9/11 Victims Honor Site is up and running, and is looking for you to participate.
On Monday, September 11th, 2006, the five year anniversary of the terrorist attack on America, I will be participating in giving honor to a specific victim of the tragedy of 9/11, Nathaniel Lawson, who was 61 at the time of his death at the WTC. This site was set up to bring together 2996 bloggers to each write a tribute to one of the victims of 9/11, with each blogger being assigned a different victim, so that all who died in this terrible tragedy would be honored.
I encourage those of you who write a blog to go to the site, sign up, and write a tribute to honor the memory of one of the victims. Let's make this a 100% participation event, folks.
Sunday, August 27, 2006
Iran ready to negotiate incentives deal
As reported here, "Iran said Tuesday that it was ready for "serious negotiations" on its nuclear program, offering a new formula to resolve a crisis with the West. A semiofficial news agency said the government was unwilling to abandon uranium enrichment -- the key U.S. demand.", except, of course, shutting down their enrichment program.
"Iran delivered its written response to a package of incentives offered by the United States and five other world powers to persuade Iran to roll back on its nuclear program -- and punishments if it does not. The world powers, the five permanent U.N. Security Council members plus Germany, have given Iran until Aug. 31 to accept the package." Another delay for Iran to bend to the will of the vast majority of the world's nations plays into the hands of the Iranian government, as it allows them to continue to develop their enrichment program, bringing them ever closer to their goal of having nuclear weapons.
"U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton said Washington will "study the Iranian response carefully" but was prepared to move forward with sanctions against Tehran if it was not positive. The White House held off commenting until it had studied the text. The European Union's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, said the document was "extensive" and required "a detailed and careful analysis."
"Iranian officials offered no details of the response, but it appeared geared at enticing those countries into further negotiations by offering a broad set of proposals vague enough to hold out hope of progress in resolving the standoff." Like I stated above, the Iranian response is geared at enticing those countries into further negotiations, more delays, more maneuvering, all so they can continue what they know the rest of the world does not want them to do.
"Tuesday's announcement was the latest development in the yearlong standoff over Tehran's nuclear program. Iran says it wants to master the technology to generate nuclear power. But critics say Iran is interested in uranium enrichment because it can also be used to make nuclear weapons." The stubbornness of the Iranian government has dragged this out for over a year now, with no resolution in sight - at least through the UN. The way to end this "standoff" is for the Iranians to comply with the UN resolution requiring them to halt enrichment. Period.
But, sadly, that isn't going to happen any time soon. When will the head-in-the-sand types at the UN wake up, and realize that the Iranian government is playing them for fools? Apparently, not any time soon.
"Iran delivered its written response to a package of incentives offered by the United States and five other world powers to persuade Iran to roll back on its nuclear program -- and punishments if it does not. The world powers, the five permanent U.N. Security Council members plus Germany, have given Iran until Aug. 31 to accept the package." Another delay for Iran to bend to the will of the vast majority of the world's nations plays into the hands of the Iranian government, as it allows them to continue to develop their enrichment program, bringing them ever closer to their goal of having nuclear weapons.
"U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton said Washington will "study the Iranian response carefully" but was prepared to move forward with sanctions against Tehran if it was not positive. The White House held off commenting until it had studied the text. The European Union's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, said the document was "extensive" and required "a detailed and careful analysis."
"Iranian officials offered no details of the response, but it appeared geared at enticing those countries into further negotiations by offering a broad set of proposals vague enough to hold out hope of progress in resolving the standoff." Like I stated above, the Iranian response is geared at enticing those countries into further negotiations, more delays, more maneuvering, all so they can continue what they know the rest of the world does not want them to do.
"Tuesday's announcement was the latest development in the yearlong standoff over Tehran's nuclear program. Iran says it wants to master the technology to generate nuclear power. But critics say Iran is interested in uranium enrichment because it can also be used to make nuclear weapons." The stubbornness of the Iranian government has dragged this out for over a year now, with no resolution in sight - at least through the UN. The way to end this "standoff" is for the Iranians to comply with the UN resolution requiring them to halt enrichment. Period.
But, sadly, that isn't going to happen any time soon. When will the head-in-the-sand types at the UN wake up, and realize that the Iranian government is playing them for fools? Apparently, not any time soon.
Kurdish witnesses recall bombs of poison smoke
As reported here, Saddam and six others have gone on trial for the Anfal Operation, in which poison gas was used by Iraqi forces, which wiped out several Kurdish villages, during the Iraq - Iran War of the late 1980's.
After tearful testimony by two survivors, "Saddam and his lawyers repeatedly accused the survivors of being coached in their testimony. At the same time, two of his six co-defendants insisted that Anfal did not target civilians but aimed only to wipe out Kurdish guerrillas they said were helping Iran as the two countries waged war in the 1980s."
How can they say with a straight face, that they were "only" targeting guerrillas and not civilians, by using chemical weapons? Chemical weapons are area weapons, meant to kill or disable everything in a given area. You cannot differentiate between civilians and combatants using chemical weapons! And just to make sure that enough people were killed, Saddam's forces later went in on the ground, killing more civilians, or "disappearing" them, burying them in mass graves to cover up their crimes.
"The 1987-88 military offensive was so notorious among the Kurds that it entered their vocabulary. Ahmed and Hama often described relatives as having been "anfalized" -- referring to those who disappeared only to be found later, if at all, in mass graves.
"Saddam and his cousin Ali Hassan al-Majid, a Baath Party leader who allegedly organized Anfal, are charged with genocide -- which can be tough to prove since its requires showing their intention was to exterminate part of an ethnic group.
"Saddam and al-Majid also face charges of crimes against humanity and war crimes, as do their co-defendants, most of whom are former military figures."
It is well documented that Saddam wanted to eradicate the Kurds who were a constant source of "irritation" to him and his regime, as the Kurds constantly put up fierce resistance to the regime, so proving genocide against Saddam and his co-defendants may not be as difficult as the author of this article may want you to believe. In any case, the crimes against humanity and other war crimes, will be rather easy to prove, so the prosecutors may not even need to try to prove genocide.
"The Anfal trial is likely to take months as well. The campaign was on a far greater scale than the Dujail crackdown, with death toll estimates ranging from 50,000 to 180,000. Prosecutors plan to call up to 75 witnesses and to present extensive documents from the former regime, as well as evidence from mass graves." Since Saddam is also on trial for the Dujail incident, and very likely will be found guilty, the sentence for which is death by hanging, Saddam may very well not live to see the end of the Anfal trial.
However, his co-defendants should.
