The politics of torture.

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.

via WaPo

McCain

This morning we are getting the cast off and other stuff. While I am gone, I want everyone to tell me why they like or dislike McCain and why. BE SPECIFIC.

Thanks!

The future of flying secure.....

via Martha

Rosie O'Donnell...Listen up.

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.

My laugh for the day...

From Jeff:

"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.* "

Ann Richards...

R.I.P.

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.

The Bully.

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...

An interesting race to watch.

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.

Remember when I said the post a few posts below.....

was my last word on "The Path to 9/11?"

I lied.

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."

Air America goes bankrupt.

Now, who saw that coming?

Oh yeah, that would be everybody.

Can't we all get along?

Apparently not.

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

"A Media Crime"

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.

via Ace

Last word on the Dem's hissy fit about "Path to 9/11"

What he said.

"Death of A President"

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.

More:

"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.

Ambien awakens persistent vegetative state victims

Whoa!

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?"

Jeff at Protein Wisdom's.....

...conversion into the light.

Text of the President's speech last night...

...in case you missed it.

Attack on our embassy in Syria.

Michelle has it.

Horrible WTC footage on 9-11..

that was never shown.

WARNING! Shows some of the bodies that hit the ground from the buildings that day.

Are we winning? Yes.

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.

h/t BigDog

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.

"The Path to 9-11" Part 2

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.

Tears for Peter...

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.

2,996

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.

The Path to 9/11 part 1

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.

Sahab 911 commemorative tape. Chilling.

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.

Bring back Abu Ghraib to American control?

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

The path to obscuring the path to 9/11.

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)

A good reminder.

Hugh Hewitt has an excellent post up regarding "The Path to 9-11." Bill Clinton has managed to make this all about him, but it isn't. It's about the story. It's about our enemy. It's about how we got to 9-11. Forget about Bill Clinton and he and the Democrats insane reaction to all of this. Let them edit the former President out completely for all I care. Let Clinton continue to worry only about himself and never this nation, just like he always has.

Let's just see the movie. Let's learn why we can never let this happen again.

Good Grief!

"Families visiting Disneyland on their holiday this week saw a life-size Guantanamo bay inmate standing inside the Rocky Mountain Railroad ride at Disneyland in Anaheim California."

As boing boing points out, I think it was a Abu Ghraib reference actually. Still stupid though.

Here's your sign.

You can create your own environmental McDonalds sign here. (I chose a bit different one) This site is protesting the fact that McDonalds gave away toy Hummers. Because, for example, "Hummers spew the pollution that causes global warming, contributing to killer heat waves and hurricanes."

Whatever.

via boing boing

Culture of Death, another lesson.

Rorschach over at Lone Star Times sent me this interesting tidbit:

A British researcher has recently issued a paper on the subject of diagnoses of “Persistent Vegitative States” (PVS) that is sending shock waves through the culture of death. A British woman that had been diagnosed as PVS was studied over several months using functional MRI (fMRI) technology. This technology can “see” thoughts. Actually it detects changes in blood flow in different areas of the brain as they are stimulated/accessed. It was found that the woman was actually thinking and feeling and imagining and understanding words spoken to her.

The findings challenge the standard diagnosis of a vegetative state, implying that some patients might have what Dr. Lionel Naccache of the French National Institute of Health and Medical Research called "a rich mental life" in an accompanying editorial.

"I was absolutely stunned" by the results, said Dr. Adrian Owen, a neuroscientist whose Medical Research Council Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit in Cambridge led the study. "This showed that she is aware."

And even more interesting is the personal story written in the comment section of the thread at Lone Star Times.

Oh geeze!

Unfreakingbelievable.

That's all I can say. From Clinton to the letter. Read Allah's exellent reporting.

Allah rocks this as well.

New RNC website lays it all out.

The RNC released a new Web site this afternoon, www.demfacts.com, in response to Democrat attacks on the Senate’s “Phase II” Intelligence report. The site features a direct side-by-side comparison of what Democrats were saying before the war and what they say now:

SENATE MINORITY LEADER HARRY REID (D-NV) THEN AND NOW ON IRAQ

Sen. Reid's Prewar Statements:

Sen. Reid: "Saddam Hussein, in effect, has thumbed his nose at the world community. And I think that the President's approaching this in the right fashion." (CNN's "Inside Politics," 9/18/02)

Sen. Reid In 2005:

Sen. Reid: "[T]he Bush Administration manipulated and cherry-picked intelligence to hype the threat." (Sen. Harry Reid, "Sen. Reid: Democrats Offer A Way Forward In Iraq," Press Release, 11/15/05)

HOUSE MINORITY LEADER NANCY PELOSI (D-CA) THEN AND NOW ON IRAQ

Rep. Pelosi's Prewar Statements:

Rep. Pelosi: "[S]addam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons. There's no question about that." (NBC's "Meet The Press," 11/17/02)

Rep. Pelosi In 2005:

Fox News' Neil Cavuto: "[B]ack on November 17, 2002, you did say: 'Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons. There's no question about that.'" Pelosi: "That's right. And what I said was, but that is not an imminent threat to the United States or a cause for war ..." (Fox News' "Your World," 11/16/05)

SEN. HILLARY CLINTON (D-NY) THEN & NOW ON IRAQ

Sen. Clinton's Prewar Statements:

Sen. Clinton: "I can support the President, I can support an action against Saddam Hussein because I think it's in the long-term interests of our national security ..." (NBC's "Meet The Press," 9/15/02)

Sen. Clinton In 2005:

Sen. Clinton: "[T]his Administration was either not being honest with the American people or did not know what was going on in Iraq." (Sen. Hillary Clinton, Letter, 11/29/05)

There is Kerry, Dean, Biden, and Kennedy too. Sweet.

