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

December 21, 2005

WTW Papa Bear Loves Winter

Happy winter solstice!!!!!

Reward for Little Bear. Parents around the globe cringe in terror as toddlers run to the TV with this tape or DVD. Therefore he must be Â“taken Care ofÂ”. My son played this tape at least 10,000 times. Amazing how little ones can watch the same tape over and over. Now IÂ’m permanently damaged. I keep hearing Â“Happy Winter SolsticeÂ” and Â“Papa bear loves winterÂ” over and over. My conclusion, I would pay 100 bucks for little bearÂ’s pelt or it would make a splendid Christmas Gift the pelt that is.

Hat tip: cube neighbor Brian.

Here are your White Trash Wednesday bloggers.

Posted by: Howie at 08:27 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 116 words, total size 1 kb.

Self-Appointed Public Agents in Light of the Pentagon Papers (Updated)

One of the current arguments for the McCain "anti-torture statute" is that if there were ever a "ticking bomb" scenario the people in charge of interrogation would have the option of sacrificing their careers and futures for the common good, choosing to disobey the law in order to save thousands (h/t: Dan at WoC). Although I see some problems with this argument, especially in marginal cases or situations where the interrogators don't know there's a ticking bomb, it seems somewhat convincing. But in the analogous case where an individual deliberately chose to break a national security law "for the good of all" (Daniel Ellsberg's leaking the Pentagon Papers) the authorities chose not to prosecute. This was a mistake, regardless of whether you think Ellsberg's actions justified. I'll explain why.

more...

Posted by: Demosophist at 02:22 AM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 1584 words, total size 10 kb.

1 "To draw an analogy, there'd be no Christianity if Pilate had decided that Jesus' willingness to suffer and die for the sake of his faith absolved him. There'd be no Christianity, because there'd have been no sacrifice. That would have been a sentimental ending to the story. In fact, this is pretty close to the version of the story that appears in the Koran. It's a sentimental favorite, but it's also inherently corrupt." Hope you have email notifications of comments turned off. This could get ugly.

Posted by: Vinnie at December 21, 2005 03:50 AM (Kr6/f)

2 Firstly, Agent Smith strongly objects to any notion of any blog pundit referring to him as a "Public Agent". Agent Smith is fiercely loyal to the Architect. Secondly, Agent Smith has NO apologies for blowing the lid clean off the Snoopgate NSA story. It had to be done to keep the equation balanced. Thirdly, Agent Smith declares that to keep human beings under control, no humans are allowed to pretend they are above the rules and act like a god. The system was designed to maximize your labor and keep you submissive, reveling in your petty illusions.

Posted by: Agent Smith at December 21, 2005 06:03 AM (CpR+U)

3 Since the MSM is the vehicle by which people acquire their outrage and the MSM is focusing on the content of the leak, regardless of verifiable matters, and not the fact that it was leaked, the people will forget that the leak itself is the most dangerous part of the equation. With little information and almost no legal expertise the public has flown off the handle, jumped off the deep end and is even wildly speculating now that the snooping techniques are being used to spy on political opponents. Another President did it decades ago so it MUST be happening now. By their reasoning, the "outing" of a desk jockey is criminal and traitorous and must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, but leaking information of an operation designed to catch and stop terrorists and their plans is patriotic.

Posted by: Oyster at December 21, 2005 06:52 AM (YudAC)

4 Sorry, that seems off-topic. I got off on a tangent, but my point was that the focus is nearly always wrong. The MSM drives an agenda more strongly than any administration personnel or politician or judge. The contents of this leak is the focus, and not the leaker. The torturer will be the focus and not the lives saved as a result of his actions or that the law itself is counter to part of the reason it was written as it is. And the government, the courts and the public will respond more to that focus causing an imbalance of justice. As far as the law being counter to part of the reason it was written; McCain insists that torture does not work. Why in hell is there at least an implied provision for it in the ticking bomb scenario if it doesn't work? It just doesn't make sense and leaves way too much to interpretation or whim.

Posted by: Oyster at December 21, 2005 07:26 AM (YudAC)

5 Torture does work...if you have the right person, if you ask the right question, if they have the right answer AND you understand their answer. That's a lot of ifs. It would be easy to show how often one or more of those conditions are not met. Instead, I'll take the harder tack. Let's stack the deck in favor of the torture advocates. Assume a situation where you KNOW you have the right person, the right questions, they have the right answers, and you can interpret them correctly. Assume a situation where you are in the midst of war against an enemy whose tenacity is legendary. Assume that to them death in battle is considered the highest form of sacrifice. Assume a situation where you have captured an enemy combatant in the midst of active hostilities. Assume a situation where the prisoner was actively trying to kill you prior to his capture. Assume he would return to doing that if you gave him the chance. Assume he has information vital to your defense of the of everyone around you. Turns out that is not a hypothetical situation. In fact it is a particularly well documented situation from WWII. Since Oyster thinks people "fly off the handle" let's consider the informed input from one of the most effective interrogators during the Pacific campaign. This declassified After Action Report is provided for your review. You will be interested to know that professionals take Col. Moran's point of view much more seriously than the "Dershowitz" alternative being promoted here.

Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at December 21, 2005 08:39 AM (wsdWU)

6 You will be interested to know that professionals take Col. Moran's point of view much more seriously than the "Dershowitz" alternative being promoted here. If that's the case then why do we need the law? Simply to quell sadism? Moreover, what "professionals take seriously" is probably what they encounter more frequently, which is not what the Dershowitz scenario is about. That is about not removing the options we have for what amounts to an atypical, and prior to the present era practically nonexistent, scenario. Your argument just isn't relevant. Dan Darling's is, but what I'm saying is that because our institutions are corrupted by sentimentality his resolution of the Dershowitz problem doesn't work. It would lead to decisions about implementing torture that are guided by something other than the pure odds of stopping a ticking bomb. Instead, it would be guided by expectations about public reaction. It introduces a perverse element into the mix, and in the case of the NYT leak the perversity is manifest in the fact that no one is paying attention to the harm done by the leaker. What I'm saying is that if anyone broke the law then they ought to expect to be prosecuted, regardless of whether the law breaking was harmful or beneficial. But realistically, we're too sentimental to do that.

Posted by: Demosophist at December 21, 2005 10:05 AM (PrNGv)

7 I do not believe in torture in the sense of cutting/burning/tooth extraction etc. I do however advocate other means that are regularly suggested as being torture such as "waterboarding" (causing the psychological sense of drowning), environmental manipulation (heat/cold), humiliation and stress inducement. Obviously the classic sense of pain, and torture does not work effectively, one would confess to burying Jimmy Hoffa under enough duress. The difference is, the fact we regularly put our own Special Forces through the above techniques, during their training. If we can place our own soldiers in stress positions, remove clothing, humiliate induce psychological tortures, without causing injury, it's good enough for detainee's to go through the same -- and boots on the ground tells us it works.

Posted by: dave at December 21, 2005 11:54 AM (CcXvt)

8 Torture can be ..... effective. As long as that is true in some cases - it will continue to exist. Too often torture is used for retribution, punishment, and even pleasure - information is actually irrelevant. This is stupid ... and bad for discipline. The are many kinds of torture - most people automatically think of the primative barbaric forms - but you can be far more effective and creative without stooping to that level - they can all be viewed as cruel - but so what - so is war. McCain & the others actually achieve nothing except maybe further supress the retribution, punishment, and pleasure aspect - I would agree - I don't care for it. The rest - well - goes on - more creatively - subject to debate & review - till the end of time. Note - the best intel is fresh and in the field. If this "argument" does anything - it simply reinforces "out of sight out of mind .. with no loose ends".

Posted by: hondo at December 21, 2005 01:32 PM (3aakz)

9 You desperately need to read history. Ellsberg was prosecuted and faced life in prison. During the case, President Nixon even went so far as to interview the presiding judge of the case to replace Hoover at FBI. The case had to be thrown out because Nixon's secret goons burgled the office of Ellsberg's doctor to get dirt on him. Ellsberg leaked the documents knowing that he might face life in jail. It was an act of honor because he was willing to pay the consequences.

Posted by: dino at December 21, 2005 01:47 PM (Bkw+Y)

10 You desperately need to read the thread and comments - WTF are you talking about?

Posted by: hondo at December 21, 2005 01:58 PM (3aakz)

11 Ok - sorry dino - I see it in Demo's piece. Demo - if your going to link arguments you should be more careful to insure the context linkage is clear and precise. Otherwise, you leave the door open for dicks like dino to veer off into an abstract left-field and re-direct the primary issue to an area of his choosing. It was a poor linkage - no offense - but I found myself having to apologise to a dick like dino. I hate that!

Posted by: hondo at December 21, 2005 02:10 PM (3aakz)

12 Hondo: Thanks for the observation, but I don't think my mea culpa needs to be is enormous as Dino implies. All I did was leave out the word "effectively." As I said, the prosecution was curtailed because of the public perception that Ellsberg had been correct to leak the information, and no one gave a hoot about the institutional consequences of letting him off the hook. If anything the consequences have been even more dire than I suggested, going right to the heart of methodologies that the Executive can bring to bear on the problem of terrorism. To whit: If one assumes guilt one is methodologically obliged to do everything one can to prove innocence. When the threat of a leak intervenes it becomes impossible to take the risk of compiling evidence for innocence because the public (as has been adequate demonstrated) is prepared only to presume innocence. With that assumption compiling evidence of innocence guarantees a corrupt judgment. And this is only part of the legacy of Ellsberg. Do you see my point? I don't think you owe Dino more than a marginal apology, but apologies are good for the soul anyway.

Posted by: Demosophist at December 21, 2005 05:01 PM (Cn/gq)

13 Clarification: If one assumes guilt one is methodologically obliged to do everything one can to prove innocence. When the threat of a leak intervenes it becomes impossible to take the risk of compiling evidence for innocence because the public (as has been adequate demonstrated) is prepared only to presume innocence. With that assumption compiling evidence of innocence guarantees a corrupt judgment. It might not be clear to everyone that what I'm talking about here is the Bush Administration's failure to follow proper methodology regarding Saddam's WMD threat. They presumed guilt. That's good, because it accurately reflects the risk of being wrong. However, having made that presumption they should have sought evidence of innocence. It's obvious why they didn't do that, and that's my point. They couldn't afford to follow proper methodology because they couldn't rely on secrecy. The public is not yet sophisticated enough to apply Type II methodology to the problem of WMD.

Posted by: Demosophist at December 21, 2005 05:11 PM (Cn/gq)

14 Thanks Demo We are on the same wavelength - just saw the inadvertent opening for dick, er dino. It is an important issue and didn't want it sidetracked. I did however qualify my apology to dick, er dino.

Posted by: hondo at December 21, 2005 05:35 PM (3aakz)

15 Demosphist, You assume that had the prosecution of Ellsberg been continued, he would have been convicted. But what if it had been carried on and the result of the trial was an acquital?

Posted by: David C at December 21, 2005 08:56 PM (rysK+)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Taliban Johnny, A Thesis Regarding Expletives

Michelle Malkin, a very outspoken, considered by some (not this citizen journalist) a "controversial" figure, not to mention a racistsexistbigotedhomophobe, clues us in on this:

American-born Taliban soldier John Walker Lindh has asked President Bush again to reduce his 20-year prison sentence by an unspecified amount, Lindh's attorney said Tuesday.

In deference to Michelle Malkin, and her longstanding friendship to the Jawa Report, I will place my reply under the fold, in the manner normally prescribed to graphic images.

Let that be your warning. more...

Posted by: Vinnie at 01:59 AM | Comments (73) | Add Comment
Post contains 376 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Reduce his sentence? His sentence should be doubled. Wonder how many people he either killed or helped to kill before being caught? On second thought, the death sentence would be more appropriate.

Posted by: greyrooster at December 21, 2005 02:52 AM (pSK/I)

2 Let him out when Mike Spann comes back to life.

Posted by: Tony B at December 21, 2005 02:59 AM (+/H6t)

3 Awesome rant. Very satisfying.

Posted by: Cardinal Martini at December 21, 2005 03:22 AM (nLV11)

4 I wonder, how does it feel trying to convince someone they're going to get 72 virgins from Allah when they have your pasty-white, virgin ass bent over the cot? Just call him Johnny Brokeback.

Posted by: V the K at December 21, 2005 04:15 AM (PYXzc)

5 Kick ass, Vinnie. It would be cool if President Bush could word his reply in the same fashion. Twenty years in an American prison is definitely not enough for him. If the sentence can't be increased or changed to death, then perhaps this: he fought with the Taliban against the Northern Alliance which pretty much now constitutes the Afghani government. After 20 years he should be turned over to the Afghanis to serve some time in a dank, depressing Afghan jail (by jail I mean a hole in the ground with corrugated sheeting as covering).

Posted by: Graeme at December 21, 2005 05:04 AM (LZHSo)

6 I said 2 years ago and this is why I said it. Kill the SOB. Send him to me and I'll do it! He killed at least one American (and an exJarhead) and probably more. He is a traitor, Traitors must be killed. an old exJarhead

Posted by: Rod Stanton at December 21, 2005 05:19 AM (yONeR)

7 Agent Jones says that John Walker Lindh should be DRAFTED into the United States military where his profound knowledge of the SALAFIST TERRORISTS and Qaedic Arabic could be put to use as a AQT Tactics Briefer. Agent Brown says that Frank Abignale was released from a lengthy term in Federal Prison to loyally serve his new FBI masters in tracking down and bringing numerous criminals to cold hard justice. Agent Smith says that as the best police think like the criminals they catch, to nail BIN LADEN, we need a former Qaeda working on our side.

Posted by: Agent Smith at December 21, 2005 06:10 AM (CpR+U)

8 You people should read up on why he got 20yrs. It's complicated, but the executive summary is they gave him a light sentence to shut him up. He has agreed not to publish any info about his experience as part of a plea bargain. Obviously, we can't know what it was that the govt. didn't want us to hear, but it seemed important enough to Bush. Personally, I'm hesitant to damn the guy because he went to Afghanistan before we decided to attack them. When he and his friends come under sudden full-scale military assault, I suppose the view of everyone here is that he should have said, "Welp, it's been fun guys but you're the enemy now so I can't play with you no more. Let's hope they don't draft me and make me come shoot y'all!" Under the circumstances maybe that wasn't an option.

Posted by: ShannonKW at December 21, 2005 06:18 AM (dT1MB)

9 Shannon, that was the most shallow-minded dissertation, riddled with BDS, I've come across in a while. First you admit we can't know what information he promised not to tell, then you assume Bush was the one who would be hurt by whatever information we can't possibly know. Furthermore, the guy was fighting with the Taliban before we got there. He was already an enemy and traitor.

Posted by: Oyster at December 21, 2005 07:41 AM (YudAC)

10 >>>"Obviously, we can't know what it was that the govt. didn't want us to hear, but it seemed important enough to Bush." yes, "obviously". Classified info is "obviously" always for the purpose of covering up malfeasance by "Bush." Classified info is never to protect our country, our troops or their tactics, or any other reason we don't have the sligtest about here . It's always nefarious. >>>"Welp, it's been fun guys but you're the enemy now so I can't play with you no more. That would have been exactly what I would have said. Not you? Then you should be in that prison getting ass banged with him.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 21, 2005 09:05 AM (8e/V4)

11 Oyster, If my post resembles a dissertation to you, you need to spend more time reading stuff other than blogs. If it's the most shallow-minded thing you've seen on a blog, you need to read more blogs. I didn't mention anything "hurting" Bush in my post. By the time he went to trial Lindh was front-page news. It's hard to believe that the prosecutor would have ofered him a deal without at least the president's tacit approval. When you make a deal with someone to hush up, you have a reason for it. I've really got no idea what Bush's reason was. The guy is thought to have gone to Afghanistan in Spring 2001, which would be about half a year before the Taliban decided to elect themselves chief enemy of the U.S. Maybe they were plotting something against us back then, and if Lindh knew about it that would make him a traitor. Whatever they were planning for us, they would have been fools to share it with the weird American guy they just picked up in Pakistan. I doubt the kid knew a damn thing.

Posted by: ShannonKW at December 21, 2005 09:25 AM (dYdvr)

12 Lindh should be hung along with Aldrich Ames, Earl Pitts, Robert Hanssen, and John Pollard. And while were at it, find that SOB that leaked the "domestic spying" info and put him on the end of a rope too. Leaking info that is vital to national security is the same as engaging in combat against your own country. They are Traitors, one and all and should be treated as such.

Posted by: memphis761 at December 21, 2005 09:39 AM (D3+20)

13 That 'shut him up' argument is a bunch of crap, Shannon. If the US wanted to shut him up, he would have 'died in combat'. Putting him in an American prison for 20 twenty years doesn't stop him from talking no matter what piece of paper he signed. Please don't try to tell us that some low-level Taliban fighter had the goods on Bush to embarass him. That may work over at Kos, but the average IQ in this forum is higher and the blind devotion to a political party lower. Also, the Taliban was a known enemy of the US before he dragged his sorry ass over there. If poor Johnny got himself in over his head, well then, he made his bed in had to lie in it. This is a case of a spoiled, rich, liberal punk from the Bay Area who thought he would go and make an anti-America statement by joining the Taliban army. I'm sure by the end of day one, he had wished he had packed extra underwear. The next time you want to make a point, don't pull that condescending "you people should read up" bullshit and show us some real information from a neutral and reliable source, i.e. not from the DNC talking points or a celebrity quote from Rolling Stone magazine. Even if "It's complicated", we'll try to put our heads together and decipher it.

Posted by: slug at December 21, 2005 09:42 AM (wcNc2)

14 One more thing about hanging those traitorous wretches, MAKE IT PUBLIC !!!! Build a gallows on the national mall, hang them all and leave them hanging til their bones have been picked clean and sun bleached. Like all other laws in this country, you have to enforce the laws that are on the books, apply the punishment to fit the crime, and be consistent about it.

Posted by: memphis761 at December 21, 2005 09:50 AM (D3+20)

15 Just yesterday ShannonKW claimed to be a conservative, but then in the same comment came to the defense of the BBC. She is about as conservative as Pelosi, or perhaps Kos. A liberal is sooo easy to spot, they just can't help themselves.

Posted by: jesusland joe at December 21, 2005 10:06 AM (rUyw4)

16 seminar bloggers.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 21, 2005 10:08 AM (8e/V4)

17 well it certainly shows that our hindsight is always 20-20. In 2000-1 the US government total aid to Afghanistan was about 150 million. Of which 43 million was in cash, to the Taliban. Google it

Posted by: john Ryan at December 21, 2005 10:22 AM (ads7K)

18 John, yes, as part of the anti-drug effort there. Same with Colombia. And then 9/11 happenned. That should have been Johnny Taliban's cue to bail.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 21, 2005 10:33 AM (8e/V4)

19 Well, itÂ’s a pretty ridiculous request. Charlie Manson has a better chance of getting this President to reduce his sentence than young John.

Posted by: Brad at December 21, 2005 10:59 AM (3OPZt)

20 C'mon folks: all Taliban Johnny needs to do is get some hack to ghost-write a children's book about staying away from terrorism. He'll publish it, the NYT Book Review will give it five stars, the Hollywood crowd will go into a swoon, Heath Ledger will portray him in an Academy Award-nominated movie, he'll be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, and the next defeat-ocrat president will grant him a pardon.

Posted by: docjim505 at December 21, 2005 11:14 AM (MC8cP)

21 I'm with memphis on this one; we need public hangings of his sort. And politicians too, starting with Billary, John Kerry, Dingy Harry Reid, et al.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 21, 2005 11:25 AM (0yYS2)

22 If anything the Taliban / Al-Qaeda - Russia / Mujahideen should teach us as Americans, that is it is time for our Government to stop backing a horse because it suits a method to our means, the horse inevitably lands back at our door. As Carlos mentioned the drug trade and Columbia, I'll add a little counter, sometimes even though our Special Forces are running interdictions at the will of our politicians, the same have already tied their hands behind their backs. I believe it was in the book "Combat Swimmer" one of the Navy Seals tasked with hunting drug lords said that their operational orders were to capture, and hand over to local authorities. He had specifically requested if it would not be better to kill them, in order to make being a drug lord a dangerous job, while sending messages to others. He was told no, capture and hand to local authorities. Well of course they did, but nothing ever came of it because the drug lords already had local authorities in their pockets, and were released. So why send in the SF, if you're not going to follow through? this is part of the problem: the cavalier actions of our politicians, with their "secret wars" and selective law enforcement, there is not enough thought behind it, no analysis of the reprocussions, or monitoring of the after effects and it inevitably gets people killed. It's happened in Iraq too.

Posted by: dave at December 21, 2005 11:28 AM (CcXvt)

23 dave, sometimes the politicians are themselves restrained by Liberals, and other times restrained by the political realities on the ground. So it's not always unfair to criticize them for having to restrain the SF.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 21, 2005 11:44 AM (8e/V4)

24 ...not always FAIR...

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 21, 2005 11:45 AM (8e/V4)

25 First off, I'm a dude. Uncommon first name, yes, and half of my junk mail is addressed to "Ms. ShannonKW." Second, I'm conservative compared with the mean here in the U.S. I just look liberal here because this board is somewhat to the right of Ferdinand Marcos. Third, the conditions of Lindh's agreement are public knowledge. I got it from Wiki. If you know a reputable source that disputes it, I'd be interested in hearing about it. Fourth, I made no crack on Bush. I can't imagine what Lindh could know that would embarrass Bush personally. Wiki suggests that he was maltreated by his captor, but that doen't sound like enough to me. If I was a gambling man I'd bet that they shut him up to prevent him from becoming a hero to those who sympatize with him, but I wouldn't bet much. Fifth, lazy, spoiled people aren't known for renouncing all the comforts of a wealthy family to study Arabic in Yemen, attend an austere religious academy in Pakistan, and take to the hills of Central Asia with a bunch of fanatic semi-barbarians. Loony is certainly plausible, but "spoiled" is right out. I have this old-fashioned ability to respect the virtues of my enemies. If it was up to me, I would give Lindh a full pardon, a pair of sandals, and a one-way ticket to Yemen on the condition that he renounce U.S. citizenship and never return. Hell, out of generosity of spirit I'd even give him a kind farewell: "Sorry U.S. isn't Islamic enough for you. Get lost."

Posted by: ShannonKW at December 21, 2005 12:06 PM (dYdvr)

26 Well my comments were in regards to all parties, if we were to look at the Russia / Mujahideen scenario, while the Government poured lots of money into financing a rag-tag guerilla force, and trained them in techniques to destroy soviet Helicopters via targetting the front/rear rotors to destroy the Soviets afterwards, we had to realise that these soldiers would move on? Even King Hussein of Jordan warned us that the returning Mujahideen enrolled into the Islamic Egyptian Jihad (which would then become the base of Al-Qaeda) While the old adage applied is that "You cannot make an omelette, without breaking some eggs" and often it is true, but we should all expect accountability from our politicians, and request that for every action they make, they look to the future and the effects that they may create?

Posted by: dave at December 21, 2005 12:07 PM (CcXvt)

27 Actually Shannon the seeds of his induction to Islam were started here, with his attendance of a Mosque funded by the radicals in Saudi Arabia. Also when you count out the "spoiled" I think you are going with the scenario that suicide bombers, and radicals are a product of being poor. That is not true, look at some of the profiles of suicide bomers in Iraq, they were living in relative wealth. btw. Wikipedia leans so far left, I have to tilt my head to read the screen.

