WELCOME: Polipundit and Chrenkoff readers! And welcome LIFELIKE PUNDITS readers, too! And welcome NRO/THE CORNER readers, and thanks to CLIFF MAY of NRO and the Foundation to Defend Democracy!
DEDICATED TO EXPOSING DISINFORMATION AND PROPAGANDA AND TO PROMOTING UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHTS - WITH SHARP ANALYSIS AND BLUNT COMMENTARY. NO ADS. NO TIP-JAR. JUST THE TRUTH.
Saturday, July 30, 2005
POLL: what should be the new acronym for the GWOT?
IRAN GIVES THE EU (AND THE USA) A NUCLEAR ULTIMATUM
BBC: Iran says the three European states which are trying to resolve the dispute over Tehran's nuclear programme must submit their proposals by Monday. An Iranian government spokesman said a European request for the date to be put back had been rejected. But diplomats from the UK, France and Germany say they never promised to have the proposals ready by 1 August. Iran has repeatedly said that it will resume some of its nuclear activities regardless of EU proposals.
Earlier this week outgoing President Mohammad Khatami said he hoped EU diplomats would allow for a resumption of enrichment activities, but Iran would begin again in any case.
Europe has made it clear that a resumption of nuclear work will mean an end to the talks.
Iran is a growing menace. If they get the bomb they will be untouchable. The time is VERY near when SOMEONE with balls MUST take pre-emptive action and bomb ALL of Iran's nuclear facitlties - REGARDLESS of how many civilian casualties result because Iran DELIBERATELY put these facitlities in civilian locations - IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS!
If Bush fails to stop Iran from going nuclear, it will loom as a bigger loss to the West than when Truman lost China.
7/31 - UPDATE: BBC - The international dispute over Iran's nuclear programme appears to be escalating, with Tehran threatening to resume uranium conversion. The UK Foreign Office (FCO) urged Iran not to take unilateral steps that could jeopardise talks with three European Union nations - known as the E3. ... This is threatening to become a dangerous escalation, says the BBC's Jon Leyne. ... The European states have threatened to refer Iran to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions if Iran resumes its nuclear activities. If we do not receive the EU proposal today [Sunday], tomorrow morning we will start part of the activities in Isfahan's uranium conversion facility," Ali Aghamohammadi, spokesman for the Supreme National Security Council, told state television. ... Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the conservative former Tehran mayor who was elected Iran's president last month, has said he wants to continue the nuclear programme.
Ahmadinejad is an evil man (Caroline Glick/JPOST - hat tip LGF) :
The question is, now that he is about to be sworn in as president, will Ahmadinejan abandon terrorism and become a responsible pragmatist who understands that he has to cooperate with the West? Speaking of the role he envisions Iran playing under his leadership, Ahmadinejad said on Friday, “Thanks to the blood of the martyrs, a new Islamic revolution has arisen and the Islamic revolution... will, if God wills, cut off the roots of injustice in the world. The era of oppression, hegemonic regimes, tyranny and injustice has reached its end. The wave of the Islamic revolution will soon reach the entire world.” In short then, the answer is no. Ahmadinejad sees his role as promoting the same platform of global jihad he has been actively participating in since 1979. IN A nutshell, Ahmadinejad is the personification of everything that the US and its erstwhile European allies claim that the war against global terrorism is seeking to defeat. He is a religious fanatic, a terror commander with global reach who seeks to destabilize the world and he is planning a no holds barred sprint to the finish line of Iran’s race to acquire nuclear weapons which, he promises, will be used to protect the entire Islamic world. This naturally begs the question, now that the mask of “reform” has been removed from the Iranian face, what will the US and Europe do? Will they accept that there is no diplomatic way of dealing with a regime that, in selecting Ahmadinejad as president has finally admitted that it remains fully committed to the destruction of Western civilization? Or will they try to ignore the obvious and tell themselves that a deal can still be reached if the payoff is high enough? The signs are mixed but discouraging.
UNSC sanctions would be the penultimate step. A pre-emptive strike - destroying all of Iran's nuclear siters and all their military assets is the ultimate resolution. The ONLY way to short-circuit these two steps is to foment a democratic revolution in Iran, and have the people take over there as they did in Lebanon and Ukriane, and Georgia, etc..
SARKOZY GETS TOUGH ON RADICAL IMAMS
UK TELEGRAPH: A tough new anti-terrorism package was unveiled by Nicolas Sarkozy, the interior minister and a popular centre-Right politician. His proposals reflect French determination to act swiftly against extremists in defiance of the human rights lobby, which is noticeably less vocal in France than in Britain. Imams and their followers who fuel anti-western feeling among impressionable young French Muslims will be rounded up and returned to their countries of origin, most commonly in France's case to its former north African colonies.
Mr Sarkozy also revealed that as many as 12 French mosques associated with provocative anti-western preaching were under surveillance. Imams indulging in inflammatory rhetoric will be expelled even if their religious status is recognised by mainstream Muslim bodies. Those who have assumed French citizenship will not be protected from deportation. Mr Sarkozy said he will reactivate measures, "already available in our penal code but simply not used", to strip undesirables of their adopted nationality. "We have to act against radical preachers capable of influencing the youngest and most weak-minded," Mr Sarkozy told the French daily Le Parisien.
It would be nice if we could do the same here! It would be nicer if everybody did this EVERYWHERE!
Friday, July 29, 2005
TERRORIST BOMBING IN INDIA: is it Bush's or Israel's fault!?
BBC: Indian bomb disposal experts have found traces of a high explosive in a passenger train which was rocked by a blast on Thursday, officials say. At least 10 people were killed and more than 50 others injured in the explosion on the Shramjivi Express in the northern state of Uttar Pradesh. Traces of the high explosive RDX have been found in the compartment where the blast occurred. A senior Jaunpur police official Devraj Nagar told Reuters they were investigating whether the blast was the work of militants. "The nature of the blasts suggests the use of RDX explosive. A terrorist hand cannot be ruled out," he said. ... Mr Yadav told the Press Trust of India that the "condition of 20 (injured passengers) is serious". The police say similar explosives were used in the Ayodhya attack, which was blamed on Muslim militants.
