Blogs fights are stupid and I usually pay no attention to them, but this one is interesting because it pits the idea of feminism against Ann Althhouse.
It all started with this picture of Bill Clinton with NYC bloggers. And I have to digress here for a moment and quote Ace on the "diversity" of the bloggers. Too funny:
"All races and creeds are represented, from "pale" to "pinkish" to "pasty."
It's a Rainbow Coalition, all right, at least if the rainbow you're thinking of is a pale, ghostly emanation on the Ethereal Plane.
Ok, well Ann Althouse made a thing about all the women standing the closest to Bill, especially the one with the striking pose and clingy shirt. Well, that blogger got miffed at that and fired back at Ann. The links are all at that link of Ann's and check out the comments!
And then even Glenn got into it by using the best quote ever to describe feminism (and it's from Maureen Dowd of all all people!):
"One might almost think that feminism has become nothing more than a subset of the Democratic Party's activist base. Actually, that has become so obvious that even Maureen Dowd managed to figure it out when she famously commented: "Feminism died in 1998 when Hillary allowed henchlings and Democrats to demonize Monica as an unbalanced stalker, and when Gloria Steinem defended Mr. Clinton against Kathleen Willey and Paula Jones."
It's always amusing to read feminists try and defend Clinton. It is to laugh.
Saturday, September 16, 2006
Blogs fights are stupid and I usually pay no attention to them, but this one is interesting because it pits the idea of feminism against Ann Althhouse.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 4:26 PM
Here is the quote of the Pope from an academic lecture that is getting many upset:
"Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels," he turns to his interlocutor somewhat brusquely with the central question on the relationship between religion and violence in general, in these words: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."
I have not seen the Pope's next line being quoted, but it explains the first:
"The emperor goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God is not pleased by blood, and not acting reasonably ("syn logo") is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats.... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...."
There is not one thing wrong in this statement. Why saying that violence is incompatible with the nature of God and quoting an emperor of the 14th century is controversial I don't know. By Muslims committing violence on Churches today, they only illustrate what the emperor was saying long ago.
Read the Pope's entire paper. It is excellent.
You gotta love the irony of Iran insisting that the Pope apologize for linking Islam to violence.
Update: Great. Now they are calling for the Pope's death.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 1:02 PM
Friday, September 15, 2006
Ron Suskind, author of the book "The One Percent Doctrine," about the war on terror has an article in this week's Time magazine titled "The Unofficial Story of the al-Qaeda 14." He basically outlines why our interogation practices don't work. I seriously read this article with the attitude of "convince me." Mainly because I'm not comfortable with any kind of torture. Yesterday, McCain along with others, "rejected President George W. Bush's plan to relax standards on the treatment of terror suspects, instead backing a substitute plan offering greater rights protections to "war on terror" detainees."
The President's plan outlined "tougher questioning" of detainees while protecting U.S. interrogators from being prosecuted for war crimes." This has many conservatives angry at McCain...again.
This is the thing. I think McCain knows a thing or two about torture. I think maybe, in at least this area, we should listen to him. (yeah, yeah, I know what you are thinking.. my crush on McCain)
On the one hand we don't want to become the people we fight and on the other I am not convinced we have ever come anywhere near that. To get back to the Time's article, Suskind mentions a list of techniques, but only names one...water boarding. Is that the worse one? It must be because that is the one they mention all the time. He also kept referring to "harsh interrogation techniques." He said that in one case of the al-Qaeda 14 Abu Zubaydah, "we used him as an experiment in righteous brutality that in the end produced very little." Yet he goes on to say they did get information out of Abu, but it was by convincing him that he was miraculously saved by U.S. Doctors (after being shot 3 times) in order to help our side.
Oh really. I would like to know how this author knows this. I would like to hear that from the interrogation officers themselves. Forgive me for not having full confidence in the mainstream media when they report on things like this.
Well, I want to know exactly what "righteous brutality" is. Why couldn't the reporter disclose that? Maybe it is his view of brutality, which might be slapping for all I know. The entire article is absent any description of these torture techniques. Why is that? Could it be that many wouldn't see it as "torture?" What other explanation is there?
