Friday, September 29, 2006


Olbermann Terrorized

Via Captain's Quarters

I think Keith Olbermann is a self-absorbed bag of dummy-stuffing, but I can't even begin to imagine the visciousness of sending him mail filled with white powder. There is only one reason to do that to anyone, and that is to terrorize them, to cause them great fear, confusion and uncertainty. It's not just virulently criminal, it's exactly what is attacking our society and what we are fighting. I hope they find the perpetrator and then throw the whole damned book at him.

The New York Post's tone in reporting the story has been rightly criticized, since they were recipients of similar attacks in the days after 9/11.

Thursday, September 28, 2006


If You Don't Stop Pointing Out Our Rank Hipocracy, We'll Level Scurrilous Accusations At You

The Democrats were all aflutter about the headlines gleaned from the April 2006 NIE by the MSM, which distorted the findings of the document illegally leaked to them by someone in the CIA (some are looking at Paul Pillar). Then President Bush said well, if it's worth leaking it's worth reading, so let's publish the findings. Suddenly the Dems and their idiots are not so sanguine; they only wanted their edition of the report to surface, and they thought Bush would try to stifle them, not give them a megaphone. Shows how their BushitlerMcChimpy fantasies are affecting their judgement.

Now they want the entire phonebook-thick, secrets-laden document made public, regardless of how that would compromise national security. They contend that to not do so will show Bush is cherry-picking the findings, as the New York Times and they themselves did when they thought Bush would pass on the news.

Did I mention these fools expect to be elected to office in November?

Tuesday, September 26, 2006


Right Here On Our Stage

Keith Olbermann Fellates Bill Clinton From Afar

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Except, well, there is. It's too long - I laughed at first, then I got bored, yet Olbermann's routine made me appreciate the irony of his lecture on surrendering one's reputation as a journalist. Alas, he said nothing about cementing his position as an intellectual and ratings bottomfeeder through the use of crazed, rambling screeds.

Here's what I don't get: I live in a tiny town of maybe forty thousand people: if I ride my bike through my beloved park on a sunny afternoon, more people see me than see Keith Olbermann that day.

I damn myself with faint praise.

Sunday, September 24, 2006


If You Don't Stop Pointing Out The Violent Nature Of Our Religion, We'll Kill You

Via NRO's Corner, this AP report:

About 1,000 Muslim clerics and religious scholars meeting Thursday in eastern Pakistan demanded the removal of Pope Benedict XVI for making what they called "insulting remarks" against Islam.

Benedict "should be removed from his position immediately for encouraging war and fanning hostility between various faiths" and "making insulting remarks" against Islam, said a joint statement issued by the clerics and scholars at the end of their one-day convention.

The "pope, and all infidels, should know that no Muslim, under any circumstances, can tolerate an insult to the Prophet (Muhammad). ... If the West does not change its stance regarding Islam, it will face severe consequences," it said.

UPDATE Sept.25
Via Ace, Charles Johnson is thinking the same thing.

Clifford May in Submit Or Die:
"They are not standing up for a principle. They are laying down the law."

Many commentators have pointed out the apparent hypocrisy: Muslims are outraged by cartoons satirizing Islamic extremism while in Muslim countries Christianity and Judaism are attacked viciously and routinely.

Many commentators are missing the point: These protesters — and those who incite them — are not asking for mutual respect and equality. They are not saying: “It’s wrong to speak ill of a religion.” They are saying: “It’s wrong to speak ill of our religion.” They are not standing up for a principle. They are laying down the law. They are making it as clear as they can that they will not tolerate “infidels” criticizing Muslims. They also are making it clear that infidels should expect criticism — and much worse — from Muslims.

They are attempting nothing less than the establishment of a new world order in which the supremacy of what they call the Nation of Islam is acknowledged, and “unbelievers” submit — or die. Call it an offer you can’t refuse.

If you don’t understand this, listen harder. In London, Anjem Choudary — a Muslim Fascist if ever there was one — told demonstrators that Pope Benedict XVI deserves to be killed — for daring to quote a Byzantine emperor’s description of Islam as a religion “spread by the sword.”

