July 18, 2005

Al Jazeera: U.S. Soldiers Killed the 32 Children*

Who was responsible for killing 32 Iraqi children lined up to get candy from members of the United States military? Al Qaida in Iraq claims they were not at fault. Al Jazeera* has found out who is responsible; the United States military (via Ace).


Iraqi experts are saying that the recent car bomb that killed some 18 children was not the work of the anti-occupation fighters but of the U.S. occupation troops.

A traffic lieutenant who asked not to be identified said to a media source that U.S. solders crazily raced out of the street less than a minute before the explosion and that after the blast they did not return to the bomb scene but continued to hurry out of the area.

Yes, the United States military drove a car into a crowded pack of children and right next to other United States soldiers to detonate an explosive. Instead of yelling out "Allah Akhbar" they yelled "Git'r'done!"

Perhaps the soldiers were tyring to secure the perimeter or they were wary of a second attack as has been the case on several occassions? Nah, for Al Jazeera* it's better to go ahead and print conspiracy theories as truth only when that conspiracy theory damages the enemy. Logic need not apply.

*As alerted by The Commissar, Aljazeera.com is not the same as Al Jazeera the Arab media station.

Cross-posted at ITB

Posted by: Chad at 01:58 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 246 words, total size 2 kb.

July 17, 2005

I'm Opposed to Terrorism (Unless You're a Jew in which case it's 'legitimate resistance' and not really 'terrorism' at all)

What he said.

Posted by: Rusty at 07:02 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 43 words, total size 1 kb.

Tony Blair' Speech: Genius & Jawa Report Reader

Apologies to the Lord of Moons (aka, Allah) for breaking my Sabbath commitment today but Tony Blair gave a speech yesterday that literally had my jaw dropping. My wife was stunned that I used a profanity, something I never do around the house, when I said something like, "Holy shit, Tony Blair is the first politician I've ever heard who actually gets it." And his speech was so close to something I had just written the day before that I can't help but think that Tony Blair, or one of his speechwriters, reads The Jawa Report.

Here is the text of the most honest and amazing speech I've heard from a politician since 9/11. Not only does it correctly identify the war as one not against terror but against an evil fascist ideology but was also given with courage and conviction. Tony Blair's speech, in my mind, is right up there with John F. Kennedy's innagural in which he warned "every nation...whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."

Text of Blair's speech. Read it all: more...

Posted by: Rusty at 01:54 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 1534 words, total size 9 kb.

July 13, 2005

Remembering Fallen Heroes

My grandfather, a Marine killed in the Pacific theatre during WWII, is buried in the Punchbowl. He and his fallen brothers are joined by five heroes of the Afghanistan campaign. I am thankful for their sacrifice and proud of their service. God speed and rest in peace.

Posted by: Rusty at 09:09 PM | Comments (37) | Add Comment
Post contains 53 words, total size 1 kb.

July 01, 2005

Al Reuters Misleading Headline of the Day

No evidence yet Iran leader involved in 1979 siege

The article then goes on to list statements by the White House which amount to, "we're still looking into it", denials by the Iranians, and an interview with a former hostage who says he doesn't recall personally seeing Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but he believes the others who say they did. Fair and balanced.

Related here and here.

Posted by: Rusty at 02:43 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 79 words, total size 1 kb.

June 30, 2005

Democrats Continue to Harp on 'The Day Which We Shall Not Mention'

It should be perfectly clear by now that Democrats hate it when President Bush, or any Republican for that matter, mentions 9/11. For Democrats the the words September 11th or 9/11 are about as worthy of mentioning in public discourse than the hundred or so 'four-letter' words all of our parents tought us not to say.

The fallout among Democrats following President Bush's speech last night has been very interesting to watch as Democrats try to salvage their reputation as being weak on national security. Of course their actions and words do not strengthen their cause, but I cannot think of one more plausible scenario why Democrats are spewing venom just over the mention of that tragic day . . . errr 9/11.

The Democrats have compiled a page of sorts with different spokesmen being outraged, outraged I tell you, over the mention of 'the day we shall not mention' and it's quite interesting as it s the normal Democratic nonsense.

