Saturday, July 16, 2005



That Was Then, This is Now
From Power Line:
This ABC News video from five years ago, courtesy of Media Research Center, is a classic. Before Democrats had a partisan motive to claim, contrary to all the evidence, that there was no relationship between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and bin Laden's al Qaeda, their close and dangerous relationship was common knowledge. That common knowledge is reflected in this ABC news report, as it was in the Clinton administration's indictment of bin Laden in 1998 for, among other things, collaborating with Saddam on weapons of mass destruction.

It really is a fascinating question: in this era of digital media, can the news media and the Democrats get away with trying to flush what they said as recently as 1998 and 2000 down the memory hole?

Let's hope not

Friday, July 15, 2005


Joseph Wilson Plame

Vanity Fair plaything and nefarious liar Joe Wilson falls under Mark Steyn's glimmering blade.

Thursday, July 14, 2005


Ann Coulter On The Rovian One

"The only person who has demonstrably lied and possibly broken the law is Joseph Wilson.

"So the obvious solution is to fire Karl Rove.

"Wilson intentionally blew his wife's 'cover' in order to lie about how he ended up going to Niger... Far from a serious fact-finding mission, it was a 'Take Your Daughters to Work Day' gone bad. Maybe liberals shouldn't have been so insistent about that special prosecutor."

Read it all.

Wednesday, July 13, 2005


Double Reality, No Sugar

Once again, Mark Steyn tells it like it is, this time about the so-called Religion Of Peace: "Islam has become the world's pre-eminent incubator of terrorism at its most depraved. Indeed, so far London has experienced only the lighter items on the bill of fare - random bombing of public transport rather than decapitation, child sacrifice and schoolhouse massacres."

And over at the Jerusalem Post, Steyn disusses the dangerous changes sweeping across a supine Europe: "Whatever the attractions of anti-Semitism, it tends not to work out too well for those who over-invest in it – see the Third Reich, and the loopier parts of the Arab world today. And even among my own correspondents, suspicion of the dread Jew seems to be blinding them to what last week's events may more plausibly portend: the Israelification of European life."

HT: Brainster's Blog


The Voice Of Islam

From Yahoo News:
The man accused of killing Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh confessed to a Dutch court that he acted out of his religious beliefs, saying he would do "exactly the same" if he were ever set free.
"I take complete responsibility for my actions. I acted purely in the name of my religion," 27-year-old Dutch-Moroccan national Mohammed Bouyeri told the court in Amsterdam on the final day of his trial.

"I can assure you that one day, should I be set free, I would do exactly the same, exactly the same," he said, speaking slowly in sometimes halted Dutch.
He said he felt an obligation to Van Gogh's mother Anneke, present in court, to speak, but offered no sympathy.
"I have to admit I do not feel for you, I do not feel your pain, I cannot -- I don't know what it is like to lose a child," he said as Van Gogh's family and friends looked on.
"I cannot feel for you ... because I believe you are an infidel," he added.

Islamofans take note: he did it not because of any of the excuses you make for him in your attempts to deny reality; he acted purely in the name of his religion.


Reality Check

I've noticed the new theme from the left, nailed by Christopher Hitchens during his embarrassment of the Weakling Ron Of The Reagans: according to the Weakling Ron, the root cause of terrorism is fighting it. Meanwhile, back in the real world, the London bombings remind us that the straightest path to freedom today remains killing every single Islamofascist zombie on the face of the planet.

Tuesday, July 12, 2005


Business As Usual

The NYT has a front-page debacle of a story under a headline shouting to the world, "At White House, a Day of Silence on Rove's Role in C.I.A. Leak." The article breathlessly states that "the White House on Monday refused to answer any questions about new evidence of Mr. Rove's role in the matter." And what new evidence is that? The watering down begins right away: "new evidence suggested that Mr. Rove had discussed the C.I.A. officer with a reporter from Time magazine in July 2003 without identifying her by name."

After pointing out that White House spokesman Scott McClellan declined to answer certain questions because a criminal investigation is under way, NYT writer Richard Stevenson doubles back on himself, saying McClellan "did not directly address why the White House had appeared now to have adopted a new policy of not commenting on the matter."

