust future administrations with this power. I don't trust ANY administration with ANY power unless there's some sort of checks and balances. But let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Posted by: Brian B at August 25, 2005 10:58 AM (CouWh)

27 Professor Von Nostrand, I really must question your grip on history as well as reality. 1. There is no international law. Period. Law without an enforcement mechanism is merely a suggestion. The UN has shown repeatedly that it cannot and will not enforce anything. See, e.g. Saddam Hussein's Iraq. What the UN does do is allow murderous and undemocratic regimes (Iran, Syria, China, etc.) a forum to bash us accusing us of violating "international law" as they define it, setting up a moral equivalency between us and them, which is unacceptable in theory as well as practice. The US "throwing its weight" behind international law has no effect if the real violators of it continue to define it and prevent its enforcement against themselves. 2. Radical Islam, in its present strains, dates from at least the 19th century, with the founding of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, well before the US or even Western Europe was involved in any meaningful way in the Middle East. If you want someone to "blame" for that aside from the supremecist elements within Islam itself, take it up with the Ottoman Turks. 3. Hugo Chavez was indeed elected democratically -- for the first election. The recall election last August, however, was rife with fraud noted by nearly every single independent international observer (including the OAS) except for Jimmy Carter. The fraud was perpetrated by the election officials picked by Chavistas who counted the votes and may have just reversed the percentages. If you think Hugo Chavez was democratically elected last August, you must also think that Saddam Hussein was democratically elected, not to mention the thug in charge of Iran right now.

Posted by: ProCynic at August 25, 2005 11:45 AM (bfkgE)

28 Uh... news flash... "our enemies" are "justifying assassinating our President" and "justifying" targeting women and children.

Posted by: DANEgerus at August 25, 2005 12:35 PM (J8yxJ)

29 Pat helped point out what the Washington Post and all other media ignores: Hugo must go. He is a thief and a liar, hum sounds like the devil.

Posted by: John Morrison at August 25, 2005 02:25 PM (ZETBb)

30 To equate Hugo Chavez to Saddam, or to any of the other tyrants we've supported around the world is just assinine. Chavez is a democraticly elected leader who enjoys widespread support among the populous of Venezuela (59% according to last year's recall vote endorsed by the Carter Center and the OAS as fair). Chavez may be less than perfect, but to see Rusty call for his assassination only demonstrates the degree to which any ethical standards he ever had have been flushed down the toilet. And to hear what I can only assume to be a bunch of Bush Republicans suggest that Chavez' victory in the recall election were tainted is beyond hypocritical. When you want to deal with Florida 2000, or Ohio 2004 then I'll listen to your complaints. Otherwise, you have no moral standing at all.

Posted by: Professor Peter Von Nostrand at August 25, 2005 08:33 PM (BueBw)

31 If we allow the murders of political leaders all over the world it would bite us in the behind. The markets of the world would become so unstable that it would wreck our economy.

Posted by: social rob at August 25, 2005 10:23 PM (tXv5y)

32 Oh, Professor, your comments sound like those of a "useful idiot" in the failed Marxist-Leninist tradition, of which the last bastions are Castro's Cuba, Chavista Venezuela and, not surprisingly given your opinion, American university campuses. But I'll play If you actually think that last year's recall "election" was fair, perhaps you should visit Daniel's blog (http://daniel-venezuela.blogspot.com/) can tell you how much of a sham last year's election was, how Jimmy Carter sold out the people of Venezuela just to hurt the US in the true Carter anti-American tradition. Msybe he can give you an idea of the hell Chavez has created, the dictatorial power he has assumed, the aid he has given to murderous narco-rebels in Colombia, the mullahs in Iran and, yes, al Qaida; and the threat he represents to the US. That is, the people here who read this blog who don't want to be killed or made to suffer just so you can maintain your sense of moral superiority. Maybe, if you're willing to listen. But your kool-aid comments suggest you are not. Now, I could say that on a practical level, you are correct in that the Venezuelan recall "election" last year was comparable to Ohio and Florida, the chief difference being that the attempts of the leftists to cheat in Venezuela to "elect" Chavez were successful, while the leftists' attempts to cheat in Ohio and Florida to get the traitorous John Kerry elected failed. And I could go one step further and suggest that if you want election fraud in the US, you have far better places to look than Florida and Ohio. May I suggest Washington state's gubernatorial race? How 'bout the presidential race in Milwaukee? How 'bout other races in East St. Louis and East Chicago? But I'll just settle for stating the obvious that anyone who insists that Hugo Chavez runs an election more fair and honest than the US surrenders all moral and intellectual legitimacy. I'd tell you to book your trip to Jonestown, but you're already there. Your academic institution and your students have my sympathies, but we've come to expect that from our universities today. Please say "Hi!" to Ward Churchill for me.