In the President's speech last night, he clearly linked the 9-11 attacks with the war in Iraq, implying that Saddam Hussein was involved and responsible for September 11th.

[snip]

"I was troubled and offended by the regularity of coming back to 9/11, because as you say, none of the terrorists were linked to Saddam and there has been this myth for a long time that is not true that Saddam is somehow responsible for 9/11 . . . " [said David Gergen.]

Now let's look back through the transcript a bit and see what mentions of 'the day we shall not mention' were said in the President's Speech.

The troops here and across the world are fighting a global war on terror. This war reached our shores on September 11, 2001. The terrorists who attacked us – and the terrorists we face . . .

Ok, this quote is slightly inaccurate as the terrorists which we are fighting in Iraq actually declared war against us long ago, but we did very little about it. Bush is still correct that we are fighting radical Islamic terrorists in Iraq of the same ideology as Al Qaida. One of the groups is even a branch of Al Qaida. As a quick refresher course for Democrats, Al Qaida attacked us on 'that day we shall not mention.'


After September 11, I made a commitment to the American people: This Nation will not wait to be attacked again. We will take the fight to the enemy.

Thus far that commitment has held true and, God willing, it will continue to hold true. In the months following 'the day we shall not mention,' the nation was relatively united behind taking the fight to the terrorists, yet, strangley, now that the terrorists are in Iraq many in this nation want to retreat. I will not go as far as say detractors wish attacks occured in this country, but right now the only military strategy in the GWOT is to confront terrorists abroad so we do not have to at home.

How many military strategies have come from the Left side of the aisle? (crickets)


The only way our enemies can succeed is if we forget the lessons of September 11 Â… if we abandon the Iraqi people to men like Zarqawi Â… and if we yield the future of the Middle East to men like Bin Laden. For the sake of our NationÂ’s security, this will not happen on my watch.

'The day we shall not mention' awoke the nation that we are not invencible and that the virtual pacifism ways of the Clinton Adminstration were not the way to prevail against radical Islam. Yet here we are, less than four years after, and a good portion of this country wants to retreat from fighting people with the same ideology that killed nearly 3,000 Americans on 'the day we shall not mention.'

If the United States were to leave Iraq when the Iraqi military cannot secure its own country, there would certainly be a radical Islamic threat especially now that Iran has a new hard-line president wanting to rejuvenate the Islamic Revolution. As always, this is an easy concept to comprehend, yet much of the Democratic caucus can't figure this out for the life of them.


They are trying to shake our will in Iraq – just as they tried to shake our will on September 11, 2001.

For the reading impaired, they means radical Islamic terrorists. You know, the same kind we're fighting in Iraq!


After September 11, 2001, I told the American people that the road ahead would be difficult – and that we would prevail. Well, it has been difficult. And we are prevailing.

Democrats though fail to understand the war in Iraq is part of the GWOT. Saddam did harbor, train and finance radical Islamic terrorists prior to the invasion. This is not a war in which you can kill Bin Laden, freeze his carcass on ice to display to the world, and proudly project "We've won!" It is an ideology we are fighting, not a singular mass of people sitting in some far-away country.

The long hall will be tough. It is tough. There is still a war being waged in Afghanistan on the fields and throughout the world with minds. A retreat will only signal one thing to the millions living under tyranny, our enemies, our allies and other nations; we cannot carry through to our promises.

Total mentions = 5
Direct implications Saddam was involved with the attack on 'the day we shall not mention' = 0

Cross-posted at In the Bullpen

Posted by: Chad at 12:08 PM | Comments (21) | Add Comment
Post contains 953 words, total size 6 kb.

June 29, 2005

Lawsuit: Iraq Involved In 9/11 Conspiracy (Updated with counter-arguments)

Hold on, There was no connection between Saddam Hussein, al Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks, Nancy Pelosi told me so.

CBS) Over a thousand victims and family members of those who died in the Sept. 11 attacks sued Iraq and its leader Saddam Hussein Wednesday alleging there is evidence of a conspiracy with Osama bin Laden to attack the United States.

The lawsuit alleges that Iraqi officials were aware, before Sept. 11, of plans by bin Laden to attack New York and the Pentagon.