Continuing on the theme of slagging the White House for following political convention during the conduct of a criminal investigation, the Times states, "Asked for comment on Monday, several Republican senators said they did not know enough or did not want to venture an opinion," a refreshingly honorable adaptation of the Democratic tradition of clamming en masse when one of their idiots (a crowded field, to be sure) utters the daily inanity, slags the military, steals and destroys classified government documents, or compares someone to Hitler. The Times goes on to cleverly assert that "a syndicated column written by Robert Novak, effectively end[ed] [Valerie Plame's] career as a covert operative" conveniently omitting for the moment the fact that Plame's supposed career as a c.o., if it ever existed, had already long been over and done with.

In keeping with their usual practice of flipping the informational sequence of the story so as to mislead its readers, the Times finishes this dog's breakfast (apologies to dogs' breakfasts everywhere) with the following:
"The e-mail message from Mr. Cooper to his bureau chief describing a brief conversation with Mr. Rove, first reported in Newsweek, does not by itself establish that Mr. Rove knew Ms. Wilson's covert status or that the government was taking measures to protect her."

"Based on the e-mail message, Mr. Rove's disclosures are not criminal, said Bruce S. Sanford, a Washington lawyer who helped write the law and submitted a brief on behalf of several news organizations concerning it to the appeals court hearing the case of Mr. Cooper and Judith Miller, an investigative reporter for The New York Times.

"'It is clear that Karl Rove's conversation with Matt Cooper does not fall into that category' of criminal conduct, Mr. Sanford said. 'That's not 'knowing.' It doesn't even come close.'"

There has been some dispute, moreover, about just how secret a secret agent Ms. Wilson was."'She had a desk job in Langley,' said Ms. [Victoria] Toensing[former chief counsel to the Senate intelligence committee], who also signed the supporting brief in the appeals court, referring to the C.I.A.'s headquarters. 'When you want someone in deep cover, they don't go back and forth to Langley.'"

So it now apparently takes a misleading headline and full front-page coverage for the New York Times to confirm that there is absolutely nothing new about anything on the left today, Tuesday July 12 2005. In the process of saddling what's left of their readership with a monumental time-waster of a non-story, the Old Grey Mare has confirmed that it wants Karl Rove's head just as much as, if not more than, the Democrats and the rest of the Islamofan left, and they're willing to do just about anything to get it.

Wouldn't it be interesting to discover that it is in fact NYT reporter Judith Miller herself who is the source for Secret Agent Plame's outing?

Captain Ed revisits the Wilson/Plame fiasco:

Let's take a look at this case from its beginning. The media (specifically Robert Novak) revealed that Valerie Plame worked as an undercover agent for the CIA at some point in her career, even though she worked at Langley for the past few years. Plame is married to Ambassador Joe Wilson, who got sent to Niger to investigate claims that Iraq tried to purchase uranium from the African nation. Wilson claimed that the White House sent him on that trip and that his wife had nothing to do with his selection, and that her outing as a CIA agent came as retribution for his report that the Niger intelligence was flat-out wrong and possibly faked.

However, almost everything Wilson told us was wrong. Niger's government acknowledged that Iraq sent a delegation during the sanctions period to open secret trade talks -- and since the only export of Niger's that could hold any interest in secret trade was uranium, the Niger government assumed that the Iraqis had an interest in the banned material and told Wilson exactly that. Wilson finally acknowledged that to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence when it investigated Wilson's allegations. The SSCI also found that Plame indeed selected Wilson personally for this mission, calling her motivations (and Wilson's) into question.

When Matt Cooper went on deep background with Karl Rove, before all of this came out, he asked Rove about Wilson's credibility. Rove warned Cooper not to trust Wilson. The White House knew Wilson lied about both the report and the nature of his assignment, and gave Cooper the information to back that up. Plame's status as CIA agent hardly qualified as a secret; NBC reporter Andrea Mitchell concedes that most of Washington's media elite already knew it. Novak simply printed it, although no one knows who gave it to Novak. At any rate, on the evidence given so far, Rove never broke the law as even the Times article makes clear in its final paragraphs.

And here's Lorie Byrd talking about the news briefings during which the usual crop of leftwing bingo-callers, er, reporters, got to foaming at the mouth about the Rovian One:
"I don’t even know how to describe the journalists’ questions in the briefing. I guess I could say they were disrespectful and disgraceful, but that does not quite do it justice. When I was watching, I just could not even get terribly angry about it because I was laughing too hard. Here are these blow-dried reporters who have spent years focusing their reports on whatever points the Democrat leaders tell them are important, rather than correctly framing and reporting the stories they cover, getting all nasty and going off on Scott McClellan over Karl Rove.
I can think of so many other times and other issues that they should have gotten excited about, but obviously Karl Rove is just too juicy a Democrat target for these partisans to resist. They sounded a bit like playground bullies, but ones with too meticulously styled hair and a little too much whine in their voices and prissy shoulder and hand motions to come across as exactly tough guys."

