Thursday, November 30, 2006
Kofi, UN Knew About Oil-For-Food
This puts some of our enemies into clearer focus. First among them is the United Nations.
Via Protein Wisdom. Love the Protein Wisdom.
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
Gingrich Opens The Discussion
I appreciate his standing up for the First Amendment, but I think the Captain has over-reacted.
I've been listening closely to Mr. Gingrich for the past couple of years as he has contributed to the national dialogue, and I believe he has now begun focusing his energies on what he thinks are the most important challenges facing Americans in the coming years.
All these challenges have their roots in the present, and one of the most pressing of these problems is that the enemy is winning the propaganda war. Why? I believe it's because most Americans simply are not thinking in a wartime context, especially when they leap on the latest dishonest, manipulative story based on leaks to the NYT by a government insider, or picked up by the AP from an enemy-agent stringer, for the egregious purpose of undermining the President for political purposes. This is an especially despicable practice in wartime, and this is wartime, make no mistake.
No war is won without a powerful and focused propaganda campaign, and no enemy can be conquered without force, accompanied by the will to use it and the power to communicate that willingness. Stories such as the Flying Imams and the Six Burned Sunnis are perfect examples of how the propaganda war is being fought against America by enemies both within and outside the country and around the world. Such stories always find their way to the headlines, but then the MSM does nothing to contextualize them; instead, they get the "Abu Ghraib Treatment" and are splashed all over the front page for weeks, with nothing to counter their propaganda value to the enemy.
Is Gingrich talking about limiting the press in such cases to what it can and cannot print? I don't think so. I think he wants us to discuss that, though, because we need to decide what to do about the MSM in its present form, which is simply no longer acceptable. The question is, what do we do about that particular problem, and how do the solutions we propose hold up against the Constitution? The answers will come from honest dialogue, not partisan leftist poo-flinging. It's time to act like adults with the common cause of destroying Islamic fascism. That's as pure and simple as it gets.
I think Gingrich also wants us to explore the parameters of free speech in the context of wartime. What was acceptable on September 10, 2001 is not necessarily so now; that has to be the starting point for any discussion of proposed limitations on free speech, and this should not be thought of as a slippery slope, because I believe the solution is right there in the Constitution (and here we see the crucial value of conservative judicial restraint as opposed to liberal judicial activism). Even if Americans decide that there should remain no limits on free speech beyond those present in the Constitution, I think that dialogue has to take place. So, again without all the rhetorical nonsense of the past five years, how do we define what is acceptable and what is not, in service to a war to protect our freedoms?
In posing his questions in so open-ended a manner, Gingrich is also asking the questions that must be answered before any honest and beneficial discussion can take place: are Americans prepared to grow up and act like adults? Are Americans ready to put aside their differences so as to make for an honest discussion? Are Americans willing to put the future of the country first? Is it possible to have an honest adult discussion with all that partisan noise still playing in the background?
I must declare my honest hope that the questions Gingrich poses will be met with non-partisan, responsible and honest consideration.
That, and only that, will save us.
Newt Gingrich GETS the Cyber Jihad: It's time to take it seriously
Newt Gingrich gets it, those naysaying him don't.
John F'n Kerry, Presciential Material
M'Duh. Anyone who liked Kerry against Bush?
Idiot. Bald-faced, dumb-as-a-sack-of-hammers idiot. Embarrassing-to-be-that-much-of-an-idiot level of idiot. Today's numbers kinda speak to that.
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
MSM Confirmed As Enemy Shills
Among those media companies repeating lies in service to the enemy: The NYT, WaPo, NBC, and of course, the AP. It's official: now you can be certain that reading your morning newspaper or watching the evening news will get you gassed by MSM lies and enemy propaganda.
It has long been fair and accurate to say that the media want an American and coalition defeat in the war on terror. Now Flopping Aces has given us one of the most important stories of the last five years, but since the subject is the media itself and the source of what most think is the unquestionable truth, it will be left to bloggers to spread the facts and hope they catch on with the public.
More on the story at Democracy Project.