“The Muslims take their religion very seriously,” Choudary explained as if to a disobedient child, “and non-Muslims must appreciate that and must also understand that there may be serious consequences if you insult Islam and the Prophet. Whoever insults the message of Mohammed is going to be subject to capital punishment.”

Saturday, September 23, 2006


Israel Still Slated For Destruction

Palestinian figurehead Mahmoud Abbas startled many when he announced at the U.N. that a new Palestinian government would recognize Israel's right to exist (what a guy). There was one problem with that: he was making promises Palestinians do not intend to keep, and never will. Now he is in the unenviable position of being in public opposition to Hamas.

Here's the crazy thing about this: I'm sitting half a world away in North America and I could have told Abbas he was pissing in the wind. There is no way Palestinians will ever shed their hatred of Israel, whose accomplishments in the world starkly contrast with the wantonly self-destructive Palestinian mindset. It would be bad enough were it not cultivated but, having been fed daily first by Arafat and now Hamas, it won't change in our lifetime. It's a shame for both Israelis and Palestinians, both of whom deserve better; the Israelis deserve peaceful neighbors, and the Palestinians deserve sane leadership.

Ed Morrissey points out the one truth to come from this:
Abbas has done us a favor, although it certainly wasn't his intention. He showed yet again that engagement with the Hamas terrorists is an exercise in futility, even for other Palestinians. The Israelis have no partner for peace in the territories, and Abbas is nothing more than an empty suit at the moment. It will take a civil war among the Palestinians before responsible leadership can emerge that will have the mandate to reach a peaceful co-existence with Israel, and perhaps the best solution is to get out the way and let the Palestinians finally go to it.

Friday, September 22, 2006



Truth In Reporting
A Fox News headline writer tells it like it is:

Real or 'shopped? You decide.
HT: Hot Air

How To Win Friends And Influence People
Dick, and I do mean "Dick", Armitage is disputing the wording, but I can't think of a better way of prompting a wise friend to focus on a desired result, especially when time is of the essence. Five years later, the Dems are still campaigning for a Terrorists' Bill Of Rights.

AJ Strata has an interesting angle that, given Armitage and Powell, seems entirely plausible.
Bill Roggio thinks the timing of this story is meant to deflect from a failing Waziristan Accord. Yup.

Missing In Action
Captain's Quarters chronicles The Rally That (Almost) No One Covered. Amazing how the MSM got all those posed pics in Lebanon yet missed this story.

It's a harsh and unfair world out there. Uniformed IDF soldiers get to use cluster bombs against innocent civilians firing innocent-civilian projectiles into Israel from behind women and children; innocent Palestinian civilians are so over-matched they have to use armored press vehicles to transport their innocent civilians to conduct innocent-civilian missions.

Via Confederate Yankee

Tuesday, September 19, 2006


American Interrogation Methods Exposed

I'm sorry to say that the stories about the secret CIA prisons are true. Of course, Reichwingers thought President Bush was above such atrocities but alas, that image lies shattered in the wake of this revelation. But the news of a leaked CIA training tape detailing interrogation methods long outlawed by Article 3 of the Geneva Convention will crush those shards into dust, exactly as should happen to Karl Rove. And would, if the slimey chickenhawk bastard hadn't made a deal with Satan himself.

It just fills me with gob-smacking heartache to find yet more confirmation (as if any were needed. Sigh. As if.) that we are the terrorists in this conflict. In fact we're worse, because we're Amrikans. I know bloodsucking Reichwingers lap this stuff up with glee, but if you have a conscience, watching it won't be easy.

Warning: The methods shown include the following:
* Induced hypothermia
* Forcing suspects to stand for prolonged periods
* Sleep deprivation;
* The "attention grab" where a suspect's shirt is forcefully seized
* The "attention slap" or open hand slapping that hurts but does not lead to physical damage
* The "belly slap"
* Sound manipulation
* Light manipulation


Enough Already

Anne Applebaum addresses the legion of Muslims who threaten the Pope and his flock with violence and death if they don't stop pointing out deadly Islamic violence: Enough Apologies.
Nothing the pope has ever said comes even close to matching the vitriol, extremism and hatred that pour out of the mouths of radical imams and fanatical clerics every day, all across Europe and the Muslim world, almost none of which ever provokes any Western response at all. And maybe it’s time that it should: When Saudi Arabia publishes textbooks commanding good Wahhabi Muslims to hate” Christians, Jews and non-Wahhabi Muslims, for example, why shouldn’t the Vatican, the Southern Baptists, Britain’s chief rabbi and the Council on American-Islamic Relations all condemn them — simultaneously?