Uttar Pradesh - like southern Thailand, southern Phillipines, Kashmir, Chechnya, the Sudan, and so many other places where jihadoterrorist attacks have occured - HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BUSH OR ZIONISM.
Which means that the Left - and the Pope - will probably NOT admonish the Indians if they choose to retaliate against the terrorists.
LATEST VATICAN STATEMENT MAKES POPE BENEDICT SEEM LIKE A HYPOCRITE AND AN ANTI-SEMITE
This blog has - up until now - been a real booster of Pope Benedict; I lauded his attack on moral relativism and believed he might help prevent Europe from slipping away from its deep Judeo-Christian values (and perhaps into dhimmitude or outright Mohhamedism).
That's why I am so VERY saddened and angered by what seems to be CONFIRMATION of the Pope's anti-Semitism in a GLARING CASE OF BLATANT DOUBLE STANDARDS AND "FALSE MORAL EQUIVALENCY"/MORAL RELATIVISM - OF EXACTLY THE TYPE THAT THE POPE HAD ORIGINALLY CONDEMNED AND SIGNALLED HE WOULD FIGHT.
ACCORDING TO THE BBC:
The Vatican has rejected Israel's criticism that Pope Benedict XVI failed to condemn Palestinian militant attacks against Israel in his recent remarks. A Vatican statement said it could not condemn every Palestinian strike because Israel's own response had sometimes violated international law. Israel had complained that the Pope on Sunday left the country off a list of those recently hit by terror attacks. The Pope deplored the attacks in Egypt, Turkey, Iraq and Britain. ... The latest statement from the Vatican said: "It's not always possible to immediately follow every attack against Israel with a public statement of condemnation." ... It said this was mainly because "the attacks against Israel sometimes were followed by immediate Israel reactions not always compatible with the rules of international law". "It would thus be impossible to condemn the first (Palestinian attacks) and let the second (Israeli retaliation) pass in silence". The statement added that "the Holy See cannot take lessons or instructions from any other authority on the tone and content of its statements". Earlier this week, it criticised the Pope for failing to mention a 12 July suicide bombing in Netanya that killed five Israelis. The foreign ministry [of Israel] said the pontiff's speech would be interpreted as "granting legitimacy to... terrorist attacks against Jews".
If you agree with the Pope -- who now it seems, ACCORDING TO THIS LATEST VATICAN EXPLANATION), DELIBERATELY LEFT ISRAEL OFF THE LIST -- then you must ALSO condemn the USA for counter-attacking against terror --- OR YOU TOO ARE AN ANTI-SEMITE, A HYPOCRITE AND A MORAL RELATIVIST! A double-standard applied to Israel (and Israel alone) is anti-Semitic.
This latest statement by the Vatican - which reveals that the Pope DELIBERATELY OMITTED TERRORIST ATTACKS AGAINST ISRAEL, and is therefore ANTI-SEMITIC - is also a COMPLETE REVERSAL of the Pope's prior stance AGAINST MORAL RELATIVISM - as stance he made the centerpiece of his first speech! (And of the previous Vatican explanation of his comments!) WHY? Because, the Pope's statement FALSELY EQUATES RETALIATION AGAINST TERROR WITH TERROR! This false equivalency is founded on moral relativism: it essentially argues that one man's instigator is another man's retaliator, that targeted retaliation/retribution against terror is equivalent to terror - and THAT is an IMMORAL denial of reality!
It is more fitting for scum like KEN LIVINGSTONE - who recently said that Palestinian terror against Israel WAS justifiable - than the Pope! Jack Straw CONDEMNED those remarks by Livingstone; Catholics who are not anti-Semitic moral relativists or hypocrites MUST condemn the Vatican's latest explanation of the Pope's anti-Semitic remarks just as clearly as Straw condemned Livingstone's remarks!
SHAME ON THE VATICAN! This is sad and a dark day for the Church. It bodes VERY badly for the Church. Pope Benedict can hardly be the type of staunch leader that the Church and Europe needs if he has one set of standards for Christians (and Muslims) and another set for Jews. This HYPOCRISY will cripple any and all efforts to re-awaken moral clarity in Europe. Pope JPII was morally consistent and clear. Pope Benedict seems now to be neither. If he keeps this up, he will be a DISASTER for the Church, and for Europe.
I pray to God that he repents.
[More criticism of other recent anti-Semitic attacks against Israel's right to self-defense (specifically Israel's use of targeted assassinations, and the ANTI-TERROR BARRIER and why the anti-Israel "appeal to international law" is ENTIRELY BOGUS) HERE and HERE.]
KRUGMAN AND THE NYTIMES VERSUS SARKOZY AND THE FRENCH PEOPLE
KRUGMAN: "It's true that France's G.D.P. per person is well below that of the United States. "
[It's actually WORSE than Krugman states: Krugman leaves out the FACT that France's GDP is also not growing; in FACT France's economy is barely growing at half the rate that the US economy is!] Krugman continues:
"But that's because French workers spend more time with their families. The point is that to the extent that the French have less income than we do, it's mainly a matter of choice. And to see the consequences of that choice, let's ask how the situation of a typical middle-class family in France compares with that of its American counterpart. The French family, without question, has lower disposable income. This translates into lower personal consumption: a smaller car, a smaller house, less eating out.
But there are compensations for this lower level of consumption. Because French schools are good across the country, the French family doesn't have to worry as much about getting its children into a good school district. Nor does the French family, with guaranteed access to excellent health care, have to worry about losing health insurance or being driven into bankruptcy by medical bills. Perhaps even more important, however, the members of that French family are compensated for their lower income with much more time together. Fully employed French workers average about seven weeks of paid vacation a year. In America, that figure is less than four. So which society has made the better choice? "
ER, um... okay, and being poor is also better than being rich because you have less disposable income and therefore consume less and contribute less to global warming? And it's easier to keep track of your assets because you have none. SHEESH!