Posted by: ProCynic at August 25, 2005 10:32 PM (6krEN)

33 Why stop with hugo chevez lets include fidel castro in that list as well

Posted by: sandpiper at August 27, 2005 05:37 PM (qMAo+)

34 Pat Robertson apologizing for a remark against an enemy of America and the moonbat liberals think it a big deal. Clinton apology for getting blow jobs in the White House and lying to the American public on television is small deal? Von Nostril, Vemon how one sided and stupid can you get? You two are beginning to remind me of the Sheehan bitch.

Posted by: greyrooster at August 27, 2005 11:04 PM (CBNGy)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Sorry about The Jawa Report being down today. Something happened to the mu.nu server that knocked all of us down. It looks like it is working now. We are still having trackback and commenting problems. Hopefully, those will be resolved soon.

Posted by: Rusty at 03:40 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 61 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Glad to hear it. I thought you had a D.O.S. attack.

Posted by: Rod Stanton at August 23, 2005 04:26 PM (03F0I)

2 We did have a D.O.S. attack... Just a little one, fortunately. If it hadn't been for the spam flood coming in at the same time, we'd have been fine. Comments are working now, by the way.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at August 23, 2005 05:44 PM (ymzzr)

3 Still bloody slow though.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at August 23, 2005 05:47 PM (ymzzr)

4 Aye Carumba! Slow is better than nothing ;-)

Posted by: Rusty at August 23, 2005 06:01 PM (JQjhA)

5 See what IP addresses generated the DOS. Maybe we can retaliate. Nothing meand of course.

Posted by: Rod Stanton at August 23, 2005 06:33 PM (03F0I)

6 Well, the only thing I noticed was that I couldn't seem to edit some misspellings in my comments. Other than that, it seemed fine. Of course, I generally just use the text feed rather than the html browser page, which probably takes a lot less bandwidth.

Posted by: Demosophist at August 23, 2005 07:06 PM (EGrxk)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Here are the transcropts of Cindy Sheehan's speech at a pro-Lynne Stewart rally at San Francisco State University earlier this year. Lynne Stewart, it should be remembered, was convicted of aiding her terrorist client Omar Abdel-Rahman pass communications out of his prison cell. You've probably seen some of these quotes before, but like me, may not have read the entire speech. Included in her speech is Sheehan's notion that perhaps al Qaeda was not behind 9/11--by inference 9/11 was caused by Israel--and she repeats the Leftist lie propogated by Giuliana Sgrena and the Arab media that the U.S. is using nuclear weapons in Iraq.

The last two comments by Sheehan put her in the extreme outer reaches of sanity. Not only are they totally outrageous, they are also seditious. If a neocon conspiracy was really behind 9/11 and if the U.S. was really dropping nuclear weapons on Iraqi civilians then Sheehan would be right and it would not only be immoral to support the war but it would be immoral not to actively fight U.S. troops.

Shawn from Bareknucklepolitics sent me this a few days ago but I didn't have time to post on it. When Rob from Say Anything posted on it yesterday, I figured I had better share it with you. more...

Posted by: Rusty at 09:06 AM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 1457 words, total size 10 kb.

Update: Ernie has the video!

Brutally Honest has provided us with the greatest movie quote ever. It's from a 1940 film called "The Ghost Breakers."