It seems to me that both are not being upfront on this. Tell the American people plainly. Don't say "righteous brutality," say exactly what the techniques are. We can decide for ourselves if we think it is brutal.
At least Tony Snow did outline what was NOT allowed in his press conference:
" [T]he problem we have right now is that there are no standards and anybody can do whatever they want; in some cases, maybe they are. If you lay out what's going on, what is acceptable and what is not acceptable, then everybody is off the same playbook. So, no, this is -- and somehow I think there's this construct in people's minds that we want to restore the rack and start getting people screaming, having their bones crunching, and that's not at all what this is about. Torture is prohibited, murder is prohibited, rape is prohibited, cruel and degrading treatment is prohibited; all those things are prohibited, and what we're trying to do is to make clear what the prohibited list is. That's a good thing, not a bad thing."
Ok, so torture, murder, rape, and cruel and degrading treatment is prohibited. SO WHAT IS ALLOWED?? One side won't say what is brutality and the other won't say what isn't.
But that having been said, is it fair to see this headline over at a Washington Post editorial today? "The president goes to Capitol Hill to lobby for torture."
This is what it is all about as I see it. Bush worries that the CIA's techniques won't comply with the Geneva Conventions, which say wartime detainees must be 'treated humanely.' Again, I want a description......details. Can you hit them? Can you scream at them? Bush's bill says the United States complies with the conventions as long as interrogators abide by a 2005 law barring 'cruel, inhuman or degrading' treatment of captives. Bush fears that with the way things are now interrogators would be legally libel. He sees people bringing them up for prosecution in the future for their interrogation techniques. He says that if that part can't be established then the program may be in jeopardy and shut down. What interogater can risk that? Without the program, he says, American could be in danger if we can't get the information we need from the terrorists.
McCain basically says that the requirement is too narrow and that"the United States should not try to limit its obligations under the Geneva Conventions. Instead, they want CIA officers to abide by the common understanding of the treaty's meaning, including a ban on 'outrages upon personal dignity.'"
Well, I finally did find a "list of cruel treatments" not allowed by the Geneva Convention, but that we would like to use:
-- 'Cold Cell,' or hypothermia, where a prisoner is left to stand naked in a cell kept near 50 degrees, during which he is doused with cold water.
"-- 'Long Time Standing,' in which a prisoner is forced to stand, handcuffed and with his feet shackled to an eye bolt in the floor for more than 40 hours.
"-- Other forms of 'stress positions' and prolonged sleep deprivation, perhaps akin to 'Long Time Standing.'
"-- Threats of violence and death of a detainee and/or his family."
So we aren't talking acid burns, slicing off of fingers, or the the pulling out of fingernails. Which, I think many would like you to believe.
Now, am I comfortable with these things listed? At face value.....no. And I certainly see why McCain would not be. (you can surely see his position on this, right??) But then I think of how our enemy doesn't even think of the Geneva convention much less debate it. I think of how they saw off the heads of civilians and do God knows what to our soldiers. Compared to what they do to our prisoners the above list looks like an ice cream social. But then again, should we let them be any kind of standard we go by?
Are you confused on how I feel about this? Well, you should be. Because I am. I understand both sides convictions on this. Bush wants to keep us safe and McCain wants to keep us humane.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 11:48 AM
Thursday, September 14, 2006
I try to avoid blogging when I am angry. Which is why I didn't blog on Rosie O' Donnell's stupid and ridiculous rant on "The View" regarding Radical Islamists and Fundamentalist Christians the other day. I am calm now, but still upset.
Here is what Rosie said, "Radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam.."
Michelle and MaryKatherine over at Hot Air have a great video explaining their "view," but I want to go a bit deeper on the subject.
First of all, make no mistake about it, when Rosie refers to "radical Christians" she is referring to people like me. Don't think for a moment that she was referring to the likes of Fred Phelps. She was referring to Christians like myself who don't want to see gay marriage, who are against abortion, and live our lives according to our faith.
Let me get straight to the bottom line here. FACT: If Rosie lived under radical Islam they would seek to torture and kill her. FACT: There is not a true Christian organization that would seek or condone any harm to anyone who is gay in this country, including Pat Robertson, Dr. James Dobson, and the Catholic Church.