The suit, filed Wednesday on behalf of 1,400 victims of the Sept. 11 attacks and their families, also claims Iraq sponsored terrorists for a decade to avenge its defeat in the Gulf War.

"Since Iraq could not defeat the U.S. military, it resorted to terror attacks on U.S. citizens," said the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court.

The suit names bin Laden, al Qaeda and Iraq as defendants and seeks more than $1 trillion in damages. It was brought by Kreindler & Kreindler, a New York law firm specializing in aviation disaster litigation.

The left has been berating George Bush for inferring such a connection in his speech last night. They wouldn't lie about such a thing, would they?

Posted by Traderrob

DISCLAIMER FROM RUSTY: Traderrob posted this, and I think it's an important piece of news. Jason at Texas Rainmaker elaborated on this some time ago. However, I do not now nor have I ever believed there was any direct connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11. While there may have been an occasional meeting between the Baathists and al Qaeda, I have never seen anything like compelling evidence of Iraq's involvement. It looks to me more like mutual support for anti-Israel and anti-Kurdish activities than anything else.

Did the Baathists really support an al Qaeda that was fighting their own regime through their allies in Ansar al-Islam in Kurdistan along the Iranian borders? I doubt it, although it is possible that some sort of truce was called between the two groups. But most of these theories rely on connecting a lot of disparate pieces of information--the classic logic of the conspiracy theoriests.

Sorry, I don't believe it. Not yet anyway.

UPDATE #2: Ok, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, let me address Reliapundit's points that he makes here. He notes that the Declaration of War against Iraq included two 9/11 references.

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
True, but so what? So Saddam a) doesn't go after members of Ansar al-Sunnah who are in control of a small area of Kurdistan along the Iranian border and who are horboring al Qaeda refugees from the successful campaign in Afghanistan. b) harbors, for very brief periods of time, a handful of other al Qaeda operatives. Harboring a fugitive is not the same as helping him commit the crime. It may be cause for war (please see Grotius) but it does not mean Hussein helped al Qaeda plan 9/11.

Point 2:

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens
Hussein did support terrorism. Hamas, Islamic Jihad, al Aqsa Martyr's Brigade, PFLP, PLO, etc....maybe even some minor contributions to al Qaeda. These groups, active against Israel, have killed a number of American citizens. This has nothing to do with Hussein actually planning 9/11. Hussein made som MAJOR miscaculations in his time, but he wasn't an idiot.

Point 3:

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations
Yes, it most certainly did. And every one in 2002-3 believed this, other than the extreme Left who don't believe anything the U.S. government EVER says. Further, 9/11 showed us that we could not simply take Hussein's word for it that he had no WMD--he had told us that in 91 and when his son-in-law defected we learned otherwise. 9/11 taught us that we cannot wait until proof positive of a threat, but must act even in the face of uncertainy.

This does not mean the war in Iraq was unjust, only that we did not invade because Saddam was responsible for 9/11.

So, John Cole is right, in my opinion, and SoCal Pundit wrong. Sorry, that's how I sees it.

Posted by: Traderrob at 04:37 PM | Comments (45) | Add Comment
Post contains 769 words, total size 5 kb.

June 28, 2005

King of the Hill Republicans

Patent. Can I just say that Matt Bai's essay in the NY Times magazine is patently idiotic. Only somebody writing for the NY Times could hope to believe that the Democratic party would ever appeal to Southerners like Hank Hill in some idealistic future. As Hank would tell Mr. Bai, "Son, I'm gonna kick your ass."

If anything Hank Hill is the symbol of the King of the Hill REPUBLICANS. The King of the HIll Republican is the mainstream of the Republican party. From his identity as a Methodist, President Bush's faith, to his idealization of Ronald Reagan, Hank is the typical Republican. He worries about family values and property values.

The problem with Mr. Bai is that he wouldn't know a typical Republican if his life depended on it. To Mr. Bai and the rest of the liberal elite, the typical Republican is Thurston Howell the III. That is, they have an image of what a Republican should look like. Hank Hill must be an independent--despite countless references to him being a Republican including an entire episode in which he second guesses his support for George W. Bush based on the fact that Bush had a weak handshake--because, you know, he's not rich.