Posted by: dave at December 21, 2005 12:11 PM (CcXvt)

28 The guy is thought to have gone to Afghanistan in Spring 2001, which would be about half a year before the Taliban decided to elect themselves chief enemy of the U.S. So, you're arguing that until about, oh, 8:30 a.m. on September 11, 2001, the Taliban Regime wasn't anti-American? You are arguing that Johnny Brokeback had no idea what he was getting into when he joined al Qaeda? He never got 'the talk' until 8:30 a.m. on September 11? Can I buy pot from you?

Posted by: V the K at December 21, 2005 12:21 PM (1R6cr)

29 I hope they laugh at his request for a sentence reduction as they toss it into the wastebasket. I seriously doubt that he had any damaging information against the U.S.

Posted by: Dkelsmith at December 21, 2005 12:48 PM (a3ksX)

30 Lindh didn't volunteer or operate in a vacuum. He knowingly joined, participated with, and by extension, fully supported the ideology, the actions, and the "baggage" of the Tailban and AQ PRE 9/11. I don't care how young he was - 9/11 is not the benchmark to judge him by, but just one item in a string of related events. There have been similar cases in the past - notably WW2 - of Americans (and other nationals) serving in the Nazi military by choice. In the case of the Americans - yes - pre Dec 7 '41. I know a few were captured - but don't know what happened to them. I know many simply "disappeared". Whatever ... Lindh already has received clemency - his treatment & sentence went above and beyond compassion. I would be open to him serving out the remainder of his sentence in an Afghan prison with his peers - plus additional charges could be brought against him by the Afghan government for his participation and actions against the Afghan people. I consider that fair & compassionate.

Posted by: hondo at December 21, 2005 12:58 PM (3aakz)

31 I don't have a feminine name so maybe I'm missing something. Can you please highlight and quote for me exactly where in Lindh's plea agreement it is that he is sworn to silence? Granted it is unaccompanied by the usual Wiki-flavored commentary but I think I understood almost every word used. The closest I see to anything approaching censure is this: 14. The defendant hereby assigns to the United States any profits or proceeds which he may be entitled to receive in connection with any publication or dissemination of information relating to illegal conduct alleged in the Indictment. This assignment shall include all profits and proceeds for the benefit of the defendant, regardless of whether such profits and proceeds are payable to himself or to others, directly or indirectly, for his benefit or for the benefit of the defendantÂ’s associates or a current or future member of the defendantÂ’s family. The defendant shall not circumvent this assignment by assigning the rights to his story to an associate or to a current or future member of the defendantÂ’s family, or to another person or entity who would provide some financial benefit to the defendant, to the defendantÂ’s associates, or to a current or future member of the defendantÂ’s family. Moreover, the defendant shall not circumvent this assignment by communicating with an associate or a family member for the purpose of assisting or facilitating their profiting from a public dissemination, whether or not such an associate or other family member is personally or directly involved in such dissemination. So whatever you have buried in that gray lump between your ears please be kind enough to spill it out here with links preferrably. 22. The defendant agrees that this agreement puts to rest his claims of mistreatment by the United States military, and all claims of mistreatment are withdrawn. The defendant acknowledges that he was not intentionally mistreated by the U.S. military. Enjoy....

Posted by: Not named Sue at December 21, 2005 01:40 PM (Vp1bn)

32 Nice work! Yes! he can talk all he wants - he just can't get paid for it - which is becoming pretty standard in many criminal cases now. It is a bit of a stretch to consider this "forced silence".

Posted by: hondo at December 21, 2005 01:48 PM (3aakz)

33 not sue, good job. Let that be a lesson to the rest of us about taking Libs at their word.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 21, 2005 01:59 PM (8e/V4)

34 Shannon said: "Second, I'm conservative compared with the mean here in the U.S. I just look liberal here because this board is somewhat to the right of Ferdinand Marcos." Explain that please, specifically how "right" Marcos was, and how we, the denizens of TJR, are moreso in comparison. You may think you're conservative, but you still parrot the enemy's propaganda nicely.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 21, 2005 02:33 PM (0yYS2)

35 So you think he's a sheep in wolf's clothing, do you maxie? Maybe right.

Posted by: hondo at December 21, 2005 02:38 PM (3aakz)

36 It looks like line 22 pretty much prevents him from claiming to be maltreated, even if he was. It seems doubtful that that clause would have to be added if he was NOT maltreated, but also unlikely that the whole agreement was made for the sake of that line. (For the record, it wouldn't matter to me if he had been maltreated. The dude who supposedly did it already got his, so that score is settled.) The non-profit clause would effectively gag him except in the case that someone decided to publish his story out of sheer charity. It is so broad that it prevents anyone at all from profitting by it. So this would prevent, "One Against America! The JWL Story!" from making the bestseller list and inspiring budding white jihadists everywhere, which supports my best guess above. There is nothing in there I can see that totally shuts him up, but I already said I thought he didn't know anything in my original post. Looking through to body of the agreement, it looks like it was mainly for intelligence purposes though with the other stuff tacked on.

Posted by: ShannonKW at December 21, 2005 03:08 PM (dYdvr)

37 "The dude who supposedly did it already got his, so the score is settled." Nice job scumbag, you just let everybody here know exactly what you are. Fuck off to Yemen yourself.

Posted by: anti-walker at December 21, 2005 03:52 PM (i9Fox)

38 Another fly-by-night free emailer - of the "right" persuasion this time. Come back later when you invest some money in a real email account - until then - leave the insults to those who paid for the right to do it! Awaiting greyrooster who has PAID his dues - now he knows how to insult - with style!

Posted by: hondo at December 21, 2005 04:05 PM (3aakz)

39 So you are admitting that your initial post: It's complicated, but the executive summary is they gave him a light sentence to shut him up. He has agreed not to publish any info about his experience as part of a plea bargain. is a load of bullshit? Thank you, Shannon. How very "conservative" of you. Now maybe you can go correct this "Wiki" that lead you astray.

Posted by: Not named Sue at December 21, 2005 04:15 PM (Vp1bn)

40 Hmmm....I think Johnny Tali got off lightly as it was, but one wonders why he would ask at this time. Perhaps he is just throwing mud at the wall with hopes of some sticking. He would die in prison if it was up to me.

Posted by: jesusland joe at December 21, 2005 04:20 PM (rUyw4)

41 I agree with Shannon. The guy joined the Taliban before we were at war with them. It would have been suicide for him to desert when the war commenced. Besides, Bush and his oil buddies were cozy with the Taliban. When the Taliban turned down an "offer that they shouldn't have refused", the U.S turned on them BEFORE 9-11. Typical mafiosa behavior: There was a preexisting desire to build gas pipelines in Afghanistan. Â“A senior delegation from the Taleban movement in Afghanistan is in the United States for talks with an international energy company that wants to construct a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan across Afghanistan to Pakistan. A spokesman for the company, Unocal, said the Taleban were expected to spend several days at the company's headquarters in Sugarland, Texas. A BBC regional correspondent says the proposal to build a pipeline across Afghanistan is part of an international scramble to profit from developing the rich energy resources of the Caspian Sea.Â” 12-04-1997 http://news.b_bc.co.uk/1/hi/world/west_asia/37021.stm (Take Out Underscore) The Texas contingency must not have had a constructive meeting with the Taliban, because the pipeline contract was awarded to the Argentinean company Bridas. Plans for a war against Afghanistan and Iraq had already been made prior to 9-11. Â“A former Pakistani diplomat has told the BBC that the US was planning military action against Osama Bin Laden and the Taleban even before last week's attacks.Â” http://news.bb_c.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1550366.stm (Take Out Underscore) On March 15th, 2001, JaneÂ’s Defense reported that war against the Taliban had already commenced, Â“India is believed to have joined Russia, the USA and Iran in a concerted front against Afghanistan's Taliban regime.Â” http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jir/jir010315_1_n.shtml

Posted by: Greg at December 21, 2005 05:12 PM (KzOsW)

42 For a good pre-9-11 timeline highlighting the rivalry for the TalibanÂ’s signature by Unocal and Bridas (BP Amoco Argentina), see: http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/119.html Johnny Boy, "Walkered" in on a deal gone bad. IÂ’d buy his book.

Posted by: Greg at December 21, 2005 05:52 PM (KzOsW)

43 Hmmmm, Let's see. The thread topic is about Lindh's request for clemency. You agree with Shannon with a one-line opening sentence. Then ZOOOOOOMMMMMMM! Off you go into Neverland! OK. Fine. Since you choose the exclusive material on the Taliban and Afghanistan (NOT Iraq everyone) - then come out of the fuckin' closet with conviction and courage and openingly claim the war in Afghanistan against the Taliban and AQ is illegal, fraudulent and a US conspiracy! Come on! You coyly hint at it - now go for it! That's a winning strategy - yeah - right! I swear! You are the most pathetic, educated yet inept writer I have encountered in years!

Posted by: hondo at December 21, 2005 05:59 PM (3aakz)

44 Hondo, I love how you circle jerk boys ignore my argument. You lose, thanks fer playin'. NEXT!

Posted by: Greg at December 21, 2005 06:14 PM (KzOsW)

45 "1997" Greg, distrust and verify is our motto here. In fact Bill Clinton was president in 1997-- not "Bush and his oil buddies". Bush wasn't even a candidate for president. The TalibanÂ’s entry into the United States was requested by the Unocal corporation and cleared by ClintonÂ’s State Department. Which would seem to prove that it was actually "Clinton and his oil buddies" who were cozy with the Taliban-- not "Bush". As far as Unocal and the pipeline deal goes, that too is a lie. Unocal led an multinational consortium in the 1990s which undertook feasibility studies, but it pulled out of the project in 1998 because of security issues. Three years after the invasion, Unocal still doesn't have a pipeline in Afghanistan. Why not? Doesn't "Bush" call the shots there? Musharraf and Karzai have signed a pipeline deal, and Unocal isn't part of that consortium. If "Bush and his oil buddies" had wanted a Unocal pipeline in Afghanistan, there would be one right now. Your Unocal pipeline meme doesn't hold a drop of water.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 21, 2005 06:24 PM (8e/V4)

46 greg Your "argument" was a series of links to OTHER PEOPLES writings, opinions, analyses, and thoughts. NOT yours. You actually DIDN'T "argue" or write anything you moron! You didn't even attempt to analytically extropolate any shred of linkage or context. This is the lame intellectual bankrupt equivalent of a 5 page term paper with 1 paragraph and 4 1/2 pages of footnotes and bibliography! Whoever were your professors in analytical and creative writing were - I'd sue to get your money back!

Posted by: hondo at December 21, 2005 06:35 PM (3aakz)

47 ps, correction: according to Unical, their decision to pull out was made on a commercial basis-- and has not been reconsidered.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 21, 2005 06:40 PM (8e/V4)

48 JC On this one don't even bother - in fact - force the real hinted issue - the war in Afghanistan against the Taliban and AQ - don't play his idiotic and childish game - till he comes out and "ARGUES" it.

Posted by: hondo at December 21, 2005 06:40 PM (3aakz)

49 hondo, the conspiracy crowd is too pathetic for words. There's an excellent article on what makes these people tick, and why they latch onto conspiracies like their world literally depended on it: "When a postmodern liberal is served up a myth which supports his shaky world view, he will cling to it, cherish it, and defend it. This is precisely why postmodern liberalism and far left ideologies are so thickly salted with myths. The myths are carefully protected with oppressive systems of political correctness where dissent is stifled. In Communist countries, dissent from Marxist myths earned you a trip to the gulag for labor and "re-education," or to an insane asylum where your "mental illness" can be cured by drugs, torture, and brainwashing techniques." "When one has adopted a false world view, he requires the support of myths. Real life is constantly battering against his sand castle walls. Something with psychological power like myths are needed to shore up the jerry-built edifice of his false world view. When a conservative points out that the house has no foundation, the liberal can deny it, rationalize it away, or accuse the conservative of being a fascist. It is far easier to ignore the missing foundation if there is a ready made myth like Adorno's "authoritarian mind" to fall back upon. "The guy who is criticizing me is a fascist type. I can ignore his criticism. Let's attack the fascist." http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/hutchison/040630

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 21, 2005 06:46 PM (8e/V4)

50 Greg also loves the moonbats at the BBC, and uses them for reference, as if they are objective and don't have an ideology. The Al-Guardian, one of the worst of the Leftist rags in the UK, is the recruiting ground of choice for the BBC. Frankly, I'm surprised Johnny (Taliban) Lindh wasn't working for the BBC in 2000-2001. Perhaps that is how he ended up in Afghanistan, he was a reporter for the BBC working on the Unocal pipeline angle. Heh!

Posted by: jesusland joe at December 21, 2005 06:52 PM (rUyw4)

51 Carlos, The Janes defense link is from MARCH 15, 2001. http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jir/jir010315_1_n.shtml Second, you know I hate both major parties. Fuck Clinton and Bush. Third, the deal that was being sought by Unocal of the Taliban is not a Â“lieÂ”. You go on to admit as much in your next sentence, Â“Unocal led an (sic) multinationalÂ…Â” Finally, the spoils of war are still being sorted out in Afghanistan. Haliburton is a player and yes, Haliburton had a favored relationship with the government under Clinton too. I would bet that Â“American multinational CorporateÂ” interests (an oxymoron) are primed to realize the full commercial potential that is Afghanistan should security issues be resolved.

Posted by: Greg at December 21, 2005 06:56 PM (KzOsW)

52 JC But he didn't make an argument or state a conspiracy. He in fact - did nothing! - and wants to be recognized for - nothing! What annoys me is that is was LAME & LAZY! And he wants credit for it! Any self-respecting leftist writer would sadly shake their head and give him a D ... I would give him a D- simply because his spelling was good - and I'm a nice guy.

Posted by: hondo at December 21, 2005 06:57 PM (3aakz)

53 greg, one simple question. If Unocal didn't drop out because of economic reasons (as they already stated), then why didn't they sign a deal when the Taliban fell? Just answer that one single question. Don't go onto other topics or rabbit trails. Focus like a laser beam on just that one question.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 21, 2005 07:06 PM (8e/V4)

54 >>>"Second, you know I hate both major parties. Fuck Clinton and Bush." Show me where you go to harrass Democrats and Liberals. A link please.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 21, 2005 07:33 PM (8e/V4)

55 Carlos, Again... I would bet that Â“American multinational CorporateÂ” interests (an oxymoron), INCLUDING UNOCAL, are primed to realize the full commercial potential that is Afghanistan SHOULD SECURITY ISSUES BE RESOLVED. I have answered your question twice, but you're too thickheaded, as usual, to get it. "Economic reasons" and security issues are synonymous inn this case.

Posted by: Greg at December 21, 2005 07:35 PM (KzOsW)

56 "I would bet..." That's your answer? See this article on post-modern need for myths and conspiracies: The Myth Creating Process of the Left http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/hutchison/040630

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 21, 2005 07:50 PM (8e/V4)

57 I harass liberals on this site all the time. IÂ’m a conservative and I belong here. Now I get to ask you a question. You claim to be a Â“ChristianÂ” and yet, yesterday, you encouraged Impy to Â“shoot him in the back of the headÂ”, to paraphrase, when engaging one Â“Ben FranklinÂ” in a mob frenzy. Given that you claim to be a Â“ChristianÂ”, how do you reconcile such behavior?

Posted by: Greg at December 21, 2005 07:50 PM (KzOsW)

58 greg, did it piss you off? That's how I reconcile it ;-)

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 21, 2005 07:56 PM (8e/V4)

59 Carlos""I would bet..."That's your answer" I have in fact bet. I've made a nice chunk of change in the market. Valero (VLO) has tripled in the last year, Halliburton (HAL) has nearly doubled in the last 9 months, Exxon Mobil (XOM) and Conoco Phillips (COP) have also done me right. But my best pick, should the H5N1 hysteria get out of control, is Gildeon Sciences (GILD). They developed Tamiflu and sold it to Roche for 10% royalties, which could be substantial (This is one of RumseldsÂ’ former companies). I say, do as the royals do if you want to get ahead. I made money during the Clinton and Bush Administrations and I still intensely dislike them both.

Posted by: Greg at December 21, 2005 08:26 PM (KzOsW)

60 This is drifting off the post topic. This is not a bulletin board, or an open forum. O ye of little faith, tread carefully, for thy Vinnie is a vengeful Vinnie.

Posted by: Vinnie at December 21, 2005 08:31 PM (Kr6/f)

61 Not named Sue, Looking over my posts on this I don't think I was too far from the mark, especially considering that I didn't have the text of the agreement on hand and was referring to a Wikipedia article from memory. I stated what my source was and wasn't trying to "bullshit" anyone. What got you all huffy and caused a thousand knees to jerk in unison appears to be a paranoid conviction that I was insinuating some sort of conspiracy or evildoing on the part of Bush WHICH I WENT OUT OF MY WAY TO DENY. Maybe you're sensitized to it because every time someone you don't agree with says "Bush" he's sure to follow it up with lunatic conspiracy theories or a comparison to a chimpanzee. I wasn't accusing Bush of anything wrong. I didn't even say the agreement was wrong. If you want to vent your bile on a Bush-basher at least have the goddamn self-restraint to wait till somebody bashes him. You people do take the prize for this: You are the only people in ages to mistake me for a liberal. I've got no idea where you get this. Maybe you're mistaking conservatism with patriotism. Who knows? I do know I have extreme conservative beliefs that could shock the snuff down Farmer Brown's gullet: I believe the max prison sentence in the US should be 5yrs--Any crime deserving worse should be punished with penal servitude or death. I believe violent criminals should be impressed into penal battallions and used as cannon-fodder, because I like the idea of unleashing our internal foes on our extenal ones. Dead prisoners should be scavenged for parts. Repeat offenders (any crime) past a certain threshold should be deemed uncivilizable and released naked into large reservations to live the rest of their lives as hunter-gatherers. The "Duty to Treat" (law requiring doctors to treat all patients in need) should be suspended in the case of self-inflicted injury. Junkies die on their own dime. The vote should be given only to people who can make trouble. I'm still not sure if it was a good idea to give it to women. All governement--local, state, and federal--must operate within a fixed budget. The budget may only be adjusted by referendum. No entitlement programs. No medicare/medicaid. No Social Security. If you can't contribute to your own retirement fund, you're not worth propping up. Ordering US military forces to attack in the absence of a congressional declaration of war should be deemed an act of treason and punished by death only. I could go on, but I won't nauseate you further. I ain't a liberal.

Posted by: ShannonKW at December 21, 2005 08:41 PM (dT1MB)

62 Another Crook wannabe (same game)- laying out fishing hooks for those gullible to fall for it.

Posted by: hondo at December 21, 2005 10:56 PM (3aakz)

63 Greg, when are you going to get it through your thick skull that you're an idiot? Is it your particular curse to never realize that you're "special"? You should be wrangling shopping carts at the local Wal-Mart, not wasting your time on the internet. By the way, I've seen where you've been posting that article with my information, especially on the Tennessee Indymedia site. If you do such things again, I will have no choice but to find you. Don't fuck up.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 22, 2005 11:40 AM (0yYS2)

64 Improbulus:"By the way, I've seen where you've been posting that article with my information, especially on the Tennessee Indymedia site." I haven't the slightest idea what you are talking about. "Agent Smith" is the one who outed you and I think I know who he is. Please show me a link to what you are talking about and I will help you analyze the situation.

Posted by: Greg at December 22, 2005 01:45 PM (KzOsW)

65 Don't play stupid greg. Stalk me and you stalk a lion. It's time for you to stop playing your childish games and straighten up before you become the next celebrity of the 24 hour news cycle.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 22, 2005 02:49 PM (0yYS2)

66 Thank you for the resume, Shannon. It doesn't change the fact that you hung your ass out pretty far off a shaky platform. Here you are in the first post you made to this thread: You people should read up on why he got 20yrs. It's complicated, but the executive summary is they gave him a light sentence to shut him up. He has agreed not to publish any info about his experience as part of a plea bargain. Obviously, we can't know what it was that the govt. didn't want us to hear, but it seemed important enough to Bush. Take your own advice? Google is your friend by the way. Also your enemy if you're ignorant(red flag clue here). You were wrong. You half-heartedly admitted as much yet you will probably stick to the same bullshit line of reasoning you had before you made the mistake of posting here. Willful ignorance is consistent if little else. Here you are again making a complete ass out of yourself(by the way, you should paypal Greg for trumping your silliness): Third, the conditions of Lindh's agreement are public knowledge. I got it from Wiki. If you know a reputable source that disputes it, I'd be interested in hearing about it. Yes, it is public knowledge so why did you rely solely(?) on "Wiki*". And you obviously couldn't give a shit about reputable sources since you didn't even bother to go directly to THE source--the court documents. Here you go, Ms. Shannon. Notice the first link. Woe is me!!1 So much effort and time invested in that research project. By the way, my responses weren't knee-jerk dismissal of some liberal troll. It was actually serious snark directed at a fool. A fool who obviously had no qualms about flaunting his ignorance in public. If someone else had called you on it I'd have kept to myself. Whether you're a registered R or D makes no difference. Stupid people reside on both sides of the aisle. But given you are quantifiably stupid AND your "he got what he deserved" comment about Spann the scales tilted away from irrate paleo-con toward hackneyed Kos flunky. * - You do know "wiki" is a platform for web design, right? You do know Wikipedia is not the only "wiki" in the universe, right, right? Of course, you probably know that as well as you know the details of Lindh's plea agreement. Who am I to question.

Posted by: Not named Sue at December 22, 2005 04:21 PM (YAEN3)

67 Impy, Trust me, you are the furthest thing from my mind. Send me the link and I might be able to tell you who did whatever you are talking about. neuroman_268@yahoo.com (Take Out The Underscore)

Posted by: Greg at December 22, 2005 05:17 PM (KzOsW)

68 Honestly greg, I don't really care who did it this time, but if it happens again, I'm going to find the person responsible.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 22, 2005 05:38 PM (0yYS2)

69 The question is... Who is "Agent Smith"?

Posted by: Greg at December 22, 2005 05:58 PM (KzOsW)

70 Agent Smith is NOT you! He (regardless of his political (and sexual) persuasion) writes his own material, is original and often creative - and occasionally amusing. You are a dork - the kind of guy other leftists give the wrong time and address for protests to.

Posted by: hondo at December 22, 2005 06:14 PM (3aakz)

71 He is quite creative.

Posted by: Greg at December 22, 2005 06:26 PM (KzOsW)

72 And your not - we agree on something ....YYYYEEEAAAHHHHH!

Posted by: hondo at December 22, 2005 06:30 PM (3aakz)

73 I think Smith's as big a moron as the rest, because my two year old neice can come up with better crap than he does.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 22, 2005 08:10 PM (0yYS2)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

It's Time To Relax Now

It's the Christmas season, a time for joy, frivolity, and gift giving.

In that spirit, let's all enjoy a little gratuitous cleavage, shall we?

Q: "Hey Vinnie, why you posting so much all the sudden?"

A: "Good question, I just found this new toy called Performancing for Firefox 1.5, and I'm playing with it."