Geoff: "When a person dies and is buried, it seems there's certain voodoo priests who have the power to bring him back to life. "
Mary: "How horrible. "
Geoff: "It's worse than horrible because a zombie has no will of his own. You see them sometimes, walking around with dead eyes, following orders, not knowing what they do, not caring. "
Larry: "You mean like democrats?"

Click on over to his place for the sound clip.

Posted by: Drew at 08:52 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 110 words, total size 1 kb.

Stop the ACLU has been doing a bang up job keeping an eye out on an organization that puts simplistic fifth grade truisms taught at American law-schools above national security. That's not all they do, though, for instance, check out Jay's post on a new series of Abu Ghraib photos soon to be released. It's like the American media want to help Abu Musab al-Zarqawi recruit some more head chopping jihadis!

Stop the ACLU is trying to raise money to buy ad space in the Washington Times. They need $2,500 to buy a full page ad. To donate, go here.

If you don't have any spare cash, maybe you can help with an online rummage sale to be held on e-Bay on their behalf? Contact Zaphriel from Conservative Birth at Zaphriel@gmail.com if you have items you are willing to donate.

Posted by: Rusty at 08:25 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 150 words, total size 1 kb.

Chris Short, of Conservative Thinking and Jawa Sith apprentice, has launched a new online store. Dude, where are all the hot models?

Posted by: Rusty at 08:09 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 32 words, total size 1 kb.

Pat Robertson has lost it. We all knew the day was coming, but it has finally arrived. The longtime leader of The 700 Club has publically called for the assassination of Hugo Chavez.

“You know, I don’t know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we’re trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it,” Robertson said. “It’s a whole lot cheaper than starting a war ... and I don’t think any oil shipments will stop.”

Posted by: Drew at 07:37 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 208 words, total size 1 kb.

I recently got an email from AFA. This is normal as I tend to get them once a week or so asking me to pledge support to this cause or another. Most of the time I just ignore them because I simply don't have time to respond to every call to arms that comes down the pipeline. But this one had me taking a second look.

Your help is needed to stop pornographers from having their own Internet domain.

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is studying the possibility of giving the pornography industry their own domain. ICANN would ask the pornographers to voluntarily move to the new triple X domain which would contain nothing but pornography. There would be no law to force them to the new triple X domain. ICANN would depend on the good character and integrity of the pornographers to be considerate of others, including our children!!!

In addition to having the triple X domain, the pornographers could (and would) continue sending out billions of pornographic images on every other domain. As bad as pornography is on the Internet now, it would be infinitely worse with the triple X domain. The establishment of a triple X domain would give legitimacy to the pornographers.

I'm not arguing for or against porn on the internet. It's there, it's going to be there no matter what I do or think. But I do think that it needs to be regulated just as adult book stores are. If you can't prove how old you are, you can't get in. Yes, I realize that the prospect of proving your age across the internet poses its own unique set of problems. But that doesn't mean that it should be abandoned.

But that's not the point of my post. My point is actually a question. What the heck is the AFA thinking? Seriously, what are they objecting to? Allowing someone to run a pornographic web site no more legitimizes it than allowing someone to run an adult book store. Last time I checked, they're pretty much free to run whatever type of business they like (within the bounds of conventional law). Heck, I'm all for the creation of a ".xxx" domain. It would make my life SO much easier. When I configure firewalls and content filters, I'd know exactly what to block. Yes, I know, there's nothing forcing pornographers to use the domain name. But there would be a number of them who would use it. And those would just make dealing with the whole thing so much easier.

All in all, I just can't seem to get worked up about this one and instead of support, I think I'll be sending the AFA a big WTF?

Posted by: Drew at 07:26 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 467 words, total size 3 kb.

We need to establish an absolute exit date for leaving Iraq in order to resolve any uncertaintly that might be lurking in the minds of the "insurgents" and Americans, like Chuck Hagel, fretting over whether to learn the Iraqi dialect of Islam or stick with the classical Q'oranic dialect. So I propose that if things aren't getting better by, say... Jan. 1, 3001 we get the heck out. I know it's something of a concession to the moonbats, and it's giving the enemy far more information than we ought to, but it's time we made up our minds that we just can't stay there forever. And we also ought to tell the jihadis, just for the sake of clarity, that their alternative to surrender is to go the way of the Thugs.