Here's PROOF that Krugman is WRONG: RPR leader and Minister of the Interior Nicholas Sarkozy is proposing to make the French economy more like Great Britain's and America's, and Sarkozy is the most popular politican in France - BY FAR! If Krugman was right, then the Communist Party leader would be more popular, (or the Socialist Party leader would be more popular. Even Villepin would be more popular). But NONE are as popular as Sarkozy who has said he wants to emulate the Anglo-Amerian economy.
FACT: France - and the rest of the socialistic nations of Old Europe - have welfare states that they cannot afford and demographics which make the crises they will INEVITABLY face WORSE than our impending problems with Social Security and Medicare.
What Krugman is advocating for the USA is what the overwhelming majority of the French people are sick'n tired of: slow growth; poor paying jobs; lack of disposable income; and high taxes.
Krugman could not be more Leftist or more wrong. No wonder he is right at home at the NYTIMES! [More on Sarkozy HERE and HERE.] More HERE - from JUST ONE MINUTE!
Thursday, July 28, 2005
IF BUSH IS A SMIRKING CHIMP, THEN...
FROM ABC's THE NOTE (hat tip KATHYRN at NRO):
And from POWERLINE:
And more from POLIPUNDIT:
A similar result would be reached if you compared June 2005 with June 1997. And with May 2005 versus May 1997. And then April 2005 vs. April 1997.
And, let's not forget that Georgia and Ukraine and Afghanistan and Iraq and Lebanon and Egypt are becoming more democratic than ever, too. And not ALL of that can be credited to Arafat's death or Hariri's assissination, either!
In other words: Bush - in just 5 years - has accomplished more than Clinton in 8! (But that's NOT a fair comparison because BJ Clinton sucked. Let's just say that Bush has accomplished more in 5 years than most presidents did in 8!) And I didn't even mention passing the Patriot Act (and renewing it), or the tax cuts, or the re-organization of the DOD, or the Energy Bill, or turning Qaddafy, or exposing the AQ Kahn Network, or the Medicare drug plan, or the No Child Left Behind Act.
SO... IF Bush is a "smirking chimp", then the dems are slugs and the MSM are amoebas.
If the Bush White House weren't so completely distracted by the Wilson leak investigation, perhaps the President would be able to actually get something done — besides sign CAFTA, the highway bill, and the energy bill into law; read all the improving economic figures; celebrate his still-bullet-proof Supreme Court nomination; and continue along semi-stealthily on 2006 fundraising and candidate recruitment. And if the Democrats weren't so sure that a one-sentence party platform ("Karl Rove should be in jail.") was a sure winner, perhaps they would Notice that the Republican majority is likely to get at least some credit with voters for passing these laws; that the Bill Clinton Democratic Party of free trade just might have been dead and buried shortly after midnight; and that the AFL thing — along with the America Coming Together thing, along with the DNC thing — leaves the party with some serious money and organization questions.
And/but there's still the Iraq war and Social Security for the White House to deal with, but does anyone think Democrats are scoring political points galore on those? And/but perhaps Democrats will be able to convince the country by votin' time that Washington is a corrupt, Republican-dominated cesspool of special interest greed and that the macro economic numbers mean nothing. (Just like in 2002 an7d 2004. . .) So completes our snap-shot summary of everything you have to know about American politics in fewer than 250 words.
And from POWERLINE:
It must be very strange to be President Bush. A man of extraordinary vision and brilliance approaching to genius, he can't get anyone to notice. He is like a great painter or musician who is ahead of his time, and who unveils one masterpiece after another to a reception that, when not bored, is hostile. Hyperbolic? Well, maybe. But consider Bush's latest master stroke: the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate. The pact includes the U.S., Japan, Australia, China, India and South Korea; these six countries account for most of the world's carbon emissions. The treaty is, in essence, a technology transfer agreement. The U.S., Japan and Australia will share advanced pollution control technology, and the pact's members will contribute to a fund that will help implement the technologies. The details are still sketchy and more countries may be admitted to the group later on. The pact's stated goal is to cut production of "greenhouse gases" in half by the end of the century.
What distinguishes this plan from the Kyoto protocol is that it will actually lead to a major reduction in carbon emissions! This substitution of practical impact for well-crafted verbiage stunned and infuriated European observers. I doubt that the pact will make any difference to the earth's climate, which will be determined, as always, by variations in the energy emitted by the sun. But when the real cause of a phenomenon is inaccessible, it makes people feel better to tinker with something that they can control. Unlike Kyoto, this agreement won't devastate the U.S. economy, and, also unlike Kyoto, the agreement will reduce carbon emissions in the countries where they are now rising most rapidly, India and China. Brilliant. But I don't suppose President Bush is holding his breath, waiting for the crowd to start applauding.
And more from POLIPUNDIT:
... Back in mid-July 1997, during the liberal media’s self-proclaimed “greatest economic expansion of all time,” the four-week moving average of initial claims for state jobless benefits (i.e., layoffs) stood at 324,000. At that point in time the employed workforce totaled 129.822 million persons. Therefore, layoffs were 0.25% of the employed workforce back then.
On the other hand, as of the end of last week the moving average of initial jobless claims was 318,000. As of June 30, 2005, the employed workforce amounted to 141.638 million persons. Ergo, layoffs presently are right around 0.22% of the employed workforce.
A similar result would be reached if you compared June 2005 with June 1997. And with May 2005 versus May 1997. And then April 2005 vs. April 1997.
Yeah, that’s correct, Krugman-Dobbs: As a percentage of the employed workforce fewer people are getting laid off from their jobs, this Spring and Summer, when compared to the exact same portions of Saint Bill’s second term. Heck, as of right now there are fewer *nominal* layoffs, by way of comparison, despite the fact nearly 12 million more people gainfully are employed. I blame the economy for that. ... Data: here, here, and here.