Not only would we not harm anyone who is gay, we would stand at the gate and fight to death anyone who tried to harm, torture, or kill an innocent person who happened to be gay.
And therein lies the sad irony that Rosie lives with in her delusional leftwing world.
Let's imagine a worst case scenerio. Let's imagine a world decades from now where radical Islamics got a hold of nuclear bomb and attacked us and won. Let's imagine what the United States would look like under radical Islamic rule.
Wait a second. We don't have to imagine what it would look like, we just can take a look at modern Iran.
From Independent Gay Forum:
"Protesting the hanging of two gay teens in Iran, OutRage, a british gay group led a world wide protest on July 19th of this year. The message? “Iran: Stop Killing Gays! Stop Killing Kids!”
"During the planning of the protests, OutRage proposed five demands, which were endorsed by PGLO and IDAHO. They included ending all executions in Iran; stopping the arrest and torture of LGBT Iranians; halting the deportation to Iran of LGBT and other asylum seekers."
This message was sent by a gay young man from Iran:
"In a July 6 interview in Gay City News, Doug Ireland quotes Mani (not his real name), a 24-year-old PGLO activist living in Iran: “You who live serenely and comfortably on the other side of Iran’s frontiers, be aware that those who think and feel and love like you do in Iran are executed for the crime of homosexuality, are assassinated, kidnapped, and barred from working in offices…. Be fair and tell us what difference there is between us and you. Isn’t it time that all homosexuals around the world rise up and come to our defense?”
But that's Iran, right? And Rosie acknowledges that Iran is a danger. But what she fails to understand is that radical Islam has no border, no country. Does she imagine that those Al Qaeda that we fight and kill in Iraq are not of the same mind toward homosexuality?? Of course they are. Rosie says Afghanistan and Iraq didn't attack us. No, Al Qaeda did. And they are spread all over the region of the Middle East. Read what Bin Laden said in one of his first letters to the American people after 9-11. Remember this was before the invasion. He mentions the regions where he feels America wronged his people:
This letter to Americans from Bin Laden in 2002: (emphasis mine)
(b) The American people are the ones who pay the taxes which fund the planes that bomb us in Afghanistan, the tanks that strike and destroy our homes in Palestine, the armies which occupy our lands in the Arabian Gulf, and the fleets which ensure the blockade of Iraq. These tax dollars are given to Israel for it to continue to attack us and penetrate our lands. So the American people are the ones who fund the attacks against us, and they are the ones who oversee the expenditure of these monies in the way they wish, through their elected candidates."
In that letter he also mentions how Americans killed Iraqis by our sanctions. But here is the part Rosie might be interested in:
"We call you to be a people of manners, principles, honour, and purity; to reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling's, and trading with interest."
Just to wrap this up for Rosie, here is the teaching on homosexuality by radical Islam:
"Homosexuality is unlawful in Islam. It is neither accepted by the state nor by the Islamic Society.
Quran clearly states that it is unjust, un-natural, transgression, ignorant,criminal and corrupt.
The people living in the time of prophet LOT (Nephew Of Abraham) near the Dead Sea were involved in this Act and Allah punished them severely and the whole nation was destroyed.
Muslim Jurists agree that, if proven of guilt, both of them should be killed. However jurists differ on the methadology of capital Punishment."
Rosie fears the wrong enemy. She doesn't even know who her enemy really is if she thinks Christians would like to see her harmed (or killed) like the radical Islamics do. We may disagree with you Rosie, but we would fight for your right to live free and not be tortured for who you are.
Don't continue to confuse disagreement with hatred.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 12:17 PM
"Anybody else looking forward to Al Franken’s just announced book project --Gee, I Sure Do Wish I Was That Big Fat Idiot Rush Limbaugh Right About Now, Because At Least He Still Has a Job!—as much as I am? Coming soon to fine bookstores everywhere. Except, you know, in flyover country. Where they’d do the proper thing and just ignore it until it dried up and turned to bitter ash.* "
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 10:46 AM
I remember thinking when she was govenor of Texas that she represented everything that was opposite of what I believed and lived. When George Bush beat her in 1994 for Governor I put a poster in the back window of my car that read "There is a God, Bush won!" I couldn't believe he pulled it off! But she was the funniest opposition we ever had. A true southern wit.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 7:25 AM
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
When I was young I use to fight like crazy with one of my brothers who was 3 years older than I was. By the time I was 10 we use to actually get into physical fights. Once he got into high school and I was in jr. high things calmed down and we were fine with each other. Luckily, we have been close all of our adult life, but back then he hated that I was the spoiled baby of the family and the only girl. We fought over everything and he never had a kind word to say to me.