Michelle Malkin asks, Who Let The Dogs Out?
"I actually have no problem with McClellan getting justifiably barked at during his daily briefings (if only we had more Les Kinsolvings to press the White House from the right, especially on illegal immigration). But isn't it funny how Beltway reporters who get all prissy and whiny about one Fox News Channel reporter asking the DNC chairman one mildly aggressive question have no problem turning pack-rabid on McClellan?"

Come on, Michelle, that's just mean and nasty. And relevant.

UPDATE: Apparently the Times isn't happy with just one version of the Rove screamer; here is another almost identical version from their website: White House Silence on Rove's Role in Leak Enters 2nd Day . Perhaps they'll just recycle the same story day after day under a new headline ("After Three Weeks, Still No Admission From Rove") until they decide to stop the charade and reveal the source of the leak themselves.

Sunday, July 10, 2005


Rumsfeld Speaks to London

Donald Rumsfeld has spoken for the U.S. on the London attacks.

I doubt the DoD will mind my posting it in its entirety, but you'll have to go to kos or the DUh to get the left-wing mutilation:

Statement by Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld on London Bombings
This morning, the civilized world watched with concern as the people of London saw the face of violence and brutality. We offer our deepest sympathies to the families who have lost loved ones and to those who were wounded.

Too often the global struggle against violent extremists is discussed in a context that can distract from the harsh reality that its victims are innocent mothers and fathers, husbands and wives, and neighbors we see and work with every day.

Images from London have shown faces filled with tears and shock. Such faces are sadly familiar to us here in America. However, reports from London are already telling of calm passengers, compassionate strangers, and courageous rescuers. And that too is familiar -- the grace and humanity that contrasts vividly with the hatred and violence of terrorists.

The London attacks have a special resonance for the American people -- for America has no stronger or closer ally in the world than Great Britain. We are bound together by a common heritage, a common language, and a deeply shared commitment to freedom. As President Bush indicated earlier this morning, the United States will stand with the British people with unflinching resolve.

Though it is not yet known with certainty precisely who is responsible, we do know terrorists’ intentions. They strike without warning and without regard for human life in the hope that they can frighten and intimidate free people -- to change our way of life. And they won't stop until their side or our side has prevailed.

But if these terrorists thought they could intimidate the people of a great nation, they picked the wrong people and the wrong nation. For generations, tyrants, fascists, and terrorists have sought to carry out their violent designs upon the British people only to founder upon its unrelenting shores.

Before long, I suspect that those responsible for these acts will encounter British steel. Their kind of steel has an uncommon strength. It does not bend or break.

The British have learned from history that this kind of evil must be confronted. It cannot be appeased. Our two countries understand well that once a people give in to terrorists’ demands, whatever they are, their demands will grow.

The British people are determined and resolute. And I know the people of the United States are proud to stand at their side.

Saturday, July 09, 2005



More by Christopher Hitchens, who is right now on f'n fire:



Atrocity: Hitchens Wails On Helpless Puppy

Hat Tip to the Big Dog, Hugh Hewitt:

"Memo to Ron Reagan: If you are going to debate Christopher Hitchens on terrorism, it is best not to do it on air. Part of Hitchens' rebuke to Reagan:

CH: Do you know nothing about the subject at all? Do you wonder how Mr. Zarqawi got there under the rule of Saddam Hussein? Have you ever heard of Abu Nidal?
RR: Well, I'm following the lead of the 9/11 Commission, which...
CH: Have you ever heard of Abu Nidal, the most wanted man in the world, who was sheltered in Baghdad? The man who pushed Leon Klinghoffer off the boat, was sheltered by Saddam Hussein. The man who blew up the World Trade Center in 1993 was sheltered by Saddam Hussein, and you have the nerve to say that terrorism is caused by resisting it? And by deposing governments that endorse it? ... At this state, after what happened in London yesterday?...
RR: Zarqawi is not an envoy of Saddam Hussein, either.
CH: Excuse me. When I went to interview Abu Nidal, then the most wanted terrorist in the world, in Baghdad, he was operating out of an Iraqi government office. He was an arm of the Iraqi State, while being the most wanted man in the world. The same is true of the shelter and safe house offered by the Iraqi government, to the murderers of Leon Klinghoffer, and to Mr. Yassin, who mixed the chemicals for the World Trade Center bombing in 1993. How can you know so little about this, and be occupying a chair at the time that you do?