Maybe it’s a pipe dream: The day when the White House and Greenpeace can issue a joint statement is surely distant indeed. But if stray comments by Western leaders — not to mention Western films, books, cartoons, traditions and values — are going to inspire regular violence, I don’t feel that it’s asking too much for the West to quit saying sorry and unite, occasionally, in its own defense. The fanatics attacking the pope already limit the right to free speech among their own followers. I don’t see why we should allow them to limit our right to free speech, too.


Fake But Phony

Belmont Club's Wretchard scrutinizes the the France2/Mohammed Al-Dura affair, which launched the most recent Palestinian Intifada, a cowardly, ruthless and brutal string of suicidal terror attacks on Israeli civilians. Non-combatants. People who have the right to go about their business without being used as human shields by scrotum-challenged little pricks whose chief form of communication with the world is murder from behind children.

Humanity 10, Palestinians 0.

Sunday, September 17, 2006


AI Shines Light On Hezbollah's War Crimes

Something Weird This Way Comes: Jules Crittendon writes in the Boston Herald that Amnesty International acknowledges Hezbollah war crimes in Lebanon:
AI did not address the issue of an estimated 1,000 Lebanese civilians killed when Israel attacked Hezbollah fighting and command positions that had been established within populated villages, or the use of civilian vehicles, buildings and clothing by Hezbollah fighters, who also sometimes fought in Israeli uniforms. That is still the subject of investigation, and AI announced those issues, unlike the Hezbollah violations, are too complex for immediate comment. Readers will recall that perceived Israeli transgressions were what attracted the most attention and condemnation during the Lebanon conflict, and that those occurences were largely presented as Israel’s fault. It will be interesting to see if AI attempts to sort out how many of those 1,000 were actually Hezbollah guerrillas, and how many cases of "Israeli" attacks on civilian buildings and vehicles -- such as ambulances -- were staged Hezbollah propaganda events, and in some cases, if the dead were actually dead, or play-acting, or being recounted and shuffled around.
I wonder how the world can honestly determine how many genuine deaths in Lebanon are attributable to evil Zionist intent given the rampant staging of scenes by Hezbo propagandists. That's not just a shame, that's a crime: the innocent may be denied justice because the world knows Hezbollah propaganda cries wolf. The Israelis are all too familiar with real massacres to ever manufacture them; that's the Islamofascists' clumsily transparent specialty, specifically designed to inflate their grievances so as to justify their barbarity against modern civilization.


Deconstructing The Phase II Reports

The ever-vigilant Thomas Joscelyn, employing his own research and that of others, has been very busy dismantling the incredibly misleading Senate Intelligence Committee "Phase II" Reports. In so doing, Joscelyn reveals Democrats' audacious willingness to lie, fabricate, omit or spin, whatever is needed to weave their fabulous anti-Bush tales, all in service to undermining the President in the war against Islamic fascism. I've previously linked to some of these articles; this is a more comprehensive list that includes some related goodies you won't find in the Old Media. In order of their appearance:
Senate Intelligence Committee to Release Two New Reports
Rules Of Evidence
More On The Senate "Intelligence" Report
Would You Trust Him?
Saddam's Sources
Basic Mistakes & Foolishness
Spook Spin
It's Not Rocket Science
Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq on Saddam's Ties to Al Qaeda

It's the sort of compilation that demonstrates the extent to which the left is prepared to lie, even to themselves, about the enemy's record and intentions.

How Bad Is the Senate Intelligence Report?Very bad. Stephen Hayes reports in the Weekly Standard.