After tearful testimony by two survivors, "Saddam and his lawyers repeatedly accused the survivors of being coached in their testimony. At the same time, two of his six co-defendants insisted that Anfal did not target civilians but aimed only to wipe out Kurdish guerrillas they said were helping Iran as the two countries waged war in the 1980s."
How can they say with a straight face, that they were "only" targeting guerrillas and not civilians, by using chemical weapons? Chemical weapons are area weapons, meant to kill or disable everything in a given area. You cannot differentiate between civilians and combatants using chemical weapons! And just to make sure that enough people were killed, Saddam's forces later went in on the ground, killing more civilians, or "disappearing" them, burying them in mass graves to cover up their crimes.
"The 1987-88 military offensive was so notorious among the Kurds that it entered their vocabulary. Ahmed and Hama often described relatives as having been "anfalized" -- referring to those who disappeared only to be found later, if at all, in mass graves.
"Saddam and his cousin Ali Hassan al-Majid, a Baath Party leader who allegedly organized Anfal, are charged with genocide -- which can be tough to prove since its requires showing their intention was to exterminate part of an ethnic group.
"Saddam and al-Majid also face charges of crimes against humanity and war crimes, as do their co-defendants, most of whom are former military figures."
It is well documented that Saddam wanted to eradicate the Kurds who were a constant source of "irritation" to him and his regime, as the Kurds constantly put up fierce resistance to the regime, so proving genocide against Saddam and his co-defendants may not be as difficult as the author of this article may want you to believe. In any case, the crimes against humanity and other war crimes, will be rather easy to prove, so the prosecutors may not even need to try to prove genocide.
"The Anfal trial is likely to take months as well. The campaign was on a far greater scale than the Dujail crackdown, with death toll estimates ranging from 50,000 to 180,000. Prosecutors plan to call up to 75 witnesses and to present extensive documents from the former regime, as well as evidence from mass graves." Since Saddam is also on trial for the Dujail incident, and very likely will be found guilty, the sentence for which is death by hanging, Saddam may very well not live to see the end of the Anfal trial.
However, his co-defendants should.
Japanese Americans criticize Watada
As reported here, "Nine Japanese American veterans groups have publicly criticized Army 1st Lt. Ehren Watada for his decision to disobey deployment orders to serve in Iraq.
"Watada, an officer based at Fort Lewis, is trying to "make himself a martyr and a hero," said Robert Wada, a charter president of the Japanese American Korean War Veterans. He said Watada's actions disrespect a legacy of military service by Japanese American soldiers dating back to World War II.
""No Japanese Americans did anything like that, and that is why Japanese Americans are so upset," Wada said. "He is doing something that has never been done by Japanese Americans."
"The groups expressed their outrage at Watada this week in a public statement.
"The groups opposing Watada include the Japanese American Korean War Veterans, Americans of Japanese Ancestry WWII Memorial Alliance, five Veterans of Foreign Wars posts and American Legion post and the Nisei Veterans Coordinating Council of Southern California."
The nisei (Japanese Americans), once allowed to serve in the armed forces, served with distinction during WWII, suffering horrendous casualties, but making significant contributions to the outcome of that war. Although Seattle resident, Frank Abe, produced a documentary, "Conscience and the Constitution", showing that 315 nisei resisted serving until their families, who were in relocation camps, were released to go home, that is a mere pittance of the vast number of nisei who served honorably, willingly, and in many cases, with great distinction in the European Theater of Operations, and later, in Korea.
What Watada is attempting to do is both shameful, and without merit, and I applaud these veterans groups for their stand against what he is trying to do.
UPDATE: Army officer recommending trial for Watada
As reported here, "A report by the investigating officer, Lt. Col. Mark Keith, "does recommend that the case be tried by general court-martial," said J.C. Mathews, a civilian spokesman at the base.
"Watada has been charged with missing troop movement, conduct unbecoming an officer and contempt toward officials.
"The Army laid out its case against him at a hearing last week, showing video footage of the officer calling the Iraq war illegal.
"Keith could have recommended anything from dismissal of the charges to a general court-martial."
So, what happens now? "Keith's recommendation goes to Watada's brigade commander, Col. Cynthia Murphy, and finally to Lt. Gen. James Dubik, Fort Lewis commander, who has the final say on whether Watada should stand trial."
"Watada, an officer based at Fort Lewis, is trying to "make himself a martyr and a hero," said Robert Wada, a charter president of the Japanese American Korean War Veterans. He said Watada's actions disrespect a legacy of military service by Japanese American soldiers dating back to World War II.
""No Japanese Americans did anything like that, and that is why Japanese Americans are so upset," Wada said. "He is doing something that has never been done by Japanese Americans."
"The groups expressed their outrage at Watada this week in a public statement.
"The groups opposing Watada include the Japanese American Korean War Veterans, Americans of Japanese Ancestry WWII Memorial Alliance, five Veterans of Foreign Wars posts and American Legion post and the Nisei Veterans Coordinating Council of Southern California."
The nisei (Japanese Americans), once allowed to serve in the armed forces, served with distinction during WWII, suffering horrendous casualties, but making significant contributions to the outcome of that war. Although Seattle resident, Frank Abe, produced a documentary, "Conscience and the Constitution", showing that 315 nisei resisted serving until their families, who were in relocation camps, were released to go home, that is a mere pittance of the vast number of nisei who served honorably, willingly, and in many cases, with great distinction in the European Theater of Operations, and later, in Korea.
What Watada is attempting to do is both shameful, and without merit, and I applaud these veterans groups for their stand against what he is trying to do.
UPDATE: Army officer recommending trial for Watada
As reported here, "A report by the investigating officer, Lt. Col. Mark Keith, "does recommend that the case be tried by general court-martial," said J.C. Mathews, a civilian spokesman at the base.
"Watada has been charged with missing troop movement, conduct unbecoming an officer and contempt toward officials.
"The Army laid out its case against him at a hearing last week, showing video footage of the officer calling the Iraq war illegal.
"Keith could have recommended anything from dismissal of the charges to a general court-martial."
So, what happens now? "Keith's recommendation goes to Watada's brigade commander, Col. Cynthia Murphy, and finally to Lt. Gen. James Dubik, Fort Lewis commander, who has the final say on whether Watada should stand trial."
Ruling may favor McGavick
As reported here, "A proposed Federal Election Commission ruling says Republican U.S. Senate candidate Mike McGavick can contribute $2 million to his own cash-strapped campaign without giving Democratic Sen. Maria Cantwell a commensurate fundraising boost.
"If the commission adopts the proposed opinion issued by its staff this week, McGavick's hefty self-contribution, an Aug. 11 loan, wouldn't trigger the "Millionaire's Amendment" in the federal Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002. The commission will act on the recommendation Tuesday.