One day in the midst of our angry years with each other a bully in the neighborhood went after me. I was a pretty tough cookie (I use to spar with my brothers who were golden gloves boxers and my Dad was a coach), but I was small and this guy was big, so I raced home on my bike to tell my oldest brother. But it was the one who loathed me that was standing in the driveway and he was the one I told first. Imagine my surprise when he seemed outraged. He wanted to know exactly who it was and where the guy was so he could go beat his a**. I stood there shocked as I watched my brother go get some of his friends to go find the bully. My brother may have always been angry with me, but when someone else was threatening me, then all that anger was forgotten and he went to fight for me.
I tell this story because it reminds of Republicans now in a way. We really are mad at each other in so many ways. We are angry at Bush for his immigration stance and his spending habits. We are angry that he doesn't stand up to the Democrats enough and he doesn't do a better and more frequent job of explaining the war in Iraq. We are angry at McCain for his campaign finance reform. We get angry at Republicans in Congress all the time for backing down on things and compromising with the Democrats. But we can't really fight among ourselves that much because there is a bully in the neighborhood and all he does is go after Bush. Day after day, minute after minute with unfair and below the belt hits. The relentless attacks on Bush just exhaust us. We can't get mad at him because we don't have time to. We are too busy gathering our friends and going after the bully going after Bush.
Isn't this how you guys who are Republican feel? I know I do. Unlike the episode with my brother and the bully, it's not a one time thing. It's an every day thing. It's not just constructive debate or disagreement. It's mean and it's ugly. We Republicans hardly have time to hash out our differences because we are constantly having to defend a President that is attacked unfairly almost on a daily basis. A President that never defends himself because he is quite busy running a country, keeping us safe, and fighting a war on terror. He doesn't care what his critics say, but we do.
So we fight the bully every day. Maybe one day we can work on the differences between us, but it doesn't look like that is going to be anytime soon.
Update: Speaking of Republican infighting...
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 9:40 PM
Cardin vs Steele in Maryland.
"Rep. Ben Cardin looks to have won by 8 points over former congressman and former NAACP president Kweisi Mfume, 45.8% - 37.7%"
Michael Steele (Republican) is the first African-American to win statewide in liberal Maryland.
The Democrats rejected their black candidate and the Republicans embraced ours. It will be interesting to see how the black community, who traditionally voted Democrat, reacts.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 1:36 PM
was my last word on "The Path to 9/11?"
Victor Davis Hanson just gives an excellent look at the whole thing ending with this truth:
"There is a final consideration. We are at war. Unlike Fahrenheit 9/11 that is referenced ad nauseam by the jihadists and still a favorite among al Qaedists, or the current film portraying the imagined assassination of President Bush that played to recent applause in Canada, but gained little condemnation here in America, The Path to 9/11 won't be popular with our enemies. And that might tell us something. If we know one thing about bin laden and Al Qaeda, they hate the truth and love the lie."
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 1:30 PM
This reminds me of when I was interviewing protestors at "Justice Sunday" in Philly. As long as they thought I was the press they spoke freely, but there was no discussion once they knew someone was conservative.
via Not Exactly Rocket Science
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 8:19 AM
It's time we start calling it what it is: (photos at link)
"You may remember the footage: A man and boy crouch in fear. Shots hit a wall far from the pair; a final round of gunfire kicks up a dust cloud that hides father and son, who are "targets of gunfire from Israeli positions," says the voice-over. When the dust clears, the boy is stretched at the man's feet. The voice says that he is dead.