Saturday, September 16, 2006


Milbloggers For Sanity

It's educational to read milbloggers' responses to the campaign by idiots to confer imaginary rights onto our enemies, whose barbarism is legendary. Somehow, idiots imagine that the mere goodness of their intentions will calm the heart of the Islamofascist beast. I guess they missed this scene on the bridge to Fallujah:

Underhanded former SecState Powell has come in for criticism for his utterly incomprehensible suggestion that there is some moral equivalency between American forces and the enemy (for which Bush rightly took him to task in his Rose Garden presser): Uncle Jimbo at Blackfive wants someone to remind him what he ever liked about Powell.

Chief Democrat Partisan Hack Harry Reid is staying true to form, uttering one idiotic antiwar banality after another, so 2Slick shares White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolton's response to Reid's four-point plan for our defeat in the War On Terror. It sets the record straight for Mr. Reid, whom I doubt will ever find a clue, even should one be clubbed upside his empty head.

And while we're on the subject of setting things straight, Lt. Smash and Uncle Jimbo explain why only idiots still argue that American forces "let" bin Laden get away from Tora Bora, the essence of which boils down to this: idiots don’t fare well trying to ponder adult matters.

They're not milbloggers, but let's close with these wise words from Power Line:

The moral basis for our fight against terrorism is that terrorism is evil and that nothing we're doing to combat it remotely approaches that evil. Certain intellectuals, hack liberal journalists, and opportunistic Democratic politicians may flirt with the view that we risk becoming the moral equivalent of the terrorists. However, no foreign government -- democratic or otherwise -- can afford to indulge such nonsense. Not when it comes to thinking about cooperating with the U.S. to thwart, capture, or kill terrorists, and not when it comes to figuring how they themselves will treat terrorists.

In other words, reality bites.

Thursday, September 14, 2006


McCain's Delusion

Andrew C. McCarthy smacks down Senators McCain, Graham and Warner over their resistance to the Bush legislation on military tribunals:

Thus is the McCain Amendment theme reprised: The way we treat Islamic terrorists will somehow impact the way our own soldiers are treated when captured. It’s hard to imagine a more preposterous premise on which to base policy.

Our enemies don’t give a damn about the Geneva Conventions or, frankly, about the inspiring life story of Senator McCain. The life story that animates them is Mohammed’s.

Thus do they invoke, for example, the Battle of Qurazya, in which the prophet is said to have ordered hundreds of captured prisoners decapitated and interred in mass graves (while women and children were condemned to slavery). Thus, too, do they cite scriptures which instruct, for example, that “when ye meet the Unbelievers in fight, smite at their necks” (Sura 47:4); that they must “slay [their enemies] wherever ye catch them” (Sura 2:191); and that “[t]he punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger … is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides …” (Sura 5:33).

Let’s not mince words here: Our soldiers, if captured by Islamic terrorists, will be tortured and killed. That’s what Islamic terrorists do. That’s why awed admiration is the only proper response to the bravery of our men and women in uniform. They fight for us despite knowing, as we should all by now know, that nothing we do affects the jihadists’ behavior.

On the other hand, if we were to fight another conventional war against the honorable combatants of a nation-state, that country’s forces — like our own — would be solemnly bound to (as well as self-interested in) compliance with their Geneva Convention obligations regarding prisoners of war. Again, how we deal with al Qaeda now is irrelevant to the treatment our forces will receive in any future conflict.

So, no, we don’t owe jihadists the same trial rights we owe any honorable combatants, much less our own troops. The very notion is an insult to those putting their lives on the line in our defense. That aside, though, the incentives these senators would create are perverse. It is an elementary rule of human nature that when behavior is rewarded, it begets more of the same. Rewarding terrorists with rights to which they have no legal entitlement can only encourage their methods — a cost McCain, Graham, and Warner would apparently have us bear despite the absence of any discernible benefit.

Emphasis mine.

I marvel that McCain still thinks he has a chance at the Presidency, which he claims he is willing to sacrifice on the issue of jihadists' rights. That's certainly prescient on his part, given the rights-stifling reality of McCain-Feingold, his role in the Gang of Fourteen, and now his naive proposition that deference to savages will somehow induce in them a sense of humanity towards captured infidels. The enemy's eye-gouging, neck-sawing barbarities will prevail, regardless of the Senator's inexplicable refusal to accept that fact.