What Hank Hill does not represent is the libertarian wing of the Republican party---the so-called South Park Republicans. But surely he doesn't represent anything like Democratic governor of North Carolina Mike Easley's brand of politics. Easley is Bill Clinton redux--a liberal with a Southern accent and an army of poll watchers--and if there is one President lampooned more than any other on King of the Hill it is William Jefferson Clinton.

Man this pisses me off. And I say that as a South Park Republican who is an avid King of the Hill fan. To quote Hank again, "I don't have an anger problem, I have an idiot problem."

Hat tip to James Joyner, another Republican of the South Park and not KoH strain.

PS-I disagree with Half Bakered here. Dale Gribble is not a libertarian. Dale Gribble is a Lyndon LaRouche Democrat and on his more lucid days he might be a Pat Buchanan Republican. Trust me on this one.......I should know.

Posted by: Rusty at 12:14 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 377 words, total size 2 kb.

June 27, 2005

BTK Describes Gruesome Murders on Live TV: Outrageous

I was watching TV this morning as I got ready to leave for work. On all three cable news stations they had the same thing. The BTK killer was describing in gruesome detail how he had systematically tortured and murdered his victims.

Am I the only one appalled that Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC chose to air this live and unedited?

I'm obviously not squeamish about this sort of thing, as showing images of our enemies murdering people in Iraq is kind of what made us famous, but there is something sick about seeing this on TV. At least my posts always warn the readers away from graphic images. And I do those posts as anti-terrorist propaganda.

What possible motivation could the news networks have other than a kind of sick voyeurism? Has American culture sunk so low that we now find the graphic details of murders to be acceptable content for the news?

BTK killer confesses to murders is news. The details of those murders, is not.

Ok, no more posts from me today, I promise.

Posted by: Rusty at 11:09 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 193 words, total size 1 kb.

June 24, 2005

Me Chinese, Me Play Joke, Me Put Pee-Pee in Your Coke

It seems that our allies prefer this to this.

Poll: China Viewed More Favorably than USA

And why do so many people hate the U.S.? Because of shit like this:

US Soldier Kills Little Girl To Win Bet

And remember, that last link was from a Google News source. Google News banned The Jawa Report for 'hate speech'.

Posted by: Rusty at 11:35 AM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 80 words, total size 1 kb.

If Bush=Hitler, then wouldn't Bush's killer be a hero? (Reader threatens President)

Words have meaning. If Gitmo=gulag then anything less than armed rebellion against the United States government would be immoral.

This is why you have to chose your words carefully so that what you say actually is the same as what you mean to say. Most people who say Bush=Hitler don't actually believe that. They use the term as a rhetorical device to draw attention to what they believe are abuses by the current administration which could, using slippery slope logic, lead to fascism.

On the other hand, there are those on the Left, like Noam Chomsky, who actually believe their own inflated rhetoric. This is why I have been predicting for some time that Bush would be assasinated. Because if only half of what the Left says about Bush were true, he would deserve it.

So why is Bush still alive and kicking? Three basic choices:

a) Very few people on the Left really believe their own rhetoric. If they don't really believe it, though, they ought not write it. As I tell my students, I'm not grading you on what you intended to say, but on what you actually say. We are at war. Inflated analogies actually lead to the deaths of American soldiers in times of war. This is why Chomsky is so popular among terrorists. They have the gall to actually believe the words he writes!

b) The secret-service does a very good job. Maybe there are daily attempts to assasinate the President and they are foiled.

c) The Left is full of cowards. This is my bet.

Which leads us to this. Here is a comment left by a reader in this thread. He attempted to mask his IP, but he seems to be in Marina del Rey, CA--a fairly exclusive locale:

Dear Secret Service,

If any of you were worth your salt, you'd stop protecting George W. and consider ways of eliminating him. Think of the fame, every American knowns the names of John Booth, Lee Harvy Oswald, and John Hinkley. You'd go down in history and your name and story will be remembered. You'd be a hero and inspiration to billions of people on planet earth. What's the alternative? Dying a forgotten nobody who actually worked to protect a global tyrant? You are in a unique position to the single most important thing that you could do with your life. Rise to the occasion! Meet your destiny! Get Cheney too please!