And, let's not forget that Georgia and Ukraine and Afghanistan and Iraq and Lebanon and Egypt are becoming more democratic than ever, too. And not ALL of that can be credited to Arafat's death or Hariri's assissination, either!
In other words: Bush - in just 5 years - has accomplished more than Clinton in 8! (But that's NOT a fair comparison because BJ Clinton sucked. Let's just say that Bush has accomplished more in 5 years than most presidents did in 8!) And I didn't even mention passing the Patriot Act (and renewing it), or the tax cuts, or the re-organization of the DOD, or the Energy Bill, or turning Qaddafy, or exposing the AQ Kahn Network, or the Medicare drug plan, or the No Child Left Behind Act.
SO... IF Bush is a "smirking chimp", then the dems are slugs and the MSM are amoebas.
LONDON ATTACK PLANNER CAUGHT IN ZAMBIA; CNN - he could have been "rendered" months ago, but the Brits refused to let the CIA take him!
A senior British al-Qaeda operative sought by authorities since the July 7 bombing attacks on London has been arrested in Zambia. The Los Angeles Times reported today that Haroon Rashid Aswat, a 30-year-old of Indian descent who grew up in West Yorkshire, was arrested last week and is being held in Lusaka, where both British and US anti-terrorism investigators have travelled. ... Aswat, whose associations with al-Qaeda date back ten years, is believed to have entered Briton about two weeks before July 7 on a ferry into Felixstowe, and to have flown out from Heathrow hours before the four suicide bombers killed 52 rush-hour commuters on three Tube trains and a bus. Investigators have sought him since discovering that he made up to 20 calls from his mobile phone to two of the bombers. Intelligence sources told The Times that during his stay in Britain Aswat visited the home towns of all four bombers as well as selecting targets in London.
According to CNN:
British authorities denied a U.S. request to apprehend a man believed to have ties to the July 7 London bombings weeks before the deadly attacks [emphasis added], sources familiar with the investigation said Thursday. U.S. authorities wanted to capture Aswat, who was then in South Africa, and question him about a 1999 plot to establish a "jihad training camp" in Bly, Oregon. According to the sources, U.S. officials had Aswat under surveillance in South Africa weeks before the July 7 attacks that killed 52 commuters and the four bombers. U.S. authorities had asked Britain if they could take Aswat into custody, but Britain refused because he was a British citizen, the sources said. British authorities suspect Aswat lent support to the bombers.
It seems to me that Blair's government put POLITICAL CORRECTNESS AND APPEASING THE LEFT AND THE ENEMY AHEAD OF INTERNATIONAL SECURITY WHEN THEY REFUSED THIS REQUEST! WHY WOULD THEY DO THIS!?
Probably because the Left have made Bush, GITMO, harsh interrogations and renderings -- (in which the captured suspect is transported to a third-party nation where he might be interrogated without fear of ACLU intervention, or of alerting too many terrorists) -- have become too controvesial.
In fact, even wacky-Left anti-Semitic former CIA Binladen-desk chief Michael Scheuer has written that rendering is one of the MOST effective tools that we have to defend ourselves - and he wrote that in a NYUTIMES OP-ED!
Yet Blair's government refused to render him, and as a result... you complete the sentence. The BOTYTOM-LINE: if Aswat AHD been picked up MONTHS ago, then the bombings might NEVER have happended.
THE LESSON: the West shouold not listen to the Left, and shoul;d NOT fight this war with our arms tied behind our backs. Rendering, profiling, and VERY hgarsh interrogation MUST be allowed if we expect attacks to be minimized.
BRITISH COURT RULES DOCTORS CAN KILL PATIENTS WHO CAN'T SPEAK UP FOR THEMSELVES
BBC:
The General Medical Council has won its appeal against a ruling which gave a seriously-ill patient the right to stop doctors withdrawing food and drink. Leslie Burke, 45, who has a degenerative brain condition, fears artificial nutrition could be stopped against his wishes when he cannot talk. ... Mr Burke, from Lancaster, had won a landmark ruling, supporting his right to artificial nutrition and hydration. But the GMC appealed, saying doctors could be put in an impossible position. ... In the original case, Mr Burke argued the GMC's advice, which gives doctors in cases such as his the ultimate say on what treatment to give a patient in the final stages, was an infringement of his human rights. ... But during the appeal hearing, Philip Havers, QC, representing the GMC, said the original ruling had fundamentally altered the nature of doctor/patient relationships and was not in the best interests of the patient. He said doctors would have to provide treatment which they knew would be of no benefit or could even be harmful. ...
Dr Vivienne Nathanson, the British Medical Association's head of ethics and science, which supported the GMC case, said decisions about curtailing treatment were "one of the hardest choices" to make. ... But Joyce Robins, co-director of human rights campaign group Patient Concern, which helped argue Mr Burke should have the right to food and water, said the decision was "a huge step backwards for patients". And Liz Sayce, of the Disability Rights Commission, said she was still concerned that the wishes of all patients might not be respected. "The judgement is fine for people who have the capacity to speak. But the difficulty is when you don't have that capacity, it will be back to the doctor taking the decision entirely themselves."
Healthcare in Great britain is SOCIALIZED. The National Health Service could save money by refusing to feed and hydrate a patient - AND - the national pensions system would save money too. That's a BASIC CONFLICT OF INTEREST that cuts against patient's rights, and bodes badly for Britain. If you were terminally ill would you WANT to be treated there, under their rtules!? NO. NO ONE WOULD. No one sane. So that rules out the Left, who're happy to left that state make all their decisions for them.
IRA ANNOUNCES IT WILL CEASE ALL "MILITANT" EFFORTS AND DISARM
NYTIMES/"REUTERS": DUBLIN - The Irish Republican Army guerrilla group formally announced an end to its armed campaign against British rule in Northern Ireland on Thursday but gave no commitment to disband as some of its opponents had urged. ... The IRA said in a statement it would cease all armed activity and pursue its aims through politics -- a crucial move to kick-start talks on a lasting political settlement in the violence-torn province. It said its units must ``dump arms.''