McCain himself is a case study in how our enemies have ignored, even taken advantage of, the values he claims to be defending, so what is it he does not understand?

Wednesday, September 13, 2006



Captain's Quarters on the rank smell of bullshit emanating from Richard Armitage's explanation of his role in Plamegate. What a lying, cowardly no-account pantywaist. The man has no character at all.

Tuesday, September 12, 2006


You Must Remember This

The day after Americans and the world marked the fifth anniversary of 9/11, it's worthwhile to remember the glee with which the news of that event was met in the Arab world.

Monday, September 11, 2006


Clear Lines

Via NRO, Mark Steyn writing in the Chicago Sun-Times:
"Interconnectedness" is the word used by the late Edward Said, the New York-based Palestinian grievance-monger and eminent America-disparager: A couple of weeks after 9/11, the professor deplored the tendency of commentators to separate cultures into what he called "sealed-off entities," when in reality Western civilization and the Muslim world are so "intertwined" that it was impossible to "draw the line" between them. National Review's Rich Lowry was unimpressed. "The line seems pretty clear," he said. "Developing mass commercial aviation and soaring skyscrapers was the West's idea; slashing the throats of stewardesses and flying the planes into the skyscrapers was radical Islam's idea."
There are other clear differences that come to mind today, one standing out above the rest: The President of the United States walks among Americans to commemorate the day and console them in their grief; Osama is nowhere to be found, and Zawahiri pukes up his threats from a hideaway, a seething coward afraid to come out in public to back up his talk.

Hot Air's Bryan Preston draws perhaps the most important line from the point of view of those of us who understand the real threat as opposed to those who would hand victory to the enemy in order to preserve their illusions:

Five years on, a psychosis has gripped millions who can’t and won’t fathom the true nature of the war we are in. For many of them, having been born and raised in an essentially post-Christian West, they can’t imagine that anyone might be motivated to kill and die because of something a warlord wrote down
centuries ago. They cannot imagine any religion other than the one they believe they have outgrown being violent or causing violence. They cannot imagine anyone fighting for a cause that offers no material gains and therefore cannot be negotiated away. In our essentially materialist West, millions lack the imagination to believe that bin Laden’s pining for the return of Andalusia to Muslim rule is in his mind a legitimate reason to wage war on America now. They can imagine their own countrymen being so motivated, though, and I think that’s key to understanding their state of mind. They can imagine the Rotary Club member down the street plotting mayhem because he goes to church and votes Republican, but they can’t imagine that the Muslim in Karachi is a real, live enemy who is actually plotting an attack.

This lack of imagination has bred the anti-war madness we have now. Rather than accept the reality of an enemy that cannot and therefore will not negotiate away what he believes to be the will of God, and rather than accept that this enemy will understand nothing outside total victory or total defeat, and rather than understand that this enemy’s goals include enslaving the entire world in a global caliphate, and rather than accept that this reality necessitates the use of all tools including military might to defend ourselves, millions have embraced an alternate reality.

The reality of the enemy outside the West and its motivations being too terrifying and too far beyond their own control, millions now imagine that the enemy in this war is within. The enemy, to them, isn’t the turbaned man behind the plot to hijack multiple airplanes and crash them into multiple buildings in America. The real enemy, to these millions, is the man in the Oval Office, and the man or men behind him.

Imagining the enemy as a Westerner who has a Western worldview and essentially Western motivations gives these millions the comfort of thinking that they can understand and defeat the enemy easily. They can expose him in the press or on their blog. They can spread the word through a bumper sticker or a sign in their yard. They can vote against him and encourage others to help vote him out. They can impeach him. They can shout and rail at anyone who supports him. They can destroy his political party and ruin his name. They can, in their own minds, win the war on their own terms without exposing themselves to danger. Because they have imagined their own enemy from before that day to be the enemy of civilization. And because it’s not really a war at all, just a made-up threat some evil neocons conjured up to scare everyone into giving them power. And that being the case, the deniers imagine that they can save civilizaton at the ballot box. They don’t have to find out what makes the enemy tick, they don’t have to fight him, and they don’t have to change their fundamental and now obviously flawed assumptions about humanity and the world.

If only it were that easy.