Q: "Another quick question if I may, why are you sitting in front of a computer Performancing while your wife plays with toys in the bedroom?"

A: ...

A: "I highly recommend Performancing to my kin in the Sandcrawler. Wait for me, honey!"

Posted by: Vinnie at 12:36 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 109 words, total size 1 kb.

Breaking: Daily Kos, MoveOn open Baghdad Office

Replaying Florida, December 2000, Tikrit-style:

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Sunni Arabs and a key secular party charged Tuesday that parliamentary elections were tainted by fraud, and demanded an inquiry into preliminary results showing the governing Shiite religious bloc with a larger than expected lead.

Or izzat Ohio 2004, Ramadi style? Beats the hell out of me.

For decent Iraqi election thoughts, read it from the people who live there.

Posted by: Vinnie at 12:11 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 81 words, total size 1 kb.

December 20, 2005

Arabs See US Press as Supporting Bush Administration

The Daily Star (Lebanon) discusses a study of US newspapers by Dr. Ghazi Falah of the University of Akron, who focuses on the way Arabs and Muslims are portrayed by the American news media. Dr. Falah makes some astute observations, but draws some questionable conclusions.

With the vast majority of stories and photographs appearing in Western media from the Arab world pertaining to, or insinuating an environment of violence and conflict, readers are left with these impressions of the region.

This is true of US media, but it's not an attempt to portray Arabs negatively. First, blood sells. It's in the nature of journalism to hype the drama, not to describe peaceful, everyday events. Second, the American mainstream media have made a point of deliberately emphasizing negatives, particularly in Iraq, hoping to politically benefit their preferred party, the Democrats. The resultant biased view of Arabs is just collateral damage.

"It is striking how much the editorial policies of the foreign [American] newspapers consulted for this study overlap with U.S. government positions and its geo-political interests in the Middle East."

I'm not sure what other newspapers Dr. Falah was studying, but I would ask him this question: if these newspapers are so supportive of the Bush administration, why has there been an embargo on images of the 9/11 attacks? And why does MSM coverage of Iraq focus only on Coalition deaths, while ignoring our soldiers' daily successes?

Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto.

Posted by: Bluto at 11:58 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 254 words, total size 2 kb.

Tookie's Revenge

BERLIN (Reuters) - Germany has quietly released a Hizbollah member
jailed for life for the murder of a U.S. Navy diver, disregarding
Washington's desire that he either be extradited or remain behind bars,
officials said on Tuesday.

That's what you get for executing an innocent children's book author, you filthy Amerikaner!

Posted by: Vinnie at 11:28 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 54 words, total size 1 kb.

Honoring Mike Stokely

I saw this today and I just had to post it. Mike Stokley was a soldier that gave his all in Iraq this year. His father expresses his thoughts over at The Mudville Gazette.

Robert Stokely : For whatever reason, the last few days what Cindy Sheehan said "Casey didn't die for a just cause" has been on my mind... ...My response is that Mike didn't die for a "just cause", he died JUST BECAUSE - just because he loved his country enough to want to serve it since the time he was in middle school; just because he loved his family enough to want to protect them; just because he loved his friends enough that he would rather fight a war "there" than here; just because he believed in our order of government whereby the civilian government rules and the military obeys, and when the President, with lawful authority, calls upon soldiers to go and fight, he believed it was not only his duty, but his honor to go; just because he wouldn't let his fellow soldiers - his guys - go it alone; and just because he wanted to do for others - the Iraqi people - what he would do for his own country.
Robert Stokely, Lucky and Proud to be the Dad of SGT Michael "Mike" James Stokely, KIA Operation Iraqi Freedom 16 Aug 05 2nd Platoon, E Troop 108th CAV 48h Brigaded GA NATL GUARD 15 miles south of Baghdad near Yusufiyah / IED

LetÂ’s remember all the other Â“Mike StokelysÂ” this week because this is just one name of many. Remeber the gifts they have given us already this year.

Others: Miltary Outpost, Hugh Hewitt, and Sistertoldjah

Posted by: Howie at 09:13 AM | Comments (81) | Add Comment
Post contains 288 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Mr. Stokley, we honor you and your family for your sacrifice. Your son has not died in vain so long as there are those who value freedom. Charlie Beckett father of SSgt Alexander O. Beckett, Co. A, 2-156 Infantry [Mechanized], Louisiana National Guard, now returned from proudly serving in Iraq.

Posted by: Charlie at December 20, 2005 11:14 AM (2ZhL/)

2 Good post. And while we are at it - how about a tribute to SPC Casey Sheehan - for he is definitely not getting his just due and recognition for his voluntary service and sacrifice to his brothers and his country! I am serious!

Posted by: hondo at December 20, 2005 11:15 AM (3aakz)

3 You Bet Hondo Mr. Stokely is just the face of the day they all deserve a post(a bit hard to do). Including Casey. So while w are thinking of Mr. Stokley dont' forget the others. Comments are welcome here but be sure to get over to Mudville as I think that's where his dad will probably see em.

Posted by: Howie at December 20, 2005 11:20 AM (D3+20)

4 Whatever ..

Posted by: hondo at December 20, 2005 12:01 PM (3aakz)

5 yet another idiot repeating the age old "no WMD", "Blood for Oil" mantra.

Posted by: dave at December 20, 2005 12:29 PM (CcXvt)

6 Don't delete the morons. They only make their side look bad. I'm serious, let the world see what they're all about.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 20, 2005 12:45 PM (8e/V4)

7 Deleting comments is cowardly.

Posted by: Greg at December 20, 2005 12:49 PM (KzOsW)

8 NO IT'S OFF TOPIC. I'm just using my "editorial control" as background pointed out the other day. Darn forgot to check and see if the IP's were the same. Take it to another thread. Or I'll come sing drunken westerns at the next Funeral you have.

Posted by: Howie at December 20, 2005 12:49 PM (D3+20)

9 Howie, I've decided to have just one funeral, but I'll welcome your drunken westerns.

Posted by: Greg at December 20, 2005 12:52 PM (KzOsW)

10 Speaking of funerals... I wonder how much blood it will take to water the rose bush of democracy (theocracy) in Iraq. It's a very thirsty bush.

Posted by: Greg at December 20, 2005 12:57 PM (KzOsW)

11 Greg. Better watch it my singing is terribleand I meant like the next funeral your family has. You know greg might have more than one though he's kind of persistant. How you doing? Sorry about that delete thing. Even I get fed up now and then. Of course y'all knew I would hate that on this thread and that's why you do it. When I do my post tomorrow it will be wide open I swear.

Posted by: Howie at December 20, 2005 12:58 PM (D3+20)

12 Greg spills his anti-war agenda on a thread honoring a dead soldier, despite the fact he's said the same thing over and over again, somehow he thinks it's important enough to soil a memorial thread. Remember that, when they tell you: I support our troops, I just don't support the War

Posted by: dave at December 20, 2005 01:02 PM (CcXvt)

13 Soviet style censorship for the free and the brave huh? you show your true colors. totalitarians. hammer and sickle, too ignorant to defend reality...just keep praying to your false pharoah. real americans know your type is not what the founding fathers had in mind. you think spying on america is liberty? fools. morons. the weak. the stupid. ben franklin.

Posted by: Ben Franklin at December 20, 2005 01:11 PM (X4Dyg)

14 Greg, looks like democracy to me. Higher voter turnout over in Iraq than here at home. And don't forget, there isn't anything of value that doesn't come with a high cost (I guess you Libs have become accustomed to getting everything for free).

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 20, 2005 01:11 PM (8e/V4)

15 ban the jerk. He's just annoying.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 20, 2005 01:12 PM (8e/V4)

16 I bet you "support the troops" too Ben Franklin, I best not question your patriotism, right?

Posted by: dave at December 20, 2005 01:13 PM (CcXvt)

17 I mean ben franklin. The guy is a humourless toad. At least Greg has a degree of humanity that comes through.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 20, 2005 01:14 PM (8e/V4)

18 i couldtn care less if you questioned my patriotsm, it means nothing to me. i do find it funny that you believe your "questioning" should have any merit though. it says a lot about your assumptions...totalitarian...stalin would have loved your state worship and group think. ben

Posted by: Ben Franklin at December 20, 2005 01:15 PM (X4Dyg)

19 I bet your patriotism doesn't mean anything to you. thanks for clearing it up.

Posted by: dave at December 20, 2005 01:16 PM (CcXvt)

20 Dave gets the idea.

Posted by: Howie at December 20, 2005 01:17 PM (D3+20)

21 >>>..."i couldtn care less if you questioned my patriotsm, it means nothing to me." boy, that's a SHOCKER! A perfect example of why you shouldn't delete moonbats.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 20, 2005 01:21 PM (8e/V4)

22 I'm not so sure they are different. Possibly MPD.

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

23 Well normally I wouldn't but it's been building up you know and it feels oh so good. (click ahhhh).

Posted by: Howie at December 20, 2005 01:24 PM (D3+20)

24 When they use a thread topic simply as an available bulletin board for any issue or rant they feel they should be deleted. Back on topic - all others get a can of spraypaint and rant on your neighbor's garage door.

Posted by: hondo at December 20, 2005 01:27 PM (3aakz)

25 >>>..."[patriotism] means nothing to me." It didn't mean anything to me either when I was a Lib. That's how I know Libs are full of shit when they whine about people questioning their patriotism. They aren't patriots, they're internationalists (i.e., traitors).

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 20, 2005 01:31 PM (8e/V4)

26 I see the wandering moron has shown up again, and is as stupid as ever. Hey greg, how's your kiddie porn collection coming?

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 20, 2005 03:37 PM (0yYS2)

27 patriotism means nothing to me. tell me something I didn't know.

Posted by: dcb at December 20, 2005 04:15 PM (8e/V4)

28 People without patriotism have no soul.

Posted by: Jester at December 20, 2005 04:29 PM (CwOKe)

29 Greg & ben franklin, now there's a pair who believe in liberty and freedom, their liberty and freedom that is, but no one else's. And ben has the gall to call someone totalitarian, now that is truly funny.

Posted by: jesusland joe at December 20, 2005 04:33 PM (rUyw4)

30 And a big thumbs up to all the brave men and women who have given their all in Iraq, that perhaps we shall meet someday, and I will get a chance to say "thank you".

Posted by: jesusland joe at December 20, 2005 04:37 PM (rUyw4)

31 'Patriotism' translated from the Libspeak = state worship and group think.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 20, 2005 04:46 PM (8e/V4)

32 Carlos, Iraq's new government is in fact an Islamic theocracy. That's the last thing that Israel and the U.S. wanted.

Posted by: Greg at December 20, 2005 05:32 PM (KzOsW)

33 Greg, that's fine. As long as they play ball.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 20, 2005 05:44 PM (8e/V4)

34 The new Iraqi gov is an islamic theocracy 'cause greg says so ... ergo - the whole Iraq thing is a failure 'cause greg says so ... This is a failure for the US & Israel (note their the one's actually incharge of everything and getting what they want) 'cause they didn't get what they want - (I'm still trying to figure this one out) - but anyway, 'cause greg says so ... Its all a failure 'cause greg says so - and desperately needs it to be so - 'cause he's bet the farm on failure.

Posted by: hondo at December 20, 2005 05:54 PM (3aakz)

35 Carlos, They, the Shites, and the Kurds, to a lesser extent, are playing ball with Iran.

Posted by: In-sturgeon at December 20, 2005 06:49 PM (KzOsW)

36 So you got the Shits and the Turds, and don't even get me started on the Poohnis.

Posted by: In-sturgeon at December 20, 2005 06:53 PM (KzOsW)

37 Hey Howie, I'm seriously thinking of going no comments, Malkin style. How bout you?

Posted by: Vinnie at December 20, 2005 06:53 PM (Kr6/f)

38 I'll write you some perl script to delete Greg's comments - gratis.

Posted by: dave at December 20, 2005 06:59 PM (CcXvt)

39 Shits and Turds & poohnis .... my my my my! And someone (I believe furiousrosepetal or something like that) said this was a racist board! Maybe she was partially right. Seems to me most peoples harsh comments are directed at the ideological aspects of islam - but greg - aaaahhh greg ... wants to make it ethnic and racial - in an intellectually progressive kinda way. Oh well! Hope greg has a car so when he loses the farm he has a place to shit and sleep.

Posted by: hondo at December 20, 2005 07:11 PM (3aakz)

40 People like Mike Stokley are what give humanity hope, most us have little idea or comprehension of their noble sacrifice. May he rest in the peace that he so deserves, and may the lord bless and comfort his family for his sacrifice.

Posted by: MathewK at December 20, 2005 07:37 PM (pVHqF)

41 Amen brother!

Posted by: hondo at December 20, 2005 07:38 PM (3aakz)

42 hondo, greg already shits and sleeps in his car. That is the farm. If he loses his car, well hell, it's the fricking public library. I just hope it's not the one in my town.

Posted by: jesusland joe at December 20, 2005 08:22 PM (rUyw4)

43 Goodamn you pathetic dicks. you call the liberals "whiny" but you suck the teat of "patriotism" like it is your holy jesus' pecker. morons... ya you idiot tv nation dildoes are absolute patriots for sure. morons. being as stupid as you dicks are should hurt.

Posted by: Ben Franklin at December 20, 2005 10:09 PM (X4Dyg)

44 "ben franklin says he doesnt care about "patriotism" you idiot turds. morons! tell me about your little boy religions you dumb asses. tell me about your holy state, your pharoah, your obedience to religious power...and i will call you taliban.... goddamn being as stupis as you should hurt, really. you are the AMERICAN TALIBAN! but you dont get it do you...when i read your vile words, i compare them to BIN LADENS...you pricks sound just like him! we nned theocracy! secularism is bad! holy nation! we need a mullah!...thats you prick ass moron inbred amerikkkka! eat shit! best wishes... ben franklin

Posted by: Ben Franklin at December 20, 2005 10:13 PM (X4Dyg)

45 Benjamin Franklin is rolling in his grave that this fucking communist here is using his name. IM, you have my blessing for putting a bullet in the back of this guy's head. We'll cannonize you a saint if you can fill up a great big hole with guys like this.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 20, 2005 10:17 PM (8e/V4)

46 and by the way, you dumbasses are now in the minority and america hates you and your criminal leader.. enjoy the impotency dickheads..enjoy FOX nation. ben

Posted by: Ben Franklin at December 20, 2005 10:17 PM (X4Dyg)

47 try it you fucking pin dick fascist cock sucker...

Posted by: Ben Franklin at December 20, 2005 10:18 PM (X4Dyg)

48 You should change your nickname cockbiter, you're not even worthy of spelling his name, let alone wearing it as a moniker. You're a moron, you're not even an entertaining moron. "Bin Laden" "Patrotism" "religion" "Amerikka" You're a one trick pony, and they're all used up.

Posted by: dave at December 20, 2005 10:21 PM (CcXvt)

49 let me guess jesusland calros is a nub of a dick man...big ole belly, dumb as shit...maybe a janitor..or a techie..i know im right on one of these. you impotent little pricks are such pussies...move from mommy's home paste eater carlos. then you might get laid.... eat shit losers. america hates you and we are on to you. go out in public and tell the majority how they deserve to "be shot" we will fucking destroy you. ben

Posted by: Ben Franklin at December 20, 2005 10:21 PM (X4Dyg)

50 Try to imagine Benny sitting at his terminal right now going thru all kinds of bizarre contortions - frizzled out hair - angrily twitching ... Its hillarious! Tourettes Syndrome is however a recognized disability so go easy on him guys.

Posted by: hondo at December 20, 2005 10:34 PM (3aakz)

51 the moonbat barks: "...we will fucking destroy you." Communist, you got me shaking in my boots

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 20, 2005 10:51 PM (8e/V4)

52 There is a similarity with his phrases and themes and the past lil' ernie - but there is also a marked improvement in spelling and structural organization. Hard to say ... He could be a clone - who knows what has been going on in Korea We may need Agent Smith on this one.

Posted by: hondo at December 20, 2005 10:52 PM (3aakz)

53 hondo, It's lil "america hates you" ernie alright.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 20, 2005 10:58 PM (8e/V4)

54 thank you for defending me and my thoughts. you are the true destroyers of liberty. keep it up! Thanks for the dim thought and the lack of will and spriit, thany you for not having a life or original thoughts... remember, satan loves you... joe stalin

Posted by: joe stalin at December 20, 2005 11:00 PM (X4Dyg)

55 Lil' ernie is going to destroy us!

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 20, 2005 11:01 PM (8e/V4)

56 Take it your up late too wrapping presents. Possibly - but there is a real improvement in presentation. not that he's coherent now - but then - yikeeeeeees! it can also be he's back on the meds.

Posted by: hondo at December 20, 2005 11:02 PM (3aakz)

57 Please, stop killing people. Stop using my name to talk about killing people. Stop the greed and your phony holiday. Stop worshipping your idol, the state. Please be ok with yourself, no matter how pathetic you think you are. Dont kill all your children in a wolrd war 3 built on your irrational fear. Love your neighbor, turn thy cheek. give the kids a chance. stop sucking satans pecker. JC

Posted by: jesus christ at December 20, 2005 11:05 PM (X4Dyg)

58 Always amusing when they do a drive by frothing, then slink back to DailyKos and howl victory, claiming they destroyed us with their "schooling". I've seen a million of them, all tinfoil, and spittle.

Posted by: dave at December 20, 2005 11:05 PM (CcXvt)

59 >>>"Please, stop killing people." That's moonbat for terrorists have feelings too. ernie, you don't give a rat's turd about dead people, or else you wouldn't be so pleased about all the innocent bystanders being killed in Iraq by your terrorist minutemen. You disgust me. Bring on the revolution bro. Please, "destroy me". Your pink tank against my AK.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 20, 2005 11:11 PM (8e/V4)

60 JC Thanks for the photo link! To the left, life and every issue is performance art - a stage show. They admire each others "performance" are are obvious to the fact that (YES) some libs and many moderates sllllooowwwly move away from them - like the Bench story in "Alice's Restaurant". They are their own worse enemies - and too dense to see that.

Posted by: hondo at December 20, 2005 11:14 PM (3aakz)

61 carlos, for the record, is that ak auto? id just like to know out of curiosity...but thanks for letting us know anyway prole. J edgar love you. joe

Posted by: joe stalin at December 20, 2005 11:15 PM (X4Dyg)

62 There bulk block free email addresses if anyone's curious. You don't think they would actually pay for the spraycan did ya?

Posted by: hondo at December 20, 2005 11:20 PM (3aakz)

63 yes, i agree with hondo, move over to me. i will keep you safe. i will protect you. i will keep you from having to think. i will relieve you from liberty and freedom, just give me the POWER. let me spy on you! obey! believe! just keep sucking up that bilge water that we pump into your homes through TV. get more hateful. Be less independent! Hate people who think for themsleves. HATE...HATE...HATE...yes...come over to me I will take care of you. joey

Posted by: joe stalin at December 20, 2005 11:20 PM (X4Dyg)

64 I cannot wait for next years elections, to watch these guys once again cry into their Starbucks Latte (low fat, skimmed milk, frothe -- with a whisp of Cinnamon) at their defeat again! It will be classic, they will yet again lose all sense of reality, blame everyone but themselves and there will be wet bedsheets all over America, and much handwringing. It's one of the things I can't wait for next year, yet another Kleenex moment for the Left, the usual claims of Jesusland, and how they're leaving America etc.

Posted by: dave at December 20, 2005 11:20 PM (CcXvt)

65 Oh, and they swap addresses and password accesses - its a blind - like a random bulletin board ... Not very sanitary

Posted by: hondo at December 20, 2005 11:26 PM (3aakz)

66 Yes! I agree with Dave. Vote for Bush, he is my number one recruiter. Please, we ahte liberals too! Thnak You! We want a theocracy too! Yes, come with me, you are right! Attack more nations, i need soldiers. Destroy your economy with debt and cutting taxes! YEs, i want you to fall and you are doing it for me! KEep it up! Win all the elections with character assassination! IT works! your inbred decadent society just eats it up! Keep up the good work comrades, you are my partners! i will share the virgins with you right wingers and you can finally get laid! BL

Posted by: Bin Laden at December 20, 2005 11:26 PM (X4Dyg)

67 >>>"HATE...HATE...HATE..." lmao! this guy must be the life of any party. ernie, the Left has cornered the market on hate. Just listen to yourself.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 20, 2005 11:26 PM (8e/V4)

68 I had to laugh when he claimed Bush was his number one recruiter, this Administration have put a thousand more terrorists in their graves, per terrorist convicted under the last Administration.

Posted by: dave at December 20, 2005 11:30 PM (CcXvt)

69 AHHHHHH davey my friend, for every thousand of martyrs you kill you create ten thousand more! thank you! At the same time you deplete your gold reserves...uh, i mean the legitimacy of your phony paper dollars printed on demand at the FED (your gold is gone) and bought by china (giving those communist infadels power over you) by over extending yourself! excellent! keep it up! please....keep watching tv and not reading books (that promotes yucky liberalism... and we know how much we hate that dont we buddy!!!!) Yes, destroy your economy for me...that was my plan and i knew america was too stupid to get it. why do you think my man atta hit those trade towers? ahhhh, i knew you wouldnt get it, but lash out blindly and stupidly...thank you...you are my best ally and i support your efforts.Again, i will share the virgins with you virgins, and then you can get out of mom's house. BL

Posted by: Bin Laden at December 20, 2005 11:40 PM (X4Dyg)

70 If anyone's interested - back in the early/mid '90s various LEAs began accessing and partially monitoring free email services as part of drug investigations. Free fly-by-night email acounts and corner payphones had become a major communication vehicle for the drug trade. Still probably done and possibly (ha) expanded since 9/11. Service providers were very plyable in agreeing since this was freebees and it gave them leverage in securing privacy rights and requirements with their paying(!) customers. Same too many land-line street phone providers. It gave them leverage in negotiating placement contracts. Note, these are small companies - the large name firms are almost completely out of this side of communications. Useful information for the wannabe lil' anarchists out there.

Posted by: hondo at December 20, 2005 11:46 PM (3aakz)

71 You are so simple minded I cannot even fathom how you are able to use the Internet, perhaps your mother ducttapes a pencil to the corner of your mouth for you to hunt and peck the keyboard with, and periodically changes out your diaper and drool tray. When you're not posting here, you're most likely filling in a color-me-elmo picture your mommy brought for you on your trip to toys-r-us funded by the make a wish foundation, using a chunky blue Crayola, outside the lines I might add. I feel sorry for you, it must be awful going through life dead from the waist down, and braindead from the neck up. simpleton.