"The Cantwell 2006 campaign asked for the FEC opinion for fear that McGavick, the multimillionaire former chief executive of Seattle-based Safeco Corp., would pour his own money into his campaign, which lags well behind Cantwell's in fundraising."
How ironic. When Cantwell ran against then Senator Slade Gorton, she came out and said that she would not accept any PAC money, thereby putting her on the "moral high ground" for not being beholden to "special interests", and instead would use her own money (she is a former executive with RealNetworks, and earned a tidy pile of cash from them), but now that the shoe is on the other foot, they're afraid that McGavik will use his own money to finance his campaign.
What does that say about Cantwell, and her campaign? To me, it says that she is not confident that she will retain her Senate seat, and that her campaign strategists view McGavik as a credible threat.
"If the commission adopts the proposed opinion issued by its staff this week, McGavick's hefty self-contribution, an Aug. 11 loan, wouldn't trigger the "Millionaire's Amendment" in the federal Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002. The commission will act on the recommendation Tuesday.
"The Cantwell 2006 campaign asked for the FEC opinion for fear that McGavick, the multimillionaire former chief executive of Seattle-based Safeco Corp., would pour his own money into his campaign, which lags well behind Cantwell's in fundraising."
How ironic. When Cantwell ran against then Senator Slade Gorton, she came out and said that she would not accept any PAC money, thereby putting her on the "moral high ground" for not being beholden to "special interests", and instead would use her own money (she is a former executive with RealNetworks, and earned a tidy pile of cash from them), but now that the shoe is on the other foot, they're afraid that McGavik will use his own money to finance his campaign.
What does that say about Cantwell, and her campaign? To me, it says that she is not confident that she will retain her Senate seat, and that her campaign strategists view McGavik as a credible threat.
Is the Bush Doctrine Dead?
Several people would have you think that it is, but Dogmaticus points to this excellent analysis of the Bush Doctrine by Norman Podhoretz in the OpinionJournal, who states that not only is it not dead, but it's still alive and kicking, as millions of free Afghani's and Iraqi's would be only too happy to tell you.
It's long, but well worth the time to read it (free subscription required).
It's long, but well worth the time to read it (free subscription required).
Jihadists glorify killing carried out in name of Islam
As reported here, there are still Islamofascists operating with seeming impunity in the UK, although the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006, which makes it a crime to glorify or encourage political violence, has curtailed some of the most obvious inflammatory remarks. But certainly not all.
"From his home on the northwest edge of this city, Muhamad al-Massari runs a Web site that celebrates the violent death of British and U.S. soldiers. It is visited by tens of thousands of people every day, he said. Al-Massari keeps up his Arabic-language Web site, called Tajdeed.org.uk, in the face of a strict new law aimed at curtailing violent speech and publishing. Just last week, the Council of Holy Warriors, an al-Qaida-affiliated group, posted a declaration on the Web site praising a suicide bombing in Iraq that killed or wounded 55 people. "If you kill our civilians, we kill your civilians," he said." The authorities in the UK need to shut this guy down.
But wait - there's more.
"Yet despite the anti-glorification law and other measures, Islamist leaders persist, some declaring it the duty of British Muslims to kill in the name of Islam.
"Yet for all the government actions, the new measures do not appear to have silenced those either praising Islam or calling for violence in its name. Some Islamist preachers have carefully scaled back their language, even if, in the proper context, the meaning seems clear.
"On Sunday, speaking before 8,000 followers in Manchester, Azam Tamimi extolled the glories of suffering for the faith.
""The greatest act of martyrdom is standing up for what is true and just," Tamimi told the crowd. "Martyrs are those who stand up in defiance of George Bush and Tony Blair."
"Atilla Ahmet, a leader of the Islamist group Supporters of Sharia, speaks freely about what he considers the necessity for violent action to avenge what he considers unjustified attacks on Muslims abroad.
""If you are going to kill a Muslim," he said, "then I will do everything in my power to kill you.""
Still think that Islam is the "religion of peace"? Think again.
Appeasement of these kinds of people is high on the agenda of some, but as you can plainly see from the remarks they make, that this will never work. Why?
Because they want to kill you, that's why!
"From his home on the northwest edge of this city, Muhamad al-Massari runs a Web site that celebrates the violent death of British and U.S. soldiers. It is visited by tens of thousands of people every day, he said. Al-Massari keeps up his Arabic-language Web site, called Tajdeed.org.uk, in the face of a strict new law aimed at curtailing violent speech and publishing. Just last week, the Council of Holy Warriors, an al-Qaida-affiliated group, posted a declaration on the Web site praising a suicide bombing in Iraq that killed or wounded 55 people. "If you kill our civilians, we kill your civilians," he said." The authorities in the UK need to shut this guy down.
But wait - there's more.
"Yet despite the anti-glorification law and other measures, Islamist leaders persist, some declaring it the duty of British Muslims to kill in the name of Islam.
"Yet for all the government actions, the new measures do not appear to have silenced those either praising Islam or calling for violence in its name. Some Islamist preachers have carefully scaled back their language, even if, in the proper context, the meaning seems clear.
"On Sunday, speaking before 8,000 followers in Manchester, Azam Tamimi extolled the glories of suffering for the faith.
""The greatest act of martyrdom is standing up for what is true and just," Tamimi told the crowd. "Martyrs are those who stand up in defiance of George Bush and Tony Blair."
"Atilla Ahmet, a leader of the Islamist group Supporters of Sharia, speaks freely about what he considers the necessity for violent action to avenge what he considers unjustified attacks on Muslims abroad.
""If you are going to kill a Muslim," he said, "then I will do everything in my power to kill you.""
Still think that Islam is the "religion of peace"? Think again.
Appeasement of these kinds of people is high on the agenda of some, but as you can plainly see from the remarks they make, that this will never work. Why?
Because they want to kill you, that's why!
Sunday, August 20, 2006
Controversial Muslim group gets VIP airport security tour
As reported here, "The Department of Homeland Security took a Muslim group with known past ties to terror organizations on a VIP tour of security operations at the nation's busiest airport at the same time British authorities were working to break up a plot to blow up U.S. airlines.
"On June 21, a senior DHS official from Washington personally guided Muslim officials from the Council on American-Islamic Relations on a behind-the-scenes tour of Customs screening operations at O'Hare International Airport in response to CAIR complaints that Muslim travelers were being unfairly delayed as they entered the U.S. from abroad.
"CAIR is a spin-off of the Islamic Association for Palestine, identified by two former FBI counterterrorism chiefs as a "front group" for the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas. Several CAIR leaders have been convicted on terror-related charges.