Posted by: Rusty at 10:33 AM | Comments (28) | Add Comment
Post contains 430 words, total size 3 kb.

June 23, 2005

Rove Comment Theory

Does anyone here think that Rove might have made his comments the other night so soon after Durbin's inflammatory comments to prove how hypocritical liberals are?

That is a possibility I think.

Cross posted at Conservative Thinking

Posted by: Chris Short at 09:44 PM | Comments (27) | Add Comment
Post contains 43 words, total size 1 kb.

Chutzpah: Torturers at U.N. Accuse U.S. of Torture?

This is an outrage. Media reports say that four special representatives of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights have condemned the United States for alleged torture of detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

Need I remind you that the Chair of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights is Makarim Wibisono, of Indonesia. A guy from Indonesia is questioning our human rights record?

Other member countries of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights include (WARNING: GRAPHIC PHOTOS IN LINKS):
Sudan
China
Congo
Cuba
Saudi Arabia
Zimbabwe

And these guys have the gall to call anything done at Guantanmo torture?

The actual report, found here, does not at any point actually formally accuse the U.S. of torture. Instead, the report says that the four requested a visit to Guantanamo Bay, and that:

Such requests were based on information, from reliable sources, of serious allegations of torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of detainees, arbitrary detention, violations of their right to health and their due process rights. Many of these allegations have come to light through declassified Government documents.
What the Commission condemns the U.S. for is non-cooperation in the investigation into abuse at Gitmo.

However, here is the AP headline via Charles Johnson: U.N. Uncovers Torture at Guantanamo Bay

The AP then reports:

The failure of the United States to respond is leading the experts to conclude that Washington has something to hide, said the specialist on torture, Manfred Nowak, a professor of international law in Vienna, Austria.

"At a certain point, you have to take well-founded allegations as proven in the absence of a clear explanation by the government," he said, though he also noted: "We are not making a judgment if torture or treatment under degrading conditions has taken place."

So, the fact that there have been allegations means that these allegations are true, unless proven otherwise??

That's logic for you.

And where are these allegations coming from? As far as I have been able to conclude, all of the allegations of 'torture' have come from freed prisoners from Gitmo. However, according to an al Qaeda training manual:

If captured, the manual states, "At the beginning of the trial ... the brothers must insist on proving that torture was inflicted on them by state security before the judge. Complain of mistreatment while in prison."
As far as the alleged abuse that has come from declassified documents I know of no torture. What I do know of is harsh treatment that idiots on the Left have characterized as torture.

The specific allegations:
-detainee chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor
-detainees who had defecated/urinated on themselves
-no air conditioning
-too much air conditioning
-loud music

Torture. Right. These are the allegations of torture that these clowns from the U.N. are taking seriously? While many of their own countries are engaged in genocidal pograms ans systematically torture prisoners??

Give me a break!

Posted by: Rusty at 01:57 PM | Comments (54) | Add Comment
Post contains 493 words, total size 4 kb.

June 22, 2005

Interview With A Gitmo Interrogator

Very cool. Right Thinking Girl has an interview with an anonymous source who claims to be an interrogator at Camp X-Ray. Here is a little taste:

RTG: Okay, the report goes on to say that in “most times” the detainees have urinated or defecated on themselves and left for 18-24 hours or more. How accurate is this?

Smith: Patently false. We donÂ’t leave them unattended for that long. If they defecate or urinate, well, we canÂ’t be held responsible for that. If it comes to our attention, we let them take care of that and clean themselves up. I would also like to note that they do get regular bathroom breaks. They are also given some exercise, and their health is constantly monitored.

Hat tip to Jeff at Shape of Days.

Posted by: Rusty at 11:06 AM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 139 words, total size 1 kb.

Can the NEA Nab Terrorists?

Ace says no, but Sobek says yes. Either way, just offending them would be good enough to try Sobek's idea in my book....

Posted by: Rusty at 09:22 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 33 words, total size 1 kb.

June 16, 2005

I've so had it with the Gitmo argument

If you haven't figured it out already, I'm a bit pissed today. Has the Left completely gone insane? Have the forgotten the kind of people we are fighting?