Posted by: dave at December 20, 2005 11:48 PM (CcXvt)

72 ernie, your mind think in cartoons.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 20, 2005 11:50 PM (8e/V4)

73 Hondo, i knew you were a computer. i just knew it. and its called "artist" not anarchist, and no you dont scare anybody with your techie geekboy info. If You screwballs dont like this, stop responding. If you respond i smile and laugh and think it is funny. Now, am i happy you idiots are helping destroy the american republic? NO. AM i happy you think like a computers and have lost your soul? NO. Am i happy you are turning the USA, a country my grandad spent time in little adolphs work camp for? NO and by that note screw your "patriotism"...obedience to arbitrary executive power is NEVER patriotic, not in a republic anyway. im a conservative.i think hillary and bill suck. i laugh at your "liberal" nonsense. you folks arent conservatives but STATISTS.(again, i'd call you nazis but the smell of the USSR is too strong). sorry ron paul. sometimes i wonder what really happened to this country. you really want to argue it was the hippies? OR is it about monarchy, monopoly captitalism, and the rise of finance over work. Your call. anyway. dont take this crap seriously. it is not real, and that comes from the heart. anyway, im tired and done having fun with you. have fun talking about how everyone and everything sucks and should be jailed or killed, or whatever makes you happy. ben

Posted by: Ben Franklin at December 21, 2005 12:04 AM (X4Dyg)

74 You do realize Ben that throughout this entire thread that I never actually addressed you or acknowledged you personally. Go back and check - neat trick huh. Vague 3rd person and un-named generalizations. Not bad hondo!

Posted by: hondo at December 21, 2005 12:35 AM (3aakz)

75 Best thing that can be said about Casey Sheehan is may he rest in peace. At least, he is finally away from his mother. Which is probably the reason he joined the military. If I had a traitorous mother like her I would join the foreign legion.

Posted by: greyrooster at December 21, 2005 03:07 AM (pSK/I)

76 Agent Smith says to Greyrooster, you can become an agent.

Posted by: Agent Smith at December 21, 2005 06:12 AM (CpR+U)

77 Carlos:"IM, you have my blessing for putting a bullet in the back of this guy's head." Carlos, is that you?

Posted by: Greg at December 21, 2005 07:54 AM (KzOsW)

78 This post has brought out all the loonies for Christmas. Why don't some of you liberals go away and pollute another site? You always reduce the tone of this one by using your last resort of extreme gutter language...swear in moderation and learn to express yourselves. This thread is about remembering the brave and loyal, so respect it.

Posted by: Jester at December 21, 2005 11:53 AM (DHRGA)

79 "brave and loyal" translated from the Libspeak = state worship and group think. The very notion is poison to Libs.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 21, 2005 12:42 PM (8e/V4)

80 Someone give me ben's ISP.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 22, 2005 05:42 PM (0yYS2)

81 Listen people, we need to get this out. Spread it around. show your family and friends, people need to read about SGT Michael "Mike" James Stokely. We need to counter the "cindy sheehans" and show other that true heros are fighting for freedom and raising sons like SGT Michael "Mike" James Stokely. Keep saying his name " SGT Michael "Mike" James Stokely " let the rest of America know him and thank his father and family for raising a true hero for all of us to look up to. This man SGT Michael "Mike" James Stokely should be talked about every day and he should be admierd for being who he was and is. Spread the word let his name be shouted all over America!! SGT Michael "Mike" James Stokely a friend of freedom loving Americans.

Posted by: Rick, Tristans dad at December 24, 2005 02:08 AM (T0mkU)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Luuuuucy, You Got Some Splainin To Do

WTF?

BAGHDAD, Iraq Â— About 24 top former officials in Saddam Hussein's regime, including a biological weapons expert known as "Dr. Germ," have been released from jail...

Got me, I don't understand it either.

As far as deeming some of these people as no longer a security threat, you mean to tell me that "Dr. Germ" wouldn't be welcome to ply her trade in any number of Middle East Jew-hating dictatorships?

Posted by: Vinnie at 06:11 AM | Comments (37) | Add Comment
Post contains 85 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Well, here we go, back to the old Arab tradition of corruption, bribery, and betrayal. Arabs do not deserve to mingle with civilized people, or even live on the same planet.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 20, 2005 09:17 AM (0yYS2)

2 You act surprised.... You realize there were no WMD? You realize that John Lewis, the FBI's deputy assistant director for counterterrorism said in Senate testimony the biggest terrorist threats in the US were: 1) Animal Rights Activists 2) Environmental Activists Which certainly explains why we need to short circuit FISA don't it? listening to uncritical supporters of this administration reminds me of this old joke: Q. What do you say to a woman with two black eyes? A. Nothing. She obviously doesn't listen.

Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at December 20, 2005 09:21 AM (wsdWU)

3 Wow, the moonbats are up early! Anyway, I'd be guessing that some of these persons are under close observation. The doesn't mean that they can't just slip away, but since these are scientists, not terrorists, they're likely to go where their services are needed. I doubt any one of them are the true "doctor evil". Background Noise, Do you even know what you're talking about or going off the playlist? What is known to have occurred was acts of data colection (the likes of which any self respecting telemarketer would be embarassed by) and wire tapping (not phone tapping) that took place between entities communicating internationally. (Yes, this is 100% legal even without a court order) Nothing else has been proven to my knowledge. Do you have some secret stash of information you're not sharing?

Posted by: Jeremy H. Bol at December 20, 2005 09:32 AM (A20i1)

4 Obviously, Background Noise is about 16 years old. Either that or he's a 50 year old 'hacker' living in his mother's basement off of Hot Pockets and Mountain Dew. They're the only ones with 'cool' names that use numbers or bastardized English in their handle. I'm only surprised that he didn't spell it 'noyz'. Dr. Germ's life isn't worth a plugged nickel walking down the streets of Baghdad. Justice will be served quietly and violently by the survivors if she sticks her head up out of the hole she'll be living in.

Posted by: slug at December 20, 2005 09:51 AM (wcNc2)

5 Don't feed the trolls. According to the article linked, some of them have left Iraq already.

Posted by: Vinnie at December 20, 2005 09:54 AM (Kr6/f)

6 Actually, I find this noisy idiot kind of amusing, because he's as stupid as greg, and there's none of the cut-n-paste crap. I need guys like this to remind me why killing liberals will be a humanitarian act when TSHTF.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 20, 2005 10:02 AM (0yYS2)

7 slug, I'm going with the 50 year old hacker. He may be John Ryan with a new name, since I have never seen the two post simultaneously. Irregardless, he has now become our resident troll.

Posted by: jesusland joe at December 20, 2005 10:03 AM (rUyw4)

8 As of this moment, I have been unable to get further information beyond the original story. This is an AP story whose source is AN UN-NAMED IRAQI LAWYER! Before accepting it lets get a little verification and some details Pllleeeeeaaassseee! Loved the NYT Iranian tanker with the ballets story too!

Posted by: hondo at December 20, 2005 10:05 AM (3aakz)

9 I thought you were leaving the land of the ignorant Background Noise. Can you fill in a little detail on your comment: You realize that John Lewis, the FBI's deputy assistant director for counterterrorism said in Senate testimony the biggest terrorist threats in the US were: 1) Animal Rights Activists 2) Environmental Activists How many people have they killed so far, and could you tell me how long they get to the three thousand people killed in September 11th. How people with a brainstem post comments like that, I have no clue.

Posted by: dave at December 20, 2005 10:09 AM (CcXvt)

10 Also Background, you might accept the current media status quo of no WMD in Iraq, I think most of the people with an idea of B/W don't think that was totally the truth either.

Posted by: dave at December 20, 2005 11:05 AM (CcXvt)

11 Pity him. He and the entire left's argument is totally dependent on whether this NSA program targeted American citizens domestically with no connection whats so ever with AQ-9/11 etc. And that's their problem - because otherwise the American people are gonna say - well duh! No legs - and this could get really comical.

Posted by: hondo at December 20, 2005 11:05 AM (3aakz)

12 I would guess that these scientists would remain unemployed for some time to come. The countries of the Middle East are already awash in bio and chemical weapons, so it's not like their expertise are desperately needed. With Iran uping the ante with nukes, nuclear experts are the guys who'll be in demand. The report says that some of them have already left the country. If I had to speculate as to where they'll end up, I'd say either London or Paris.

Posted by: Graeme at December 20, 2005 11:15 AM (F8fK2)

13 I'm not accepting the story as true without further information.

Posted by: hondo at December 20, 2005 11:17 AM (3aakz)

14 Graeme hit the nail on the head, Dr. Germ will probably have a two bedroom council house, and a dole check from the U.K Government within the week.

Posted by: dave at December 20, 2005 11:22 AM (CcXvt)

15 You guys do realize this story has since "disapeared". No other outlet followed up and picked it up either ... Given the proported subject matter, makes ya think - huh?

Posted by: hondo at December 20, 2005 12:13 PM (3aakz)

16 Has anyone read this story on LGF: BEIRUT - Hezbollah member Mohammed Ali Hamadi has returned to Lebanon after being secretly released in Germany, where he was serving a life sentence for the 1985 hijacking of a TWA jetliner and killing of a US navy diver, Hezbollah and Lebanese security sources said Tuesday. ... Commentators have speculated that Hamadi’s release may be connected to the freeing Sunday of German hostage Susanne Osthoff in Iraq. German authorities had already tried to use Hamadi as a bargaining chip in the late 1980s to secure the release of German hostages in Lebanon. wow?

Posted by: dave at December 20, 2005 12:19 PM (CcXvt)

17 Yes - and it does look like a trade.

Posted by: hondo at December 20, 2005 01:30 PM (3aakz)

18 Dave, You're right.... it's clear that you folks just don't believe or care that the crowd you act as cheerleaders for has been and will continue to lie to you. Instead of wrapping your heads around that factoid, you protect your fragile little world with invective and hyperbole for anyone who dares to point out stuff that should be glaringly obvious to you... you're being played for suckers. This NSA thing is only the latest in a series of problems. You honestly think Poindexter shut down TIA because it was of questionable legality? If you believe that, you probably think OJ and Michael Jackson are innocent too. You want to reinforce each other's paranoid delusions go ahead... but you come across like battered housewives who keep making excuses for their drunk husband who beats the crap out them. We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming already in progress.

Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at December 20, 2005 02:42 PM (wsdWU)

19 1) nowhere near topic 2) battered housewife/drunk husband???? That's supposed to be some kind of definitive insult? 3) .... already in progress. Thank you

Posted by: hondo at December 20, 2005 02:47 PM (3aakz)

20 background: Whenever you can dissect my points in a coherent manner, please, let me know. If I wanted to hear babble; I would just buy a wino a jug of rum.

Posted by: dave at December 20, 2005 02:48 PM (CcXvt)

21 "Graeme hit the nail on the head, Dr. Germ will probably have a two bedroom council house, and a dole check from the U.K Government within the week" I partially agree but I'm saying she had better not stick her head out in public for very long. There are still many in Iraq who are going to want her popped. People like her who walk around freely don't generally have a long lifespan no matter where they live. Arafat only lived as long as he did because Israel didn't want to make a martyr out of him. Dr. Germ isn't exactly the voice of the people and a fine Iraqi citizen would love to make a hero out of himself. However, I don't think she'll wind up in the UK after terrorists hit their busses and a biological attack against the Underground was thwarted. I think France, Spain, or one of the other apologist nations will set her up with a nice retirement package.

Posted by: slug at December 20, 2005 02:49 PM (wcNc2)

22 slug As far as I can tell, the story was bogus - and designed to make the new Iraqi Gov, the US military, the Administration and the whole war effort look stupid. This happens often enough with current "reporting". My question is " WTF! Why do some of you guys fall for this shit?"

Posted by: hondo at December 20, 2005 02:55 PM (3aakz)

23 hondo... since you asked for the name of the lawyer.... Badee Izzat Aref And count on the story to get lots of play with a rebound when Tariq Aziz is released in the next couple of weeks. Of course why believe anything that doesn't come from the mouth of US military right? Whassat..... who? Lieutenant Colonel Barry Johnson ooh... he said what? He said "the prisoners, considered senior members of the administration overthrown by US forces in 2003, posed no threat to security, were neither charged with crimes nor material witnesses and had no intelligence value. " Still don't think you were lied to?

Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at December 20, 2005 03:05 PM (wsdWU)

24 Badee I know Aziz - alleged release Details are slowly trickling out - what its starting to look like is "a few deals are being cut - business as usual". You doubt some kind of under the table dealin' going on? Then - feel free to enlighten me why their "quiet" release and removal from country.

Posted by: hondo at December 20, 2005 03:36 PM (3aakz)

25 I should have invested in Reynolds Aluminum and ALCOA long ago, because idiots like greg and noisy must spend hundreds of dollars a month on the stuff. Hey noise, you're so stupid it's funny. Say something else.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 20, 2005 03:39 PM (0yYS2)

26 Curious ... If they surprisingly show up at Saddam and others trials as State's witnesses ... ... and start telling stories of life under Saddam thru other venues ... Will you then dismiss them as CIA dupes?

Posted by: hondo at December 20, 2005 03:42 PM (3aakz)

27 I think BG is confused. There are plenty of sites that criticize Bush and the military from dawn to dusk, 24/7. We say here what we want, when we want, and do not have to answer to BG or any of his ilk. I've seen plenty of criticism of Bush and others here, so BG is wrong, nobody that I know on this site follows anyone lockstep. No, there are more independent thinkers here than just about anywhere, that's why I comment here. Now, back on topic, I think I'll wait and see how this one plays out. The release of these people wouldn't surprise me. Nothing does, even when BG criticizes the military for lying about something that he obviously agrees with. He's a stinker.

Posted by: jesusland joe at December 20, 2005 03:49 PM (rUyw4)

28 hondo, Care to speculate who BG is under the pay of?

Posted by: jesusland joe at December 20, 2005 04:17 PM (rUyw4)

29 BG is self-deployed (intentional misspell if he's dense) This story is breaking very slowly under the radar - the first report was an AP stringer dispatch which triggered the thread topic. I know how stringers work (especially the AP) so I didn't accept it at face value without further verification. It appears now to be true. The way the AP presented it & BG read it (and sadly - others here interpreted) was with an automatic negative spin ... actually a kneejerk reaction depending on your persuasion. BG & his ink want this to be an embarrassment for the war and the administration - but as of now I don't see how they can stretch that out of this. They will try though. BG and his like believe the Iraqi government is nothing more than a puppet of the US and will do as it is told with real power held in Washington - So why then did the US government release these prisoners? So to embarrass themselves????? There is a deal going on here - strictly business - don't know any particulars ... to read it any other way would be naive and foolish. BG is welcome to it.

Posted by: hondo at December 20, 2005 04:51 PM (3aakz)

30 I don't need to want this to be anything... fact is that Aziz will NOT be testifying against Saddam, that the guy who headed their supposed nuclear program ....Humam Abd al-Khaliq? He was the guy who surrendered with camera and media present so there was no doubt he came in willingly and without any resistance. Anyway...he will probably be released soon too. So much for mushroom clouds, nuclear weapons programs, and smoking guns. Not only aren't they charging these people with crimes alleged by Wolfie, Rummy, Bush & Co.... these guys aren't even Material Witnesses Of course, Rummy knew where the WMD were. When Wolfie gets called on his obvious bogus claims, he shrugs and says "I don't have to explain anything." You guys want to pretend you weren't lied to fine. If it makes you feel better to call me names, fine. But spare me the crocodile tears for the men and women who have been thrown into that meat grinder while you cheered.

Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at December 20, 2005 05:15 PM (wsdWU)

31 So, why were they released BG?

Posted by: hondo at December 20, 2005 05:45 PM (3aakz)

32 lol Lefties like BG think that Iraq had no B/W programs, because they get their experience from hollywood movies like "The Rock", He probably thinks WMD have a big Skull & Crossbones on them too (along with "Handle with care" in Arabic.

Posted by: dave at December 20, 2005 06:13 PM (CcXvt)

33 BG Bad intel? Hey, I heard of some real dozzies in the past. Not the first time and not the last. Multiple reasons actually given for Iraq - I can live with it. Don't recall calling you any names - I typically tend to deliberately avoid that - not my style. Last part - aaaahhhhh the soldiers ... Thanks to the volunteer military system, which we thankfully returned to 30 years ago, the current military (from generals to Privates) is a reflection of our culture - or in this case - our cultural divide or some would say cultural war. The rank and file are (to say lightly) are massively alien to you and that segment of the population you represent. Your concern for them is feigned whether war or peacetime - I know it and they know it. They are a faceless entity to you, to be used as a tool in your evergoing agitprop. Even Iraq itself is tool to you - the "issue of the day" in a wide arcing drama of cultural performance art. I do cry for soldiers - 'cause I do know them - as my friends, family, and now (after 28 years) as my sons and daughters. They have faces, phone numbers, addresses, hobbies, kids, dead batteries in winter, need a few bucks at the end of the month, etc. etc. don't cry for us BG you are a foreigner in your own land We simply share the same borders

Posted by: hondo at December 20, 2005 06:52 PM (3aakz)

34 BG may be a foreigner period. I doubt he was born in the US. Perhaps so, but as hondo says, a stranger in a strange land.

Posted by: jesusland joe at December 20, 2005 08:18 PM (rUyw4)

35 hondo, my comment re epithets was more a general one than particularly directed at you... The responses are right there on the page (unless Howie feels compelled to sanitize things) so you don't have to take my word for it... look at what people are writing in "response" to what I write. Improbus is so wounded the only thing he can think of in response is to shoot me in the head...JC can't reply to what I say so he translates it into "Libspeak" props up a straw man, knocks it down and does a happy dance. jj wanders off into delusional paranoid musings about who/what/where/how I am and forgets the topic at hand.... greyrooster just throws feces around...Oyster pouts.... Howie deletes stuff that offends him or locks people out....Rusty denies his own writings.... and you think I'm crying for you? c'mon.... how much projection can one joint handle? All in all a pretty sorry response to a single guy who wanders in and not only provides documentation when challenged, but hasn't said anything about you guys being the enemy. I realize why the regulars here are so angry.... you are afraid. You are afraid of what you don't know. You are afraid you are wrong. You are afraid of losing whatever it is that you think you have. When people lash out in blind anger they are terrified. Ever tried to rescue someone who thought they were drowning? Sometimes you have to punch the motherfucker in the face. The difference here is as much as folks flail... I don't have to worry about being pulled down with you. I don't expect you to believe this but for the record the soldiers are not nameless or faceless to me. There's plenty of military service in my family. I've got family buried at Arlington. I know people deployed. People with kids deployed. I know a divorced mom who lost her only child a few weeks before Thanksgiving in 2003. How do you set that table? I learned a friend just sent her 18 year old off to the Army. He wants to be Special Forces. There's plenty of military service in that family. So far there are 14 left of the original 50. I think he has even odds to be one of the last 4 or 5 to get through. He is ready. His dads a doc. He don't worry about his son being killed. He knows it could be worse. He could be maimed. I look at him and wonder how such a beautiful boy would find the courage to walk into a Starbucks missing an ear and so badly burned that little children would cry? I've seen that. Who do you feel worse for in that situation? The kid? Her parents? The guy? Or the girl behind the counter whose shaking so bad they have to help her at the register? It took me awhile, but I learned the trick is you have to look past the disfigured face, to really make eye contact and relate to the person still inside. Then all the scars become a kind of mask they are wearing, but it's not who they are. Sometimes there is a moment when both of you forget about the scars. I know more about mechanical limbs than I ever wanted to know. Those new German models with the computer chips so the limbs swing more naturally and save you 80% of the stress of standing up... But don't kid yourself. I'm not crying for you. I don't have that much compassion. That's what makes the CPT 4 better men than me. They have that compassion. Compassion for people who blindly follow leaders regardless of the damage they do to themselves and everyone around them in the process. Listening to the denizens of this place has been helpful to me. I am beginning to understand what Tom Fox was talking about when he said he wanted to reach a place "beyond anger and fear"... It's hard work. But I think it's the only way we get out of this alive. Finally, to answer your most recent question: I think the reason they are releasing the high profile detainees is simply this: They don't have anything to charge them with. And if that is not a clue that you were lied to by the people who KNEW where the stuff was.... then you are no different than the battered spouse who pretends the guy beating the crap out her really cares for her, he just doesn't know how to show it. 10-7

Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at December 20, 2005 11:36 PM (wsdWU)

36 Ah BG! An evil government would never "acknowledge" a mistake. It would simple leave them in prison, "arrange evidence", or even ... an accident. It would not (dare say) quietly "slip them out of the country" - a country where many of their fellow citizens would just love to talk to them and give them presents like a tire necklace. No one here is afraid - angry - Yes! So am I - we all manifest our anger differently though. I know the left all too well! Absorbed in self-examination of their own fears and pathos - personalizing the "dangers" around them - eager to emote as a ritual requirement. You define yourself by your fears - and have a need to believe that if you are afraid then others who disagree with you must be terrified. They are not - sorry. Your tone alternates and waivers. If it is an acknowledgement from me - or a hug you seek - it will not be forthcoming. Oyster pouts?????

Posted by: hondo at December 21, 2005 12:22 AM (3aakz)

37 Sorry, email full, comments closed

Posted by: Vinnie at December 21, 2005 12:40 AM (Kr6/f)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

The Wonders of Socialized Medicine

From Sky News:

Hospital bosses have apologised after maggots were found crawling in and out of an unconscious patient's nose.
Christine Ellison was in intensive care when her daughter, Nyree Ellison Anjos, made the revolting discovery.
"I thought there was something not quite right so I had a closer look and I could see maggots crawling in and out of her nose."
The maggots turned out to be fly larvae.
A statement from Gloucestershire NHS Foundation Trust said: "We would like to offer our sincere apologies to the family of Mrs Ellison for any distress caused by this incident.
"We can confirm that a very small number of maggots were found.
"The incident was incredibly rare and we took immediate steps to prevent it from happening again."

Yes, rare. So rare in fact that the hospital has gone nearly two months since their last maggot episode:

Maggots found in hospital treatment room
A hospital trust has been criticised after one of its treatment rooms had to be fumigated when maggots were found feeding on a discarded sandwich.
A corridor and room at the Gloucestershire Royal Hospital was sealed off after the maggots were discovered on October 25, hospital officials said.

Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto, now maggot-free.

Posted by: Bluto at 12:09 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 217 words, total size 2 kb.

1 My friend has gone sixteen months now waiting for a MRI from the NHS. Until he can get the MRI to give him a clean bill of health the Government has revoked his driving license due to the fact he had blackouts after a car accident. His appointment came up about four months ago, after waiting six hours he was told to go home, there were too many patients to process that day, they'd mail him a new appointment -- he is still waiting for a new appointment date. My friend worked as a truck driver, and now he is making much less money from the Government via a disability check. I doubt he thinks socialized medicine is that great either.

Posted by: dave at December 20, 2005 12:52 AM (CcXvt)

2 Grasshopper: Only when you remove the Michael Crook posts from your blog, will it truly be maggot-free.

Posted by: Vinnie at December 20, 2005 06:32 AM (Kr6/f)

3 With a little work, they might catch up with the state of health care in India: Ants eat away patientÂ’s eye in Indian hospital: (hmm, comments won't let me post a link, but you can google for these words: india ants eye patient courier eat) I think I'd prefer to die in my bed at home than risk what it takes to get cured.