This is good news (which we reported was rumored to be "in the works" last week).BTW: This is exactly what the ROADMAP FOR PEACE requires Abbas get ALL "militant" groups must do in the disputed territories. We're WAITNG!
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
"MILLENNIUM-GATE" CLOSED
In sworn testimony given under oath, liar Richard Clarke lied about how and why the Millennium Bomber came to be arrested; Clarke lied when he claimed that heightened awareness, (due to directives given by the White House - AT HIS URGING), led to the discovery of the Millennium Plot.
In fact, the Millennium Bomber was discovered because a lone conscientious Border Security Agent was supsicious of the Millennium Bomber's behavior as he drove off the ferry. She - Diane Dean arrested the bomber on her own initiative and her intiative alone.
Mr. Ressam, 38, was arrested as he entered the United States in Port Angeles, Wash., on December 14, 1999 in a rental car with a trunk full of explosives and other bomb-making material. He had arrived in the United States on a ferry from Victoria, British Columbia , Federal authorities at the border said they became suspicious about Mr. Ressam when they noted his "nervous demeanor" as he was driving off the ferry.When authorities stopped the car, Mr. Ressam tried to run, but was quickly caught. After investigators searched the car and found explosives hidden in the spare tire compartment, Mr. Ressam acknowledged that he had planned to set off a bomb at Los Angeles International on the eve of the new millennium. He was convicted in 2001 of nine counts, including conspiracy to commit an international terrorist act and explosives smuggling.
Berger is the focus of a Justice Department investigation for removing the documents and handwritten notes from a secure reading room prior to the Sept. 11 Commission hearings. He had been serving as a national security adviser to John Kerry's campaign but announced today he is stepping down. The officials said the missing documents included critical assessments about the Clinton administration's handling of the millennium terror threats as well as identification of America's terror vulnerabilities at airports to seaports. Berger had ordered his anti-terror czar, Richard Clarke, in early 2000 to write the after-action report. Berger testified that during the millennium period, "we thwarted threats and I do believe it was important to bring the principals together on a frequent basis" to consider terror threats more regularly.
The record on the Millennium Plot proves indisputably that Berger and Clarke were do-nothing lying, cheating, stealing, self-aggrandizing blowhards whose inactivity - NAY NEGLIGENCE - in the face of repeated attacks against the USA by the islamoterrorists put this country at graver and graver risk - and DIRECTLY led to 9/11, (at least according to Osama Binladen)!
The LIES that Clarke and Berger told (and that the Left-wing dominated MSM gobbled up and spit out) about how the Clinton Adminstration thwarted the Millennium Plot really make this whole sick episode qualify as "#25" on my running count of "BOGUS BUSH SCANDALS"; let's call it MILLENNIUM-GATE, and let's call it another Left-wing lie. A lie FINALLY put to rest. Amen.
SINN FEIN CHIEFS QUIT IRA - breakthrough now expected...
Sinn Fein chiefs have quit the IRA; (Unionists dismiss it as a stunt); however, the IRA may - in response - be set to entirely renounce violence and solely pursue political means to achieve their goals.
If the Sinn Fein leaders have resigned, and if the IRA FINALLY disarms (as they promised to do, years ago) it's good; VERY GOOD. Terrorism in all its forms must be eradicated. Moral clarity is essential to achieve this, so no group which uses terror should be tolerated.
Stay tuned...
Tuesday, July 26, 2005
DEM LEFTIES PISSED AT HILLARY'S UNITY CALL
WashPost: Clinton Angers Left With Call for Unity - Senator Accused of Siding With Centrists -
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's call for an ideological cease-fire in the Democratic Party drew an angry reaction yesterday from liberal bloggers and others on the left, who accused her of siding with the centrist Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) in a long-running dispute over the future of the party. Long a revered figure by many in the party's liberal wing, Clinton (D-N.Y.) unexpectedly found herself under attack after calling Monday for a cease-fire among the party's quarreling factions and for agreeing to assume the leadership of a DLC-sponsored initiative aimed at developing a more positive policy agenda for the party.
Could anything be more indicative of the utter insanity of the Left!? NOPE! And how can ANYONE on the Left blame Bush (or the GOP or the moderates - in both parties) for dividing America, when they can't even unite inside their own party! Sheesh! With their wacky and demonstrably unreliable Left-wing base rebelling - and with their union base CRUMBLING - the Democrat Party is IN UTTER SHAMBLES. Good riddance!
SHARON VENTURES DEEP BEHIND ENEMY LINES...
BBC: Sharon arrives in Paris for talks
Sharon has done many courageous things; this - having to spend time with Chirac AND Villepin (IN THE SPACE OF 3 DAYS, YET!) - is among his most brave!
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is starting a three-day visit to France. He is expected to discuss the forthcoming pullout from the Gaza Strip with President Jacques Chirac. ... Only a year ago, Mr Chirac was making it plain that Mr Sharon was not welcome in Paris, after the Israeli prime minister called on French Jews to emigrate to Israel because, he said, the climate of anti-Semitism was so bad in France. ... As well as President Chirac, Mr Sharon will meet Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin...
BRITAIN POISED TO PASS TOUGH NON-PARTISAN ANTI-TERROR LAWS
NYTIMES / SARAH LYALL:
LONDON, July 26 - Britain moved closer today to introducing stricter anti-terrorism laws when the three main political parties agreed in principle on new legislation for Parliament to consider in the fall. At his monthly news conference, Prime Minister Tony Blair said that the opposition Tory and Liberal Democrat parties had come together with the Labor Government for a "cross-party consensus" over the new plans. The three parties have often been at odds over how far anti-terrorism legislation should go, and that an agreement is emerging now reflects how much the mood of the country, and of Parliament, has changed since the July 7 suicide bombings in the subway and on a bus. "When the main political parties present a united front, then it sends an important signal to the terrorists of our strength and our determination and our unity to defeat them," Mr. Blair said.