"During the airport tour, CAIR was taken on a walk through the point-of-entry, Customs stations, secondary screening and interview rooms. In addition, U.S. Customs and Border Patrol agents were asked to describe for CAIR representatives various features of the high-risk passenger lookout system.
"In a meeting, Brian Humphrey, Customs and Border Patrol's executive director of field operations, assured CAIR officials that agents do not single out Muslim passengers for special screening and that they must undergo a mandatory course in Muslim sensitivity training. The course teaches agents that Muslims believe jihad is an "internal struggle against sin" and not holy warfare.
"Customs agents involved in the CAIR tour at O'Hare tell WorldNetDaily they were outraged that headquarters would reveal sensitive counterterrorism procedures to an organization that has seen several of its own officials convicted of terror-related charges since 9-11.
""Isn't that nice of CBP," one agent said, to provide a "group like CAIR with a guided, behind-the-scenes tour of our customs facilities, explaining how programs designed to catch Muslim terrorists work.""
Yes, how nice. Even better is the fact that CAIR is happier now, knowing how our policies and procedures for keeping Islamofascists from getting on an airplane and possibly using it as a guided missile work. They will be able to pass this information along to their buddies in the Mid-East, so they aren't traumatized when they come to the US to kill people.
Yes. How nice of our PC-infected idiots to do that. Islamofascist terrorists can now rest easy in the assurance that we will bend over backwards to make sure they aren't singled out, and possibly prevented from carrying out their terrorist acts.
"On June 21, a senior DHS official from Washington personally guided Muslim officials from the Council on American-Islamic Relations on a behind-the-scenes tour of Customs screening operations at O'Hare International Airport in response to CAIR complaints that Muslim travelers were being unfairly delayed as they entered the U.S. from abroad.
"CAIR is a spin-off of the Islamic Association for Palestine, identified by two former FBI counterterrorism chiefs as a "front group" for the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas. Several CAIR leaders have been convicted on terror-related charges.
"During the airport tour, CAIR was taken on a walk through the point-of-entry, Customs stations, secondary screening and interview rooms. In addition, U.S. Customs and Border Patrol agents were asked to describe for CAIR representatives various features of the high-risk passenger lookout system.
"In a meeting, Brian Humphrey, Customs and Border Patrol's executive director of field operations, assured CAIR officials that agents do not single out Muslim passengers for special screening and that they must undergo a mandatory course in Muslim sensitivity training. The course teaches agents that Muslims believe jihad is an "internal struggle against sin" and not holy warfare.
"Customs agents involved in the CAIR tour at O'Hare tell WorldNetDaily they were outraged that headquarters would reveal sensitive counterterrorism procedures to an organization that has seen several of its own officials convicted of terror-related charges since 9-11.
""Isn't that nice of CBP," one agent said, to provide a "group like CAIR with a guided, behind-the-scenes tour of our customs facilities, explaining how programs designed to catch Muslim terrorists work.""
Yes, how nice. Even better is the fact that CAIR is happier now, knowing how our policies and procedures for keeping Islamofascists from getting on an airplane and possibly using it as a guided missile work. They will be able to pass this information along to their buddies in the Mid-East, so they aren't traumatized when they come to the US to kill people.
Yes. How nice of our PC-infected idiots to do that. Islamofascist terrorists can now rest easy in the assurance that we will bend over backwards to make sure they aren't singled out, and possibly prevented from carrying out their terrorist acts.
Isn't that special?
Hat tip: hollie-is-right
Hezbollah offering aid to rebuild South Lebanon
As reported here, the terrorist organization Hezbollah has set up registration offices for Lebanese to get money to help with rent, and to rebuild their destroyed homes and businesses.
Pardon me for being cynical, but Hezbollah is not a "humanitarian organization" - they are terrorists - and this is just another part of their grand propaganda strategy to dupe unwitting people into believing that they are interested in their welfare.
If that really was the case, then why did they initiate hostilities against Israel, knowing full well that Israel would not sit idle, and meekly submit to the rocket attacks? If that was the case, why aren't they offering to pay for the rebuilding of Israeli homes and businesses that they destroyed?
"In Tyre, Hezbollah's commander in south Lebanon, Nabil Kaouk, said the group's goal is to "bring south Lebanon back to its real life and to rebuild it better than it was before the war."" To do that, Hezbollah needs to leave Lebanon, so the Lebanese don't have to fear retaliatory attacks from Israel after you decide to lob a bunch of missiles into Israel.
Pardon me for being cynical, but Hezbollah is not a "humanitarian organization" - they are terrorists - and this is just another part of their grand propaganda strategy to dupe unwitting people into believing that they are interested in their welfare.
If that really was the case, then why did they initiate hostilities against Israel, knowing full well that Israel would not sit idle, and meekly submit to the rocket attacks? If that was the case, why aren't they offering to pay for the rebuilding of Israeli homes and businesses that they destroyed?
"In Tyre, Hezbollah's commander in south Lebanon, Nabil Kaouk, said the group's goal is to "bring south Lebanon back to its real life and to rebuild it better than it was before the war."" To do that, Hezbollah needs to leave Lebanon, so the Lebanese don't have to fear retaliatory attacks from Israel after you decide to lob a bunch of missiles into Israel.
Fort Lewis panel to decide if Watada faces court-martial
As reported here, the Army is convening an Article 32 hearing regarding Lt. Watada, who refused to obey orders to deploy with his unit to Iraq. (An Article 32 hearing is similar to a preliminary, or grand jury, hearing and is used to determine if there is enough evidence to warrant proceeding further).
Of course, the ACLU has to get involved. "Meanwhile, in a friend-of-the-court brief, the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington announced this week that it is backing Watada's free speech rights to express legal and moral objections to the war in Iraq. The ACLU declined, however, to take a position on his challenge to the lawfulness of orders to report for deployment to Iraq.
"Soldiers should not be court-martialed for explaining their views on important political issues when doing so does not adversely affect military functioning. Lt. Watada was exercising his free speech rights as a citizen in a democratic society," Kathleen Taylor, the ACLU of Washington executive director, said in a statement."
The issue here is not - I repeat not - Lt. Watada's free speech rights. The issue here is that Lt. Watada refused a lawful order to deploy with his unit to Iraq, and in the process of doing that, he spoke out at a press conference, disparaging the President, and the war in Iraq, which is something someone in the military cannot legally do. This has been accepted practice for military personnel for over 200 years.
"Watada is not a conscientious objector. Instead he believes the war in Iraq to be immoral and illegal under constitutional and international conventions. He has said he sees it as his duty as an officer to point out and refuse unlawful orders. He has said he would fight in Afghanistan.