Posted by: AbbaGav at December 20, 2005 06:49 AM (5XR09)

4 Whoa.

Posted by: Oyster at December 20, 2005 06:53 AM (YudAC)

5 Yum Yum. Now the office if full of food this week stop it will ya.

Posted by: Howie at December 20, 2005 08:16 AM (D3+20)

6 If anyone thinks that government health care is so great, they should join the Army, that'll straighten them out. A friend of mine was discharged with a crooked pinkie finger because in the entire US Army, they couldn't get an orthopoedist to fix it, and wouldn't let him go to a civilian hospital. I wish I could say he was a rare case, but no. I knew lots of guys, including myself, who were nearly crippled by the incompetency of military medical personnel.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 20, 2005 09:21 AM (0yYS2)

7 Okay, just couldn't help it on this one ....... The Worms crawl in, The Worms crawl out The Worms play Pinochle on your snout. Or as G. Gordon Liddy once said: "We're all just food for the worms"

Posted by: memphis761 at December 20, 2005 10:11 AM (D3+20)

8 The Democrats think it is the best thing since sliced bread. And they intend to socialize medicine as soon as it is feasible(they get the majority). Heaven forbid!

Posted by: jesusland joe at December 20, 2005 10:12 AM (rUyw4)

9 I think that anyone who wants socialized medicine should get it, which would be exactly what they deserve.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 20, 2005 11:30 AM (0yYS2)

10 Agent Smith says that if you think socialized medicine is bad, try taking the red pill.

Posted by: Agent Smith at December 21, 2005 06:14 AM (CpR+U)

11 The red pill leads to socialized medicine, Smith, along with too many other ills for me to mention in the small amount of time I have to comment. Perhaps later, but my point is well taken.

Posted by: jesusland joe at December 21, 2005 06:13 PM (rUyw4)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

December 19, 2005

Heads We Win, Tails You Lose

Arab leaders are calling for the Middle East to be free of nuclear weapons. The only problem is that they would have the ban enforced only against Israel.

From The Daily Star (Lebanon):

Gulf Arab leaders called on Monday for a nuclear weapons-free Middle East, but singled out only Israel, not Iran, despite having voiced alarm at Tehran's nuclear ambitions at the end of their two-day summit.

Somehow I don't see Israel going along with this idea.

Posted by: Bluto at 09:15 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 88 words, total size 1 kb.

BBC Warns on Use of the Word 'Terrorism'

The staff at the BBC has been issued new management guidance regarding the use of the terms 'terrorist' and 'terrorism.' The BBC's governors believe that the Internet has eliminated differences between domestic and overseas audiences and, therefore, it's essential that the terms be used carefully.

From MediaGuardian.co.uk:

The new guidance has been sent out internally and tells journalists: "The guidelines do not ban the use of the word. However, we do ask that careful thought is given to its use by a BBC voice. There are ways of conveying the full horror and human consequences of acts of terror without using the word 'terrorist' to describe the perpetrators."

So, apparently it's okay to describe the terrorism as long as the word 'terrorism' isn't used. Also, whoever is responsible for bad stuff that happens shouldn't be described as 'terrorists.' Therefore, instead of stating, "A terrorist bombed the crowded school bus," it's more appropriate to state, "A man created full horror and human consequence on a crowded school bus." And, the guidance continues.

"Careful use of the word 'terrorist' is essential if the BBC is to maintain its reputation for standards of accuracy and especially impartiality ... that does not mean we should emasculate our reporting or otherwise avoid conveying the reality and horror of what has occurred; but we should consider the impact our use of language may have on our reputation for objective journalism amongst our many audiences ... we must be careful not to give the impression that we have come to some kind of implicit - and unwarranted - value judgement."

Blah ... blah ... blah. That last paragraph reads like gibberish. However, that's not all there is.

The edict reminds BBC staff of the existing BBC editorial policy, which states: "The word 'terrorist' itself can be a barrier rather than aid to understanding. We should try to avoid the term without attribution. We should let other people characterise while we report the facts as we know them."
"We should not adopt other people's language as our own. It is also usually inappropriate to use words like 'liberate', 'court martial' or 'execute' in the absence of a clear judicial process. We should convey to our audience the full consequences of the act by describing what happened. We should use words which specifically describe the perpetrator such as 'bomber', 'attacking', 'gunman', 'kidnapper' 'insurgent' and 'militant'."
The new guidance suggested using words such as "bomb attack" instead, or "bomber" or "assassin". [sic all]

Boiled down, the substance of the new policy is to avoid using the term 'terrorist' and practice hedging the wording of all reports. My interpretation? "Forget accuracy, be political."

Of course, this announced new guidance begs the question of what exactly is different from the way the BBC currently reports the news?

Companion post at Interested-Participant.

Posted by: Mike Pechar at 11:57 AM | Comments (47) | Add Comment
Post contains 478 words, total size 3 kb.

1 >>>"The word 'terrorist' itself can be a barrier rather than aid to understanding. And this, folks, it's what it's all about to the Libs-- "understanding" the terrorists. After all, homicidal maniacs have their own reasons too, right? If only these Libs spent so much time and energy trying to "understand" us conservatives. That'll be the day.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 19, 2005 12:03 PM (8e/V4)

2 "if the BBC is to maintain its reputation for standards and accuracy and especially impartiality" This from a media group that was banned from British warships in 2003 for biased war reporting. As far as the BBC is concerned, Britain has already fallen and is now under new management. Disgraceful.

Posted by: Graeme at December 19, 2005 12:18 PM (Wtu+d)

3 ". . .we must be careful not to give the impression that we have come to some kind of implicit - and unwarranted - value judgement." Oh, the irony!

Posted by: heroyalwhyness at December 19, 2005 12:36 PM (XU9K/)

4 "If only these Libs spent so much time and energy trying to "understand" us conservatives. That'll be the day." OK, I'm fed up with this. JC, what's this "us conservatives" crap? You think sitting around listening to Ann Coulter with your pants around your ankles and bitching about "Libs" makes you a conservative? A conservative has a true set of principals and values: small government, fiscal responsibility, and basically staying the hell out of people's lives. This administation -- and I'm a guy that voted Republican UNTIL the boob in office now -- does nothing, repeat nothing for the true conservative cause. They're rich, they're powerful, all they want to do is hold onto their power and they don't give a SHIT about guys like you -- unless its time for you to vote that is. If all the knee-jerk, Limbaugh-loving supporters of this administration knew they're being about as conservative as Ted Kennedy, I'm certain they'd change their tunes.

Posted by: hooligan at December 19, 2005 01:25 PM (oxMjD)

5 hooligan, I see. You Libs can "understand" terrorists, but you won't even try to "understand" me. Case closed.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 19, 2005 01:29 PM (8e/V4)

6 Did you read the post? I'm not a LIB, I'm a guy that voted for Ronald Reagan twice and Bush Sr. twice!

Posted by: holligan at December 19, 2005 01:32 PM (oxMjD)

7 holligan, that's great, I have my beef with Bush too. But far more beef with the Left. Don't you? And we're talking about the Left right now.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 19, 2005 01:38 PM (8e/V4)

8 So I'm not the only one who listens to Ann with my pants down?

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 19, 2005 01:40 PM (0yYS2)

9 No, YOU'RE talking about the left; we should be talking about how governments work or don't work, no mattter what side of the aisle they represent. I will not automatically throw my support behind a hypocrite who calls himself a conservative if his policies are bullshit. And this administration's policies are bullshit. When the left's polices are bullshit Â—Â—and dont' get me wrong, they usually are-- I'll call it that too. I'm just tired of they way people don't even think about what they're supporting anymore, and instead back their "party" like they back their "team" on NFL Sunday. Enough!!!

Posted by: hooligan at December 19, 2005 01:44 PM (oxMjD)

10 The problem, hooligan, is there ain't another game in town. If you will find me another team, man, I'll support them. But the reality is that we have the Republicans and the Democrats. And no matter how hard I try, I can and will not ever vote for the Dems, now the party of the traitors. Sorry!

Posted by: jesusland joe at December 19, 2005 01:56 PM (rUyw4)

11 Joe, not true, there are other alternatives. We can continue voting Republican, but we have to get back to insisting that they be real conservatives, not just anti-liberals. And they're IS a difference. I don't like these guys we've got now because they're big money, corporate interest guys, just like the Dems when they were in power. Besides talking more about God -- and I think a lot of that is lip-service--I see damn little difference between the two. Let's start voting for people becasue of who they are, not because of who they are not!!!

Posted by: Hooligan at December 19, 2005 02:07 PM (oxMjD)

12 hooligan, I think conservatives are doing a good job at making themselves heard by Bush on the issues we disagree with (much of his domestic agenda), but we also support him on those issues where he's doing the right thing. I happen to agree with this administration's foreign policy, as do most conservatives. Sorry if you don't, but that doesn't make you more pure than me.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 19, 2005 02:08 PM (8e/V4)

13 JC, it's not really a matter of purity, it's a matter or practicality. True, I think much of the Bush foreign policy has been a sort of make-it-up-as-we-go construct, and I do have my doubts if the benefits will outweigh the costs in lives and money. But hell, I could be wrong. I just think these guys are now what the Democarates were 20 years ago...tone deaf to the American public.

Posted by: Hooligan at December 19, 2005 02:18 PM (oxMjD)

14 hooligan, I used to think they was making it up as they went along too to some extent, and then I read a book by George Friedman of Stratfor called "America's Secret War." They know what they're doing: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0385512457/qid=1135023961/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/002-8711954-4228011?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 19, 2005 02:28 PM (8e/V4)

15 Graeme, Yes, the BBC is disgraceful to say the least, but I think traitorous is a better word to describe their behavior. They seem to be more concerned about how the jihadists will react to their terminology rather than whether it is correct or not. I wonder. Isn't the BBC an organ of the British government? The fact that it continues this disgraceful behavior under the auspices of the government of the UK says a lot about Britain and who is in charge. Can nothing be done with the BBC? Are they responsible to no one or thing? Does anyone know?

Posted by: jesusland joe at December 19, 2005 02:37 PM (rUyw4)

16 jesusland joe I understand yours and everyone elses frustration with the BBC - but it's an internal British thing so I'm not going to sweat it. The same cultural and ideological battles between left & right (check that - left and common sense) that's being fought here is also going on there. It's more subdued and the right/common sense side is dis-organised and a lot less effective. It's their thing - let them play it out. I find anger over it ineffective (and the left likes anger (theirs and ours)). I find mocking laughter to be a better tool - the left hates to be laughed at and held up for comic ridicule.)

Posted by: hondo at December 19, 2005 03:16 PM (3aakz)

17 Maybe the BBC would prefer calling them "bunnies" or "muffins" or something similarly non-judgemental. You know, wouldn't want to be a barrier to "understanding" ...

Posted by: D. Carter at December 19, 2005 03:41 PM (Suv/B)

18 I hear ya Hondo, the BBC is a problem for the Brits to sort out, but for me the frustration stems most from what the BBC used to be. For many decades the BBC was considered the most respected news service in the world. It's what many people literally in the middle of nowhere depended on to stay current. Now that respectability is completely gone. JJ, the BBC isn't government run, it's just heavily subsidised by the government using that insane tv license. If the government really wanted to, they could do something about it, but Nu Labour is a strange breed. Yes Blair is going along with the GWOT, but he and his party are pushing a politically correct / nanny state agenda almost the same (in some respects far worse) than the US Dems, so I suppose there's no incentive.

Posted by: Graeme at December 19, 2005 04:03 PM (Wtu+d)

19 IMO the BBC started to plunge downhill when - to save money - they started to tailor domestic radio (and to a lesser extent TV shows) so the same shows (typically news, politics and current events) could be recycled as part of the BBC World Service for overseas listeners/viewers. So the domestic audience gets news and politics that is spun in a way intended to appeal to listeners in the Middle East, Africa and the Indian sub-continent. That's what not calling a terrorist a terrorist is all about. They don't want to alienate potential listeners in Pakistan or Iran etc. The BBC itself is paid for by the British public through 'licence fees' but the World Service is paid for by the UK government since it has a propaganda and prestige aspect. Obviously the two need to be ruthlessly separated to avoid continuing contamination of the domestic services. It also doesn't help that the BBC elites recruit all their staff thru the job pages of the like-minded Guardian!

Posted by: John O'Connor at December 19, 2005 04:10 PM (HFpoN)

20 I get all the foreign services and watch them - I just don't get it. The others have female announcers who are (dare say) hot babes - especially RAI! But the BBC? What's the problem! They do have a couple of stand-ins - ethnic middle-eastern & sub-continent - who definitely derserve a lot more air time! I try to look at things from all angles.

Posted by: hondo at December 19, 2005 04:30 PM (3aakz)

21 Britain is in poor shape at the moment. You all do realise that in the current socio/political climate over there Monty Python and Benny Hill would have never make it on the air.

Posted by: hondo at December 19, 2005 04:45 PM (3aakz)

22 Is the BBC really concerned that the terrorists won't buy their rag? :] Seriously, when your speech is constrained by what it could possibly be interpreted as, you're already a dhimmy.

Posted by: Cheapshot911 at December 19, 2005 04:55 PM (PDG3N)

23 Agent Smith says that without accuracy, the straight shot rag becomes a blunderbuss.

Posted by: Agent Smith at December 20, 2005 05:56 AM (7pPFo)

24 The word TERRORIST might hurt the feeling of the terrorists whats came over the BBC?

Posted by: sandpiper at December 20, 2005 09:03 AM (jAP6C)

25 Britain is lost, as is the rest of Europe, and will both have subhuman muslim majorities within probably twenty years or so. It sickens me that the land of my ancestors will be inhabited by these subhuman scum. Muslims should be exterminated like the plague-ridden vermin they are.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 20, 2005 09:26 AM (0yYS2)

26 IM, you sound like a real fucking genius. Or a skin-head. Fortunately for the rest of the world, your views are held pretty much to this venue Â— where you and your eight pissed-off friends can feel safe agreeing with each other. Go back to the bar you live at and pick up your KKK hood.

Posted by: Riff at December 20, 2005 09:44 AM (UHKaK)

27 And you must be ragingtulip - (inside joke)

Posted by: hondo at December 20, 2005 11:21 AM (3aakz)

28 Well, dumbass, I am in fact a real fucking genius, at least according to MENSA, so fuck you, moron. My views are really those of the majority, but most people are too nice to say what they really think. You and the rest of the idiot dhimmis need to be killed along with the muslims when the time comes.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 20, 2005 11:34 AM (0yYS2)

29 Sure you're a genius, sure you are--like the MENSA standards had fallen so far. Well, if you get time,give them a ring and tell them they fucked up; they forgot to add "bigot" to your resume, dick-breath. Pissed-off little weiners that huddle in their rooms like diseased monkeys and plot their "revolutions" on blog sites are about the saddest fuckers around. Guess that's the price of being a "genius," eh? HA! If anybody is offed "when the times comes" I hoping its Nazis like you.

Posted by: Riff at December 20, 2005 12:25 PM (UHKaK)

30 well a typical leftist accusation thrown out. Of course im speaking of "nazi" . Define Plague, and look at the characteristics,trends, and spread of islam, tell me they are not synonymous (plague and islam). And Riff, his views are held by most of the world, they're just not allowed to express them because they have been deemed ILLEGAL. Europe is turning into shit because of PC'ness and liberalism we're just trying to defend the home front. If he hates islam (as I do) it does not make him a racist a nazi or an idiot. I hate cancer...Does that make me dumb? Liberalism is a mental disorder. Which political wing's agenda are trying to spark a revolution?

Posted by: Alexander at December 20, 2005 01:21 PM (JnnHL)

31 congrats maxie! You really irked that lil' troll, especially with the MENSA hook! Note - his ENTIRE second paragraph is a mirror image of himself! I could have written that paragraph myself (maybe I did in the past) as a typical left troll discription! We need a decent archives! I think I've been plagarized!

Posted by: hondo at December 20, 2005 01:39 PM (3aakz)

32 Look, I know it's tough on you guys when you sit back and realize you're nothing more than cum stains on the boxer shorts of the world. But you are going to have to come to grips with the facts: you are bigoted, narrow-minded fucks that show up here, shielded by the anonymity of the Internet, not to hold intelligent discussions, but to agree with each other. That seems to support a delusion that the entire world shares your views. Sitting in your one-room apartments, plunking away at your keyboards, screeching about the scary liberals, talking ONLY to those of a like-mind gives you no special insights, no grand understanding of "the way it is", no legitimacy and nothing special to say. If it helps you vent, go for it Â— better than beating your wives or plucking wings off flies. But please, don't have the unmitigated balls to think you speak for any kind of majority. There is no way, NO way any significant number of Americans share the fucked-up viewpoints of human waste like Improbulus Maximus. I don't know any; but then again, I don't belong to the Aryan Brotherhood. If most right-wing blog sites are like this one, filled with no more than a half-dozen or so morons with delusions of importance, I think the world will be OK. So go ahead, post your responses to this, rave about the fucked-up "dhimmis", agree with each other and, finally, call for revolution. I'm signing off and will never see it. You douche-bags are way too annoying.

Posted by: Riff at December 20, 2005 01:51 PM (UHKaK)

33 Hooligan sides with the likes of John Traitor Kerry and Gail Sheehan, comes here repeating Defeatocrat talking points, rants about the eevils of Rush Limbaugh... then gets torqued when people call him a liberal? If it looks like a duck...

Posted by: DaveP. at December 20, 2005 01:52 PM (6iy97)

34 haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. I thought conservatives were only Rich and educated. Keep contradicting your own argument.

Posted by: Alex at December 20, 2005 02:05 PM (JnnHL)

35 Hey Riffken, Who are the annoying fucktards walking around ranting like fucking mongoloids that lost a crayon on the street corner holding picket signs on how eating steak is murderous? its not us "douche-bags" its your liberal open minded posse. The most annoying groups of HUMANS on this planet. MEAT IS MURDER 1234 we dont need your stinking war... Shut up it died in the 60's and people hated them too. Common sense rules! Go find the missing crayon, and find out which chromsones your missing and stfu.

Posted by: Alexander at December 20, 2005 02:14 PM (JnnHL)

36 Yo, slow down, buddy ... you're spitting all over everybody.

Posted by: Darth Evader at December 20, 2005 02:19 PM (UHKaK)

37 Riff's funny! and helpful too! The tired wornout discriptive cliches are extremely important to him (and totally useless no less). Typically the left places itself on a pedestal and defines itself by camparative analysis to its perceived foes. Its all self-delusional of course, which renders it totally ineffective. But they can't (and refuse) to see that - which is fine by me. Simple example - Riff is big because others (he distains) are small. The only basis (or measurement)for this exists solely in his mind.

Posted by: hondo at December 20, 2005 02:34 PM (3aakz)

38 The disease just angers me, i will slow down. Sorry.

Posted by: Alexander at December 20, 2005 02:41 PM (JnnHL)

39 Heh. Yeah, I noticed that too, hondo. I've found that when libtards and other fanatics start flinging invective like monkeys tossing their own crap, they're usually projecting heavily, which goes far explaining why they're so angry. I suspect that most of them were molested as children, or were the schoolyard punching bag, or both, as there are few other things that can screw someone up so bad.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 20, 2005 03:43 PM (0yYS2)

40 I'm still adding up all the elections they have won in the past few years, Maxie. Oh, yeah, 0(zero). Haha!

Posted by: jesusland joe at December 20, 2005 04:01 PM (rUyw4)

41 I'm conservative, and BBC usually seems a bit pink to me, but they have it right this time. A journalist's job is to report the facts, not what he thinks about the facts. This isn't a new idea. Ancient Greek philosopher Epictetus put it roughly thus: "If a man drinks much wine, don't say he has a drinking problem. Say rather, 'He drinks much wine.' If a man bathes rarely, don't say he has a hygene problem. Say rather, 'He bathes rarely.'" It takes self-discipline and humility, but it keeps you from confusing what you know with your opinions about what you know. A professional news article has facts in it. Reporters who have opinions about the facts get to fight over the editorial page. Of course, neither you nor I have any reason to care what some flunky infotainer thinks about a car bomb, so let's forget about Op-Ed and stick to facts. BBC is right by saying that using "terrorist" carelessly could get you in trouble with the facts. For instance, suppose a bomb goes off on a school bus in Baghdad. What else could it be? "A terrorist attack on a school bus in Baghdad today left 11 children dead..." you'd say if you were the reporter. But what are you going to say next week when the investigation discovers that actually one of the kids found a landmine and tried to bring it to school to show his friends? You look like a fool.

Posted by: ShannonKW at December 20, 2005 07:43 PM (dT1MB)

42 "A journalist's job is to report the facts". Now just what the hell has the facts got to do with the BBC. They quit reporting the facts a long time ago, soon after Epictetus made the allusion you refer to. Or it seems so, anyway. That's just funny you putting the BBC and facts in the same sentence. And looking like a fool is what the BBC does on an hourly basis these days. Shannon, you sound like a recent j-school graduate.

Posted by: jesusland joe at December 20, 2005 09:14 PM (rUyw4)

43 So if a bomb goes off in a school bus in Baghdad you believe it behooves you to hold judgement - like maybe lil' johnny just dropped his lunchbox and it went boom type thing? That's deep! With a hypothetical like that who is the fool here?

Posted by: hondo at December 20, 2005 10:42 PM (3aakz)

44 Actually, I'm an electrical engineer, but I know what news is. BBC does suck, yes, but in this narrow case I believe they are adhering to good form. It's not like they are demanding that amputees be called "differently-limbed" or some other PC dodge. They don't want their people to assume terrorism every time a truck backfires on on the Baghdad freeway. They're not trying to be sensitive to the feelings of terrorists. BBC has some facts, usually. Their method of bias is the same as every other big Western news house's--facts dealing with pet causes go to the head of the line. They have a real hard-on (so to speak) for women's rights. If coital queefing is decriminalized in Kyrgyzstan they'll make space to trumpet it as a victory, nevermind if a civil war just broke out in that country. They give you facts, just not all the facts. If you know of a world news outlet that does post all the facts, please post a link.

Posted by: ShannonKW at December 20, 2005 11:00 PM (dT1MB)

45 ...oh, and hondo, since you don't like my hypothetical case, here's a real-world one. Remember the bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building? Remember how, right after that, every newsman and his dog was going off about how "terrorism has finally reached our shores," and speculating about what type of Muslim fanatic did the deed? Remember the embarassment when the FBI nabbed some pink, clean-cut, Christian terrorists? I sure do. It was funny to watch. If I recall correctly, my local news anchor said... "Er... Uhm... Wuh-wuh-wuh-well, we just *assumed*..." Everybody knows how "ASS-U-ME" breaks down. Getting your facts straight isn't the same thing as being liberal.

Posted by: ShannonKW at December 20, 2005 11:22 PM (dT1MB)

46 Well, now haven't we heard everything?? I think not- - to the BBC I say "GET REAL, a damn terrorist is just that-a terrorist and if an horrendous act of terrorism is committed, then that's exactly what it is-terrorism! Get off your "politically correct high horse and try "realism". It is what it is! J Gagnon-Golden CO-USA and proud of it!

Posted by: June Gagnon at December 21, 2005 12:57 AM (2FzlO)

47 shannon Relax. My only comment was with the hypothetical you presented - let's be honest - it was terrible! I did understand your point - your followup was dead on the money. Actually, I do agree with you. I do in fact use the BBC and one of my primary sources of information. "Assumptions" drawn from minimal information is a human trait and failing - and natural. Constructive analysis does not come easy - especially when emotions enter the equation. We are in related fields - objective analysis goes with the job - but we had to learn it.