Monday, November 27, 2006
Bienvenu à Dar al-Islam
Daniel Pipes points to a French goverment website listing the areas it has thus far surrendered to its Muslim conquerers.
What are they? Those places in France that the French state does not control. They range from two zones in the medieval town of Carcassone to twelve in the heavily Muslim town of Marseilles, with hardly a town in France lacking in its ZUS. The ZUS came into existence in late 1996 and according to a 2004 estimate, nearly 5 million people live in them.And, of course, someday they will do to France's treasures what they did to the Buddhas of Bamiyan.
Can't Say I Differ
“The American people,” Mr. Leahy’s letter said, “deserve to have detailed and accurate information about the role of the Bush administration in developing the interrogation policies and practices that have engendered such deep criticism around the world.”Once we defeat the enemy, Leahy's argument will make sense. Until then, it's partisan as hell and nationally self-destructive. No wonder Dick Cheney told him to go fuck himself.
Saturday, November 25, 2006
The isLAmist Times
I don’t have the resources of the L.A. Times. Yet in my spare time from my full-time job, using widely available resources on the Web and contacts built up through blogging, I probably got a more accurate picture of what happened in Ramadi on November 13 than the paid reporter for the L.A. Times did.With friends like the isLAmist Times, who needs CAIR?
In doing so, I found I learned something important about reporting from Iraq in general. Big Media journalists often rely on sources that are unreliable. They don’t tell you the pressures these sources might be under from insurgents and terrorists. They refuse to tell you who their stringers are, so we can assess their motivations. They get quotes from doctors who seem to see only civilian deaths. If the military has been given insufficient time to respond to an allegation, these journalists don’t check with the military later, to verify that the story they’ve written is accurate. And sometimes, as here, their stories are completely at odds with numerous other accounts reported in other press outlets — and they seem to have no interest in finding out why.
It’s very sobering to realize that much of the news coming out of Iraq is completely unreliable. And it’s a bigger issue than whether the L.A. Times got a single story wrong on November 15.
Monday, November 20, 2006
How To Answer A Load Of Terror-Apologist Crap
No day should pass without the entire world hearing Israel's Ambassador to the UN Dan Gillerman declare the truth from the U.N. stage about the Hamas Death Machine and its Iranian and Syrian sponsors. He was honest, blunt and forthright. The fact that he upset the double-dealing French is icing on the cake. Note to Jacques Chirac: Islamists are burning France to the ground: What do you do?
I would have thought an attack on French culture from within its own borders would alarm peace-lovers everywhere. But I don't hear their voices defending France, so I guess assimilation by Islamic fascists is okay with them.
Democrats, the "realists", the terror-apologist idiots, the terrorists themselves and their fascist sponsor-states: none of them can ever hope to emulate anything even remotely resembling the Israeli brand of courage; they can't even conceive of it. It's ironic that Israelis may after all be the only ones left standing in the way of another worldwide holocaust, especially if House Leader Nancy Pelosi, her incompetent Democrat caucus, and their Islamofascist heroes all have their way.
Beginning with France; caving to invaders is what they do best.
Here's Your Apology
The text was apparently written by Rabbi Meir Kahane. God works in mysterious ways.
Sunday, November 19, 2006
Saturday, November 18, 2006
The Extremist Agenda
Friday, November 17, 2006
"A Republic, If You Can Keep It"
Chartles Krauthammer wonders if Iraqis are ready to keep their republic, freshly delivered through the expenditure of Western blood and treasure. His pointed evaluation:
One can tinker with American tactics or troop levels from today until doomsday. But unless the Iraqis can put together a government of unitary purpose and resolute action, the simple objective of this war -- to leave behind a self-sustaining democratic government -- is not attainable.Just for the record: God help Iran if the Pelosi Democrats cut and run from Iraq.