"Watada's civilian lawyer, Eric Seitz of Hawaii, has said Watada's case raises key issues about the legality of the war in the face of international war conventions, and the scope of the president's constitutional authority. Seitz hopes to introduce evidence about that, and says he wants to call expert witnesses in international law, including a former United Nations undersecretary, Denis Halliday, to support Watada's contentions."
Pfft. The only "international law" that they could possibly be speaking about that could possibly have any remote relevance to this is the Geneva Conventions, which governs the conduct of war, and treatment of prisoners of war, not whether someone can call a press conference to say he doesn't want to go where he has been ordered to go.
In this follow on article, which is misleadingly headlined ("Hearing for soldier who won't serve in Iraq puts war on trial" - sorry, no it doesn't), during the Article 32 hearing, three defense witnesses called the war illegal - which it isn't, as I (among many others) have explained before.
What they are trying to do is blow smoke up everyone's shorts, to distract from the very serious charges of Missing Movement and Conduct Unbecoming, among others, leveled against Lt. Watada. Trying to figure out if the war is "illegal" is not in the purview of the Article 32 court. Their job is to figure out if there is enough evidence to bring Lt. Watada before a Courts Martial on the offenses he is charged with.
Period.
If you want to debate the legality of the war in Iraq, call a press conference - in Baghdad!
Of course, the ACLU has to get involved. "Meanwhile, in a friend-of-the-court brief, the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington announced this week that it is backing Watada's free speech rights to express legal and moral objections to the war in Iraq. The ACLU declined, however, to take a position on his challenge to the lawfulness of orders to report for deployment to Iraq.
"Soldiers should not be court-martialed for explaining their views on important political issues when doing so does not adversely affect military functioning. Lt. Watada was exercising his free speech rights as a citizen in a democratic society," Kathleen Taylor, the ACLU of Washington executive director, said in a statement."
The issue here is not - I repeat not - Lt. Watada's free speech rights. The issue here is that Lt. Watada refused a lawful order to deploy with his unit to Iraq, and in the process of doing that, he spoke out at a press conference, disparaging the President, and the war in Iraq, which is something someone in the military cannot legally do. This has been accepted practice for military personnel for over 200 years.
"Watada is not a conscientious objector. Instead he believes the war in Iraq to be immoral and illegal under constitutional and international conventions. He has said he sees it as his duty as an officer to point out and refuse unlawful orders. He has said he would fight in Afghanistan.
"Watada's civilian lawyer, Eric Seitz of Hawaii, has said Watada's case raises key issues about the legality of the war in the face of international war conventions, and the scope of the president's constitutional authority. Seitz hopes to introduce evidence about that, and says he wants to call expert witnesses in international law, including a former United Nations undersecretary, Denis Halliday, to support Watada's contentions."
Pfft. The only "international law" that they could possibly be speaking about that could possibly have any remote relevance to this is the Geneva Conventions, which governs the conduct of war, and treatment of prisoners of war, not whether someone can call a press conference to say he doesn't want to go where he has been ordered to go.
In this follow on article, which is misleadingly headlined ("Hearing for soldier who won't serve in Iraq puts war on trial" - sorry, no it doesn't), during the Article 32 hearing, three defense witnesses called the war illegal - which it isn't, as I (among many others) have explained before.
What they are trying to do is blow smoke up everyone's shorts, to distract from the very serious charges of Missing Movement and Conduct Unbecoming, among others, leveled against Lt. Watada. Trying to figure out if the war is "illegal" is not in the purview of the Article 32 court. Their job is to figure out if there is enough evidence to bring Lt. Watada before a Courts Martial on the offenses he is charged with.
Period.
If you want to debate the legality of the war in Iraq, call a press conference - in Baghdad!
Judge orders end to warrantless wiretapping
As reported here, Federal Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, a Carter administration appointee who sits on the U.S. District Court in Detroit has ruled that the Terrorists Surveillance Program run by the NSA at the direction of President Bush - you know, the program that monitors overseas communications from or to people with known links to terrorists, which likely played a role in the foiling of the multi-plane bomb plot in the UK - is unconstitutional. [Emphasis mine]
Ordinarily, I would chew this apart, and inject my own thoughts and comments, but this time, I'll let the editors and authors of a couple of other web sites do that for me, since I'm not a lawyer. Suffice it to say that, as a Carter appointee, do you suppose that she has an 'agenda' by any chance?
The OpinionJournal Editors weigh in here (free subscription required).
The National Review Online Editors weigh in here.
Andrew C. McCarthy, also of National Review Online weighs in here.
And Bryan Cunningham, also of National Review Online weighs in here.
Ordinarily, I would chew this apart, and inject my own thoughts and comments, but this time, I'll let the editors and authors of a couple of other web sites do that for me, since I'm not a lawyer. Suffice it to say that, as a Carter appointee, do you suppose that she has an 'agenda' by any chance?
The OpinionJournal Editors weigh in here (free subscription required).
The National Review Online Editors weigh in here.
Andrew C. McCarthy, also of National Review Online weighs in here.
And Bryan Cunningham, also of National Review Online weighs in here.
Seattle Police Officer Killed By Speeding SUV
As reported here, this past Sunday morning, while on routine patrol, 26 year old rookie Seattle Police Officer Joselito Barber was struck by a speeding Yukon SUV that was traveling at up to 80 mph at the time of the crash. Officer Barber was killed instantly.
The driver of the Yukon was possibly under the influence of drugs or alcohol (maybe both), and was no stranger to the criminal justice system. She was released from a minimum security facility just 11 days before the fatal accident, even though she had at least four outstanding misdemeanor warrants for her arrest, and she was driving on a suspended license.
Four outstanding warrants. Driving on a suspended license. Released 11 days prior to the incident from a minimum security facility for drug offenders.
Tell me again why drugs should be legalized, and their use condoned?
Update: $1 Million Bail For Woman Accused In Officer's Death
As reported here, the woman involved in the fatal crash last Sunday morning, Mary Jane Rivas, 31 and a six-time felon, has had her bail set at $1 million, and is likely facing vehicular homicide charges this coming Monday.
King County Prosecutor Norm Maleng is said to be seeking the maximum sentence possible in this case, due to the extenuating circumstances. I hope he does.
The driver of the Yukon was possibly under the influence of drugs or alcohol (maybe both), and was no stranger to the criminal justice system. She was released from a minimum security facility just 11 days before the fatal accident, even though she had at least four outstanding misdemeanor warrants for her arrest, and she was driving on a suspended license.
Four outstanding warrants. Driving on a suspended license. Released 11 days prior to the incident from a minimum security facility for drug offenders.
Tell me again why drugs should be legalized, and their use condoned?
Update: $1 Million Bail For Woman Accused In Officer's Death
As reported here, the woman involved in the fatal crash last Sunday morning, Mary Jane Rivas, 31 and a six-time felon, has had her bail set at $1 million, and is likely facing vehicular homicide charges this coming Monday.