Posted by: hondo at December 21, 2005 01:26 AM (3aakz)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

New CSIS Report on the Iraq War

Tony Cordesman, at the Center for Strategic and International Studies has a new report on the Iraq War (h/t: Dan, at WoC). Some key excerpts:

The insurgency so far lacks any major foreign support other than limited amounts of money, weapons, and foreign supporters. It does not have the support of most Shi'ites and Kurds, who make up some 70-80% of the population. If Iraqi forces become effective in large numbers, if the Iraqi government demonstrates that its success means the phase out of Coalition forces, and if the Iraqi government remains inclusive in dealing with Sunnis willing to come over to its side, the insurgency should be defeated over time -- although some cadres could then operate as diehards at the terrorist level for a decade or more.

Apparently he didn't get the memo about the conflict being unwinnable, but he does genuflect in that general direction:

To succeed, the US must plan for failure as well as success. It must see the development or escalation of insurgency as a serious risk in any contingency were (sic) it is possible, and take preventive and ongoing steps to prevent or limit it. This is an essential aspect of war planning and no Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, service chief, or unified and specified commander can be excused for failing to plan and act in this area. Responsibility begins directly at the top, and failures at any other level pale to insignificance by comparison.

Well I don't have the endowments of Cordesman, but let me offer a few observations. First, one must assume that he's not suggesting we "plan to fail," although some will probably accuse him of that. Rather, what he suggests is that our war planning is too infused with "happy talk," and is therefore not realistic about the capabilities of this enemy. Although I have a great deal of confidence in our military, it's possible that Cordesman is right and we aren't taking the threat of "failure" seriously enough. Which raises the next issue.

There's a lot of difference between "planning for failure" in the sense of having contingencies should Iraq, or the Ummah, descend into civil war, and addressing the specific set of conditions that could lead to civil war. Conflating the two is like saying that knowing what you intend to do after the divorce is the same as dealing with the marital difficulties that could lead to divorce. Cordesman seems to imply the second meaning, but the first is also important. After all, Victor Davis Hanson doesn't think a civil war in the Middle East necessarily the worst that could happen. And if Hanson is right then what we ought to consider is what role we might play in such a war, since the consequences are probably not something we could just afford to ignore. Whether or not we "fail" in that sense isn't entirely up to us. The onus rests partly on the Iraqis.

But finally, the phrase "planning for failure" just doesn't strike this reader as appropriate to war strategy or tactics. I'm fairly certain that Eisenhower considering Project Overlord, and Grant when he made the right turn to steal a march on Lee, were both fully cognizant of the risks and contingencies involved. But I'm also pretty sure they never used the phrase "planning for failure" to describe how they dealt with those contingencies. The words don't seem to emerge from the lexicon of military planning, but from the world of diplomacy. And if we're in a war then diplomacy has already failed in the first instance. So what we're really talking about is not "failure" but cascading failures, and whether the cascade can ultimately be halted before reaching the third conjecture.

And that's the whole point behind going into Iraq in the first place. The next plateau in the cascade would be a civil war, but even that's not as bad as it gets.

[Update: The link to Three Conjectures has been corrected. Apparently the old links I had to that series have been degraded as a result of some sort of Blogger glitch.]

Posted by: Demosophist at 11:34 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 667 words, total size 5 kb.

1 We failed ourselves when we learned that the reasons congress gave GW the power to use force were not as given, and we did not demand of our congressional leaders that they stop the war in Iraq at once. Now we and our grandchildren will pay for this inhumane act.

Posted by: Clyde Preston at December 19, 2005 06:11 PM (QQwQt)

2 And you and your future grandchildren were just fine with the inhumane Saddam Hussein?

Posted by: hondo at December 19, 2005 06:27 PM (3aakz)

3 I am surely guilty of playing fast and loose with rhetoric. It offers another perspective as an exercise at least. Iraq War: A "controlled" civil war from day one imo. Hiding in plain sight is a historically unique War. Unique, at the very least, because another superpower is not organized and involved. In the world's most volatile region a Superpower/Coalition attacked an agressive front by creating Democracy (and free markets) in a violently ruled country. The knowledge of three factions grabbing at a post-invasion power vacuum in Iraq could not have been overlooked by the US/Coalition. Let's give the big monkeys some credit! /allusion /sarcasim NEXT: To me it is utterly irrelevant what rhetoric justified cause for War. There are other obvious reasons for a power move in the postsoviet era; Just one is MidEast regional stability which pertains to all industry worldwide fueled by oil. And that is basically "ALL" industry. Who else has the power to do such? The Russian Soviets were a control on some of these now active Muslim populations. It is the amoral struggle for power which is eternal and always present in anything human from the general to the specific. NEXT: Why question the possibility of a civil war in Iraq when the Arab/Persian/Muslim locals constantly dream of destroying Israel. A full blown civil war in Iraq with heavy support from neighboring states would cost the MidEast nations. They know the USA will wear them down. So my guess is that they would attack Israel, as many times before, to maintain their totalitarian states before they would they would ever want to fuel a severe civil war in Iraq. Of course the MSM agitprop could spin any reality into a different perspective. Proof: The MSM has never called the Iraq War a controlled civil war even though most of the attacks in Iraq are sectarian. NOTE: By the above remarks I am not discounting the long term reality of attacks in Iraq. Though any minute now the number of bomber deaths will be less than the car crash death rate just as everywhere else in the world.

Posted by: postsoviet at December 19, 2005 11:39 PM (kgN3A)

4 I forgot to mention the Kurdish region which probably has a lower crime rate than South Centrral LosAngeles or Camden New Jersey. Turkey is afraid that the Kurds will attack them. Why, relatively speaking, is that funny when we're talking about civil war in Iraq...?

Posted by: postsoviet at December 19, 2005 11:49 PM (kgN3A)

5 Agent Jones had the plan: DRAFT NOW!! Flood Iraq with 500,000 American Troops, make an alliance with the Baathists, take down the terrorists and then deal with panty-head Jihadidad.

Posted by: Agent Smith at December 20, 2005 05:58 AM (7pPFo)

6 Hey Clyde, just so you know; you're an idiot, and probably should seek help, because you're stupid enough to be a danger to society.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 20, 2005 09:23 AM (0yYS2)

7 FRANCE IS WORST! THEN ARAB/GAZA! THEN MALASIA! I ALSO FORGOT to mention that the Kurdish Region probably has a lower crime rate than FRANCE!!! DAMN! Fell into that trap of disserve to the Nation by rhetoric. I should check the stats on those places 'cause the rates are probably actually down. Too Much Lib Media!

Posted by: postsoviet at December 20, 2005 01:56 PM (iO4Bq)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

President: Patriot Act Obstruction 'Inexcusable'

The President came out swinging at his press conference this morning, singling out Congressional Democrats and RINOs for obstructing the Patriot Act, and offering no apologies for authorizing NSA monitoring of international phone calls and emails involving suspected terrorists.

Here are some highlights from a Washington Post transcript of the press conference: more...

Posted by: Bluto at 11:22 AM | Comments (29) | Add Comment
Post contains 417 words, total size 3 kb.

1 I swear I don't know what to think. The RINO's seem as bent on our defeat as the dhimmis and terorrists. They should all be tried and shot for treason, starting with McCain.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 19, 2005 11:47 AM (0yYS2)

2 I've never really like the Partiot act for the following reasons. The name. Freedom is precious. Note history. Can it be said we are more free now than in 1900? So the natural progression is the erosion of freedom. What I would really hate is for UBL or other terrorists to be sitting around saying. Well we trolled the silly Americans into giving up some of their precious freedom. I'd rather fight them than give an ounce of it away. I don't want them to have the satisfaction. So that being said we do need tools and methods for this war. The best possible answer is sundown dates. Currently they are too close together. But neither do I want them removed. What I would like is for the terrorists to be defeated and at some point the damn thing expire. What do I think will happen? It will pass and eventually it will become entirely permanent.At some point some other use for it will come and freedom will be eroded. So for attacking my nation and trolling America to trade freedom for security I hope every last one of them get's his. Here IM http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/18/142705.shtml

Posted by: Howie at December 19, 2005 11:55 AM (D3+20)

3 Our history is full of freedoms temporarily compromised during wartime: the Alien and Sedition Act, Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus, Roosevelt's internment of Japanese-Americans. But all were redressed when peace came. Sure, until the end of the nineteenth century it was legal to resist arrest without a warrant, but I don't really miss the absence of that "freedom". Do you?

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at December 19, 2005 12:02 PM (RHG+K)

4 Whoa, whoa, whoa here. True, this is definitely not the first time the National Security Agency has overstepped its original intent. All through the 60s and 70s Cold War era, this agency was collecting information on US citizens they deemed as "dangerous" to national security. The fact is, the vast majority were dangerous alright, but not to national security threat. They were dangerous to the administration in charge. That is precisely the reason why, in 1978, Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, establishing a secretive foreign intelligence court, staffed by federal judges, to authorize intelligence-related warrants. The Bush administation NSA today, however, bypassed even the FISA court, which imposes only a minimal check. Why is that? The need to "move quickly is how I think President Bush explained it. But that doesn't hold up: FISA already contains an exception for emergencies that allows the attorney general to authorize foreign intelligence surveillance for up to 72 hours without judicial approval. Also, I don't get how news of the NSAÂ’s program Â“alerts our enemies,Â” as president argued: FISA allows the same surveillance to be conducted under the rule of law. Could it be this is another dubious action the President and his advisors didn't think would pass the scrutiny of Congress? The orginal Church Committee of the mid-70s found that an agency without a legal mandate easily becomes an agency operating beyond the law. The NSA, concluded Church, had simply Â“not applied at allÂ” the legal standards and procedures for electronic surveillance. Other agencies, including the FBI, simply failed to look into the legality of their actions. And defending the breaking of laws by noting this is a "time of war" is no better than defending it by saying "But we only do it on Tuesdays." My point is, are we truly a nation of laws? Or are we a nation where one man (yes, even the President), unchecked, can choose to ignore laws passed by previous legislators, without informing Congress at large and clearly? If we are to make the claim that we are exporters of democracy and open government, and actually have it believed by the average guy in Iraq, we'd better choose the first one.

Posted by: Mark at December 19, 2005 12:44 PM (oxMjD)

5 I think if you could Give Bluto and I fifteen minutes on this we could come up with an agreement that was simple and got the job done.

Posted by: Howie at December 19, 2005 01:26 PM (D3+20)

6 So Mark, was FDR's censoring of the mail in WW2 legal or illegal? Cue Jeopardy theme...

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 19, 2005 01:48 PM (0yYS2)

7 IM; I'm not sure; could've been illegal I suppose, though the NSA and FISA did not exist at that time. What's your point?

Posted by: Mark at December 19, 2005 01:54 PM (oxMjD)

8 No, Mark, we are not a nation of laws. Right now, our immigration laws are being flaunted by numerous jurisdictions such as LA and NYC. They refuse to enforce immigration laws, yet I see or hear very little opposition to the lack of enforcement of law written by the Congress of the United States. No, my friend, the rule of law is a farce. The liberals only want it when it supports one of their policies. And liberals are the first to throw it aside when it fits into their agenda. Hence the unauthorized spying by the Clinton Administation.

Posted by: jesusland joe at December 19, 2005 02:12 PM (rUyw4)

9 Well, if that is the case, then it is a sad statement on ourselves as a people indeed, and we no longer deserve the title we've given ourselves as "exporters of freedom."

Posted by: Mark at December 19, 2005 02:22 PM (oxMjD)

10 Mark, how much freedom do you we feel we should give to say, covert operations run by foreign nationals intent on using our system to subvert it? As an example let's use so-called "peace" organizations that operated during the Vietnam War, which were actually Soviet-funded fronts designed to sew discontent and ultimately played a large role in Congress' shameful actions to abandon our south Vietnamese allies? Millions died as a result. Is it your position that Constitutional protections to US citizens should apply to hostile foreign nationals during a time of war, or do you just hate President Bush?

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at December 19, 2005 02:51 PM (RHG+K)

11 Ah, Mark, don't be too hard on the US or its people. What I wanted to show you is that the US is not perfect, nor should anyone expect us to be. But the liberals only want to bring up the subject of the US being a nation of laws when it fits their agenda, but flaunt the law whenever they want to. It's called hypocrisy, and that's the pervue of the liberals.

Posted by: jesusland joe at December 19, 2005 02:56 PM (rUyw4)

12 Interesting when the left attacks the use of an Executive Order and circumventing the constitution, how about this one: "Government by Decree: From President to Dictator through Executive Orders" ISBN: 1-56384-166-5 A crucial executive order, President Directive (P.D.D 25), was executed by President Clinton in 1994. The State Department released a summary of the directive, but the details of P.D.D remain classified to this very day. Nevertheless, the summary does indicate that the president has the power to place the U.S armed forces under foreign command." ... "Some interesting research was conducted prior to the signing of P.D.D 25. A Combat Arms Survey was distributed to a group of U.S Marines, which asked among other things, whether the participants would be willing to fire on U.S citizens. One of the true or false hypothetical arguments read as follows: The U.S government declares a ban on the possession, sale, transportation, and transfer of all non-sporting firearms. A thirty(30) day amnesty period is permitted for these firearms to be turned over to the local authorities. At the end of this period, a number of citizen groups refuse to turn over their firearms. Concider the following statement: I would fire upon U.S citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S Government." So there is a two for one right there, placing the military under foreign control (United Nations), questioning confiscation of non-sporting weapons, and the questioning if the U.S Marines would enforce it. However lets impeach this President for intercepting foreign communications of suspected terrorists.

Posted by: dave at December 19, 2005 03:02 PM (CcXvt)

13 howie made an excellent point early on. But first, this NSA thing has no legs and is just another exercise of BDS. Sundown requirements and clearly defined target specific laws make sense. Need I remind everyone how something like the RICO Act came to be used as a general tool of use based on the ideology of the moment.

Posted by: hondo at December 19, 2005 03:23 PM (3aakz)

14 Wait a sec...I was making the point that knowingly circumventing law is...well, illegal. There is a very specific set of laws, debated in Congress, passed into law by that same body on a bi-partisan basis nearly 30 years ago that dictate how wiretaps are to be carried out. That law does not change according to the circumstances. That's the whole idea of a "law," to prevent undertaking certain actions deemed objectionable based on fluid circumstances. You can of course change the law, which required addressing Congress. President Bush could have done that, but I believe he only approached a select few members on an informal basis in Cheney's office and it isn't clear that he literally said wiretaps would be performed. Lindsay Graham didn't seem to know, nor Arlen Specter. Yes, I'm concerned by agencies and administrations that seem willing to blow off laws passed by Congress (remember anyone that whole "checks-and-balances" thing in the Constitution?) in the name of our "security" (wasn't it Ben Franklin who said, "Those who would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both? Yes.) I'm also concerend by a President that endows himself powers and privileges not outlined by the Consitution nor authorized by Congress (didn't we fight something called the "Revolution" to limit the powers of a president so he would not become king?) I don't know what other Prsidents did, including Bill Clintom. This is not a defense of him, of the Democrats, of Karl Marx or the King of goddam Prussia. This is in defense of what our country stands for, not just now, but for the long term, and how it effects our ability to influence world events. I don't know who the hell is coming to get our guns, or have our Marines shoot at each other or civilians, or how we're becoming the piss-boys of the U.N. I'm talking about practical matters that will effect how well we hold onto our power in the years to come!

Posted by: Mark at December 19, 2005 04:09 PM (oxMjD)

15 I think dave played a trump on your pair of 3's, Mark. Sorry, what Bush did looks like kid stuff compared to what your boy Bill had in mind. At least to us Jesuslanders who were the intended fodder for the Marine bullets, if they had been willing.

Posted by: jesusland joe at December 19, 2005 04:25 PM (rUyw4)

16 Lord, here comes the "Clinton Defense" , this idea that anyone who breaks a federal law--literally a law-- gets to walk from now on 'cause Bill got away with something. Well, I don't have a boy named Bill, and there is no "kid stuff" when it comes to breaking federal laws.

Posted by: Mark at December 19, 2005 04:39 PM (oxMjD)

17 Well before I put you off a very good book, let me state that it is in fact a catalog of abuse of the Executive Order, by either the Republicans or Democrats against the constitution (Nixon,Wiretapping opponents/Clinton:Above) and EO's against the virtues of the United States (Reagan: Iran contra). The Executive Order, can be used to create law at the stroke of a pen, without Congressional approval and can usurp Congress at will, a good example of this (sorry for another reference to Clinton) is Executive Order 13061. In 1996 there was an attempt to pass the Heritage Areas Act in Congress, but the effort went down in defeat. Under the original act, Congress would have had the authority to designate areas of land as heritage zones. Undeterred by the failed package, the Clinton administration simply repackaged the act as an Executive Order. On 11 September 1997 President Clinton issued Executive Order 13061, which "officially" established the American Heritage Rivers Initiative (AHRI). In order to create a system of Laws, and checks and balances as you state, this power should be removed from use by any sitting President. I personally do not care if terrorists rights are being violated, but I do agree that there are already laws on the books that could do what the President did, without the use of an EO.

Posted by: dave at December 19, 2005 04:39 PM (CcXvt)

18 Mark I'll be blunt (when am I not?) If this NSA thing is indeed exclusively overseas traffic back & forth ... And exclusively foreign nationals (which it appears) ... And the bulk done immediately after 9/11 and the first couple of years (which it appears) ... Then I don't give a fuck! - and neither will a signifcant majority of the American people! You want to run with a "what if, abstract legalistic argument" - then knock yourself out! These "targets" have faces and one very real solid point of interest/confluence - the WTC You can campaign in '06 with your "what ifs ..." - and I/we will on the "faces" and the WTC over and over and over again - till you start screamin' and squeelin' like a pig - to no avail. It's all pubic perception and relations baby! So, bring it on! - and we will let the American people decide.

Posted by: hondo at December 19, 2005 05:08 PM (3aakz)

19 Dave, I take your point and agree that EO is a potentially dangerous power for the Executive branch to retain, no matter the party in power. In this case, however, there is a law that explicitally states that wiretapping without a warrant is illegal. It was not "packaged" for presentation to Congress; Congress was simply ignored and the wiretapping was kept secret until exposed. The part I don't get is that under the present FISA laws, wiretapping is allowable so long as the President confers with Congress. Why would such a simple step be skipped?

Posted by: Mark at December 19, 2005 05:26 PM (oxMjD)

20 Not to be complacent but probably because certain parties cannot keep their mouth shut, including agencies such as the CIA, and members of Congress who are party to classified information. I personally believe that some information should be kept from the citizens at large, some things do need to be secret. As the EO, wasn't an order to take citizens into a concentration camp, or ban citizens from owning weapons, and simply affected those who may plot attacks against the U.S, you have to wonder if FISA/Congress was so flexible why not use it, and avoid yet another drama?

Posted by: dave at December 19, 2005 05:42 PM (CcXvt)

21 Hey Hondo, the WWF called and want their diatribe back!!!!!

Posted by: Warthog-Z at December 19, 2005 06:38 PM (oxMjD)

22 What does the World Wildlife Fund diatribe sound like?

Posted by: dave at December 19, 2005 06:58 PM (CcXvt)

23 Oops, guess its the WWE now.

Posted by: Warthog-Z at December 19, 2005 07:01 PM (oxMjD)

24 Is that the best you can do?

Posted by: hondo at December 19, 2005 08:34 PM (3aakz)

25 World Wildlife Fund I know - even made a few donations in the past. WWE (?). Had to Google that one. Your one-line insults really need some work.

Posted by: hondo at December 19, 2005 08:44 PM (3aakz)

26 Got you Googling, ya dope

Posted by: Warthog-Z at December 19, 2005 09:01 PM (oxMjD)

27 Multi-task - try it sometime - its easy

Posted by: hondo at December 19, 2005 09:44 PM (3aakz)

28 Agent Brown says all your executive orders are belong to us.

Posted by: Agent Smith at December 20, 2005 06:00 AM (7pPFo)

29 Guys, we're wasting our virtual breath. Our government is so corrupt and incompetent from top to bottom that I believe that it will eventually cause the collapse of our society, the early stages of which event we are now seeing, and if We, the People, don't step up and do something, our country will be lost. That "something" that we do, will require us to be armed. Of course, liberals need not apply for participation on the winning side of the new revolution, because they are the cause of at least half our problems, and will have to be dealt with accordingly, along with their muslim allies, and possibly the millions of illegal aliens who are now invading us. Of course, I'd be happy if we gave California back to the Mexicans, because there sure as hell isn't anything there worth fighting over.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 20, 2005 09:35 AM (0yYS2)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

The ACLU Loves Islamists

The ACLU, whom advocate completely open borders, is taking the the Department of Homeland Security to Court over detaining interrogating, fingerprinting and photographing American citizens at the border because they attended a radical Islamic conferences that has hailed Bin Laden as a hero, and used in the past to provide cover for pro-terrorist operatives.

The two-day conference in January 2003 advertised Sheik Abdul Rahman Al-Sudais as the main speaker. The previous year, al-Sudais, the chief cleric of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, reportedly prayed to Allah to "terminate" the Jews whom he called "the scum of humanity, the rats of the world, prophet killers ... pigs and monkeys." The sheik also has characterized Jews as "evil," "evil forefathers," a "continuum of deceit," and full of "tyranny" and "treachery." Due to logistical problems, the sheik, the headliner of the event, missed the conference. Jeewan Chanicka, media relations director for the Toronto conference, called the sheik's absence "unfortunate."
The same conference featured Zulfiqar Ali Shah, the former president of the Islamic Circle of North America, an organization linked to Jama'at-I-Islami, a fundamentalist Pakistani group that calls bin Laden the "hero" of the Islamic world and raises millions of dollars for global jihad.
Mokhtar Maghroui, who spoke at an event featuring suicide-bombing supporters, also was a speaker at the last two RIS conferences.
The 2003 RIS conference featured William W. Baker, who was outed as a neo-Nazi by the Orange County Weekly. Via WND

Of course the plaintiffs in the case are claiming that they were detained simply for their religious beliefs.

"I was treated like a criminal for no other reason than because I was Muslim," said Dr. Sawsan Tabbaa, a Buffalo orthodontist.
Catherine Kim, ACLU staff attorney, argued the government "cannot criminalize American citizens for their religious beliefs."
"Americans need to know that they can practice their religion and attend religious conferences without fear of government reprisals," she said.

The ACLU can never see past their absolutism. Border control is paramount in our war against terrorism, and questioning people who wish to attend extremist religious conferences advocating pro-terror causes is not religious persecution. The ACLU are claiming....wait for it...(gasp!!!)..."some of the Muslims detained last year were held overnight for as long as six and a half hours"....Oh the horror!

I'm sure there will be some that disagree, however, questioning people crossing our borders to attend "religious conferences" that have been used as terrorist cover needs to happen. I agree with commentator, Daniel Pipes, on this one. He argues, "Were the plaintiffs to prevail in this case, attending religious conferences would instantly become the favored method for terrorists and other Islamists to cross the American border without hindrance."

Crossposted from Stop The ACLU

Posted by: Chris Short at 10:32 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 459 words, total size 3 kb.

Islamic Army Of Iraq Posts Video Of Ronald Schulz Execution (Updated)

DEBKAfile is reporting that the Islamic Army of Iraq posted a video on the Internet claiming the execution of American security consultant Ronald Shulz who was abducted Dec. 8. The 8 second video shows gunmen shooting a kneeling blindfolded figure whose face is hidden. We have the video and it will be available shortly.