Maybe Clinton didn't really want to bring all this up.

Cassandra is all over it. You know, Bush certainly gave Clinton a pass on all the mistakes he made in office fighting terrorism, even the rest of us said that there was no way to see 9-11 coming. We weren't blaming Clinton either. But since he brought it up:

"Former Presidential Aide and Carrier of "the football" Buzz Patterson's Watched First Hand as Clinton Missed His Opportunity to Kill Bin Laden

I have seen the ABC mini-series. It is right on the money. I was there with Clinton and Berger and watched the missed opportunities occur. Anything to the contrary is political spin . – Lt. Col. Robert "Buzz" Patterson

Washington, DC - As the controversy rages over the airing of the much anticipated ABC miniseries The Path to 9/11 – and Democratic Leaders desperately contend that the mini-series is inaccurate, Lt. Col Buzz Patterson knows the truth. In fact, the Former Presidential Aide and carrier of the "Football" – containing the codes to launch nuclear war – watched not only an early screening of the movie – but WITNESSED first hand the indifference of President Clinton to launch a strike against Bin Laden.

The ABC mini-series is scheduled to air uninterrupted Sunday night, September 10 and Monday night, September 11.

As Patterson reveals in his New York Times bestseller Dereliction of Duty- the first missed opportunity occurred when Clinton was engaged in watching a golf tournament and became irritated when Patterson approached him. After Patterson's third attempt to get Clinton to return Sandy Berger's urgent phone calls, Clinton gave Patterson a cool response he would phone Berger on his way back to the White House. The defeated Berger knew that the opportunity was gone.

In another shocking account in the situation room of the White House, Berger was told by a military watch officer "Sir, we've located bin Laden. We have a two-hour window to strike." After Clinton did not return phone calls from Berger for over an hour, Clinton then wanted more time to study the situation. Dereliction of Duty reveals "We 'studied' the issues until it was too late-the window of opportunity closed."

Great stuff....

with Allah at Hot Air:

SeeDubya’s angling to consult on the new script, and has helpfully retrieved this anecdote, as related by Michael Scheuer last year on Hardball, from the memory hole:

Mr. Clinton‘s administration had far more chances to kill Osama bin Laden
than Mr. Bush has until this day… [W]e had at least eight to 10 chances to
capture or kill Osama bin Laden in 1998 and 1999. And the government on all
occasions decided that the information was not good enough to act…

When we were going to capture Osama bin Laden, for example, the lawyers
were more concerned with bin Laden‘s safety and his comfort than they were with
the officers charged with capturing him. We had to build an ergonomically
designed chair to put him in, special comfort in terms of how he was shackled
into the chair. They even worried about what kind of tape to gag him with so it
wouldn‘t irritate his beard. The lawyers are the bane of the intelligence
community.

Is this scene in “Path to 9/11″? If not, why the hell not?

And more:

There’s more than enough blame to go around, as Dan Riehl helpfully reminds us by digging out an op-ed by Mansoor Ijaz from 2001. Money quote:

President Clinton and his national security team ignored several opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden and his terrorist associates, including one as late as last year.

I know because I negotiated more than one of the opportunities…

As an American Muslim and a political supporter of Clinton, I feel now, as I argued with Clinton and Berger then, that their counter-terrorism policies fueled the rise of Bin Laden from an ordinary man to a Hydra-like monster…

Clinton’s failure to grasp the opportunity to unravel increasingly organized extremists, coupled with Berger’s assessments of their potential to directly threaten the U.S., represents one of the most serious foreign policy
failures in American history.

And best question of the day here from reader David B.:

CBS News showed documents that they knew to be fake showing President Bush
in dereliction of duty in order to stage a domestic coup. ABC is showing
something that they freely admit contains “dramatized” scenes that are based in
reality. Clinton objects that these scenes are not true, which we’ll never know
since the truth was shredded by one Sandy Berger.
Which network gets
threatened with a license pull?

Come to an "Ethnic Rally!" MONKEY FEST!!

Remember the hullabaloo over George Allen calling his opponent James Webb's campaign worker a "macaca?" meaning monkey in French? Well the Webb campaign decided to have fun with it and do a "Monkey Fest!!"in Alexandria Virginia on Saturday. As the invitation says:

"We will have 9 monkey face masks to share -first come, first serve and plenty of our favorite yellow snacks, balloons, and stickers. We encourage you to bring your own monkey outfits, masks, and signs."

Say What??

How comfortable do you think say....black people...might feel there?

As the Captain points out:

"So the Webb staffers have decided to set up a counter-event to a Republican ethnic rally, after accusing them of racism .... and the geniuses involved decide to dress up like monkeys in protest? At an event that will draw people celebrating varying ethnic backgrounds, including people of color?"