King County Prosecutor Norm Maleng is said to be seeking the maximum sentence possible in this case, due to the extenuating circumstances. I hope he does.
Carter: Sympathy For The Devil
Apparently, the idiot peanut farmer has done it again - given an interview, this time to Germany's 'Der Speigel' - in which he denigrates America - again - and President Bush - again. David Limbaugh takes him to task in this piece, while in a piece entitled,
'Georgian Off His Mind: Jimmy Carter Strikes Again', Jay D. Homnick says, "There are so many sad things to write about today but we all need the cathartic diversion of a true laughingstock, so let us talk about Jimmy Carter. Carter, by all biological indications, is still alive, so we may speak of him ill. Very, very, incurably ill." adding, "This collection of boobs, kooks and crooks took us down a garden path that led into a swamp. The prime lending rate rose higher than 15%, making it virtually impossible to acquire a home. Unemployment hovered near ten percent, leaving one tenth of our citizens skulking in alleyways, looking either for trouble or despair. No solution was offered by the President and his resident geniuses beyond the recommendation to come to terms with America’s newly abbreviated capacities.
"The military capacity of this country shrank to a nullity. When sixty-six Americans were held hostage at our embassy in Teheran for 444 days by mobs affiliated with the Islamic revolt in Iran, we stood by helpless and humiliated. When a rescue was finally attempted by landing eight helicopters in a nearby desert, a few of the helicopters became incapacitated by the landing and the project was hastily aborted. All of this came after the Carter administration had essentially stood by while the Muslim rebels deposed the Shah, last in a 2,500-year line of Persian monarchs." (And look where that got us - a lunatic running the asylum called Iran, who has called for Israel to be wiped off the map, and is working on developing nuclear weapons technology, and provides material and monetary support to terrorists, such as Hezbollah among others. Good job, Jimmy! But I digress -there's more.)
"This is the Jimmy Carter who today writes books and gives interviews in derogation of the policies of President Bush in prosecuting the war against Islamic terror. His recent remarks to Der Spiegel do not reflect new trends in his thought; he told the American Prospect in the month after the March 2003 invasion of Iraq that it was done by Bush for his own aggrandizement."
I agree completely with Mr. Homnick when he says that, "The man is a fool at best and a menace at worst.", and I'll add that Carter is delusional, in that he still thinks he has political relevance - which he does not, and never had - and that he speaks for a majority of Democrats - which I hope he does not, as that would be truly scary in the extreme!
'Georgian Off His Mind: Jimmy Carter Strikes Again', Jay D. Homnick says, "There are so many sad things to write about today but we all need the cathartic diversion of a true laughingstock, so let us talk about Jimmy Carter. Carter, by all biological indications, is still alive, so we may speak of him ill. Very, very, incurably ill." adding, "This collection of boobs, kooks and crooks took us down a garden path that led into a swamp. The prime lending rate rose higher than 15%, making it virtually impossible to acquire a home. Unemployment hovered near ten percent, leaving one tenth of our citizens skulking in alleyways, looking either for trouble or despair. No solution was offered by the President and his resident geniuses beyond the recommendation to come to terms with America’s newly abbreviated capacities.
"The military capacity of this country shrank to a nullity. When sixty-six Americans were held hostage at our embassy in Teheran for 444 days by mobs affiliated with the Islamic revolt in Iran, we stood by helpless and humiliated. When a rescue was finally attempted by landing eight helicopters in a nearby desert, a few of the helicopters became incapacitated by the landing and the project was hastily aborted. All of this came after the Carter administration had essentially stood by while the Muslim rebels deposed the Shah, last in a 2,500-year line of Persian monarchs." (And look where that got us - a lunatic running the asylum called Iran, who has called for Israel to be wiped off the map, and is working on developing nuclear weapons technology, and provides material and monetary support to terrorists, such as Hezbollah among others. Good job, Jimmy! But I digress -there's more.)
"This is the Jimmy Carter who today writes books and gives interviews in derogation of the policies of President Bush in prosecuting the war against Islamic terror. His recent remarks to Der Spiegel do not reflect new trends in his thought; he told the American Prospect in the month after the March 2003 invasion of Iraq that it was done by Bush for his own aggrandizement."
I agree completely with Mr. Homnick when he says that, "The man is a fool at best and a menace at worst.", and I'll add that Carter is delusional, in that he still thinks he has political relevance - which he does not, and never had - and that he speaks for a majority of Democrats - which I hope he does not, as that would be truly scary in the extreme!
Democrats seek upper hand on national safety
As reported here, "Democrats say they are determined not to cede the issue this year and are working aggressively to cast President Bush as having diminished the nation's safety." To be able to do that - which you can't - you have to give concrete examples as to how President Bush has diminished the nation's safety - which you can't. Saying that Islamofascists would simply leave us alone if we changed our Mid-East policies, and sat down to talk to them, to listen to their grievances, is naïve at best; appeasement has never worked (see Chamberlain and Hitler, circa 1938), and never will. Making changes in Mid-East policies so as to not "offend" a group of people bent on our destruction is tantamount to succumbing to blackmail.
"Seeking to counter White House efforts to turn the alleged terrorist plot in Britain to Republican advantage, Democrats are using the arrests of the suspects to try to show Americans how the war in Iraq has fueled Islamic radicalism and distracted Bush and the Republican Congress from shoring up homeland security. They say they intend to drive that message home as the nation observes the coming anniversaries of Hurricane Katrina and the Sept. 11 attacks in the weeks before the November elections." I have a newsflash for you - Islamofascists were already radicalized before we went to Iraq in 2003, or have you (conveniently) forgotten the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983? Or, the truck bomb that was exploded in the parking garage of the World Trade Center in 1993? Speaking of the WTC, have you forgotten the two planes that were crashed into those two buildings, the one that was crashed into the Pentagon, and the one that crashed into that lonely field in Pennsylvania in 2001? Those, and other, events all took place before we went into Iraq, so how does the fact that we are in Iraq make Islamofascists any more radical than they already were? Explain that to me. Go on. I'm waiting ... I didn't think you could, because it's impossible.
"But they (the Democrats) are not waiting. A video Monday on the Web site of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee showed footage of al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden, referred to an increase in terrorist attacks, highlighted illegal immigration and pointed out the nuclear aspirations of Iran and North Korea.
""Feel safer?" it concludes. "Vote for change."" Yes, use the video that has Hispanics outraged that they are compared with al-Qaida and have demanded the video be removed, as one of your "We're not soft on National Defense" talking points. Yes, you are, and you're soft in the head, too, if you believe that the majority of the American electorate will buy into that fabrication.