LONDON, July 26 - Britain moved closer today to introducing stricter anti-terrorism laws when the three main political parties agreed in principle on new legislation for Parliament to consider in the fall. At his monthly news conference, Prime Minister Tony Blair said that the opposition Tory and Liberal Democrat parties had come together with the Labor Government for a "cross-party consensus" over the new plans. The three parties have often been at odds over how far anti-terrorism legislation should go, and that an agreement is emerging now reflects how much the mood of the country, and of Parliament, has changed since the July 7 suicide bombings in the subway and on a bus. "When the main political parties present a united front, then it sends an important signal to the terrorists of our strength and our determination and our unity to defeat them," Mr. Blair said.
I hope that the non-partisan unity lasts a bit longer there than it did here!
TWO "MUST READS" ON THE GWOT AND IRAQ AND LONDON
(1) Hat tip VIKINGPUNDIT: “Why should we tolerate these Islamofascists who hate us all?” by Julie Burchill, in the London Times. EXCERPT:
What we have learnt recently is that diversity is not just to be celebrated mindlessly, but also navigated and negotiated. We, the host community, have accepted multiculturalism; the issue now is whether hardline — and I stress hardline — Muslims can do the same. To my eyes at least, “live and let live” seems to be a concept they have a problem with; until they can grasp it, as the Sikhs and Hindus have (who have at least as strong and rich a culture, but feel no need to burn books, form parliaments, set up separatist schools and kill their fellow Britons to demonstrate this), the jury is still out on whether hardline Muslims can truly live happily in non-Muslim countries. And, after all, they have 56 — count ’em! — of their own to go to if they don’t like it. They are spoilt for choice. Or will they not be happy until every last country in the world is composed of veiled women, bearded men and dead infidels, of all creeds and colours?
If intelligence failures are inevitable — and in a world of human fallibility, they are — we are better off worrying too much about our enemies and taking steps to defeat them than worrying too little and being caught, unready, when they attack. Worrying too much led the United States and Britain to topple a brutal tyrant. Worrying too little led to 9/11 and 7/7.
THE LEFT: "Our military is a mercenary force; we need the draft!"
Another FABULOUS post by Betsy of BETSY'S PAGE (hat tip Lorie Byrd at POLIPUNDIT):
David M. Kennedy has a column today bemoaning the thought that today's soldiers are mercenaries. Apparently, it is bad for society when our armed services fight for money rather than being drafted. ... What Kennedy is really advocating is some sort of return to the draft so that the population would be more involved in the war. ... I think this all part of the same push that Charles Rangel had last year saying that we needed a draft because if there were a draft the war would be more unpopular and there would be more of an anti-war movement in the country. ... But how many times does the military have to say that they don't want everyone serving? They want people who have gone through their special training and who are committed to the military for a certain set time and aren't looking to get out as soon as their year is up. Rumsfeld has said over and over that he is not looking for a draft. ... So, Kennedy's call for national service is based more on what he thinks would be good for the country's character than for the country's military. There is no way that having a bunch of disgruntled draftees in the forces is going to be a good thing for the military. ... You can see that that is what Kennedy is truly worried about: "This is not a healthy situation. It is, among other things, a standing invitation to the kind of military adventurism that America's founders correctly feared was the greatest danger of standing armies - a danger made manifest in their day by the career of Napoleon Bonaparte, whom Jefferson described as having 'transferred the destinies of the republic from the civil to the military arm.'"
Does Professor Kennedy really believed that we went in to Afghanistan and Iraq to conquer them in the same way that Napoleon went in to Spain and Russia? I'm sure he knows his 19th century history very well; I wish he were more familiar with his 21st history.
This is merely an excerpt of a very thorough post - WITH GREAT LINKS AND EXCERPTS. READ THE WHOLE THING!
"PALESTINIAN SECURITY FORCES UNFIT" - but is it structural or temperamental? OR: "WHERE THERE'S A WILL, THERE'S A WAY!"
NYTIMES: JERUSALEM, July 25 -
The security forces of the Palestinian Authority are divided, weak, overstaffed, badly motivated and underarmed, and more attention must be paid to building up institutions rather than personalities, says the first independent survey of the complicated Palestinian security environment since the death of Yasir Arafat. ... The 83-page report, "Palestinian Security Assessment," was prepared by a Washington-based group called Strategic Assessments Initiative, which has worked in other hot spots like Kosovo, East Timor and Macedonia to provide security analysis and negotiating advice to aid conflict resolution.
The study was financed by the Dutch and Canadian governments, and it was made a part of the coordination mandate given to General Ward at an international conference in London in March, said Jarat Chopra, who heads the group's Jerusalem office. ... The essential problem for the Palestinian Authority, the report says, is that its security forces were established on "an ad hoc basis without statutory support and in isolation of wider reforms," a lasting legacy of Mr. Arafat's policy of duplication and promoting rivalry within his organization. The security forces in Gaza are somewhat stronger than those in the West Bank, but suffer from a continuing lack of coordination, the report says. "The critical gap is in command and control," Mr. Chopra said. "There's a blurring between state actors and non-state actors, and that's very difficult from the military point of view."
In my opinion, this glosses over the real problem: that there is inadequate committment to a two-state solution on the part of the Palestinian Authority. If they TRULY wanted a two-state solution, then they would LIVE UP TO THEIR ROADMAP COMMITTMENTS and crack down on the jihadoterrorists who oppose it. Abbas has FAILED UTTERLY to do this - HE HASN'T EVEN TRIED. He is either a coward or a willing accomplice to jihadoterrorists and their genocidal goals.
The Iraqis and the Afghanis are bravely doing what they must in order to establish democracy and the rule of law. Until there is a true committment from the Palestinians to establish democacy and the rule of law, there will be no competent security force in the territories.
As the old saying goes: "WHERE THERE'S A WILL, THERE'S A WAY. " The committment comes first - it is the WILL with which they might find a WAY.