The Captain suggests:

"Perhaps to underscore their point, they'll start handing out copies of Uncle Tom's Cabin and have Jane Hamsher come out and do minstrel-show caricatures for the people who attend Allen's event. That should reinforce their arguments about Allen's latent racism, right?"

Good grief, have all the Dems gone mad?

Hypocrites.

Cassandra at Villainous Company does a spectacular job of proving the Dems hypocrisy over this "Path to 9-11" thing by quoting the Democrats themselves on the very issue they keep bringing up on this, the Reagan bio-pic: (emphasis mine)

"Once again, the party of diversity and openness is all for freedom of expression and equal time on the airwaves... so long as all of the freedom and equal time is theirs and people are allowed to express only approved viewpoints. Let's take a trip in the old Wayback Machine:

The difference is the Republican party stepped in. Ed Gillespie of the RNC
stepped in. A political party stepped in to weigh in on this. And that is
when...

ZOLLER: But they weigh in on things every day and so does Terri McAuliffe.

SKINNER: Teri McAuliffe does not write the executives of the network demanding that they have access to the scripts and that kind of access. It just doesn't happen in America. Why don't you just let the information flow? Democracy is so important. Let the ideas out there. Let the American public decide if they want to watch a movie about Reagan or not. We don't really need the right wing telling us what we can and cannot watch on television.

ZOLLER: Well, then you can watch it on Showtime.

Frankly we'd say there's a bit of difference in overall "scariness" between an unelected party official (who after all is not even a public servant in the pay of the federal government, but merely a private citizen) and having Democrat members of Congress lobby to change the contents of a "docudrama" with a disclaimer before it airs:

Read the whole thing. It's great.

Newsbusters has some quotes from the left back when the Reagan bio-pic was not aired:

Brian Williams: “Do you believe what has happened here with this mini-series on CBS amounts to extortion?”

Media critic Michael Wolff: “Certainly capitulation....”

Williams: “So is it hyperbolic to say, you know, when we give all these speeches about freedom in the United States, you can go ahead and stretch your artistic freedom, make a movie about whatever you wish as long as it doesn't cross a certain political or societal group?”

Wolff: “Absolutely. If the group is well-organized and there is no group as well-organized as the right wing in America at this point in time, you're going to be in big trouble.”– CNBC’s The News with Brian Williams, November 4.


His [Ronald Reagan’s] supporters credit him with forcing down the Iron Curtain, so it is odd that some of them have helped create the Soviet-style chill embedded in the idea that we, as a nation, will not allow critical portrayals of one of our own recent leaders.”– Editorial in the November 5 New York Times.

Michael, your dad comes, came from the Hollywood community, and he knows what the issues of artistic freedom are. How do you think he’d react?” – ABC’s Charles Gibson to Michael Reagan on Good Morning America, November 4.

The best quote OF ALL. (emphasis mine):

“Hallelujah! The Gipper is safe and the hated liberal media humbled. It’s a big victory for the ‘Elephant Echo Chamber,’ the unholy trinity of conservative talk radio, conservative Internet sites and the Republican National Committee....It’s good to know that network docu-dramas are, forthwith, supposed to be ‘true,’ unless, of course, the truth is somehow ‘offensive’ to the myth, then we’ll take the myth, as long as the myth corresponds to the reigning politics of the moment. -Senior Editor Jonathan Alter in a column posted on Newsweek’s section of MSNBC’s Web site, November 4.

Democrats seek censorship

Wow, they are bringing out the big guns on this one.

The Democratic leadership wants the ABC mini-series "The path to 9-11" pulled.

Gee, We will have to remember this for the future. No dramatic license on recent history.

From what I have read the mini-series compiled a host of things that happened into one or two scenes. That is done all the time on TV. I'd have to see it to see how inaccurate it is and from what I have read there are inaccuracies, but ABC agreed to fix that part. I guess that isn't enough for the Democrats. I find this all rather bizarre after Fahrenheit 9-11. It has to be more than just one scene regarding Bill Clinton letting Osama slip through his hands.

You know, I read that Bush and especially Condi are not painted in a very good or fair light either. I wonder why they aren't howling for it not to be shown. No. Something else is going on here. Maybe just a bit too much information for the public in a way they can really understand it?

h/t Raven

Tucker Carlson takes on Media Matters David Brock about this and explains it all very well. Video here. Take a look. Tucker does a great job. Brock spells out the leftwing talking points and Tucker shoots down every single one.

via NRO

Peace Mom....

"fantasized about going back in time and killing the infant George W. Bush, thereby preventing the Iraq War."

Cindy Sheehan, the peace mom, dreamed of this? There is some irony there, isn't it?

There is more irony in her new book. She regrets voting for John Kerry and she thinks Hillary is a conservative in liberal clothing.

via Ace

DISGUSTING!

My boys would love it.

via boing boing

I think I discovered Ace of Spade's problems with women.

Clinton is ticked.

Clinton Demands ABC Fix 9/11 Movie or Pull It

"An angry Bill Clinton is demanding that ABC "correct all errors” in its upcoming miniseries "The Path to 9/11” — or pull it from the air.