This version of the story was retold around the world — and it has figured in countless wall posters, an Al Qaeda recruiting video, an epic poem. Last June an aspiring suicide bomber was arrested on her way to a hospital — to kill Israeli children, she said, in memory of Mohammed Dura.
But, according to the Commentary article, the video is a fraud."
I often wonder how many times and for how long have we been lied to by the pictures and video we see on the nightly news.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 7:30 AM
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 7:04 AM
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
Hollywood Reporter Review:
"...But "Death of a President" uses the morally dubious tactic of mixing real news footage with staged events to create an imagined assassination of President Bush.
As convincing as the manipulated footage of the president's death in Chicago in October 2007 is, the movie cannot be more unconvincing in its approach. Does it not occur to filmmaker Gabriel Range, as he takes his bows for his clever stunt, that the very forces he warns against will use his film as propaganda? Their line will be: If the enemies of President Bush can be so crass as to imagine his cinematic murder, then what value can one give to their arguments against our great leader's domestic and foreign policies? Range has just made Karl Rove's day."
Get this part:
Festival organizers have been gleefully crowing about this film since its inclusion in the Toronto lineup was announced at the last minute. But as unpleasant as this swaggering over a failed political movie has been, it's nothing compared to the unpleasantness of watching this skilled British docu-dramatist massage real footage and sound bites to envision the murder of a person who, whether you like him or not, is still very much alive.
"The movie means to show how a Dick Cheney administration, in its zeal to link the killing to terrorism, scapegoats a Syrian-born man, against whom there is the flimsiest of evidence, while ignoring an American vet sickened by the needless carnage in Iraq. The film, made to look like a TV documentary filmed many months after the fact, strongly implies that the government got the wrong man. But putting the Syrian on trail allows Cheney to push through Congress a Patriot Act III, which further enhances the American police state and broadens the powers of the executive branch.
Among the clever though ethically challenged manipulations is a real presidential visit to the Windy City, with the city's leadership occupying the dais with Bush; talking-head interviews with grieving staffers and presidential guardians; and a state funeral, presumably President Reagan's, doctored so Cheney can orate over his late predecessor's coffin.
There certainly is much to admire in the skillful blend of real and fake. One's admiration ends there."
I find it so strange that someone would be compelled to make a film that gives life to a deranged fantasy of what a Cheney Presidency would look like. Now they can hate him for what they imagine he would do.
Things just get weirder and weirder.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 10:52 PM
Jamais Cascio says:
"This story, in today's Guardian, is just mind-blowing. The common sleeping pill zolpidem, sold in the US under the name Ambien, can reverse serious brain damage and wake up patients in persistent vegetative states!"
"The hospital ward sister, Lucy Hughes, was periodically concerned that involuntary spasms in Louis's left arm, that resulted in him tearing at his mattress, might be a sign that deep inside he might be uncomfortable. In 1999, five years after Louis's accident, she suggested to Sienie that the family's GP, Dr Wally Nel, be asked to prescribe a sedative. Nel prescribed Stilnox, the brand name in South Africa for zolpidem. "I crushed it up and gave it to him in a bottle with a soft drink," Sienie recalls. "He couldn't swallow properly then, but I helped him and sat at his bedside. After about 25 minutes, I heard him making a sound like 'mmm'. He hadn't made a sound for five years.
"Then he turned his head in my direction. I said, 'Louis, can you hear me?' And he said, 'Yes.' I said, 'Say hello, Louis', and he said, 'Hello, mummy.' I couldn't believe it. I just cried and cried."
Zolpidem seems to work on PVS patients about 60% of the time, and is effective in the treatment of other brain injuries. Parts of the brain considered "dead" because of zero activity (but not deterioration or necrosis) return to life. It's not a cure -- the pill must be taken on an ongoing basis -- but it is a nearly-miraculous treatment."
"As wonderful as this is, the legal and ethical implications are unsettling. Will people who have "pulled the plug" on loved ones in persistent vegetative states in recent years read this news with the horrible realization that the now-dead partner or relative might have been saved with a $5 pill? Could a lawyer for family members opposed to the termination of care for a PVS patient sue the family members who chose to do so, and win?"