The murdering Islamothugs have once again committed yet another, atrocity. Of course we've heard not a peep of this from the mainstream media - only that the U.S. abuses it's prisoners by making them uncomfortable or hurting the feelings. How does that compare to murdering prisoners?

Update: Here is the video, now on our server.

Update: BBC News is also reporting the execution.

Originally posted at Hyscience

Posted by: Richard@hyscience at 05:33 AM | Comments (58) | Add Comment
Post contains 143 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Agent Smith says to stop fighting the war with one hand tied to our balls. It is time to start the draft RIGHT NOW and flood Iraq with 500,000 red-blooded American Troops so we can hunt down those terrorist fuckers. Agent Brown says for those who are too old to be drafted, join the reserves and volunteer to go over there ready to deliver some major whoop-ass. Agent Jones says we can get the secular Baathists to join us and together we will find the terrorists and give them a taste of justice.

Posted by: Agent Smith at December 19, 2005 06:00 AM (fyK10)

2 I'd go. I'd turn terrorist on their asses. Videotape Islamothugs being burned alive and fed to pigs.

Posted by: MidnightSun at December 19, 2005 06:39 AM (Rs5sH)

3 What can be said that hasn't been said so many times before? More evidence of the enemy's cowardice.

Posted by: Graeme at December 19, 2005 06:54 AM (Wtu+d)

4 There is no doubt this is inflammatory and obscene. It does raise a question for me though. I wonder why this group is willing to execute a man and claim credit for it, yet some here (e.g. Rusty) suggest the IAI, under an assumed name, holds the CPT 4?

Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at December 19, 2005 07:15 AM (wsdWU)

5 I would suggest that out of consideration for the family of Mr. Shulz, the video be taken down. It is obscene and does not really tell us anything we don't already know about the criminals who prey upon their victims. Imagine if he was your brother, or son. How would you like him to be remembered?

Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at December 19, 2005 07:17 AM (wsdWU)

6 I say leave it up. The people of the US should be reminded exactly what we are up against, and exactly what the stakes are in Iraq. It is riduculous to fight a war and not know the enemy. People here at home are kept by the MSM from knowing the kind of people we are fighting, and that is for a reason. If the average person knew the barbaric mentality of these people, there would be more support for defeating them.

Posted by: jesusland joe at December 19, 2005 08:31 AM (rUyw4)

7 And if I remember correctly, last week there was a group of traitors in here who celebrated the capture and presumed death of Mr. Shulz. Screm em was the term one of them used and posted under. As for the CPT-4, many people here and at other sites said there was a difference in situations between them and Shulz. I also believe that to be the case, so perhaps that explains why the IAI chooses not to murder the CPT-4, if, in fact, they hold them. I do not profess to know, but this might explain the difference in treatment.

Posted by: jesusland joe at December 19, 2005 08:42 AM (rUyw4)

8 Bastards. I think we should leave the video up for those who wish to see the truth. It's ugly and I think a warning is good. But the MSM will talk about it all day and not show it. Same with the other snuff Video's. I hate em. The Mr. Johnson snuff was really bad I got through 2.2 seconds. So I hate to see em. I as a point don't watch em even though I can. It's sick who wants to see whit like that. The answer is the sick vermin animals that did this. I see blonde hair at the start so my tiny little bead of hope I had for Mr. Schultz had evaporated. No I expected this but I try to be optimistic. RIP Mr. Shultz and may God comfort his family. Let's keep them in mind as we celebrate this week and think of what his family will miss.

Posted by: Howie at December 19, 2005 09:06 AM (D3+20)

9 I say leave it up. To me it will help illusrtate the absurdity of the reporting by the MSM. The Crescent News Network will refer to these cold-blooded murderers as insurgents or militants. I wonder if any Europeans will be outraged over the treatment of Shultz or his murder. I doubt it. I wonder where Mike Ferrell and Sean Penn were yesterday.

Posted by: Brad at December 19, 2005 09:22 AM (6mUkl)

10 Brad, Cold-blooded murderer does not define these animals we are up against. The average American has no idea, and were one to watch the Crescent News(MSM) as you suggest, they would be under the impression that these people were none other than the Revolutionary War hero of the US. Just misunderstood. I say all of murderers' films should be shown to the public and reported on the news. If we as a society are not ready to deal with these barbarians, then we shall surely fail as they are and will be here in larger numbers and with greater insolence. I suggest that the news and photographs of 9/11 be shown to the public, also. A little righteous anger would go a long way to solving the problem or Islamic extremism.

Posted by: jesusland joe at December 19, 2005 09:38 AM (rUyw4)

11 Leave it up!!!! This is not a world rated G it is one of what is really happening and this is very much a part of being true and honest about the enemy. I am sick of the lefties trying to make them out as " that we picked on them so they are only fighting back" and the MSM attacking our troops for every breath they take and then NEVER showing the truth about the terrorists. Yessss leave it up for all to see. This is the reality of what the enemy is about.

Posted by: Wild Thing at December 19, 2005 09:46 AM (qrCVJ)

12 MSM reports stuff that will demoralize the American people, not stuff that will stiffen their spine. That's why it's 60 days straight of Abu Graib, and roadside bombs ad nauseum, but not a peep about stuff like this.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 19, 2005 09:53 AM (8e/V4)

13 Leave it up. I want people to see what Michael Moore's minutemen have been up to. I want people to see what Michael Moore's "revolution" looks like.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 19, 2005 09:57 AM (8e/V4)

14 I'd like to hear Mikey Moron's opinion on his brave "minutemen" now.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 19, 2005 10:08 AM (0yYS2)

15 Here's why I think we should acknowledge, even discuss it. But that should be done without (re)distributing it. 1) Showing it celebrates degradation. If we are truly better than those who traffick in this sickness, we should turn our back to them. Do you need to see pictures of children being raped to know it is wicked? 2) It inflicts additional harm on the family. Christmas from here to eternity will be bad enough for them. We don't need to add to that. 3) It leads criminals to think this is a way to win fame. As a matter of practice, I refer to any killer.. especially of a famous person...as "the guy/chick who killed [so and so]" Ever since that guy killed Lennon, I figured that was the best way to deny them a foothold. The Romans called it "damnatio memoriae"....

Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at December 19, 2005 10:34 AM (wsdWU)

16 background, so the Left showing pictures of American coffins was a "celebration"? I'm sure you would insist that it wasn't. Their intent was not to celebrate, but to demoralize. Similarly, here the intent is not to celebrate, but to remind people just who these "minutemen" really are. And if you think it is self-evident and needs no further explanation, then ask yourself why Michael Moore would call such scum "minutemen" and cheer on their "revolution". Ask yourself why so many on the Left want these guys to win.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 19, 2005 10:43 AM (8e/V4)

17 "...why so many on the Left want these guys to win." It's called Bush Derangement Syndrome. It makes people want really stupid stuff.

Posted by: dcb at December 19, 2005 10:48 AM (8e/V4)

18 I don't speak for Michael Moore. He doesn't speak for me. WRT the question of coffins returning.... I have ambivalent feelings. On the whole I think it is important to show that. Here's why: Most Americans don't feel the war's impact. Economists refer to the situation as "moral hazard"...basically it is the idea that your behavior will change depending on whether or not there is a cost to you. For example, if you don't own the car or the property you are more likely to abuse it if you can walk away without any penalty. Showing concrete consequences of mistaken foreign policy is important. Here's where I would draw the line. Consider the protests at "Camp Casey" by Sheehan and her supporters. When they came to Washington some parents of soldiers protested the appropriation of their child's name in this way. Sheehan et al should have done the honorable thing... removed the marker with the name on it, wrapped it in cloth and returned it to the family with a letter of condolence and apology. There is another display travelling the country called "Eyes Wide Shut" which a religious coalition is curating. It consists of boots with one pair for each soldier killed in Iraq. I am not aware of anyone who has protested against that display. In fact, it was at the National Cathedral last year. Hiding the consequences is equivalent to lying. But parading them in a way that degrades the victims dishonors their memory and poisons the people who participate.

Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at December 19, 2005 11:08 AM (wsdWU)

19 Let me see if I can remember, and someone correct me if I am wrong. Background noise is the guy or gal who claims to know people who were killed at the WTC and at the Pentagon. He or she also claimed to know people who were killed by suicide bombers in Israel, and to know people who were killed by the IDF in the Gaza Strip. Now that I have established his expert status, I suggest he or she is too close to all the people involved to make an objective decision in this matter. I disagree with him or her on all three points: 1.We need to see exactly the type of people we are up against. Most people in the US are mature enough to be able to deal with whatever impact a murder might have on their psyche. 2.There should be a warning before any news item is shown so that the family will be warned if they would be traumitized by a showing of the film. In my case, I would want to know how my family member was murdered, and exactly who did it. 3.I doubt whether any fame would accompany the showing of any such film in the context of a news program. And they are already receiving the fame they want by sending it around the world to whatever jihadi group wants to show it. No, I think disgust and righteous anger would be the reaction of most Americans to seeing these films in the context of news. And that is the reason they will never be shown of the news. Wouldn't want to make the average American mad, now would we, Background Noise?

Posted by: jesusland joe at December 19, 2005 11:10 AM (rUyw4)

20 Joe I agree, A Priest I admire very much once said something during his Homily that I think is true of these murders on film. He said if all America were forced to sit for 5 minutes and actually watch a partial birth abortion, (a live 7-8 month old baby pulled out of a womb and her skull cracked open an the brain sucked out) on TV, the decent people of this country would be so outraged, they would demand it be stopped immediately. We tend to cover up horrors like this with nice words like choice. The murders in these films are not entertainment for normal people. But they do show who and what we are up against. Not even the most brainwashed lib could watch this and want these killers to win and force their vision of Iraq on that society. The MSM has given a name to killers of innocent men, women and children. They are called insurgents. This is not any more true to me than calling the murder of a child choice. Anyway on a lighter note: If any REGULARS would like a Christmas flyer with photos of the family, IÂ’ll get one out. Just sent a note to the email on this post. Merry Christmas, Happy and Happy Hanukkah to most, All you atheists enjoy your Festivas.

Posted by: Brad at December 19, 2005 11:13 AM (6mUkl)

21 background, he may not speak for you, but he speaks for a sizable minority of people out there, and these people are very vocal, and they pull a lot of weight in the Democrat party, which means they have a real potential to affect our government's policies. I would say making this kind of info more accessible to the public is the least we should do to minimize their impact.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 19, 2005 11:24 AM (8e/V4)

22 yeahhh see but its okay right? Cuz michael moore calls these Minute Men... punks...

Posted by: Billy Faeth at December 19, 2005 11:25 AM (T1JIe)

23 Maybe I am too close. Or maybe it's a warning to those who think this is all a sick video game. I am saying that if you watch the video it will poison you. You can turn it off and walk away but you kid yourself if you think you have not damaged a piece of yourself by participating in that. Do you have to smoke crack to know it is poison? It is pornographic and addictive. At first it will shock you. Then you will become numb to it. Then you will need more outrageous stuff to be shocked. I am sure those who watched the Nick Berg beheading or any of the others will see this execution and say "that wasn't so bad." That is exactly what the perpetrators of this crime want. They want to draw you in to their sickness. This is an opportunity for you to make a choice.

Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at December 19, 2005 11:42 AM (wsdWU)

24 schulz should not have gone to Iraq, I bet he regrets it now. it must have been a tough decision, but the right one. r.i.p- tookie and alpizar (both martyred by amerikka)

Posted by: Jawa Sucks at December 19, 2005 11:48 AM (ejzmW)

25 Tookie got his. What better message could he send to the kiddies than that? May God have mercy on his soul. And may his death be a lesson to all thugs.

Posted by: dcb at December 19, 2005 11:51 AM (8e/V4)

26 Background Noise, I do not WANT to watch such things. But it is my duty as a citizen to know my enemy, to know exactly what he is capable of, to see with my own eyes what a barbaric animal that we are up against. No, no, you are the one who has missed the point in all this. To depict these scum as insurgents, militants, revolutionaries, etc. is the danger, as most people will suppose them to be nothing more than your average run-of-the-mill freedom fighter. If we are to survive, and I believe this to be a fight for survival, then we must educate our citizens. We have not fought such an enemy before, but a large part of Europe did in the Middle Ages, but the knowledge of these jihadists has passed from the collective memory of the West. We must find a way to reanimate that memory, or we will be doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past, mistakes that cost the lives of untold millions and misery for millions more.

Posted by: jesusland joe at December 19, 2005 12:59 PM (rUyw4)

27 Background has a good point. I think we need to have it available for the sake of truth. But for sure these do affect you and you need to think carefully about how. I've seen comments on theads just like what he says. "Beheading is awesome" kind of stuff. A sick perversion. I think the vast majority would say how horrid and not view it too much. The link is there so you can should you so choose see the truth. But once you view it you cannot go back. This one is tame compared to the others that's true but I'm repulsed and if I weren't that might indicate a problem brewing.

Posted by: Howie at December 19, 2005 01:03 PM (D3+20)

28 jesusland joe says: it is my duty as a citizen to know my enemy Do you see your enemy in this picture

Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at December 19, 2005 01:16 PM (wsdWU)

29 What is your point with respect to the photo you linked? Are they violent jihadists? Are they beheading someone? Did I paint with such a broad brush that you are insinuating something from what I wrote? Please explain your meaning.

Posted by: jesusland joe at December 19, 2005 01:23 PM (rUyw4)

30 >>>"Do you see your enemy in this picture" Yes. I have no reason to believe he isn't behind razorwire for a good reason.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 19, 2005 01:27 PM (8e/V4)

31 If you think, Background Noise, that I implied that jihadists don't have any feelings for their own children, I certainly never said nor insinuated that, nor was it the point. You can certainly have feelings for your own children, but be the worst of barbarians. I think the Nazis proved that in and before WWII. Perhaps even Sadam Hussein loved the two animals who were his children. The fact that the two in the photo were not separated says much more about the humanity of the US forces than anything about the humanity of the jihadists. I am now suspicious of you, Background Noise, and believe you to be a jihadi sympathizer, likely an Islamist who is here to do as much damage as possible, using the freedom of the West in an attempt to destroy it. Perhaps you can convince me that you are not, perhaps you are not, but we cannot afford to take any chances. I will listen to no more of your "background noise".

Posted by: jesusland joe at December 19, 2005 01:40 PM (rUyw4)

32 Guys, don't even bother replying to this idiot punk whom I need not name. He is just another idiot liberal troll who is sick in the head and cannot believe but evil of America, and good of our enemies. He needs nothing more than a bullet to the back of the head, and you should not dignify his idiotic propaganda with responses.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 19, 2005 01:51 PM (0yYS2)

33 First of all IM - "He needs nothing more than a bullet to the back of the head" You are SICK - and you need HELP. Period. Find it before you take out a postal office or a McDonalds, please. "People here at home are kept by the MSM from knowing the kind of people we are fighting" YOU aren't fighting ANYONE, you are sitting behind your keyboard and contributing to a racist hatesite. Fucking coward! ".. they pull a lot of weight in the Democrat party, which means they have a real potential to affect our government's policies." LMFAO. Democrats have zero potential to affect government policies. You guys love to say how Dems lost, get over it. Besides, they're all getting a bullet in the head right? Yay freedom. "If we are to survive, and I believe this to be a fight for survival" If you do believe that, please describe the extent of your fighting for survival besides blog entries. I am LIBERAL, I want to see MANY DEAD TERRORISTS, you guys would do well to understand that we aren't all Berkely communist pagan freaks and there might be some common ground there, that as the opposition it is our job to question the policies of the government, but OH NO that would be BAD, we have to have the bloody rhetorical equivalant of a football game with no real postive outcome. Just call everyone traitors. We want to lose, and the terrorists to win, like WTF seriously? Anyone who says that doesn't get irony considering the wiretap lies this week. They ARE winning thanks to your FEAR. For shame.

Posted by: angryflower at December 19, 2005 03:03 PM (Bss6w)

34 Actually, they are not winning - but if they were it would be thanks to your fear(s). True - some here occassionally spew emotionally - but then again - you should understand that 'cause you just did the same. Maxie's a fun guy who tends to be "colorful" - and successfully provocative! He did after all provoke an angryflower - and next I suppose it will be a ragingtulip. Actually, I've seen very little actual racism vocalized on this board. I don't believe hostility towards Islam as an ideology qualifies as racism. But the charge of racism (and hate) is often a blanket accusation utilized by lib/left against any who disagree with it. OK! Screaming "Wolf" often enough loses its effectiveness.

Posted by: hondo at December 19, 2005 03:57 PM (3aakz)

35 >>>it is our job to question the policies of the government, angry, less anger, more sense please. So far the Democrats have offered nothing but criticism, with no suggestions on how to do it better (no, surrender doesn't qualify as doing it better). They don't even have an official party position on the war. "House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi says it's time for U.S. troops to start coming home from Iraq. Her top lieutenant, Rep. Steny Hoyer, says a precipitous pullout could be disastrous." www.cbsnews dot com/stories/2005/12/03/ap/politics/mainD8E8S3BG7.shtml That should tell you something. If you really want to see more dead terrorists, as you claim, then how would you propose going about killing more terrorists? Here's your big chance.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 19, 2005 04:22 PM (8e/V4)

36 Well said Hondo. The term "racism" is used too freely and seems to be the worst accusation in the world when used by liberals. The truth is these people tolerate a hateful religion at their own and everyone elses expense. The authorities that allow Islam to flourish are wreckless, it is a threat to the west, people need to get real. I hate islam but getted tagged a racist. I don't care about people's skin colour nor cultural backgrounds, it is the religion of islam I hate. To me this makes sense because islam hates me, the west, animals (dogs and pigs), gays and alcohol and also treats women like shit. Why must I accept or tolerate a hateful religion such as this?

Posted by: Jester at December 19, 2005 04:32 PM (wBDaS)

37 I mean "get" not "getted"...been a bit under the influence lately...hey it's Christmas.

Posted by: Jester at December 19, 2005 04:33 PM (wBDaS)

38 Mr. or Ms. Flower, There is nothing wrong with criticizing the government or any other entity you don't agree with. No one here has ever said that was wrong, or if they did, I didn't see it. What I have seen objected to was moral and material support given to our enemies, and that I consider to be traitorous. You don't know me or what I do, why would you describe me as a coward? That is well, cowardous! I hate radical Islam, of that I freely admit, but that in itself is not racist in any way because Islamists are not a race, but an ideology. Much the same way I'm sure you hate Nazism, as I do also. As a matter of fact, I consider the two to be related in a rather obscure way, but no matter. So there, call me a racist hater if it makes you feel less angry, but look deeper and perhaps you will see something else. Not hate, but fear for my children, not myself, I have no fear of these people. These people wish to take us back to the Dark Ages, and I wish my children to live in a modern world.

Posted by: jesusland joe at December 19, 2005 04:48 PM (rUyw4)

39 Man.... I go away for a few hours and everyone melts down.... jj....no I am not a jihadist... gimme a break. I call them criminals not freedom fighters... that's for starters. I have already said that. In my world, if I'm talking about "their sickness" that is not meant as a compliment. to answer your originally rational question: I gave you the image (complete with caption) to see how broadly you paint... your friend jC doesn't use a brush...but appears to just splatter paint everywhere. He assumes the guy in the picture is a jihadist. After some time, you default to that assumption as well. Considering some of the comments in this thread prior you two are not alone. The point of the question with that image is that even though there is a caption it is hard to contextualize the image. It is clearly provocative, but what exactly is provoked is more a function of what you bring to the image than what is there. I asked Bouju (the photographer) about it ... he didn't know what happened to the guy and the kid. He did not believe the guy was an active combatant. Certainly not captured in the midst of active hostilities. What he was trying to do with the caption was stress the compassionate response of the American soldier who decided not to separate father and child. IM ... who apparently thinks Circus Maximus means "Greatest Show on Earth".... with his answers demonstrates exactly the sort of stereotypical thinking that ails us. Here is a guy who is allegedly all about protecting our values, but me... I deserve to be shot in the head like some poor bastard in Iraq. So ...how does he differ from the criminals who killed Shulz? They actually live out their sordid fantasies. The point I made earlier... the point I used this image to demonstrate ... is that inciteful imagery out of context allows people to project whatever they want on to it. So if you are a paranoid control freak and you see criminals doing something evil... it is not hard to imagine anyone who looks, speaks, acts, dresses, eats, or smells like them is going to be treated like them. Which brings me back to the picture I asked you about. My answer: I fear the kid is going to become my kid's enemy.

Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at December 19, 2005 05:20 PM (wsdWU)

40 petals, we're waiting on your big plan on how to kill more terrorists. yoohoo!

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 19, 2005 05:25 PM (8e/V4)

41 background, You think that a child in the jihadist's lap is going to pull at my heartstrings? Well obviously it didn't have the effect you had hoped for. You see, I'm not a Leftard. I assume the fellow in the pic is a jihadist because the U.S. army assumed he was a jihadist, and you gave me no reason to assume otherwise. I guess that's what you call "splattering paint everywhere", because you wouldn't recognize logic and good sense if someone rammed it up your ass. So why did you assume he wasn't a jihadi? Because of the child? Is that an example of the vaunted Liberal intellect? And if you didn't assume that (which I know is your predictable come back), then posting the picture was quite pointless, wasn't it. I don't second-guess our troops on the ground, unless given a reason to do so. You gave me none. While you on the Left are hell bent on second-guessing our troops and apologizing for our enemies. That's the diff between your side and mine. Why would anybody in their sane minds want anything to do with you people unless they were complete traitors.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 19, 2005 05:44 PM (8e/V4)

42 JC... if you were serious about discussing how to deal with terrorists, you would have looked at the original reference I offered at the top of the last thread you disgraced yourself in. The Politics of Rage: Why Do They Hate Us? by Fareed Zakaria I don't know what his political party is, but as far as "democrats offering no alternatives"... that is simply not true. Unfortunately, you have to actually read what is written if you are going to comment on it. Simply listening to warmed over nonsense from talk radio "infotainers" is not enough. I stopped referencing my stuff here because it is obvious folks aren't interested in anything that doesn't support their preconceived notions. A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read. -- Mark Twain

Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at December 19, 2005 05:47 PM (wsdWU)

43 background, I'm not interesting in how to "deal" with terrorist (translated from the Libspeak: how to make terrorists like us). I'm interested in how you propose to kill more terrorists than we are currently killing. Can to answer? Still waiting.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 19, 2005 05:51 PM (8e/V4)

44 and ps., if by "disgraced" you mean how I continue to run logic circles around your brain, then yes, I'm "disgraced".