In a letter to ABC boss Bob Iger, Clinton refuted several of the miniseries’ assertions, including that he was too preoccupied with the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal to care about Osama bin Laden.

"The content of this drama is factually and incontrovertibly inaccurate and ABC has the duty to fully correct all errors or pull the drama entirely,” reads the letter, written by Bruce Lindsey, head of the Clinton Foundation, and Douglas Bond, a top lawyer in Clinton’s office."

I just saw Clinton in a speech bashing Bush for the first time on sending more troops into Iraq than Afghanistan. He hasn't done this before I think because Bush was so generous in not criticizing Clinton and his administration and for appointing him to head the tsunami relief with former Pres Bush, a high profile and feel good appointment. But now that this 9-11 mini series puts Clinton in a bad light I feel sure we will see more of this from Clinton. This film isn't Bush's doing, of course, but throwing mud on Pres Bush is the only thing Clinton can do at this point and he knows he will get the backing of the leftists.

I can't imagine that ABC would give in to this. I don't remember Bush ever asking that Fahrenheit 9-11 be pulled and that CLEARLY had distortions throughout. I would hope that the lefties would howl as much about censorship to Clinton as they would have if Bush had called for that movie to be changed or pulled.

But I'm not holding my breath.

Pres. Bush rocks it again today.

His speech was excellent. He is finally clearly outlining what we have accomplished and what are the goals of the terrorists and what we are doing to fight them.

I have a feeling Tony Snow is behind this. Tony understands how important it is to get a clear message out to the people. In the last two days Pres. Bush has completely admonished and answered all the distortions the left has been spinning about this war for years.

It's about damn time.

Kinky Friedman, a rebel or embarrassment?

I posted this over at my Chron blog, but I thought even you guys that aren't from Texas might enjoy reading about our colorful character running for Governor here:

Kinky Friedman seems to be a character straight out of a Texas novel. Which would be appropriate since Kinky has written 17 books starring himself. With his black Stetson, black coat, big moustache, and the ever present cigar, (Montecristo No. 2s) he is the epitome of cool.

Now he is running as an independent candidate for Governor of Texas. Which seems to be just another interesting road he is taking after taking so many other roads in life. His 70's band, the Texas Jewboys, have played at the Grand Old Opry. He has toured with Bob Dylan, partied with Led Zeppelin, performed with Willie Nelson, Jerry Lee Lewis, Billy Joel. Which makes him even cooler. He has been a peace corp volunteer in the 60's, but he was on coke and speed for many years. He was on Saturday Night Live in 1976, the coolest place on the planet at the time.

He has lived quite a life. Some of it admirable and some of it not. He founded Utopia Animal Rescue Ranch, whose mission is to care for stray, abused and aging animals. (that ALONE may force me to vote for him) A guy who loves animals has the kind of heart I love.

But can a man with such a politically incorrect past (and present) win? We all remember the disaster that was Jesse Ventura. Sometimes what we love in life doesn't work out too well in the Governor's mansion. Can Kinky overcome lyrics in his songs like "You know, you don't look Jewish, near as I can figure, I had you lamped for a slightly anemic well-dressed country nigger!"

But then again in his oh so interesting titled song "They Ain't Makin' Jews Like Jesus Anymore" he beats up (physically and verbally) a drunken white racist who berates African Americans and Jews in a bar.

Some of his one liners about women are, let's say, a bit misogynistic. I read one where he described one woman as having ".."nipples harder than Japanese arithmetic".. He has a well known anti-women's lib song that's meant as satire called "Get Your Biscuits in the Oven and Your Buns in the Bed." Now, in the words of Larry the Cable guy, I don't care who you are, that's funny.

He has a talking action figure with one line that says, "I can't screw things up any worse than they already have." Funny. He has KinkyToons on his website with the motto ""Save yourself for Kinky and save our friggin' state!" Now, you won't find another politican's website like this anywhere. Well heck, you won't find a politican like this anywhere. He says he is for prayer in schools and for gay marriage. (he says gays have right to be as miserable as the rest of us) Once again, funny. What is a good liberal or conservative suppose to do with that??

He'll legalize casino gambling and use the proceeds to fund public schools -- "slots for tots." He'll clamp down on illegal immigration. And he'll run the state's school buses on the biodiesel fuel that Willie Nelson uses to propel his tour bus.

The more I researched Kinky, the more I loved him, I have to admit. He calls Democrats and Republicans "the Crips and the Bloods." That is just perfect. I read recently that he went to do a commercial for the women's basketball team the Houston Comets for their 10th anniversary and said to the camera " Houston Comets basketball -- it's not just for lesbians anymore!" (They didn't use that one obviously) But don't you think that if we can't get anyone in office to do much of anything to help our state we might as well get someone who can make us laugh?

I'm not sure. I mean I sure as heck want to go out and drink with Kinky and listen to his stories, but do we want him as Governor?

You tell me.