Five years on, the illness of replacing an implacable, indeed alien enemy with one from our own civilizational family has spread and metastasized through the majority of one of our two political parties, and may yet claim a majority of the country itself. History has a way of fading out as the day’s current noise rises in volume, and to them 9-11 is either history or a historic lie. The loudest voice, though not always or even often right, is often the one that gets the last word. And the 9-11 deniers and their allies across the left are nothing if not loud.

Five years on, it’s hard to take a positive look at the war because we are failing to comprehend it. The mass denial of reality is taking half our arsenal of unity and morale away from us.
Those of us who see the threat for what it is still say that we will prevail because we are right and because we are America, but that’s just letting the others off the hook. If we’re going to prevail anyway, why should they snap out of their fog? And why should we demand that they do? The truth is, we need the denial to end and we need our countrymen to understand and help, but since we’re powerless to cure it with reason we shrug or laugh at it. But it’s eating
away at our ability to defend ourselves.

Emphasis mine.

Ace adds to the truth that remains incomprehensible to idiots:

Their motives are a mystery only to those who are determined to avoid the motive the murderers proudly declare themselves.

They do not hate you because of Iraq.

They do not hate you because of Kyoto.

They do not hate you because of "US foreign policy."

They do not hate you because of "American hegemony."

They do not hate you because of globalization -- at least as that term is typically understood.

They hate you because their lunatic understanding of their religion compels them to hate you, and to murder you, and to convert the world to Allah, and murder those unwilling to accept his Religon of Extortion.

They hate you because Allah, they believe, has dictated that the most fanatical, most piously murderous of Muslims shall be the kings of the earth and the masters of all creation, and your very existence -- free, prosperous, technologically advanced, happy -- is a blasphemy to them.

They cannot hope to overtake the West, or even the modernizing parts of Thailand, in fifty years, or even a hundred years, or even in five hundred years, through attempts to raise the Islamic world up.

Which means they are commanded to lay the Western world down low.

The West is despised because it offers an alternative to the thuggish, primative, barbarous, woman-enslaving, honor-killing culture-cum-twisted-religion in which they believe.

And which therefore threatens the power of the lunatic theocrats to keep control over their populations.

You can't keep them down on the madrassa once they've seen the big city.

They don't hate you because of your freedom -- not exactly.

They hate you because you are a living demonstration that freedom works, and that their ways are backwards and barbarous.

And they will not stop hating you until you are either dead or enslaved along with them in their dark death-cult.

Truth is, idiots won't get it until the rest of us get it again right in the mouth, another 9/11, after which I pray the idiots will be held to account for their perfidy. And while it won't be pretty, I will sure welcome the correction.

Sunday, September 10, 2006


September 11, 2001

It's from a different time and a different conflict, but from Ground Zero, I believe the essence of Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address rings true on this day:

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Saturday, September 09, 2006


Here We Go Again

Democrat members didn't like the drift of the latest Senate Intelligence Committee report on Iraq and al Qaeda, so they salted it with election talking points, then trotted out the same old trash to the waiting media. So reports Thomas Joscelyn in Rules of Evidence:
But beyond the obvious political gamesmanship, there is little merit to this posturing because there is little serious analysis in the Senate report: Far from providing the definitive word on Saddam's ties to al Qaeda, the report is almost worthless.

CONSIDER TWO BRIEF examples, chosen from many:

The committee's staff made little effort to determine whether or not the testimony of former Iraqi regime officials was truthful. In fact, Saddam Hussein and several of his top operatives--all of whom have an obvious incentive to lie--are cited or quoted without caveats of any sort. In Saddam's debriefing it was suggested that he may cooperate with al Qaeda because "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." According to the report, "Saddam answered that the United States
was not Iraq's enemy. He claimed that Iraq only opposed U.S. policies. He specified that if he wanted to cooperate with the enemies of the U.S., he would have allied with North Korea or China."

Anyone with even a partial recollection of the controversy surrounding Iraq in the 1990s will recall that Saddam made it a habit of cursing and threatening the United States. His annual January "Army Day" speeches were laced with threats and promises of retaliation against American assets. That is, when Saddam claimed that the United States was "not Iraq's enemy," he was quite obviously lying. But nowhere in the staff's report is it noted that Saddam's debriefing was substantially at odds with more than a decade of his rhetoric.