Thursday, November 16, 2006
The Right Question
Instead of trapping themselves in an imaginary quagmire, the commissioners can help us face the real war. What’s going on in Iraq is not “the war,” which is raging over the entire world. The real question — the life and death question — is: How can we win the war in the Middle East, which now extends from Afghanistan to Lebanon, Iraq, Israel, and Somalia?Alas, it is difficult to tell what is on President Bush's mind these days with regard to Iraq and the larger war. He seems reluctant to express any thoughts which might pre-empt possible Baker-Hamilton conclusions, which is frustrating to those who fear the Democrats' cut-and-run strategy is gaining traction amongst Commission members and even the incoming SecDef Gates. Personally, I can't imagine a more frightening scenario- 1938 pales in comparison. Leaving Iraq without victory may mollify the antiwar crowd, but it will also spell doom for American credibility around the world, and force Western civilization dangerously back on its heels in the fight against Islamic fascism. The last President Bush betrayed the Iraqi people when he abandoned them to Saddam Hussein after the Gulf War. Another betrayal, this time at the hands of a short-sighted leftist Congress, will be even more disastrous- for Iraqis who thought the Americans were finally serious about rescuing them, and for everyone else dying under the murderous evil of Islamofascism.
That question forces us to devise a strategy to deal with multiple enemies instead of limiting our strategic thinking to the Iraqi insurgency alone. It forces us to confront the terror masters in Tehran and Syria as well as the killers in Iraq. If we ask how to win in Iraq alone, we are led into a fool’s errand of trying to convince our sworn enemies–Iran has been at war with us for twenty-seven years—to act like friends. But if we ask how to win the war, we can see that we have many good cards to play, and many real allies, from the Iranian and Syrian people to the millions of Kurds in Iran, Iraq and Syria, to several other oppressed groups throughout the region, and even to leaders who today denounce us.
I hope the White House is listening to voices such as Ledeen's.
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
For Antiwar Idiots, There Is Virtue In Defeat
James Carroll, recently writing in the Boston Globe, wondered if America could finally accept defeat in Iraq, and be the better for it, comparing it to Vietnam:
But what about the moral question? For all of the anguish felt over the loss of American lives, can we acknowledge that there is something proper in the way that hubristic American power has been thwarted? Can we admit that the loss of honor will not come with how the war ends, because we lost our honor when we began it? This time, can we accept defeat?
To be frank, no. In Mr. Carroll's fantasyland, the United States is deserving of defeat, and through some sort of mental gymnastics, that defeat is honorable, because it smacked of hubris to ever have fought in the first place.
I contend instead that the ultimate dishonor will be to leave hundreds of thousands, and perhaps millions, of Iraqis to violent deaths; and that this is far too large a price to pay for Mr. Carroll to feel better.
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Feith On Rumsfeld
The Donald Rumsfeld I know isn't the one you know.
Sunday, November 12, 2006
The Terrorist Financier Formerly Known As Cat Stevens?
Read The Jawa Report exclusive here.
In an online voice chat from exile in Lebanon where he fled after British authorities banned several groups connected to him, Bakri told followers that various prominent Muslims would once frequent his office. Among those listed is Cat Stevens.
Bakri Mohammed has urged Muslims in the U.K. to fight British troops in Iraq and elsewhere, justified the 7/7 London bombings, and has publicly called for the murder of all who blaspheme the Muslim prophet Muhammed.
Several followers of Bakri Mohammed have been arrested for their public calls for the murder of blasphemers. At least one has been recently been convicted.
The online chat was captured by Glen Jenvey who is part of an organization that secretly monitors the activities of radical Muslims who support terrorism. Jenvey, who we have worked with in the past and who has helped convict several high profile terror supporters, contacted The Jawa Report about the recorded conversation shortly after he captured it. The audio recording was made in what Bakri Mohammed believed was a private chat between himself and his radical followers.
But there's more. Bakri also claimed that Cat Stevens was an intimate of convicted terrorist Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman. When the Egyptian born cleric, better known as "The Blind Sheikh", would visit Britain, "Yusuf Islam used to sit near to him and ask him whatever he want [sic]."
Bakri then suggests that Cat Stevens also helped support Abdel Rahman's family financially. He also claims that Yusuf Islam knowingly sent money to the families of "the mujahidin" in Egypt. Giving money to the families of so-called 'martyrs' is a way for Muslims to support terrorism indirectly and yet remain shielded from most legal ramifications.
Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman is head of the same group that murdered 58 tourists near Luxor, Egypt, and he is currently serving a life sentence in the U.S. for a conspiracy to blow up targets in the United States.
Ride on the peace train....
Saturday, November 11, 2006
On Beit Hanoun
Vaya Con Dios, Rummy!
Here is the record of Donald Rumsfeld. (1) Tried to take a top-heavy Pentagon and prepare it for the wars of the postmodern world, in which on a minute’s notice thousands of American soldiers, with air and sea support, would have to be sent to some god-awful place to fight some savagery—and then be trashed live on CNN for doing it; (2) less than a month after 9/11 he organized the retaliation against al Qaeda in the heart of primordial Afghanistan that removed the Taliban in 7 weeks, when we were all warned that the U.S., like the British and Russians of old, would fail; (3) oversaw the removal of Saddam in 3 weeks—after the 1991 Gulf War and the 12-years of 350,000 sorties in the no-fly-zones, and various bombing strikes, had failed. (4) Ah, you say, then there is the disastrous 3-year insurgency—too few troops, Iraqi army let go, underestimated “dead-enders” etc.?
But Rumsfeld knew that in a counterinsurgency (cf. Vietnam 1965-71) massive deployments only ensure complacency, breed dependency, and create resentment, and that, in contrast, training indigenous forces, ensuring political autonomy, and providing air and commando support (e.g., Vietnam circa 1972-4) is the only answer—although that is a long process that can work only if political support at home allows the military to finish the job (cf. the turn-of-the-century Philippines, and the British in Malaysia). He was a good man, and we were lucky to have him in our hour of need.
Private Thomas Gordon
In Memory of Private THOMAS GORDON
B/37600, Royal Hamilton Light Infantry, R.C.I.C.
who died on 19 August 1942
Remembered with honour
DIEPPE CANADIAN WAR CEMETERY, HAUTOT-SUR-MER
Commemorated in perpetuity by
the Commonwealth War Graves Commission
Philip LaPointe, Winnipeg Rifles
Ron Reed, Royal Air Force
Lillian LaPointe, British Army Nurse, Nanna
The men and women of the Canadian, British and American Armed Forces and our allies
God bless 'em all.
Friday, November 10, 2006
Islamofascism Overwhelms MI-5
This isn't just chilling; this is game on:
What I can say is that today, my officers and the police are working to contend with some 200 groupings or networks, totalling over 1600 identified individuals (and there will be many we don’t know) who are actively engaged in plotting, or facilitating, terrorist acts here and overseas. The extremists are motivated by a sense of grievance and injustice driven by their interpretation of the history between the West and the Muslim world. This view is shared, in some degree, by a far wider constituency. If the opinion polls conducted in the UK since July 2005 are only broadly accurate, over 100,000 of our citizens consider that the July 2005 attacks in London were justified. What we see at the extreme end of the spectrum are resilient networks, some directed from Al-Qaida in Pakistan, some more loosely inspired by it, planning attacks including mass casualty suicide attacks in the UK. Today we see the use of home-made improvised explosive devices; tomorrow’s threat may include the use of chemicals, bacteriological agents, radioactive materials and even nuclear technology. More and more people are moving from passive sympathy towards active terrorism through being radicalised or indoctrinated by friends, families, in organised training events here and overseas, by images on television, through chat rooms and websites on the Internet.Note the leap across the ocean to Canada. Will CSIS be the next national intelligence service to get swamped by the Religion Of Peace™?
The propaganda machine is sophisticated and Al-Qaida itself says that 50% of its war is conducted through the media. In Iraq, attacks are regularly videoed and the footage downloaded onto the internet within 30 minutes. Virtual media teams then edit the result, translate it into English and many other languages, and package it for a worldwide audience. And, chillingly, we see the results here. Young teenagers are being groomed to be suicide bombers. We are aware of numerous plots to kill people and to damage our economy. What do I mean by numerous? Five? Ten? No, nearer……. thirty that we know of. These plots often have links back to Al-Qaida in Pakistan and through those links Al-Qaida gives guidance and training to its largely British foot soldiers here on an extensive and growing scale. And it is not just the UK of course. Other countries also face a new terrorist threat: from Spain to France to Canada and Germany.