"The Path to 9-11"

Here is Brent Bozell's take:

"To mark the fifth anniversary of the September 11 attack on America, ABC Entertainment is presenting a six-hour miniseries titled "The Path to 9/11," a forceful, compelling docudrama chronicling the struggles faced by America's counter-terrorist experts between the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 and the fatal one in 2001. Unlike the tone of too much of our reporting on terrorism, where anyone who fights terrorism is depicted as either assembling naked Muslim pyramids if in Iraq, or listening to Grandma's phone calls if at home, this film treats the fight against terror as deadly business, and not just deadly business but a noble struggle for the survival of our nation.

It seem to the left side of the blogosphere is all upset at the hard look this film gives the Clinton administration. Bozell says this:

"The Center for American Progress, led by former Clinton chief of staff John Podesta, has been marching on several fronts, at both Media Matters for America, and at the blog Think Progress.org, which set up a campaign called "Tell ABC to Tell the Truth About 9/11" and claims the film is guilty of "whitewashing" the Bush administration's failures.

These folks either haven't watched the film, in which case they ought to remain silent, or have seen it, in which case they are being disingenuous.

Both Clinton and Bush officials come under fire, and if it seems more anti-Clinton, that's only because they were in office a lot longer than the Team Bush before 9-11. Indeed, the film drives home the point that from our enemies' perspective, it's irrelevant who is in the White House. (One scene has Muslims shooting machine guns at a video image of Bill Clinton.) They simply want to kill Americans, and destroy America."

Bozell ends with this truth:

"Most people will find this movie not just engrossing, but necessary. The people who will hate this movie are the radicals who dismiss the war on terrorism as a phantom issue. As one blogger at the Daily Kos pleaded about the ABC film: "So who is the greater threat to Democracy? Terrorists or media consolidation?" Nothing, but nothing will bring this crowd to reality.

ABC chief Bob Iger reportedly has told his staff he believes this is one television show all of America needs to see. He's right."

via NRO

Cheney did it.

Of course!

Democrats in Florida's 15th district have nominated a 9/11 conspiracy theorist to run for Congress.

Source:

"The former head of the Star Wars missile defense program under Presidents Ford and Carter has gone public to say that the official version of 9/11 is a conspiracy theory and his main suspect for the architect of the attack is Vice President Dick Cheney."

My Pet Jawa asks: "Will the Democrats treat these nutjobs the way the Republicans treated David Duke? Sadly, I think the answer is no."

An interesting thing happened during the President's speech,

From the Corner:

The President just pulled one of the best maneuvers of his entire presidency. By transferring most major Al Qaeda terrorists to Guantanamo, and simultaneously sending Congress a bill to rescue the Military Commissions from the Supreme Court's ruling Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the President spectacularly ambushed the Democrats on terrain they fondly thought their own. Now Democrats who oppose (and who have vociferously opposed) the Military Commissions will in effect be opposing the prosecution of the terrorists who planned and launched the attacks of September 11 for war crimes.

And if that were not enough, the President also frontally attacked the Hamdan ruling's potentially chilling effect on CIA extraordinary interrogation techniques, by arguing that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions is too vague, and asking Congress to define clearly the criminal law limiting the scope of permissible interrogation.

Taken as a whole, the President's maneuver today turned the political tables completely around. He stole the terms of debate from the Democrats, and rewrote them, all in a single speech. It will be delightful to watch in coming days and hours as bewildered Democrats try to understand what just hit them, and then sort through the rubble of their anti-Bush national security strategy to see what, if anything, remains.

Awesome.

via Michelle

More of Pres. Bush

He needs to keep this up. I will link the speech when I find it, but my favorite part was where he was informing us regarding the 14 key terrorist suspects being taken to Guantanamo Bay including 9-11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed. He basically said that we treat our prisoners in Gitmo with a hell of a LOT more compassion and dignity than they ever showed. He specifically related the food, healthcare, and right to worship as they please. In other words, those who complain about Gitmo don't know what they are talking about and can just shutup until they do.

Update: I love Kate O'Beirne and she nailed it on this part of the speech:

"I think the White House has been reluctant to tout the fact that there hasn't been a terrorist attack here since 9/11 owing to the "knock on wood" imperative. In today's excellent speech, the President finally explained in detail that it is no accident. American operatives have been aggressive in tracking down the bad guys and tracing the connections they give up under questioning. President Bush is determined to give them the tools they need and the protections they have earned in the crucial work they do. Congressional Republicans now have the ammunition they need to line up behind him. Will Lindsay Graham be out of step?"

Update: Speech here.

Just another day on Texas roads...

HILARIOUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Trust me. You have got to listen.

And we thought our politicans were weird....!!

Labour MP Chris Bryant has apologised for e-mailing a picture of himself in his underpants via a gay website.

via The Daily Pundit

TOO FUNNY!!!! The stupidity of this (nevermind the morality of it) boggles the mind. Imagine someone like Joe Biden or Dick Durbin doing this for a date. Oh geeze, I am so sorry for putting that image in your head.

Mr. Bryant had this to say:

Mr Bryant, he added, had never made a secret of being gay, and that it was a private matter for him and his constituency Labour party.

He added that it was "one of those stories that gay people have to put up with from time to time".

That gay people have to put up with?? Forget about the gay part, how about the idea of a grown man taking a picture of himself in his underwear in the mirror like some horny 17 yr old on MySpace as being a bit...immature, silly, and unprofessional. Good grief man, don't blame it on your gayness.