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 10:48 PM
Monday, September 11, 2006
Amir Taheri of the New York Post has this:
So, where are we now in this war? If this were a classical-style war, the United States would have no difficulty showing that it had scored a spectacular victory. It has succeeded in overthrowing two hostile regimes, in Afghanistan and Iraq, and forced several other states in the region to stop sheltering and financing the gahzis ("holy raiders"). Territory the size of Western Europe has been freed from two of the most vicious regimes in recent history.
At the same time, thousands of "holy raiders" have been killed or captured, and many more forced to hide in caves. Al Qaeda, the principal organization of the raiders, has been dismantled and six of its top 10 leaders killed or captured. It is not only their safe havens that the Islamofascist terrorists have lost; the network of financial, propaganda and logistical support they had created has also been partly dismantled.
Even more important is the gradual loss of support that the terrorists have experienced among Muslims in many parts of the world. Leading clerics from more than two dozen Muslim countries have come out with edicts declaring al Qaeda and its acolytes as heretics or worse. That position has been echoed in a number of Islamist political movements that had once provided al Qaeda and similar groups with ideological shelter whenever needed.
The process of disowning al Qaeda - known as bara'a ("exoneration") - is used by many radical Islamist movements as a means of rejecting those who produced the 9/11 raids. The process started with traditional Islamic personalities and circles that had hitherto looked upon al Qaeda and smaller movements with a mixture of awe and condescension. Once the ulema in Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia had disowned al Qaeda, it was the turn of more openly political Islamist groups, such as the Muslim Brotherhood and the Gamaa Islamiyah (Islamic Society) to issue statements condemning terrorism in the name of faith.
Much of all that baraa'a stuff may well be little more than posturing designed to allay the fears of Muslim peoples while confusing the "infidel." Nevertheless, the fact that large chunks of Islam are trying to dissociate themselves from violence and terror is something that would have been unimaginable before 9/11.
He ends with this:
The world is witnessing a new type of war in which none of the traditional causes of conflict such as territory, borders, natural resources and markets are the prize. The prize in this war is human freedom. And this is why, no matter how long this conflict takes, the enemies of freedom cannot win.
This doesn't mean we are doing everything right. In a war like this I don't even know what is right.
Related: CIA killing 1000 terrorists a year, which is about 1000 more a year than we did in the 90's.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 11:31 PM
Part 2 was much more riveting, especially given the fact that the President of the United States interrupted it to tell us how much of a danger these guys still are. That was kind of surreal. Do I really need to tell you how I felt about Pres. Bush's speech? I agree with him completely. Not because it's Bush saying it, but because it is true. If Clinton were still President and saying the same thing, I would agree it with it as well. I just honestly believe this is a fight we must fight or our children and their children will pay a dear price for it. As Bush pointed out, we could not let the entire Middle East become a terrorist state.
Back to the movie. It did spread the blame around pretty well. Condi didn't come off too well and it seemed no one wanted to listen to Richard Clark in either administration. I like how the film might have let some Americans, who don't pay much attention to the Middle East, see what fighting terror over there was like with just our CIA guys there.
The death of John O'Neil was just heartbreaking, sad, and ironic. It was almost so dramatic that you could hardly believe he really died that way.
Finally, the ending gave you just enough of this horrible day 5 yrs ago to re-live and feel that sick feeling in your stomach. The grading at the end certainly didn't reassure me. We need to do more, more, and more.
I thought the "A" might have been that we have not been attacked again. Thank God for that.
With the movie reminding of us of what we fight and the President telling us how he is fighting it, I felt that no matter what differences we have on how we are fighting this war, at least we are in the fight.
At least we are finally paying attention.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 9:37 PM
I turned on the TV this morning thinking that I would listen for the name of Peter Craig Alderman whom I chose to write a tribute today. I figured his name would be earlier on since it begins with an A. I started to listen...and then I just couldn't. I turned off the TV. I just couldn't hear his name spoken on TV like that. I sat down on the floor and cried. I cried for him. I cried for what he must have gone through.
I don't know about the rest of you, but today was pretty rough for me. I would turn on the TV and watch the news footage for a few minutes...and then I had to turn it off. I would scroll through some of the tributes and then I had to stop. Too much.