Monday, November 06, 2006
Obsession: Radical Islam
Reader Patrick Ishmael is proprietor of The News Buckit He writes:
"We have posted an abridged version (Google Video) and a full version (YouTube playlist) of the 'Obsession' movie showing on Fox News this past weekend. It's here. Everyone should see this before going to the polls, which is why we've linked to them. This is what we're fighting."
Sunday, November 05, 2006
State Of Denial
Who is it that’s in denial, again…? (The Sanity Inspector)
We can only wish denial was the modern left’s biggest problem. They actually believe that America mid-wifed terrorism and Radical Islam. They view America as the bad guy and American actions as the deus ex machina that made the world the dangerous place it is today. [...]-- Dean Barnett, “Crawl Over Broken Glass”
In a way, this viewpoint serves them as a security blanket of sorts. Their simplistic logic holds that if American actions caused all our problems, then a reversal of course could make all those problems vanish. [...]
It’s all something of a shame. If you read the leftwing blogs, you know they’ve got hate by the boatload. It’s too bad that hate can’t be channeled at the people who hate them back, the ones screaming for Jihad and pining for their deaths.
Austin Bay On Kerry And Honor
John Kerry’s simply not ready for the YouTube world.
Follow his career, such as it is. Kerry’s made it to the lofty perch of Senator from Massachusetts by:
(1) planning a political career from the age of 15 (if not age 11)
(2) riding the coattails of the Kennedy political machine (ie, brown-nosing and carrying water for the clan)
(3) marrying rich women
This nifty route to power works for a mediocre, arrogant politico in a world where the friendly political machine and a friendly media mask his foibles, incompetencies, and inadequacies. The friendly machine and media also blunt criticism. The arrogant mediocrity (backed by clan and family cash) can float along within a machine and media bubble, slowly rising from preening young poseur to Beltway Clerk to Senator.
The Internet and talk radio have burst that bubble. The bubble is a puddle of slippery soap. I suspect Kerry now knows it. His Tuesday (October 31) press conference was a dismal failure. He essentially pounded his chest like an eighth grade boy and shouted “I’m a man.” That conference was designed to focus his (Kerry’s) media enablers on the White House, and spin the story as a “Kerry versus Bush” conundrum rather than Kerry responding to the people he’d slandered. The New York Times bought that meme, but the Internet didn’t. Troops responded with the now classic “Jon Cary halp” photo, which Drudge slapped on his page.
Kerry then went into seclusion” — as safe a place as any for a “man” insistently destroying himself. But seclusion sounds so un-manly, doesn’t it? (Seclusion– that’s where Victorian ladies retreat after their latest affair becomes London’s topic du jour.)
Sure, the DNC probably ordered Kerry off the hustings. Seclusion keeps him off YouTube.
The NYDCLA Axis (nid-claw media axis, New York-Washington-Los Angeles) can no longer hide Kerry’s mediocrity from the voting public. George W. Bush is clearly a better politician than Kerry. "Bush is stupid” is really a political lie. Is Bush stupid compared to Al Gore? (Gore invented the Internet!!!) Stupid compared to John Kerry? Obviously not.
SADDAM TO HANG
Compared to the psychopathic brutality with which he tortured, maimed, brutalized and murdered hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, he is destined to meet a most merciful end.
From Interested Participant, via the Jawa Report:
- Ramsey Clark was booted from the courtroom at the beginning of the proceeding.
- Saddam went on a tirade after the sentence was read saying "God is great" and "Death to the enemies." He was removed from the court room after babbling about the judges and the court being agents for the occupation.
- Two co-defendants were also sentenced to be executed.
- Sporadic celebratory gunfire has started in Baghdad.
- Iraqi forces have initiated a travel lockdown in the provinces.
Saturday, November 04, 2006
Whence bin Laden?