The testimony of another former senior Iraqi official is more starkly disturbing. One of Saddam's senior intelligence operatives, Faruq Hijazi, was questioned about his contacts with bin Laden and al Qaeda. There is a substantial body of reporting on Hijazi's ties to al Qaeda throughout the 1990s.

Hijazi admitted to meeting bin Laden once in 1995, but claimed that "this was his sole meeting with bin Ladin or a member of al Qaeda and he is not aware of any other individual following up on the initial contact."

This is not true. Hijazi's best known contact with bin Laden came in December 1998, days after the Clinton administration's Operation Desert Fox concluded. We know the meeting happened because the worldwide media reported it. The meeting took place on December 21, 1998. And just days later, Osama bin Laden warned, "The British and the American people loudly declared their support for their leaders decision to attack Iraq. It is the duty of Muslims to confront, fight, and kill them."

Reports of the alliance became so prevalent that in February 1998 Richard Clarke worried in an email to Sandy Berger, President Clinton's National Security adviser, that if bin Laden were flushed from Afghanistan he would probably just "boogie to Baghdad." Today, Clarke has made a habit of denying that Iraq and al Qaeda were at all connected.

There is a voluminous body of evidence surrounding this December 1998 meeting between Hijazi and bin Laden--yet there is not a single mention of it in the committee's report. THE WEEKLY STANDARD asked the staffers "Why not?" They replied that there was no evidence of the meeting in the intelligence or
documents they reviewed.

That's hard to believe. Newspapers such as Milan's Corriere Della Sera and London's Guardian, and the New York Post reported on it. Michael Scheuer, who was the first head of the bin Laden unit from 1996 to 1999, approvingly cited several of these accounts (before his own flip-flop on the issue) in his 2002 book, Through Our Enemies Eyes. Scheuer wrote that Saddam made Hijazi responsible for "nurturing Iraq's ties to [Islamic] fundamentalist warriors," including al Qaeda.

All of this obviously contradicts Hijazi's debriefing; none of it is cited in the committee's report.
Read it all at The Weekly Standard, along with Joscelyn's followup articles at his own fine blog.


Waaambulance Time For The Clintonistas

ABC is airing "The Path To 9/11" and Clinton Democrats are screaming like, well, Clinton Democrats do every time they have to face their own historic fecklessness (Okay, granted, Sandy Berger doesn't scream; he just quietly steals and destroys classified documents). No-one addresses Clintonista hypocrisy better than the eeevil Hugh Hewitt:
Begala and many of the "cancel it" camp are pretending anger over the fact that Rush (and 899 others, including me) got "screeners" of the program. Begala asserts that this proves deep bias. What it proves is that Rush has an audience of 20 million, and many of the rest of us large audiences as well. I get screeners and books every day by producers/agents/promoters of every stripe trying to get some air time or mentions. Begala knows this, just as he also knows that the program was screened at the National Press Club for a large audience that included, among other Democratic partisans, Richard ben-Veniste. The dishonesty of the attack on the program as selectively previewed tips us to the dishonesty of the critics, and reminds us of the assault on Sinclair Broadcasting during Campaign 2004. (And of the silence that came from the left when Michael Moore peddled his lies, or earlier anti-Nixon programs such as television's 1989 "The Final Days," or Oliver Stone's Nixon.)

Read the comments for a nicely organic exposé on the Clinton-apologist mindset.


Future Tense

It's 2051, and the ABC network helps a new America celebrate the Fiftieth Anniversary of 9/11.

Tuesday, September 05, 2006


Hezbollah Fighters Wore Israeli Uniforms

Hezbollah in Israeli Uniforms (The Unbelievable Video)

"Israeli video journalist Itai Anghel went into Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon with the Nahal Brigade and shot 25 minutes of riveting house-to-house combat footage with a night vision lens. The Hezbollah fighters wore Israeli uniforms."HERE is that powerful portrait of Israel's war against the Islamofascists who are determined to wipe Israel off the map.