Perhaps we have made some mistakes along the way in our fight against nihilistic Islamofascists, but so the f*ck what? It's like the words of Jesus turned upside down. These asswipes are so focused on the microscopic motes in our own eyes that they ignore the 30 foot beam sticking out of our enemies'.

It's as if 9/11 never happened, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi never sawed anybody's head off, and Saddam Hussein was just your every day run-of-the mill dictator that the U.S. hadn't been at war with for 11 years.

I've had it.

Please see this post by Ace on why the prisoners at Gitmo aren't criminals and shouldn't be treated as such.

Posted by: Rusty at 04:45 PM | Comments (23) | Add Comment
Post contains 157 words, total size 1 kb.

The Jawa Report is NOT a Google News Source

A few newer readers may not know that for a few brief months The Jawa Report was a Google News Source. Why not now? We were kicked off for alleged 'hate speech' violations.

Since then a number of blogs have noticed a definite Left leaning bias in the way Google does it's business. For instance, dozens of terrorist supporting publications are listed as Google News sources, including The Electronic Intifada and worse-- such as Jihad Unspun.

Google also disclaims any bias in which political advertisors to reject and which to accept, which is clearly not the case.

Google, you guys are full of crap.

Posted by: Rusty at 09:40 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 122 words, total size 1 kb.

June 15, 2005

Flag Desecration Amendment: BAD IDEA

Morality cannot exist without choice. One who is compelled to do good is a slave. As Aristotle argued, slaves cannot be citizens of a society because they are not autonomous and therefore not moral agents. The good society is the one which is given the choice between good and bad, yet chooses the good.

Utopian societies are evil because they force men to do what is seen as proper action. Communism compelled redistribution of wealth by murdering millions. Islamists compel proper religious duty through force of law and penalty of death.

What makes America the last best hope on Earth is that we compel so little of our proper action. As Dinesh D'Souza so forcefully argues in What's So Great About America:

The radical Islamists hate us not because they misunderstand us, but because they understand us all too well. They know that "America is a subversive idea" -- and that the spread of American ideals such as democracy, capitalism, and individual rights will undermine their efforts to establish theocracy. [source]
To pass an Amendment outlawing flag desecration is to take away a little of America's greatness. I am against any efforts to ban flag desecration. USA Today:
The Senate may be within one or two votes of passing a constitutional amendment to ban desecration of the U.S. flag, clearing the way for ratification by the states, a key opponent of the measure said Tuesday.
Being against a flag desecration amendment, though, does not mean I support desecrating the flag. I agree with Rob of Say Anything:
The flag is a symbol. A powerful and sentimental symbol, but ultimately a symbol none-the-less. If people feel the need to make statement by destroying that symbol, then so be it. Its a rather ludicrous statement because the symbol theyÂ’re destroying stands for the very freedom that allows them to destroy it in the first place. After all, such open dissent against the government would not be tolerated in a lot of places on the globe. But whatever, thatÂ’s their stupidity and not mine.
Having come out against a Constitutional Amendment outlawing flag desecration, let me just add that there may be certain contexts in which such desecration could give rise to acts of treason or violence. But it is the context in which the act is done, not the act itself, which should be the guiding principle in which the law should be invoked. Inciting to treason is what ought to be outlawed, therefore, and not 'flag desecration'.

Posted by: Rusty at 02:33 PM | Comments (31) | Add Comment
Post contains 421 words, total size 3 kb.

Former Bush Official's 9/11 Conspiracy Theory

Morgan_Reynolds_9_11_conspiracy_theory_tinfoil.jpg

Is this guy for real?? Washington Times:

former Bush team member during his first administration is now voicing serious doubts about the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9-11. Former chief economist for the Department of Labor during President George W. Bush's first term Morgan Reynolds comments that the official story about the collapse of the WTC is "bogus" and that it is more likely that a controlled demolition destroyed the Twin Towers and adjacent Building No. 7. Reynolds, who also served as director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis in Dallas and is now professor emeritus at Texas A&M University said, "If demolition destroyed three steel skyscrapers at the World Trade Center on 9/11, then the case for an 'inside job' and a government attack on America would be compelling." Reynolds commented from his Texas A&M office, "It is hard to exaggerate the importance of a scientific debate over the cause of the collapse of the twin towers and building 7. If the official wisdom on the collapses is wrong, as I believe it is, then policy based on such erroneous engineering analysis is not likely to be correct either. The government's collapse theory is highly vulnerable on its own terms. Only professional demolition appears to account for the full range of facts associated with the collapse of the three buildings."