In case you missed it.

Pres. Bush's speech yesterday.

Excerpts: (emphasis mine)

In the five years since our nation was attacked, we've also learned a great deal about the enemy we face in this war. We've learned about them through videos and audio recordings, and letters and statements they've posted on websites. We've learned about them from captured enemy documents that the terrorists have never meant for us to see. Together, these documents and statements have given us clear insight into the mind of our enemies -- their ideology, their ambitions, and their strategy to defeat us.

We know what the terrorists intend to do because they've told us -- and we need to take their words seriously. So today I'm going to describe -- in the terrorists' own words, what they believe… what they hope to accomplish, and how they intend to accomplish it. I'll discuss how the enemy has adapted in the wake of our sustained offensive against them, and the threat posed by different strains of violent Islamic radicalism. I'll explain the strategy we're pursuing to protect America, by defeating the terrorists on the battlefield, and defeating their hateful ideology in the battle of ideas.

The terrorists who attacked us on September the 11th, 2001, are men without conscience -- but they're not madmen. They kill in the name of a clear and focused ideology, a set of beliefs that are evil, but not insane. These al Qaeda terrorists and those who share their ideology are violent Sunni extremists. They're driven by a radical and perverted vision of Islam that rejects tolerance, crushes all dissent, and justifies the murder of innocent men, women and children in the pursuit of political power. They hope to establish a violent political utopia across the Middle East, which they call a "Caliphate" -- where all would be ruled according to their hateful ideology. Osama bin Laden has called the 9/11 attacks -- in his words -- "a great step towards the unity of Muslims and establishing the Righteous… [Caliphate]."

This caliphate would be a totalitarian Islamic empire encompassing all current and former Muslim lands, stretching from Europe to North Africa, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia. We know this because al Qaeda has told us. About two months ago, the terrorist Zawahiri -- he's al Qaeda's second in command -- declared that al Qaeda intends to impose its rule in "every land that was a home for Islam, from [Spain] to Iraq. He went on to say, "The whole world is an open field for us."

We know what this radical empire would look like in practice, because we saw how the radicals imposed their ideology on the people of Afghanistan. Under the rule of the Taliban and al Qaeda, Afghanistan was a totalitarian nightmare -- a land where women were imprisoned in their homes, men were beaten for missing prayer meetings, girls could not go to school, and children were forbidden the smallest pleasures like flying kites. Religious police roamed the streets, beating and detaining civilians for perceived offenses. Women were publicly whipped. Summary executions were held in Kabul's soccer stadium in front of cheering mobs. And Afghanistan was turned into a launching pad for horrific attacks against America and other parts of the civilized world -- including many Muslim nations.

The goal of these Sunni extremists is to remake the entire Muslim world in their radical image.

More:

After the liberation of Afghanistan, coalition forces searching through a terrorist safe house in that country found a copy of the al Qaeda charter. This charter states that "there will be continuing enmity until everyone believes in Allah. We will not meet [the enemy] halfway. There will be no room for dialogue with them." Another document was found in 2000 by British police during an anti-terrorist raid in London -- a grisly al Qaeda manual that includes chapters with titles such as "Guidelines for Beating and Killing Hostages." This manual declares that their vision of Islam "does not… make a truce with unbelief, but rather confronts it." The confrontation… calls for… the dialogue of bullets, the ideals of assassination, bombing, and destruction, and the diplomacy of the cannon and machine gun."

Pres. Bush went on to quote bin Laden in how bin Laden plans to "destroy" us and how in a letter from 2002 to the Taliban leader, Mullah Omar, bin Laden says that al Qaeda intends to "[launch]," in his words, "a media campaign… to create a wedge between the American people and their government."

That might be the one part of his plan that seems to be working.

bin laden sees America as weak. Our past Presidents, both Republican and Democrat seemed to have made bin laden think we have no resolve:

Osama bin Laden has written that the "defeat of... American forces in Beirut" in 1983 is proof America does not have the stomach to stay in the fight. He's declared that "in Somalia… the United States [pulled] out, trailing disappointment, defeat, and failure behind it." And last year, the terrorist Zawahiri declared that Americans "know better than others that there is no hope in victory. The Vietnam specter is closing every outlet."

And Zawahiri has a plan for Iraq:

The terrorist Zawahiri has said that al Qaeda will proceed with "several incremental goals. The first stage: Expel the Americans from Iraq. The second stage: Establish an Islamic authority or amirate, then develop it and support it until it achieves the level of Caliphate… The third stage: Extend the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq. And the fourth stage: …the clash with Israel."

I wonder, will the Democrats help with expelling Americans from Iraq?

These are important things to know. I hope we are listening.

Read the whole thing.

Journalists targeted.

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan The top Taliban military commander on Monday said that NATO's claims to have killed more than 200 insurgents over the weekend were propaganda and warned that his men would target journalists who reported "wrong information" given by the U.S.-led coalition or NATO.

"They are saying that they have killed 200 Taliban but they did not kill even 10 Taliban," said Mullah Dadullah, Taliban military commander for south and southeastern Afghanistan. "They are just destroying civilian homes and agricultural land. They are using the media to do propaganda against the Taliban."...