Read the whole thing at Radioblogger."


British Resolve

David Frum shares a message from someone who gets it:

From a reader in central London:
"It is simply ridiculous to state that one of the most important things to do is to grieve. Give me a break. People are free to grieve privately if they wish, but spare me the candle lit marches. I don't care why these people do things like this, they are going to lose. My kids were in school this morning on time, I was on the subway during rush hour, and everyone in my office was here on time, even though we're a stone's throw away from bombs. The Brits whine incessantly about health and safety, but they handle bombers well."
"On September 11 I told my sons that the day they wrap my daughters in burkas every single male member of our family had better be dead. I stand by that today. They can grieve later."

Friday, July 08, 2005


Declaring The Enemy, Part Two: Islamofans

The bombings in London have not only demonstrated once again the black-heartedness of Islamofascists and their supporters in mosques and madrassas and Starbucks' around the globe; they also have prompted a new round of the same idiotic expressions of moral relativism and simpleminded sloganeering that makes the left so dangerous to our existence. In fact, the left is the most predictable element in the entire conflict between Islamofascism and freedom: an Islamist bomb kills innocents in a crowded subway, or an IED kills a Marine in Mosul on his way to yet another mission to sweep these bastards from post-Saddam Iraq, and the useful idiots, the lazy pacifists, the apologists, the deluded, the latte-sipping, biscotti-chewing self-professed sophisticates, the Amerika-haters, can always be counted on to turn up the volume on their never-ending litany of apologies and justifications for the murderous barbarity of their poor, oppressed, misunderstood Islamofascist friends. They will compare Bush to Hitler, cheer the murder and dismemberment of U.S. Marines, then astonishingly declare that no-one had better dare question their patriotism, but they are most assuredly not patriots; one look at the comments at "Screw-em" or DUh reveals that they are indeed facilitators of Islamofascism, dangerous fools, dhimmis; one moment spent listening to a Ted Kennedy or a Dick Durbin will show that they are led by shameless demagogues.

I have in the past referred to the lot of them as dhummies, but that's too breezy and dismissive. In the interest of clarity I will now refer to them as Islamofans, facilitators of Islamofascism, they who deliver the relentless rain of blows against my beloved freedoms, the death by a thousand cuts of my beloved way of life. Islamofans are the enemy among us.

Just as I have called for real Muslims to wake up and smell the chicken-shit piling up in their mosques, I now call on we who treasure our freedoms and wish to preserve them for our children to call out our own Islamofascist facilitators and expose their shockingly careless thinking and moral confusion to the world.

For my Islamofan readers, and you know who you are, there may be hope for your salvation. Victor Davis Hanson will show you the ways in which you are being used by the filthiest, most despicable murderers ever to soil the face of the planet, to join in facilitating the destruction of the most glorious civilization in human history.

"It is our task, each of us according to our station, to speak the truth to all these falsehoods, and remember that we did not inherit a wonderful civilization just to lose it to the Dark Ages."


Democratic Undergarments For Murderous Weasels

"I am so cynical... That all I can think is "how convenient" that this happened to take the light off Karl Rove."


Thanks and Rule Brittania

Friday, July 01, 2005


Kofi Backs American Force

As long as it makes the U.N. look good:

We want scarier troops is the message from Kofi Annan to George W. Bush:

UNITED NATIONS, June 29 — United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan asked the United States this week to consider sending troops to Haiti to support a U.N. peacekeeping mission beset by mounting armed challenges to its authority, according to senior U.N. officials.
Annan told Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in a meeting at U.N. headquarters Tuesday afternoon that he may have to ask for American “boots on the ground” in the coming months to reinforce more than 6,500 Brazilian, Chilean, Argentine and other peacekeeping forces serving in Haiti, the officials said.
He expressed hope that the United States would participate in a planned U.N. rapid reaction force, authorized by the Security Council earlier this month, that would have the firepower to "intimidate" (quotation marks mine) armed gangs threatening the country’s fragile political transition. Officials said that similar requests are being considered for other countries, including Canada [?] and France[??]. “We want scarier troops,” one senior U.N. official said.

No doubt, but I've got a prediction for the U.N.'s Weasel-In-Chief: amoebas will drive speedboats before he ever gets to see American soldiers wearing the blue helmet.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?