Friday, November 03, 2006
A Vote For Democrats Is A Vote For Terrorists
Everybody has an opinion about next Tuesday's midterm congressional election in the U.S. – including senior terrorist leaders interviewed by WND who say they hope Americans sweep the Democrats into power because of the party's position on withdrawing from Iraq, a move, as they see it, that ensures victory for the worldwide Islamic resistance.HT: Power Line
The terrorists told WorldNetDaily an electoral win for the Democrats would prove to them Americans are "tired."
"Of course Americans should vote Democrat," Jihad Jaara, a senior member of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group and the infamous leader of the 2002 siege of Bethlehem's Church of the Nativity, told WND.
"This is why American Muslims will support the Democrats, because there is an atmosphere in America that encourages those who want to withdraw from Iraq. It is time that the American people support those who want to take them out of this Iraqi mud," said Jaara, speaking to WND from exile in Ireland, where he was sent as part of an internationally brokered deal that ended the church siege.
Muhammad Saadi, a senior leader of Islamic Jihad in the northern West Bank town of Jenin, said the Democrats' talk of withdrawal from Iraq makes him feel "proud."
"As Arabs and Muslims we feel proud of this talk," he told WND. "Very proud from the great successes of the Iraqi resistance. This success that brought the big superpower of the world to discuss a possible withdrawal."
Abu Abdullah, a leader of Hamas' military wing in the Gaza Strip, said the policy of withdrawal "proves the strategy of the resistance is the right strategy against the occupation."
"We warned the Americans that this will be their end in Iraq," said Abu Abdullah, considered one of the most important operational members of Hamas' Izzedine al-Qassam Martyrs Brigades, Hamas' declared "resistance" department. "They did not succeed in stealing Iraq's oil, at least not at a level that covers their huge expenses. They did not bring stability. Their agents in the [Iraqi] regime seem to have no chance to survive if the Americans withdraw."
Abu Ayman, an Islamic Jihad leader in Jenin, said he is "emboldened" by those in America who compare the war in Iraq to Vietnam.
In a recent interview with CBS's "60 Minutes," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, stated, "The jihadists (are) in Iraq. But that doesn't mean we stay there. They'll stay there as long as we're there."
WND read Pelosi's remarks to the terror leaders, who unanimously rejected her contention an American withdrawal would end the insurgency.
Islamic Jihad's Saadi, laughing, stated, "There is no chance that the resistance will stop."
He said an American withdrawal from Iraq would "prove the resistance is the most important tool and that this tool works. The victory of the Iraqi revolution will mark an important step in the history of the region and in the attitude regarding the United States."
Jihad Jaara said an American withdrawal would "mark the beginning of the collapse of this tyrant empire (America)."
While the terror leaders each independently urged American citizens to vote for Democratic candidates, not all believed the Democrats would actually carry out a withdrawal from Iraq.
WMDs In Iraq: Game, Set And Match
Of course they bury the lede
First the Bush-haters at the Old Gray Mare admitted they shouldn't have betrayed Americans and the U.S. government by publishing leaked intelligence operations, and now they confirm that in 2002 Saddam Hussein’s scientists were less than a year away from building an atomic bomb.
Idiots will not like this at all.
Alas, it's true. Always has been, always will be, just as idiots are always wrong.
Via Patterico: Except then the Times goes and fucks up again.
Plunging profits and market share appear not to be a deterrant. That's a good thing.
I've changed the title of this item after reading Jim Geraghty, who rightly emphasizes that the NYT so wants to trash Bush that they are even willing to put the lie to the idiots' "no WMDs in Iraq" mantra.
I’m sorry, did the New York Times just put on the front page that IRAQ HAD A NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM AND WAS PLOTTING TO BUILD AN ATOMIC BOMB?The Captain has a devastating critique of the Times and a great big fat "I told you so" for all those now finally and certainly discredited antiwar idiots out there.
What? Wait a minute. The entire mantra of the war critics has been “no WMDs, no WMDs, no threat, no threat”, for the past three years solid. Now we’re being told that the Bush administration erred by making public information that could help any nation build an atomic bomb.