"From today, I want to tell journalists that if in future they use wrong information from coalition forces or NATO we will target those journalists and media," Dadullah said. "We have the Islamic right to kill these journalists and media."

via RWN

YIKES!

Missile fired at McCain escort helicopter during European visit

Kevin Curran
12 News
Sept. 3, 2006 07:03 PM A missile was fired at a helicopter escorting Sen. John McCain during a visit to the Republic of Georgia last week.

A statement from that nation’s interior ministry says the surface-to-air missile was aimed at a chopper involved in a visit of a U.S. Senate delegation to the former Soviet republic. McCain was mentioned as the leader of the group.

The ministry statement claims American officials were notified of the incident. State Dept. spokeswoman Joanne Moore told the Associated Press she had no information about the reported attack.

Does anyone know where the Clintons were at the time?

I KID!!!!

h/t BigDog

Open Thread.

I have to take my son to get his cast redone (Arrghhh!) Then I am off to do some video blogging. So have fun.

Beslan, do we remember?

I really want each of you to read this article in Esquire Magazine. It is long, but there is never a dull moment in the read. I want you to read it and imagine that it is a school here in the U.S. Imagine it, because this is the face of Islamic terror. The face with no conscience, the face of evil.

This is what would happen if those monsters got to one of our schools. This is what we have been protected from. This is what our brave men and women in uniform have died for. Every terrorist we killed in Iraq and Afhganistan (and there have been thousands) is one less monster that can do the things you are about to read to innocent people. One less monster to breed his hate. This is what I believe. If this article cannot convince you of the rightness of our fight, then nothing will.

Here is an excerpt:

"Karen's luck was worse than bad. He was not a resident of Beslan. He was a videographer, hired to videotape Aslan's daughter Dzera during her role as bell ringer. He had not wanted the job, but Aslan persisted, and finally Karen gave in. He had been framing the girl in his viewfinder when the terrorists arrived. So far he was untouched, but he suffered a banal affliction. Karen was highly allergic to pollen, and many children had come to school with flowers and had carried them to the gym when they were captured, surrounding him with irritants. His eyes had reddened. His breathing was short. He felt luck running down. At about 3:00 P.M. a terrorist ordered him to the hall. Although he looked strong—he was built like a wrestler—his allergies drained him. Fatigue settled over him with the arrival of dusk.

The woman near him exploded.

There had been no warning. One second she was standing there, a veiled woman in black. The next she was not, having been torn apart in a roaring flash. The explosives cut her to pieces, throwing her head and legs into the geography classroom. Much of her flesh splashed along the walls. Shrapnel and heat shot out from the belt, striking the men in the corridor as well as another terrorist who guarded them, who was knocked to the floor. The other shahidka was also pierced with shrapnel. She fell, blood running from her nose. Karen felt heat and debris smack his left side. His left eye went dim. But the older man between him and the shahidka had absorbed much of the shrapnel, creating a shadow in which Karen was spared the worst. He was briefly unconscious, but came to, slumped forward against the wall. He thought he was dying and traced his palms along his face and head. His eyelid was torn, and he had shrapnel in his face and left calf. Heat had seared his salt-and-pepper hair, making it feel like brittle wire. Someone handed him a handkerchief and he wiped his face, pulling out plaster. "If I die, tell my mother and wife I love them very much," he told the man."

and one more:

"The grenade exploded.

After the wave of metal hit her, Larisa was encased in something like silence, a state in which the absence of sound was overlaid by the ringing in her ears, leaving her to feel an effect like a struck crystal glass. How easy it is to die, she thought. But she did not die, not immediately, and as if in a dream she ran an arm over her son, who was beneath her. He was alive. "Mama," he said. "Mamochka.”

The shrapnel had blasted the right side of her face, tearing part of it off, and ruined her right arm. Larisa did not want the boy to see what had become of her and turned away and raised her left hand to her face. Her fingertips felt wet flesh and exposed bone. The bone fragments were sharp enough to prick. She passed out.

Her daughter crawled to her. A teacher beside Larisa was missing a leg. One of the commandos was dead. The children Madina had escorted in were dead. One of Larisa's neighbors was dead. Another teacher was dead. The grisly mess extended through the room."

If you don't think for one second that they would do this to us if given a chance, then you are living in a fantasy world. They go by different names, they live in different countries, but they all worship the same warped false God that commands them to kill.

The politics of this war on terror has got to stop and we have got to face this enemy TOGETHER.

via Pure Gum Spirits

Fahrenheit 9/11 giving propaganda tools to the terrorists? Who woulda thought?

From Michelle via ABC News: (emphasis mine)

"The Code of Silence" was posted on the Internet by the Rashedeen Army, thought to be a relatively small Sunni group which has produced videos in the past of attacks it claims to have carried out.

At almost an hour in length, it is the longest and most professionally made of recent postings by mainly Sunni militant and insurgent groups fighting the U.S.-backed government.

The U.S. military said earlier this week that recent intelligence indicated al Qaeda in Iraq was refining its strategy by producing propaganda and adding a political base to its violent campaign of suicide bombings.

Lifting scenes from Michael Moore's anti-war film "Fahrenheit 9/11," Rashedeen's narrator taunts President Bush in softly spoken English over graphic images of Humvees being blown up by roadside bombs, and purportedly dead U.S. troops."