VAN GOGH'S JIHADI MURDERER GETS LIFE - how sickeningly ironic
BBC: " Dutch court has sentenced a 27-year-old radical Islamist to life in prison for the November murder of controversial film-maker Theo van Gogh. Mohammed Bouyeri, who has joint Dutch-Moroccan nationality, had made a courtroom confession and had vowed to do the same again if given the chance. The murder in Amsterdam stunned the Netherlands. The court ruled that it was a terrorist act. "
The fact that an UNREPENTENT TERRORIST MURDERER GETS LIFE SAYS EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT WHAT'S WRONG WITH LIBERALS! "TERRORIST MURDERER GETS LIFE." It's obviously a pathetically sick irony. If premeditated murder perpetrated by jihadofascists doesn't warrant the death penalty... WHAT DOES?! IN MY OPINION: The liberal nations of the Europe must get tougher on jihadoterrorists - AND MURDERERS - and restore the DEATH PENALTY. Justice DEMANDS that murderers - ESPECIALLY islamofascist terrorist murderers - be given the ultimate punishment when they commit the ultimate crime. Anything less sends the WRONG message.
Monday, July 25, 2005
JOHN MAJOR CALLS FOR DEPORATION OF JIHADIST INCITERS
UK TELEGRAPH: Foreign-born preachers who "spit hate" at the British way of life and radicalise young Muslims should be deported, Sir John Major, the former Conservative prime minister, said yesterday. ... While he acknowledged it would be difficult to balance new restrictions against freedom of speech, it would be "justifiable to protect the public". "As far as those who literally spit hate at our country and incite, I personally would be prepared to deport those where it is clear that what they are doing is causing civil unrest." ... He also defended the police involved in the fatal shooting of a Brazilian man at Stockwell Tube station. "I rather prefer the expression shoot-to-protect rather than shoot-to-kill. I think that is a more accurate description of what happened."
Maybe the Tories should bring him back to succeed Michael Howard? That is, if Maggie still won't take the job!
POLL: MANY BRITISH MUSLIMS NOW FEEL LIKE LEAVING
ICM POLL RESULTS were reported in the UK GUARDIAN - via the invaluable BETSY'S PAGE: Nearly two-thirds of Muslims told pollsters that they had thought about their future in Britain after the attacks, with 63% saying they had considered whether they wanted to remain in the UK.
Betsy comments on this PERFECTLY - as she almost always does:
Maybe the Brits should buy all the worried Muslims one-way tickets home? It's really not very cruel. After all: there's no place like home.
Betsy comments on this PERFECTLY - as she almost always does:
I'm sick of hearing about the terrible time that Muslims are having as people regard them with suspicion these days. I think rather about the terrible time that the families of the victims who died on July 7th are having as they try to put together a life without their loved ones. I think about the difficult rehabilitation that I'm sure that many of the surviving victims are going through. They're the ones who have earned my sympathy. When I see Muslims every day speaking out against terrorism, turning in people within their communities, and showing their desire to be full members of the new country they themselves have chosen reporting those who have been recruiting young men to jihads, then I'll work up more sympathy for them.
ABBAS MOVES TO GAZA
BBC: Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas has announced he is moving his office to Gaza until the completion of Israel's withdrawal from the territory. He said he would be co-ordinating the Palestinian side of the withdrawal, and mediating between different factions. The run-up to the pullout has seen renewed clashes involving militants, Palestinian police and Israeli forces.
Abbas doesn't trust anyone in Gaza - he shouldn't: Gaza is dominated by Hamas and other jihadoterrorist groups. The west bank is only slightly more under his control.
Abbas doesn't trust anyone in Gaza - he shouldn't: Gaza is dominated by Hamas and other jihadoterrorist groups. The west bank is only slightly more under his control.
INCREDIBLY UN-CREDIBLE: MUSHARRAF CLAIMS TO HAVE ERADICATED AL QAEDA IN PAKISTAN
BBC: Pakistan has destroyed al-Qaeda's ability to operate on its soil, President Pervez Musharraf has said. He said the network could not have orchestrated deadly bombings in London, Egypt or elsewhere from his country. "Al-Qaeda does not exist in Pakistan any more," he told reporters in Lahore, after unconfirmed reports Pakistanis were being sought over bombs in Egypt.
Anyone who believes this is either a fool, or a willing ally of our enemy. So why is Musharraf saying it!? (1) To create cover for his nation's MASSIVE CULPABILITY, and (2) to cover-up for his UTTER INABILITY to accomplish anything meaningful in the GWOT (other than round up one or two jihadists whenver it's convenient), and (3) his resistance to allowing the "Coalition of the Willing" to cross over into Pakistan (from Afghnaistan) in order to chase and kill the enemy with impugnity. REMINDER: every nation in Europe - indeed ALL OF NATO - are in Afgahnisatn aiding its fledgling demnocracy. So Musharraf has no excuse - either for his lies or his stone-walling.
WHAT CAN WE DO ABOUT IT?! Become closer and closer and closer to India - and then when conditons allow: treat Pakistan the way they deserve to be treated - like Syria and Iran.
DOES IT MATTER IF ATTACKS ARE OPERATIONALLY LINKED?
The NYTIMES - and the Left - seems to think so. Here's a story from today's NYTIMES:
As Britain and Egypt struggle to absorb the effects of terrorist attacks on their soil and determine who was responsible, both countries are asking the same two questions: Were the attacks linked, and was Al Qaeda involved? ... several senior intelligence and counterterrorism officials based in Europe and the Middle East said that they would be surprised if the two attacks were operationally or directly linked. ... There has been a tendency, particularly since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States, to immediately blame Al Qaeda after a terrorist attack of unknown origin, even if there is little proof an outside group was involved. It is less terrifying if the terrorists are an amorphous outside enemy rather than one that is based internally.