I couldn't blog. Sorry.
I'll watch the rest of the 9/11 movie and be back.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 7:00 PM
Sunday, September 10, 2006
2,996 is a tribute to the victims of 9/11.On September 11, 2006, 2,996 volunteer bloggers will join together for a tribute to the victims of 9/11.Each person will pay tribute to a single victim.We will honor them by remembering their lives,and not by remembering their murderers.
I pay tribute today to Peter Craig Alderman
25, of New York, N.Y.
At World Trade Center
I scrolled through the comments on another tribute site on Peter and this comment struck me:
"hi. if a family member or colse friend of peter's reads this... you don't know me but i fell as though i know you. last year when i heard about the plains i thought of 'all those people'. now ifind myself thinking about peter or about niuika or ted.you see i'm in 8th grade & yesterday name of 'victims' were put on our lockers.the name peter c. alderman was on the locker next to mine. it caught my eye when i saw the age. going down the hall i realized that the names on the lockers weren't just names there were lives. i wish i could go to your house and tell you in person how much i hurt for your family & friends peter i can't but i can pray. God bless."-Katie Myers
Katie must be close to 18 today. I hope she still remembers Peter and I hope she still remembers how she hurt for him that day when she realized he was more than just a name.
I hope she remembers what our country went through.
God bless Peter and his family.
*Since I wrote this on Saturday I have been reading through the other tributes and it struck me how much Peter missed because of his youth. He never got to watch a beautiful bride in a flowing white dress come down the aisle toward him. He never held his firstborn child and experienced a love like no other. He never got to throw a ball with his boy or see his little girl in a ballet.
So much taken away.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 10:12 PM
It was disjointed a bit, but all I can say is I can see why the Democrats and Clinton were so determined to for it not to air.
In fairness to Clinton and the rest of those involved in his administration at the time, seeing Bin Laden slip through our fingers on several occasions looks much worse in hindsight. Every American knows that name now, but then, it was only known to the CIA and our government.
The film was disjointed, but so was our government and how it handled decisions in regard to terrorism. It seems to me we have at least fixed a lot of that with the Patriot Act and how the agencies within the government handle that kind of information now.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 9:25 PM
This from Laura Mansfield.com via Ace:
To view an excerpt of the video, please see http://www.lauramansfield.com/sahab_090806.wmv
"In addition to the scenes shown on Al Jazeera on Thursday, the video includes previously unseen footage of Azzam the American, describing the September 11 attacks and the hijackers.
As Sahab 911 commemorative tape shows 911 hijackers rehearsing with boxcutters; also shows Azzam the American."
Oh geeze. Stick with the video until you get to the boxcutter part. Sometimes I can't believe what I see is real. I just can't.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 3:27 PM
At least that is what the PRISONERS are saying:
A week after American forces handed the Abu Ghraib prison over to Iraqi authorities, prisoners are screaming for the Americans to come back: Tortured screams ring out as Iraqis take over Abu Ghraib.
The Telegraraph has this:
"The witness said that even in the thieves' section prisoners were being treated badly. "Someone was shouting "Please help us, we want the human rights officers, we want the Americans to come back," he said."
What? What??? How can this be??? The Americans are more humane to prisoners even at Abu Ghraib??? NO! That can't be. I'm sure the New York Times will be on this trying to get those prisoners sent to a more pleasant environment, say....like Gitmo.
The Abu Graib prisoners want to go back to us. This just doesn't get any more ironic folks.
Welcome to how the rest of the world tortures his prisoners. And we wouldn't want to be telling the Iraqi's what to do, would we? Because that would make them our "puppets" and we are going be pulling out of there soon anyway, right? Not our problem, right?
via LGF h/t dave
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 1:12 PM
Here is a trailer of "Path to 9-11" showing in Britain.
Redstate has the clip in dispute.
Michelle says it looks like an hour of original content is gone.
Instapundit has a reader comment that really says all that needs to be said:
"This firestorm is a lose-lose for Dems. Any rational voter can compare the Bush reaction to Farenheit 911 and the current Clinton reaction, and draw appropriate conclusions."
(I'll be bumping up my 9-11 tribute tomorrow)
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 11:32 AM