"Republicans said they believe the Democratic efforts will fizzle, asserting that voters will ultimately choose to trust Republicans with the life-and-death issue of security.
"And Bush, in remarks Monday at the State Department, disputed the notion that his policies have contributed to a more dangerous world.
""Some say that America caused the current instability in the Middle East by pursuing a forward strategy of freedom, yet history shows otherwise," said Bush, ticking off terrorist attacks that occurred in the United States, Africa and elsewhere long before he took office."
He's right, and no amount of Democrat double-speak, or obfuscation of the truth, will change that. It's a fact - we are much safer with George W. Bush as President than we would be with any Democrat pretender.
Deal with it.
"Seeking to counter White House efforts to turn the alleged terrorist plot in Britain to Republican advantage, Democrats are using the arrests of the suspects to try to show Americans how the war in Iraq has fueled Islamic radicalism and distracted Bush and the Republican Congress from shoring up homeland security. They say they intend to drive that message home as the nation observes the coming anniversaries of Hurricane Katrina and the Sept. 11 attacks in the weeks before the November elections." I have a newsflash for you - Islamofascists were already radicalized before we went to Iraq in 2003, or have you (conveniently) forgotten the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983? Or, the truck bomb that was exploded in the parking garage of the World Trade Center in 1993? Speaking of the WTC, have you forgotten the two planes that were crashed into those two buildings, the one that was crashed into the Pentagon, and the one that crashed into that lonely field in Pennsylvania in 2001? Those, and other, events all took place before we went into Iraq, so how does the fact that we are in Iraq make Islamofascists any more radical than they already were? Explain that to me. Go on. I'm waiting ... I didn't think you could, because it's impossible.
"But they (the Democrats) are not waiting. A video Monday on the Web site of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee showed footage of al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden, referred to an increase in terrorist attacks, highlighted illegal immigration and pointed out the nuclear aspirations of Iran and North Korea.
""Feel safer?" it concludes. "Vote for change."" Yes, use the video that has Hispanics outraged that they are compared with al-Qaida and have demanded the video be removed, as one of your "We're not soft on National Defense" talking points. Yes, you are, and you're soft in the head, too, if you believe that the majority of the American electorate will buy into that fabrication.
"Republicans said they believe the Democratic efforts will fizzle, asserting that voters will ultimately choose to trust Republicans with the life-and-death issue of security.
"And Bush, in remarks Monday at the State Department, disputed the notion that his policies have contributed to a more dangerous world.
""Some say that America caused the current instability in the Middle East by pursuing a forward strategy of freedom, yet history shows otherwise," said Bush, ticking off terrorist attacks that occurred in the United States, Africa and elsewhere long before he took office."
He's right, and no amount of Democrat double-speak, or obfuscation of the truth, will change that. It's a fact - we are much safer with George W. Bush as President than we would be with any Democrat pretender.
Deal with it.
Haq 'thinks better' of guilty plea
As reported here, Naveed Haq, the gunman in the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle shooting, has decided to plead not guilty after thinking over his earlier attempt to plead guilty, which was not allowed by the judge in any event.
"Naveed Haq stood silently as his lawyer, C. Wesley Richards, entered the pleas in King County Superior Court.
"Richards told Judge Paris Kallas that after spending some time with Haq at the King County Jail, he is satisfied that the man is able to understand the charges and help him with the case -- meaning he appears to be mentally competent.
""He is making a rational decision to enter pleas of not guilty," Richards said.
"King County Prosecutor Norm Maleng now has 30 days to decide whether he will seek a death sentence if Haq is convicted of the most serious charge, aggravated murder."
Two conclusions here regarding this. One is that, in entering not guilty pleas to the charges he faces, Haq probably escapes being scrutinized for mental stability; being mentally ill is something shameful to Muslims, and those found to be mentally ill are ostracized by the family and community.
The other is that, with the guilty pleas as he originally entered, there is no possibility for Haq to receive the death sentence, should Prosecutor Maleng want to pursue that, and it would also mean that Haq would have no public forum to dispense his opinions. By entering not guilty pleas, Haq now has that public forum opportunity, as well as the possibility of facing the death penalty, which could possibly satisfy any urges he may have to become a 'martyr for Islam'.
"Naveed Haq stood silently as his lawyer, C. Wesley Richards, entered the pleas in King County Superior Court.
"Richards told Judge Paris Kallas that after spending some time with Haq at the King County Jail, he is satisfied that the man is able to understand the charges and help him with the case -- meaning he appears to be mentally competent.
""He is making a rational decision to enter pleas of not guilty," Richards said.
"King County Prosecutor Norm Maleng now has 30 days to decide whether he will seek a death sentence if Haq is convicted of the most serious charge, aggravated murder."
Two conclusions here regarding this. One is that, in entering not guilty pleas to the charges he faces, Haq probably escapes being scrutinized for mental stability; being mentally ill is something shameful to Muslims, and those found to be mentally ill are ostracized by the family and community.
The other is that, with the guilty pleas as he originally entered, there is no possibility for Haq to receive the death sentence, should Prosecutor Maleng want to pursue that, and it would also mean that Haq would have no public forum to dispense his opinions. By entering not guilty pleas, Haq now has that public forum opportunity, as well as the possibility of facing the death penalty, which could possibly satisfy any urges he may have to become a 'martyr for Islam'.
Could city impose never-ending tax?
As reported here, "Seattle politicians can't show you a price tag for the massive transportation measure they're pitching on the fall ballot.
"But this much is clear: The unprecedented proposal could boost by as much as 34 percent how much the city collects from property owners -- nearly six times what current law allows.
"And it might be permanent -- a first in Seattle for this type of tax increase."
Usually, tax proposals here in Seattle for say, a special school levy for example, are limited in the time that the taxes are collected, generally 6 to 8 years. When the levy expires, after it has been examined, if it is deemed important enough to continue, it is placed before the voters again.
But not this proposal. No, Mayor Nichols wants to make these tax increases permanent, probably to help pay for this ludicrous idea.
We'll see what the voters let you get away with in November, Mr. Mayor.
"But this much is clear: The unprecedented proposal could boost by as much as 34 percent how much the city collects from property owners -- nearly six times what current law allows.
"And it might be permanent -- a first in Seattle for this type of tax increase."
Usually, tax proposals here in Seattle for say, a special school levy for example, are limited in the time that the taxes are collected, generally 6 to 8 years. When the levy expires, after it has been examined, if it is deemed important enough to continue, it is placed before the voters again.
But not this proposal. No, Mayor Nichols wants to make these tax increases permanent, probably to help pay for this ludicrous idea.