Oh ...the grief the left gave us for saying that Michael Moore's film only helped and encouraged the terrorists. It was A TERRIBLE thing to imply. Well, well, look at what has come home to roost. Terrorists using Moore's film to taunt the President of the United States.

I hope Michael is proud. If he had any conscience at all he would be ashamed, but I'm sure he is too busy spending all the money he made off his distortions.

Just what we need...

a more feminist Air America. (NYT registration required)

Gloria Steinem has created an all female, all talk radio network with Jane Fonda called GloriGreenStone Media.

I'm sure it will do just as well as Air America has.

We can only hope.

via NRO

Don't believe it....

for one second.

Why I love the internet.

When surfing the net or looking at my stats that show who links me, I usually find some gold nugget in the midst of lots of ugly rock. This is a gold nugget. It's called Hip Hop Republican and there you can find these recent pearls of wisdom and information:

*Hip Hop star maker Russel Simmons gets some grief for endorsing Maryland Lt. Governor Michael Steele for the United States Senate and he explains why in a letter.

*Bob Herbert Op-ed Columnist (and liberal) discussing the "depressing culture illness, frequently fatal, that has spread unchecked through much of black America."

*The history of black Muslims.

Check out the contributors. A more interesting bunch you cannot find. I bookmarked it.

American al Qaida speaks and my conversation with Indians

"CAIRO, Egypt - An American thought to be an al-Qaida activist appeared in a videotape with the terror group's deputy leader Saturday and called on his countrymen to convert to Islam and for U.S. soldiers to switch sides in the Iraq and Afghan wars."

more:

"Gadahn delivered a lecture on Islam and the "errors" in Christianity and Judaism. He also said the United States is losing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and told U.S. soldiers they are fighting President Bush's "crusades."

"Instead of killing yourself for Bush ... why not surrender to the truth (of Islam), escape from the unbelieving army and join the winning side. Time is running out so make the right choice before it's too late," he said."

Too late??? Hmmm...

Sometimes it feels like we are a part of some Arnold Schwarzenegger movie with bad dialogue. I have mentioned before that I have heard from many people who think we should let those in the Middle East kill themselves and have nothing to do with anything over there. But those are Americans who have never been to the Middle East and I expect that sort of islolationism.

Last night I was at a party at my neighbor's house, an Indian couple. Most there were from India. I asked a few of them what they thought about the Iraq war and all that is going on over there. Many told me stories of the history of the Muslims. Brutal and sick acts of defiance and war. They all agreed that Muslims rule by the sword and there is no reason or negotiation with them. I said to them, "But you mean radical Muslims, right?" No, they said all the Muslim leaders were brutal and all Muslims agree with them too. They said there might be a few peaceful Muslims, but they have no power and never speak out because of fear. One woman told me that in history Pakistan was given to the Muslims as a Muslim Nation and India was given to the Hindu's for a secular nation. But she said that the Muslims who live in India have been multiplying and now even have govt. positions. I said, "they are having more children?" "oh yes, she said, about 30 more." "30 each??," I asked" "Yes, they have about 6 wives." She went on to say that Americans don't understand the danger of these people. "For Muslims," she said, "it is convert or we will kill you. Period."

So I asked them if they thought we should have gone into Afghanistan or Iraq. They said no. They said there will never be Democracy in a Muslim country. They said Muslims cannot even think that way. So I asked them what we should have done. This is what they said. They said we should have used every dollar we spent on the war on terror and built a wall along the Mexican border. We should have security at the borders and airports like the Israeli do. They said we should have deported every single Muslim out of the country and closed down the Mosques. "Even the American Muslims?" I asked. "Yes," they said.

I laughed. I couldn't help it.

I said, "You realize that that would not only be politically impossible, but also there are grave constitutional concerns there." I said "Even if we just did the border thing you suggest, the ACLU and all the Democrats would have howled to the moon and created lawsuits after lawsuits. Deporting even those Muslims who are not Americans would have sent the liberals into a snarling fit. Look at Gitmo! Those Muslims were seen as a danger to our country and look at how the liberals have fought for even them. We can't even specifially pull a person of Middle Eastern descent out of a security line to check him further."

That, they said, is the saddest thing of all. We can't do what we need to do to protect our country, and we can't do the impossible over in the Middle East. These people from India made no bones about how they felt about Muslims. Another woman said "History has shown us what the Muslims do and who they are, why don't we learn this? Theirs is a brutal and aggressive belief. It is basically us or them."

I can tell you that this conversation made me more than a little depressed. When I pointed out that we were killing the radical leaders, they just said that more will grow up and be the same. They saw no hope for change. I asked if we should just kill them all? The ones who practiced Hindu said no, of course. But we should just become a world within ourselves. The ones who were secular said yes.

Of course, both actions are unrealistic and wrong. We cannot isolate ourselves and I don't think that would work even if we did. We cannot "kill them all" either. It seems to me that Bush did the only viable thing. We had to fight them over there, protecting our homeland, and we have to convince the ones who are not radical now that democracy can work for them. The Indians say that is impossible. Is it?

We shall see.