Posted by: Demosophist at 12:28 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 146 words, total size 1 kb.

With adequate evidence that the Sinai Peninsula is a hotbed for terrorists, several thousand Egyptian police supported with armored vehicles were mobilized yesterday to search and apprehend perpetrators and anyone with information. The sweep started in the towns of El-Arish and Sheikh Zuayed and a total of about 500 individuals were detained for questioning. El-Arish has been identified as an explosives smuggling center.

In addition to the towns, security forces fanned out on the desert in the operation which is expected to take several days. The manhunt has been called open-ended, whatever that means. Hopefully, it means that they will continue searching and apprehending terrorists until there are none residing anywhere outside the comfy walls of Egyptian prisons.

Companion at I-P.

Posted by: Mike Pechar at 09:52 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 131 words, total size 1 kb.

A second officer has come forward to cooberate Lt. Col. Shaffer's story concerning Able Danger and the indentification of Atta.

WASHINGTON, Aug. 22 - An active-duty Navy captain has become the second military officer to come forward publicly to say that a secret defense intelligence program tagged the ringleader of the Sept. 11 attacks as a possible terrorist more than a year before the attacks.

The officer, Scott J. Phillpott, said in a statement today that he could not discuss details of the military program, which was called Able Danger, but confirmed that its analysts had identified the Sept. 11 ringleader, Mohamed Atta, by name by early 2000. "My story is consistent," said Captain Phillpott, who managed the program for the Pentagon's Special Operations Command.
"Atta was identified by Able Danger by January-February of 2000."

His comments came on the same day that the Pentagon's chief spokesman, Lawrence Di Rita, told reporters that the Defense Department had been unable to validate the assertions made by an Army intelligence veteran, Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, and now backed up by Captain Phillpott, about the early identification of Mr. Atta.

The Pentagon better come up with something a bit more in keeping with the accumulating evidence.

Posted by: Traderrob at 06:44 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 221 words, total size 2 kb.

As hostage taking becomes more and more unpopular as a propaganda tool, news of hostages being released in Iraq becomes more frequent. I hadn't heard that these Pakistanis had been taken hostage last week, but I am glad to hear that they have been freed. Other news reports indicate that the three Egyptians and two Indians, kidnapped with the Pakistanis, have also been freed. more...

Posted by: Rusty at 05:10 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 205 words, total size 1 kb.

Another bomb goes off in Beirut targetting Christians. I'm sure that the Iranian backed Hezbollah, which runs its own TV station in Beirut, had nothing to do with it.
more...

Posted by: Rusty at 05:01 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 228 words, total size 2 kb.

UPDATE: Looks like a false alarm. While we should applaud the Kurdish and Shiite representatives for looking to find consensus with the Sunni minority, but at some point you just have to move on. Bloomberg:

Iraq's lawmakers agreed on a draft constitution and will use three more days to consider amendments in an attempt to resolve differences among Sunnis, Kurds and Shiites, the parliament speaker said in an Iraqi state television broadcast.

``We received the draft of the constitution,'' Iraqi National Assembly President Hachim al-Hasani said within 10 minutes of a midnight deadline in Baghdad to submit the constitution to lawmakers. ``But there are some points that are still outstanding and need to be addressed in the next three days.''

National Assembly member Bahaa Al-Aaraji just told Al-Iraqia TV that an agreement has finally been reached among the leaders of political bodies on the final draft of the constitution and that disputes over issues like federalism, distribution of resources and the role of Islam have been solved.

MSM now confirming:

``We have assurances that leaders have agreed on nearly all items,'' Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari's spokesman, Laith Kubba, said in a telephone interview today from the capital, Baghdad. ``Substantial progress has been made.''