We'll see what the voters let you get away with in November, Mr. Mayor.
Sunday, August 13, 2006
Islam's Useful Idiots
Amil Imani is an Iranian-born American citizen and pro-democracy activist, and he has written an excellent article on Islam's Useful Idiots.
Useful Idiots further the aims of people who are ruthless and deceitful in their approach to whatever they want to accomplish. Amil has defined them thusly:
"Useful Idiots are naïve, foolish, ignorant of facts, unrealistically idealistic, dreamers, willfully in denial or deceptive. They hail from the ranks of the chronically unhappy, the anarchists, the aspiring revolutionaries, the neurotics who are at war with life, the disaffected alienated from government, corporations, and just about any and all institutions of society. The Useful Idiot can be a billionaire, a movie star, an academe of renown, a politician, or from any other segment of the population."
Amil goes on to further argue what the most dangerous variant of the Useful Idiot is by stating, "Arguably, the most dangerous variant of the Useful Idiot is the “Politically Correct.” He is the master practitioner of euphemism, hedging, doubletalk, and outright deception." (From my previous post, it is abundantly clear that Brian Williams of NBC Nightly News fits that, to a T!)
Amil goes on to point out the true characteristics of Useful Idiots, and why they are so dangerous to society. Read the entire article, and check out his web site as well.
Hat tip: hollie-is-right
Useful Idiots further the aims of people who are ruthless and deceitful in their approach to whatever they want to accomplish. Amil has defined them thusly:
"Useful Idiots are naïve, foolish, ignorant of facts, unrealistically idealistic, dreamers, willfully in denial or deceptive. They hail from the ranks of the chronically unhappy, the anarchists, the aspiring revolutionaries, the neurotics who are at war with life, the disaffected alienated from government, corporations, and just about any and all institutions of society. The Useful Idiot can be a billionaire, a movie star, an academe of renown, a politician, or from any other segment of the population."
Amil goes on to further argue what the most dangerous variant of the Useful Idiot is by stating, "Arguably, the most dangerous variant of the Useful Idiot is the “Politically Correct.” He is the master practitioner of euphemism, hedging, doubletalk, and outright deception." (From my previous post, it is abundantly clear that Brian Williams of NBC Nightly News fits that, to a T!)
Amil goes on to point out the true characteristics of Useful Idiots, and why they are so dangerous to society. Read the entire article, and check out his web site as well.
Hat tip: hollie-is-right
Brian Williams of NBC News equates Special Forces and First Responders to Islamic terrorists
In a video segment on HotAir of a discussion on the recently foiled terrorist plot to blow up airplanes between Chris Matthews and Brian Williams, Mr. Williams equates the willingness of our Special Operations folks and First Responders to possibly give up their lives in order to save others, with the willingness of Islamofascist terrorists to give up their lives to kill others.
Unbelievable! This is on top of Mr. Williams calling the Founding Fathers of our nation "terrorists" last year!
For those of you on dial up, here is the remark by Chris Matthews, and the response by Brian Williams:
CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: But, here we have maybe 24 people who have lived in London and England and the free world for all these years that become citizens, subjects of the Crown, and yet, after having gotten to know us, they want to kill themselves to hurt us. Isn’t that an even deeper conundrum here than the chemicals being used in these attacks.
BRIAN WILLIAMS: And that, Chris, that last aspect, the willingness to take one’s own life. I always tell people there are guys on our team like that, too. They’re called Army Rangers and Navy Seals and the Special Forces folks and the first responders on 9/11 who went into those buildings knowing, by the way, they weren’t going to come out. So we have players like that on our team.
For those of you who are as outraged as I am about these comments, and would like to express that outrage, the e-mail address to do so is: Nightly@NBC.com
Hat tip: hollie-is-right
Unbelievable! This is on top of Mr. Williams calling the Founding Fathers of our nation "terrorists" last year!
For those of you on dial up, here is the remark by Chris Matthews, and the response by Brian Williams:
CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: But, here we have maybe 24 people who have lived in London and England and the free world for all these years that become citizens, subjects of the Crown, and yet, after having gotten to know us, they want to kill themselves to hurt us. Isn’t that an even deeper conundrum here than the chemicals being used in these attacks.
BRIAN WILLIAMS: And that, Chris, that last aspect, the willingness to take one’s own life. I always tell people there are guys on our team like that, too. They’re called Army Rangers and Navy Seals and the Special Forces folks and the first responders on 9/11 who went into those buildings knowing, by the way, they weren’t going to come out. So we have players like that on our team.
For those of you who are as outraged as I am about these comments, and would like to express that outrage, the e-mail address to do so is: Nightly@NBC.com
Hat tip: hollie-is-right
Depressing pattern
Victor Davis Hanson enumerates a depressing pattern in the reactions and media coverage of the war in Lebanon.
Clues from the past
As I have argued on more than one occasion, both here and in person, what some people refer to as the Global War on Terror is in actual fact, World War IV - WWI happened in the early 1900's, WWII followed shortly thereafter in the mid-1900's, and WWIII, commonly referred to as the Cold War began immediately after the end of WWII, and ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the turning away from Communism by all but a handful of nations.
Now, we are engaged in a fight for freedom against Islamic Imperialism which we must win at all costs, if we are to preserve our way of life for future generations to enjoy. I am heartened to know that I am not alone in recognizing that the fight against terrorism around the world - from New York City, Washington, DC and a lonely field in Pennsylvania, to Madrid, Bali, London, Japan, Sri Lanka, Russia, India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Israel, among other places - is truly the fourth world war, as Congressman John Campbell (R-CA) writes, in this well thought out piece.
Rep. Campbell quotes President Ronald Reagan, who said, "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free."
It is absolutely imperative that we stand united and fight for freedom against the evil of terrorism, if we are to pass those freedoms on to the coming generations, for if we do not stand and fight, we will surely lose the freedoms we all enjoy, and for far too many of us, take for granted.
Now, we are engaged in a fight for freedom against Islamic Imperialism which we must win at all costs, if we are to preserve our way of life for future generations to enjoy. I am heartened to know that I am not alone in recognizing that the fight against terrorism around the world - from New York City, Washington, DC and a lonely field in Pennsylvania, to Madrid, Bali, London, Japan, Sri Lanka, Russia, India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Israel, among other places - is truly the fourth world war, as Congressman John Campbell (R-CA) writes, in this well thought out piece.
Rep. Campbell quotes President Ronald Reagan, who said, "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free."
It is absolutely imperative that we stand united and fight for freedom against the evil of terrorism, if we are to pass those freedoms on to the coming generations, for if we do not stand and fight, we will surely lose the freedoms we all enjoy, and for far too many of us, take for granted.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)