Whether or not there was an operational link between ANY two attacks might be important to police, but to NO ONE ELSE. The question BUGS ME because it reveals BAD-THINKING: it reveals a vestigial way of thinking about jihadoterror - it treats jihadodterror as a law enforcement problem, rather than a WAR. And make no mistake about it: This is WAR -- and in WAR, assigning one attack to one jihadist group or cell or to another jihadist group or cell is a distinction WITHOUT a difference; it's like - in WW2 - assigning one attack to one NAZI army division or another; who cares - we still gotta defeat ALL NAZIS! The enemy in this war is jihadofascism - an evil ideology which transcends borders. Whether cells communicate or not, and whether or not there is a central command structure or not is interesting talk, but worthless in war. ALL jihadofascism - IN ALL ITS FORMS - must be wiped out EVERYWHERE; it must be wiped off the face of the earth.
EGYPT CLAIMS SHARM BOMBINGS PERP'ED BY PAKISTANIS
BBC: Egyptian police are searching for six Pakistani nationals in connection with the triple bombing at Sharm al-Sheikh. They have distributed photographs of the six, who disappeared from a hotel in Cairo earlier this month. ... Police have clarified that the six missing Pakistanis disappeared before the bombings, and were not staying at a hotel in Sharm al-Sheikh, as previously reported. Arabic TV networks have shown grainy pictures of two of the missing men and named them as Muhammad Akhtar, 30, and Tasadduq Husayn, 18.
If this turns out to be true, it's more proof that Pakistan is a major source of jihadoterrorism - probably from their numerous radical madrassas. We should pressure Musharraf to shut the radical madrassas - or bomb them shut, as they are nothing more than terrorist training camps. As I have blogged before: V2 factories : WW2 :: madrassas : GWOT.
DESPITE TERROR, IRAQIS STILL VOLUNTEERING FOR ARMED FORCES
UK TELEGRAPH: The south gate of Muthanna army barracks in Baghdad is one of the most frequently bombed sites in Iraq. Suicide bombers have killed 198 people here since last year. Almost all were potential recruits to the country's fledgling armed forces. Another 465 have been wounded. Body parts that had been hurled by an explosion over the 30ft high concrete wall a week earlier were still being picked up when the second suicide bomber struck last week. But, in an extraordinary display of optimism, the youngsters hopeful of being recruited into the forces still come to queue. ... The recruiting line outside Muthanna barracks stretches beyond the shelter of a massive open-ended concrete hangar that offers some protection.
Great article. Read the whole thing, as they say... and don't bother looking for a PEEP about it in the NYTIMES!
NEW BLOG FOR MUSLIMS TO PUBLICIZE THAT THEY'RE ANTI-TERROR
There's a new blog - SAY YES TO ISLAM, AND NO TO TERROR - where Muslims can register their unconditional opposition to all terrorism. I wonder how many will? I hope a lot will. There are a BILLION Muslims, and they are NOT all terrorists or even support terrorists. It's time we heard more condemnation of all terror from more of them.
LONDON COPS HANG TOUGH ON SHOOT-TO-KILL POLICY
BBC: Police leaders say they will not abandon their "shoot-to-kill" policy and warn more innocent people could be killed in the fight against terrorism. ... Met Police Chief Sir Ian Blair said "shoot-to-kill in order to protect" would continue, despite the "tragedy". ... Sir Ian has apologised for the killing of Mr Menezes, but defended the actions of his officers. ... Sir Ian, defending the actions of his officers, said: "What we have got to recognise is that people are taking incredibly difficult, fast-time decisions in life-threatening situations.
... Lord Stevens, the former Met police chief who brought in the policy, insists the principle remains correct. Lord Stevens said: "We are living in unique times of unique evil, at war with an enemy of unspeakable brutality, and I have no doubt that now, more than ever, the principle is right despite the chance, tragically, of error. "And it would be a huge mistake for anyone to even consider rescinding it."
NOT SURPRISINGLY: The Left - led by former Foreign Secretary Robin Cook - and many Muslims are protesting the policy.
Sunday, July 24, 2005
TRAGIC COLLATERAL DAMAGE: LONDON POLICE SHOT MAN UNCONNECTED TO BOMBINGS
BBC: A man shot dead by police hunting the bombers behind Thursday's London attacks was a Brazilian electrician unconnected to the incidents. The man, who died at Stockwell Tube on Friday, has been named by police as Jean Charles de Menezes, 27.
QUESTION: if the London police used RACIAL PROFILING, then would Mr. Menezes - a BRAZILIAN, not an ARAB or even a Muslim - be ALIVE? Think about it. All the London police used were behavioral markers: Menezes exited a building under surveilance; he wore outwear which was inapproprate for the weather, but that might conceal a bomb; he ran from police when confronted, jumpoed the turnstile and resisted arrest. If they had had a way to confirm he was Brazilian, and not Arab or Muslim, then maybe he'd be alive.
Then again, some witnesses have described Menezes as "Asian-looking" - which is "British" for someone who looks like he is Pakistani or Indian. Which MIGHT indicate that race played a strong part in Menezes MIS-IDENTIFICATION.
And remember: the 7/21 bombers included a Jamaican of African ancestry. So, what race or races should we profile? It's tough to say. Radical jihadists also include Chechens and Bosnians and Filipinos and Thais. So which race do you tag as a likely terrorist?
That's why I think the answer is that we need to use race as only one part of a much more extensive profile.
Chief among all markers is if the suspect is Muslim, and if he is Muslim - whether they have ever attended radical mosques or if they have ever made prolonged visits to countries which harbor or have harbored terrorist training-camps and/or madrassas which promulgate jihad. But this INTELLIGENCE would NOT be known when police re in hot pursuit of unknown suspects. It might be available when surreptitiously surveiling relatively stationary suspects (in a "safe house", for example) who are themselves not likely to imminently commit an act of terror.
BOTTOM-LINE: Because extensive and specific intel' would NEVER be available to any police in hot pursuit of an unidentified person suspected of having an explosive (or WMD) on them, the London police acted correctly. Which is why the death of Mr. Menezes is a tragedy, and not a crime.