Let’s go back and clarify: IRAQ HAD NUCLEAR WEAPONS PLANS SO ADVANCED AND DETAILED THAT ANY COUNTRY COULD HAVE USED THEM.
I think the Times editors are counting on this being spun as a “Boy, did Bush screw up” meme; the problem is, to do it, they have to knock down the “there was no threat in Iraq” meme, once and for all. Because obviously, Saddam could have sold this information to anybody, any other state, or any well-funded terrorist group that had publicly pledged to kill millions of Americans and had expressed interest in nuclear arms. You know, like, oh… al-Qaeda.
The New York Times just tore the heart out of the antiwar argument, and they are apparently completely oblivous to it.
The antiwar crowd is going to have to argue that the information somehow wasn’t dangerous in the hands of Saddam Hussein, but was dangerous posted on the Internet. It doesn’t work. It can’t be both no threat to America and yet also somehow a threat to America once it’s in the hands of Iran. Game, set, and match.
What other highlights has the Times now authenticated? We have plenty:
* 2001 IIS memo directing its agents to test mass grave sites in southern Iraq for radiation, and to use "trusted news agencies" to leak rumors about the lack of credibility of Coalition reporting on the subject. They specify CNN (emphasis mine).
* The Blessed July operation, in which Saddam's sons planned a series of assassinations in London, Iran, and southern Iraq
* Saddam's early contacts with Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda from 1994-7
* UNMOVIC knew of a renewed effort to make ricin from castor beans in 2002, but never reported it
* The continued development of delivery mechanisms for biological and chemical weapons by the notorious "Dr. Germ" in 2002
Actually, we have much, much more. All of these documents underscore the threat posed by Saddam Hussein and show that his regime continued their work on banned weapons programs. We have made this case over and over again, but some people refused to believe the documents were genuine. Now we have no less of an authority than the New York Times to verify that the IIS documentation is not only genuine, but presents a powerful argument for the military action to remove Saddam from power.
The Times wanted readers to cluck their tongues at the Bush administration for releasing the documents, although Congress actually did that. However, the net result should be a complete re-evaluation of the threat Saddam posed by critics of the war. Let's see if the Times figures this out for themselves.
Michelle Malkin: Suddenly, the New York Times is worried about dangerous disclosures
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
CNN: We Support The Big Giant Boob Who Supports The Poor Boobs Stupid Enough To Wind Up In Iraq
Ace doesn't recall CNN reporters expressing similar hopes about the Mark Foley story. I would add any number of other anti-Republican stories they have beaten to death over the past six years, including the ones stemming from seditious leaks from within the government. Anything to get at Bush, consequences be damned. Well, screw them, because the GOP ain't letting go of this jewel any time soon.
Besides, the point of this whole story is that John F'n Kerry really doesn't give a rat's ass about the troops. He didn't when he broke faith with them before Congress, called them a bunch of rapists and butchers and compared them to "Jenjis Khan", he didn't when he committed treason by negotiating with the North Vietnamese, he didn't when he accused Marines of "terrorizing" Iraqis, and he doesn't now. Nor do Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, John Dean, Dick Durbin, Charlie Rangel, "Mad Jack" Murtha, or any other Democrat leaders.
And the vast majority of his fellow Democrats, who want to run the country, support him.
Update: Some of those boobs in Iraq have responded to the Big Giant Boob.
Victor Davis Hanson rips John F'n Kerry a new one as he examines "one of those rare glimpses into an entire troubled ideology":
Without being gratuitously cruel, the problem of mediocrity is not in the ranks of the military, but on our university campuses, where half-educated professors and non-serious students killing time are ubiquitous.The Democrats throw their Joe Leibermans under the bus and turn to pompous assholes like Kennedy, Dean and Kerry for leadership. That's all you need to know about that ideology.
...why is the supposedly lame Bush so careful in speech, and the self-acclaimed geniuses like a Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, or Howard Dean serially spouting ever more stupidities? For all the Democrats' criticism of George Bush, I can't think of a modern President who has so infrequently put his foot in his public mouth, and, by the same token, can't think of any opposition that on the eve of elections seems to have an almost pathological death wish.