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 19, 2005 05:56 PM (8e/V4)

45 Hey B4ckd00r B0y, if this place is so ignorant, why do you continue to post here?

Posted by: dave at December 19, 2005 07:00 PM (CcXvt)

46 JC.... "Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoscet." Didn't work for Arnaud-Amaury, why would it work for you? Dave... you're right. I figured this was more than a little playground. Y'all have fun. === Nullus curo pro stulti. John Smith/Sanjuro Kuwatanabe

Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at December 19, 2005 09:05 PM (wsdWU)

47 background, The ones killing innocent people in Iraq are the jihadis-- the one's you're defending. And unless you have any evidence the man in that pic wasn't a jihadi, you can spare me your phony Liberal compassion. It's fake.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 19, 2005 09:32 PM (8e/V4)

48 Leave The video up people need to see what kind of ANIMALS we are dealing with over there these islamic scumbags all need to be removed from the earth , now i see that saddam was good for iraq , and to all the bleeding hearts that say killing these animals should watch this video i was all for taking saddam out but now i see that these animals over there needed sombody like saddam to keep them in line at all costs if that means taking these fuckers out in the desert by the thousands and burring them alive in mass graves so be it i say fuck it puull our troops out nuke that shithole and let nature take its course if they repopulate so be it if not fuck em

Posted by: Julio at December 20, 2005 12:01 AM (mabbd)

49 Leave it up. Our innocence must end. If you are a sick puppy to begin with, the beheading videos will push you over the edge. If you a normal person, watching even one will kill a part of you. That is your innocence dying. You will never get it back. But you will develop eyes and ears discerning of the truth. One truth is that these terrorists are following the dictates of their "religion". And they are doing to their victim what they want to do to everyone who is not a part of their death cult.

Posted by: tm'ss at December 20, 2005 01:12 AM (ZJ0PB)

50 where can i find more video footage

Posted by: habib at December 20, 2005 11:04 AM (lMZgF)

51 Yup, ROP at it again. Background No15e, flower... FOAD. Did you notice the "loving" man behind the razor wire with the bag on his head wasn't being beheaded or shot by a firing squad full of Islamo Psychos? He'll probably be fed 3 times a day allowed to pray and released only to use his son as a cradle for a c4 pack. Keep thinking that way, you're bound to end up in Amnesty or MOVEON. They'll all love you. Keep dreaming.

Posted by: Alex at December 20, 2005 12:44 PM (JnnHL)

52 First, to the noisy retard: The kid is sitting in his dad's lap because the soldiers didn't want to traumatize him further than he already was. Which is far more regard than Komrade Klinton's Gestappo gave Elian Gonzalez. So fuck you, all liberals should be killed.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 20, 2005 03:51 PM (0yYS2)

53 First, to the noisy retard: The kid is sitting in his dad's lap because the soldiers didn't want to traumatize him further than he already was. Which is far more regard than Komrade Klinton's Gestappo gave Elian Gonzalez. So fuck you, all liberals should be killed. Second, to the weed with the hissy fit: "You are SICK - and you need HELP." You're damn right I'm sick. Sick of idiot liberals like you, and the only help I need is for a few people to join me when the time comes, because I'm not burying all of your stinking corpses by myself. "Period." Exclamation point. "Find it before you take out a postal office or a McDonalds, please." Only if liberals work there. "People here at home are kept by the MSM from knowing the kind of people we are fighting" "YOU aren't fighting ANYONE, you are sitting behind your keyboard and contributing to a racist hatesite. Fucking coward!" I didn't say that ya moron, JJ did. And he was right. I'm a decorated vet by the way, and when TSHTF, one hundred liberals will get special attention for your comments. Mercy to enemies is a sign of weakness, and liberals are subhuman scum. ".. they pull a lot of weight in the Democrat party, which means they have a real potential to affect our government's policies." Again, didn't write it, but... "LMFAO. Democrats have zero potential to affect government policies." At least you got that right. Your asses are the biggest losers since the investors in the Titanic. "You guys love to say how Dems lost, get over it." Nah, too much fun to watch you losers squirm. I hope it hurts. "Besides, they're all getting a bullet in the head right?" Not soon enough. "Yay freedom." Once the libtards and traitorcrats have all been buried in unmarked mass graves. "If we are to survive, and I believe this to be a fight for survival" Once again, didn't write it, but still it is good. "If you do believe that, please describe the extent of your fighting for survival besides blog entries." Well pissing off liberals to the point of hysteria does seem to be more effective than I would have thought, but I prefer my way. Good thing for you that most of the evil neocons who inhabit this site are not like me. They're nice people. "I am LIBERAL, I want to see MANY DEAD TERRORISTS..." coughBullshit!cough Look, don't try that shit now. We know who you are and how much you hate our country, its military, and its lawfully elected President just because you have some idiotic socialist multiculti free-healthcare utopian vision. You, who as a group, have accomplished nothing positive, and make no lasting contributions to society. You are parasites. "...you guys would do well to understand that we aren't all Berkely communist pagan freaks and there might be some common ground there, that as the opposition it is our job to question the policies of the government, but OH NO that would be BAD, we have to have the bloody rhetorical equivalant of a football game with no real postive outcome." You would do well to understand that you either stand with your country or against it. You have chosen to stand against it, and are thus its enemy and my enemy. It is now personal; I hate your guts because you would sell us out to the terrorists just to bring down Bush, and if putting a bullet in the head of every liberal is what needs to be done, I would gladly do it. "Just call everyone traitors." If the shoe fits... "We want to lose, and the terrorists to win, like WTF seriously?" Yeah that's about right. Just read the signs and banners at any protest ya moron. Your people hate our country and want it to fail, so you should all be killed. Understand yet? "Anyone who says that doesn't get irony considering the wiretap lies this week." A swing and a miss! Sorry, that pathetic attempt at redirection completely choked, and barely deserves a response, but what the hell, since facts are like poison to you: The wiretaps were legal, and there are no lies, but we know how you idiots have no real argument, so you occasionally scream "LIES!" just to distract people. Sorry, won't work here. Moron. "They ARE winning thanks to your FEAR." Sorry again sweetie, but we're winning, thanks to our SOLDIERS, AIRMEN, and last but not least, the totally kickass US MARINES. "For shame." Stand in the mirron and say that one time for every victim of islamic terrorists over the past, oh... say forty years, then you may be forgiven, just a little bit. I swear, the schools are producing some weapons-grade idiots these day.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 20, 2005 04:11 PM (0yYS2)

54 GOD will forgive......Pull all the Americans and Allies out of IRAQ and drop the fucken bomb. Then let's see who will be laughing then.

Posted by: GOD at December 20, 2005 05:16 PM (62bOH)

55 Drop that mother fucker turn those 4th century arab shitholes into parking lots for football stadiums,Gun ranges,Race tracks, and pig farms! Hit europe too, 100's of Trident missiles to fix the world. FUCK ISLAM FUCK IT. And liberalism, they should be taken captive. Held for 3 days and shot in the FUCKING HEAD. 1 bullet to waste one piece of human shit.(Waste of innocent lead) but im willing to take that loss. BOMBS MISSILES OIL! FUCK YEAH... Im serious too.

Posted by: Alexander at December 20, 2005 05:27 PM (2Foff)

56 You sure did stir up the moonbats, Maxie. I hate it when you do that. It seems to get easier all the time, though. Damn.

Posted by: jesusland joe at December 20, 2005 08:26 PM (rUyw4)

57 The video should be left up and played on msn every hour on the hour for 30 days. American liberals and others need to be reminded of the cruelty of the enemy. They are dogs and those that support them are bitches. His death was caused by the fact that democrats, liberals, sissys and such will call for us to pull out and the terrorists know it.

Posted by: greyrooster at December 21, 2005 04:48 AM (pSK/I)

58 Im no moonbat jesusland joe. im serious. i hate islam and liberalism is synonymous with Naivete'

Posted by: Alexander at December 21, 2005 07:13 AM (JnnHL)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

80% Solution

I've been kind of demoralized recently for a number of reasons, so haven't been posting very much. Not the least of those reasons is the mind-numbingly aggressive schadenfreude of the so-called "democratic" party as it tries to drum up any excuse it can to shove it to the Commander in Chief. For instance, Fred Barnes has a piece in the Weekly Standard suggesting that the Iraqi poll item that has become the favorite talking point of the cut-and-runners is probably not very informative, for three reasons (h/t: Protein Wisdom):

1. We don't know the "internals," so we don't know whether the poll was representative.
2. The poll results don't reflect other polls that ask an analogous question about support for US presence in Iraq (most of which suggest that the proportion who oppose US presence is much smaller, and their views are also more conditional).
3. The specific wording of this question is ambiguous: “Do you support the presence of coalition forces in Iraq?”

The general rule in designing a survey instrument is that if a question elicits a response frequency in the neighborhood of 80-90 percent then the question is probably too crude to be useful. At the very least you have to ask follow-up questions so that you can cross-tabulate. For instance such follow-ups might try to determine what the respondent defines as "support," and under what conditions that support might change. It also might be interesting to find out what the response to such an ambiguous question might be in S. Korea, Japan or Germany. If similar (and it probably would be similar in S. Korea) would the Democrats now be demanding that we pull out of those countries?

The essence of the issue here, if I might be so bold, is the distinction between democracy (power of the people) and demosophia (wisdom of the people). For, to have a robust democracy able to defend itself and make wise decisions about what course to chart through an uncertain and dangerous future "the people" have to be well-informed. It is therefore ironic that the core case the Democrats make is that the Bush administration misled the American people about the threat posed by Iraq. That's ironic because the present situation seems to remove all doubt that deception within the context of a war that threatens the very security of civilization is central to the Democrats' agenda. They know what's best, so whether "the people" are able to make wise and informed decisions is of little importance provided they can be herded in the "correct" direction.

And it's likely to get worse, because the stakes could not be higher. As Wretchard observed a few weeks ago:

The problem with using words to trump reality is that it wagers everything on a monumental bluff. The mesmerist must carry all before him or be humiliated. A King must be obeyed or lose the throne. There is no middle ground.

And each time the bet is raised the potential loss becomes more catastrophic. Already the public has begun to suspect that things aren't going as badly in Iraq as they've been led to believe, and it's possible for most people to see that the stakes for the US outweigh any wager laid down by the Democrats or MSM. They're a long way from throwing in the towel, though.

Posted by: Demosophist at 12:58 AM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 560 words, total size 4 kb.

1 I appreciate the effort of you and Fred Barnes, but this is like boxing a shadow. Would anyone seriously think that 80% number thrown around is legitimate? It's like trying to convince people that the famous 100,000 number was a load of crap. Of COURSE it was crap... but anyone inclined to believe it wouldn't listen to reason anyway.

Posted by: Tony B at December 19, 2005 02:19 AM (+/H6t)

2 I wondered why we hadn't heard from you in a while. I understand your feeling of being demoralized. I've had similar feelings myself off and on. The democrats have been relentlessly beating their drum. The monotone of it can be disconcerting after a while. And when new information surfaces, like the particulars of this poll, I get angry with myself for harboring doubts. The sample size used for the poll was 1,264 Iraqis? Unbelieveable. Out of 25 million of three wildly different groups? With the Democrats touting this so proudly it brings the phrase 'grasping at straws' to a whole new level of meaning.

Posted by: Oyster at December 19, 2005 07:34 AM (YudAC)

3 Oyster: The sample size used for the poll was 1,264 Iraqis? Unbelieveable. Out of 25 million of three wildly different groups? With the Democrats touting this so proudly it brings the phrase 'grasping at straws' to a whole new level of meaning. 1200 to 1300 is a fairly typical sample size, and (provided it was a randomly distributed sample) would yield a margin of error of about 5% up or down. So, if the prediction was 82% then the actual response was anywhere from 77% to 87%, give or take a bit. The size of the population, provided it's large, doesn't have a lot to do with the "margin of error" (commonly called the confidence interval).

Posted by: Demosophist at December 19, 2005 08:19 AM (NiHFm)

4 Well, demosophist, I have another poll that I took myself. 100% of Americans want the troops to come home, BUT, the majority want Iraq to be stabilized before we withdraw. And I also believe that 100% of Iraqis want US troops to depart, but again, just like us Americans, the majority of the people in Iraq want US troops to STAY until Iraq is stablilized. How do you like my poll? Not exactly scientific, but true nonetheless.

Posted by: jesusland joe at December 19, 2005 08:55 AM (rUyw4)

5 "joe"-- 100% of Americans do not want US troops to depart. Not even if you ask about after the Iraqi security forces are ready to fill in the void. You have merely stated an opinion while "Demo" has tried to use scientific survey data and principles.

Posted by: Chief RZ at December 19, 2005 09:35 AM (Bhat4)

6 I said it was an opinion, and never claimed it to be scientific. It was tongue-in-cheek. Geez, Chief, WTF?

Posted by: jesusland joe at December 19, 2005 09:44 AM (rUyw4)

7 "joe", No where in your post do you use the word opinion. You do say in your third sentence that you "believe..." These types of misleading comments tend to confuse people who are easily mislead. This is the same type of misleading reporting the NYT, LAT and other leftist newspapers engage in on their front pages where news is supposed to reside. For some facts from a person who has recently been in Iraq and talked with citizens there: They want the Americans there to help secure their freedom. The Iraqi government stated this on 28July04. They restated it again when another vote was taken, have just recently restated it and [in my opinion] will ask the United States Military to continue to assist in the stabilization of Iraq for a while longer. I am waiting to hear from the government of Bosnia, Albania, Serbia, Former Yugoslavia and several other nations where we have been stationed for over 60 years now. I invite you to join in a converation based on facts [and opinions] where identified as such.

Posted by: Chief RZ at December 19, 2005 02:56 PM (Bhat4)

8 Chief RZ WTF? I understood easily the the playful humor in jesusland joe's comment. It was cute & smart (and true). At the moment, your confusing me.

Posted by: hondo at December 19, 2005 04:12 PM (3aakz)

9 Demosophist, I wasn't clear enough. I understand the whole concept of the margin of error in polls and how they work. I guess I should have been more explicit and expounded also on the fact that they are basically grouped in different parts of the country. There is no information on who was polled and where in a country of "25 million of three wildly different groups". That information should have been a very important part of the results.

Posted by: Oyster at December 19, 2005 06:41 PM (YudAC)

10 "hondo", Sarcasm and figurative speech are usually understandable except when some people use it to dishonestly attempt to 'put one over on someone'. When called on it, they say, "I was just kidding". I heard this a lot in the public schools. When caught red-handed attempting to shake down innocent students, they would say, "I was just kidding, can't you take a joke", etc. In this War on Terrorism, it would be helpful if more people as well as previously respected newsmedia would be honest in their reporting. One weakness of a democracy, or republic is that a good portion of the electorate can be swayed by emotion and not by facts. People who engage in this type of behavior [in my opinion] are being dishonest and immoral. This 80% debate hinges on a sample (random) of a population. The more forceful sample was just recently taken on 15Dec in Iraq, just as in the US, the population elects representatives directly by casting votes. This is a much more powerful, and constitutional 'survey' than one taken by various NGOs. With the votes being counted and a parlament being constructed, perhaps we should wait to see what the properly and legally elected individuals determine for their own country and stop trying to put spin on our [opinions].

Posted by: Chief RZ at December 20, 2005 08:26 AM (iNTGz)

11 This is all academic. The average American, as well as European or Iraqi, is just too damned stupid to be entrusted to vote, as results show. I want a military coup.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 20, 2005 09:29 AM (0yYS2)

12 Hey, Chief, this is not the NYT here, this is a comment section of a post. The standard applies to the guy who made the post, not the guy in the comment section. METHINKS YOU DO PROTEST TOO MUCH! HAHA!

Posted by: jesusland joe at December 20, 2005 10:27 AM (rUyw4)

13 "max", & (joe), Well, let me start with some humor. From The Holy Grail: "Is there someone else up there I can talk to"? "joe", I was responding to your comments. "max"--Was that sarcasm, your opinion or an observation? If the latter, the answer is education, real education like the 1950s and 60s before 1969. I am amazed at the liberal slant being taught in public schools here in the USA. I have observed classrooms in several countries in Europe and they are about 6-8 years ahead of us at every grade level. An informed electorate is essential to a democracy. As one great statesman said, 'you have a democracy if you can keep it! So, lets try to educate our citizens with facts and leave the emotions to other areas of life.

Posted by: Chief RZ at December 20, 2005 01:13 PM (38Xl6)

14 Asking anybody if they want a foreign force occupying their country is like asking, "Would you like a sharp stick poked in your eye?" No sane person would answer Yes. Therefore, my conclusion is that most Iraqis are sane.

Posted by: Doug Purdie at December 20, 2005 01:25 PM (00DOn)

15 Chief, This is for fun. Most people here are well educated both in school and in the school of hard knocks(life). What I said was my opinion, but I based my opinion on common sense things that either I have observed personally or what I observed from people I trust who have just come from Iraq. 100% is a figure that could only be arrived at when it comes to the offer of money, so what I meant was the vast majority of people. My response was to demosophist, and he and many others who post on this blog know me and understood what I meant. I'm sorry you didn't, but truly, that's not important. It elicited a response from you, and really, that's the function of a blog after all. So blog on, my friend, make your points the way you want to, but please respect my freedom to do the same.

Posted by: jesusland joe at December 20, 2005 04:14 PM (rUyw4)

16 Money, education, assistance: Joe-- Thanks for the understanding and reply. The UN Charter allows for force being used to assist in the defense of a country, even newly established ones like Bosnia. The use of the word occupying is a bit slanted. How about assistance, stabilization, or implementation? We occupied Germany after WWII. France is still occupying Germany. They have military outposts there today! We occupied Japan. General McArthur ran that country like Caesar {American Caesar--the book}. An occupying force is required by international law to provide for non-combatants. That was one reason we did not continue to Bagdhad in 1991, but the main reason was to keep our word of only liberating Kuwait. We are not occupying Iraq. We are there to assist at the request of the democratically elected government. That is the fact pertinent here to this 80% survey question. People and organizations involved with "surveys" have recently [in my opinion] done so to advance a political agenda. It would be nice if Mr. Barnes, et al, would question the "internals" of other "surveys". Thank you, Demosophist for your analysis. On the 80-90% rule of thumb, I have read that; another alternative is that an 80-90-100% response may also indicate that the proposition is universally accepted, such as: 95% of people surveyed last month said that they believed in God. Follow up questions could be: On faith (Luther)? On works (---)? On law (--)? With our nation closely split on party lines, it behoves us to make an informed decision and stick with it to its conclusion, not swaying to the winds of "surveys" conducted by others with political agendas who were not elected by the people per the US Constitution. As Anne Coulter said: "let us vote on it"!

Posted by: Chief RZ at December 21, 2005 07:59 AM (iNTGz)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Media Bias Quantified By UCLA Study

A UCLA study linking news media reporting to Americans for Democratic Action political scorecards found a "significant" bias to the left:

"I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican," said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study's lead author. "But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are."

Editorials were excluded from the study, to gauge the effects of bias on news gathering:

Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.

The Dread Pundit Bluto would like to modestly propose a solution; an Affirmative Action program to help media outlets balance their staffs in order to represent political orientation fairly. Unfortunately, given the state of media bias found in the study, that means most news organizations won't be able to hire any more liberal reporters for probably twenty years or so.

Via The Drudge Report.

Posted by: Bluto at 12:07 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 197 words, total size 1 kb.

December 18, 2005

Christmas is Great

So today I started off already in a pissy mood from the drive home Friday because I had to listen to this and this, but then there was this and I felt better. No wait a minute, OK. I at once realized that this is not about the USA Â“Security Act for Dealing with Terrorism Extension Bill of 2005Â”. Now I have a good idea. Add a three to five year extension to the current bill on Monday and leave the sundown dates in and get to leave town. Cool with me. The deal is we are sitting on a big string of success. Don't blink itÂ’s just them trying to hold back the sea. Iraqi Success is just too much. Got to fight against the success of the Good old USA of A because were The NY Times, it's what we do!

Then today Condi was on TV and all was good(transcript eventually it's Fox they are slow to post this one for some stupid reason. Then Harry Â“what a punkÂ” Reid. And then it was a good day off to the mall to pig and buy stuff. Not to bad really till I stopped to get milk at Wally World. Some group in from of me with lobotomies all the around. Each of them with his/her own pile of envelopes, cards and change. The one took at least two minutes with her Signature. Ok if you are not in a hurry the WTF are you doing in the Â“Quick Checkout LaneÂ”, Ehem, The President is giving a speech in like two hours lady. Then at the gas station a DJ on the Radio just blanked old Harry out of the local newscast. I was standing there, and it says, Â”House Minority Leader HarryÂ…Â…Â….. Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…..Â”. Then the news just continued on. I felt better and I hope you do to. Then I read this and felt even better. Double death for Zaqueery am I not correct he is already wanted dead there? I wonder how Jordan works that out? Read the related links as well, all good. I have to go now. President you know. Yes it all works out one way you can tell it's working is all the ruckess!!

Updated : link to transcript and what I thought was the chincher in the speech.

FOXNEWS:It is also important for every American to understand the consequences of pulling out of Iraq before our work is done. We would abandon our Iraqi friends and signal to the world that America cannot be trusted to keep its word.

See the terrorists first of all doubted our government had the gumption to act. Now they count on our people to falter. They believe "We the People" are soft and will loose heart and fail. That we can be easily waited out because as a society they are stronger than we. I'm willing to bet there is still some fight left in this dog. Don't let me and the rest fo the Nation down.

So while I'm at it Caption This pic of old Harry.

Updated : So now I have to pick winners. I hate that part. Due to some urgent stuff that must me done yesterday I'll be scarce for a few days. Not to worry the other bloggers are kickinig ass and taking names.

Winner Carter for : "Harry Reid fails a basic sobriety test, missing his nose and putting out a reporters eye"

Runners up Carlos for "Here, sniff my finger." Filthy for: "In my line of work I seldom need more than this".

Honorable mention Vinnie and traderrob although they post here so they can't win. And also Agent Smith's poem was good. See I would make you all winners if I could.

Posted by: Howie at 07:46 PM | Comments (22) | Add Comment
Post contains 633 words, total size 4 kb.

Interesting Times Indeed

My apologies for showing total irreverence for the Blog Sabbath but the Bears aren't on till 8:30 and there's just too much interesting stuff going on today to ignore.

German Hostage in Iraq Has Been Freed.... BERLIN - A German aid worker and archaeologist kidnapped in Iraq with her driver has been freed after three weeks in captivity, Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier announced Sunday night.

And concerning the NSA wiretapping leak that hypocritical treacherous trollop otherwise known as House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi confessed late Saturday that she signed off on President Bush's decision to have a top intelligence agency conduct "unspecified activities" to gather intelligence on possible terrorists operating inside the U.S. in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.

Then Colin Powell sticks his finger in the eye of the Democrats and MSM with this revelation...THE US administration was never told of doubts about the secret intelligence used to justify war with Iraq, former secretary of state Colin Powell told the BBC in an interview to be broadcast on Sunday night.

And finally news that will likely never be offered up anywhere but the blogospere and a few newspapers...Iraq Interior Minister Bayan Jabir said terror attacks in the country decreased by 70 percent and no escapee has been arrested at Syrian borders for two weeks.

Companion OpiniPundit

Posted by: Traderrob at 05:08 PM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 224 words, total size 2 kb.

334kb generated in CPU 0.1048, elapsed 0.3241 seconds.
137 queries taking 0.2551 seconds, 735 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Search Thingy

Monthly Traffic

Pages: 50235
Files: 356
Bytes: 693.7M
CPU Time: 107:44
Queries: 5560640

Content

Posts: 5690
Comments: 76631

Feeds

December 21, 2005

December 20, 2005

December 19, 2005

December 18, 2005

Search Thingy

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives

Blogroll

Monthly Traffic

Content

Feeds