Iraqi Shia and Kurdish negotiators say they have agreed on a draft constitution after weeks of talks and are to present it to parliament regardless of whether the minority Sunnis agree.

it was agreed upon that no laws that are against the widely agreed upon values of Islam can be issued and no laws that are against the values of democracy and human rights can be issued.

Posted by: Rusty at 04:31 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 337 words, total size 3 kb.

Wow. I never thought I'd live to see the day that Glenn Reynolds would be #2 on the TTLB Ecosystem. I was hoping to knock Glenn off his #1 high-horse, or if not me then IMAO or one of Frank J's minions at The Alliance, but at least it wasn't Kos--anybody but Kos.

In related hell-freezes-over news, The Jawa Report is now #27 in the TTLB Ecosystem. We've broken Mortal Human status in the past for a day or so before quickly falling to our much more deserved Playful Primate status--like Laurence Simon, we've always thought this blog was full of crap. This time, though, we've managed to stay up there with the big boys for a couple of weeks, and it doesn't seem to be a glitch.

So, watch your back Michelle Malkin, here I come. Only 4363 links to go!

Oh, and here's a suggestion for The Alliance. more...

Posted by: Rusty at 03:34 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 164 words, total size 1 kb.

Often we hear from those on the Left that I disagree with the Iraq War but I do support our soldiers 110%. Here is an e-mail forwarded to me claiming Starbucks refuses to send coffee to our troops.

UPDATE: Thankfully, This turns out to be an urban myth. So if you get the e-mail posted below, do not pass it on. more...

Posted by: Rusty at 01:59 PM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 279 words, total size 2 kb.

Notice the new-new site? The Jawa Report should load 10x faster than it has been the last few weeks. The center column should adjust to fit your screen size and we've adjusted the font color. Further, the page is now skinnable. What this means is that if you don't like the white text on black background you can switch to a black text on light background. Cool, eh?

Thanks to Bryan of METAGFX studios, and who blogs here, for coming up with the original kick ass design concept. Muchos gracias also to Phin of Apothegm designs, and who is also an A+ blogger here, for retooling the site so that it would run faster and for working out some of the original kinks. Last shout out to Gordon the Cranky Neocon for coming up with the new Jawa Mos Eisly logo and to Professor Chaos for finding that Thomas Mann quote.

Posted by: Rusty at 12:53 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 163 words, total size 1 kb.

1 This is so much nicer! "The Jawa Report" font at the top fits much better.

Posted by: tyler at August 22, 2005 01:20 PM (Y9Lwb)

2 Cool wider is better.

Posted by: Howie at August 22, 2005 01:21 PM (yC9sH)

3 Ahhh.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at August 22, 2005 01:40 PM (x+5JB)

4 Much better

Posted by: REMF at August 22, 2005 01:54 PM (xuZWQ)

5 Will it still have the same crappy content? I'm seriously, it's a million times better.

Posted by: Leopold Stotch at August 22, 2005 03:26 PM (Bo+tE)

6 Ah, Movable Type, how I loathe thee. Seriously though, it is much faster, which I like. I just don't like the white background on the comments. I would much rather have it black like the rest of the page.

Posted by: IO ERROR at August 22, 2005 04:35 PM (HaVXj)

7 Rusty - kudos to your web design people; it looks *excellent!* I definitely like the adjustable width AND the skin choice. Keep up the excellent work, and one day you, too, will be a Higher Being... Well, officially, at least! ;-) -- R'cat CatHouse Chat

Posted by: Romeocat at August 22, 2005 05:31 PM (4LkDo)

8 I have to say that i really like the new design. Loads faster and easier to read. Thumbs Up!

Posted by: Rick at August 22, 2005 06:45 PM (GAC+X)

9 Love the new design Rusty, fantastic!

Posted by: Tim at August 22, 2005 08:01 PM (SQGMu)

10 Looks great and doesn't barf when I load it in my RSS reader (JetBrains Omea Reader 2.0). Are you going to enable full posts for RSS feeds? ...pretty please?

Posted by: Zuke at August 23, 2005 01:48 AM (bW04V)

Hide Comments | Add Comment