Hat Tip Larwyn. And, HERE is the second part to the "The Soldier"s" series dedicated to the brave Israeli soldier from Israel Rules blog.

Monday, September 04, 2006


Branding Radical Islam

Charles Johnson scrutinizes and reports his findings on CAIR.
More on CAIR's PR push here.


About Honor

David Frum shares his correspondence with James Bowman, author of the book Honor: A History, in the wake of the Wilson/Plame implosion:
You are of course right in what you say about Richard Armitage, but there’s plenty of dishonor to go around in this matter — beginning with the grand-daddy of it all, which was Joseph Wilson’s op-ed in the New York Times that set the whole sorry business in motion. For someone who, however temporarily, was working for President Bush and his agents to take his disagreement with them public was a despicable act that could have had nothing but evil consequences for the war effort, then in the very beginning of its difficult and painful adjustment from conventional warfare to counter-insurgency, as well as for the president’s and the country’s standing in the world. Joe Wilson was not in a position to know everything, or even everything that the administration knew. His second-guessing could have been of little or no usefulness even if it had been done privately and disinterestedly. Given publicly and patently for his own self-advancement at the administration’s — and his country’s — expense, it should have resulted in his being shunned by all decent people rather than lionized in the media.
And Bowman is just getting started.

Saturday, September 02, 2006


Steyn On C-Span

Mark Steyn on politics, jihad, and sitting in for Rush Limbaugh.

HT: The Puppy-Blender Guy


Iraq's WMDs Keep Coming

"For those keeping score, this most recent discovery raises the total number of chemical weapons found in Iraq since 2003 to more than 700."


The Other Thing That Won't Die

I've decided that Larry Johnson needs me to critique his blog, because I've noticed several inacurracies and I know Larry could use help in that department, so here goes Installment Number One in my new multi-part (maybe three) blogseries, "Helping Larry", which could change tomorrow if I think of something that isn't lame. Anyway, here's Larry, in this heartfelt ode to Secretary Of Defense Rumsfeld:
You want to call the majority of Americans "appeasers," as you did in your speech yesterday at the American Legion National Convention? Here are a couple names for you. You're a jingo. Worse, you're a fucking loser.

C'mon, Larry, he didn't say the majority of Americans are appeasers- he was just referring to the idiots. And they're in the minority right now. Thank God for that, huh Larry?


Friday, September 01, 2006


The Thing That Won't Die

Just when I thought the Joe and Valerie Plame-Wilson saga was over and done with, the story continues to twitch. Now the Washington Post dumps all over notorious liar Wilson and blames him for his wife's so-called "outing":

[I]t now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming -- falsely, as it turned out -- that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush's closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It's unfortunate that so many people took him seriously.

Unfortunate? Are they kidding? Here's Captain's Quarters:
It's more than unfortunate -- it was deliberate. Wilson and Plame set up this trip for the purpose of discrediting the elected officials of the American government in an attempt to keep them from exercising their policies on intelligence and foreign affairs. Wilson lied and deceived people, first by leaking his disinformation anonymously to the Post and the New York Times, and then in an editorial that relied on his diplomatic reputation to bolster the credibility of his false accusations.
This set off a political witch hunt the likes of which should embarrass the media and Democrats for years, but probably won't. They demanded an investigation into the leak, especially the editorial board of the New York Times, then wailed as the prosecutor started jailing reporters for non-cooperation. The whole time the media and the mainstream Democratic leadership -- including their presidential nominee John Kerry, who made Wilson a part of his campaign -- insisted that Wilson spoke truth to power, even while Kerry's own Senate intelligence panel reached a very different conclusion.

Now the Left and the media want to continue talking about Scooter Libby rather than the three-year travesty they have foisted on this nation during a time of war. At least the Washington Post knows when to stop.
Which puts the WaPo only about two and a half years behind the adults in concluding that Wilson, Plame, Kerry, Mapes, Armitage, Powell, The NYT, Corn and the rest of those skunks were willing to foist a pack of lies on the public to deliberately undermine President Bush and OIF. Next thing you know, the Post will be telling us of France's role in a scandal involving U.N. sanctions against Saddam, and the geniuses at will be on the real story, Speaking Truth To Power According To Larry Johnson.

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