Kevin Aylward notes:
Of course to really earn his tin-foil hat he has to attempt to make the case that no planes hit the twin towers, or the Pentagon, or the field in Pennsylvania
How did that go again? Place tinfoil on head, like so. Alien brain scanning now blocked......

UPDATE: Goldstein: "“Which, where do think the technology for the universal remote came from—humans? Please...”

Ace: "She's on the roof."

Posted by: Rusty at 10:00 AM | Comments (248) | Add Comment
Post contains 309 words, total size 2 kb.

June 14, 2005

Hithchens: AI's Broken Moral Compass

As an ex-member of Amnesty International I can only say 'aye' to Christopher Hitchens in Slate:

About Amnesty International's disgraceful performance, however, I can tell as well as ask. I was at one point quite close to its London headquarters, and I used to both carry and return messages for the organization when I went as a reporter to screwed-up countries. The founding statutes were quite clear: An Amnesty local was to adopt three "prisoners of conscience," one from either side of the Cold War and one from a "neutral" state. Letters were to be written to the relevant governments and to newspapers in free countries. Though physical torture and capital punishment were opposed in all cases, no overt political position was to be taken. (I remember there was quite a row when an Amnesty "country report" on Argentina went so far as to describe a guerrilla raid as "daring.") By adhering to these rules, AI became a credible worldwide group to which even the most repressive governments sometimes had to pay attention. All honor to its founder Peter Benenson, who died earlier this year.

And now look. I think it is fairly safe to say that not one detainee in Guantanamo is there because of an expression of opinion. (And those whose "opinion" is that all infidels must die are not exactly prisoners of conscience.) Morally neutral on this point, apparently, Amnesty nonetheless finds its voice by describing the prison itself as "the gulag of our times." No need to waste words here: Not everyone in the gulag was a "prisoner of conscience," either. But if an organization that ostensibly protects the rights of prisoners is unaware of the nature of a colossal system of forced labor and arbitrary detention—replete with physical torture, starvation, and brutal execution—then the moral compass has become disordered beyond repair. This is not even neutrality between the fireman and the fire. It surely expresses a covert sympathy with the aims and objectives of jihad and an overt, if witless and sinister, hatred of the United States. If only this were the only symptom of that tendency.

Hat tip: Steve Green.

Posted by: Rusty at 11:45 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 364 words, total size 2 kb.

<< Page 8 of 31 >>
477kb generated in CPU 0.077, elapsed 0.2086 seconds.
134 queries taking 0.1549 seconds, 875 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Search Thingy



Recent Comments

  • モンクレール ダウン はじめまして。突然のコメント。å... entry
  • rc helicopter Thanks for posting this for us. visit here entry
  • toms The the next time I read a weblog, I hope that this doesnt disappoint me up to this 1. I am talking ... entry
  • here Hey There. I located your weblog employing msn. This really is a really effectively written write-up... entry
  • handbags With these current economic conditions the simplest way truly, I created the decision to arrange str... entry
  • aaa replica Black Ops Zombies?some individuals nonetheless have not played this game. It's hard to picture or be... entry
  • toms Most I can state is, I don't know what to comment! Except needless to say, for the superb suggestion... entry
  • Habib Hezzbollah is nothing but a palestinian islamic terrorist organization supported by Iran and Syria l... entry
  • Habib Hezzbollah is nothing but a palestinian islamic terrorist organization supported by Iran and Syria l... entry
  • Pamela Good design! entry

Categories

Archives

Blogroll

Sample link

Monthly Traffic

  • Pages: 35793
  • Files: 14
  • Bytes: 216.8M
  • CPU Time: 21:09
  • Queries: 3119161

Content

  • Posts: 5690
  • Comments: 76631

Feeds


RSS 2.0 Atom 1.0