This ain't Hell, but you can see it from here

Category: Terror War

  • Oh, those goofy Arabs

    It’s so nice that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is releasing those 15 British sailors and marines, but do we have to be treated to the theater he’s built up around it? For example, according to Fox News he lectured the British on sending a mother to his peninsula;

    “How can you justify seeing a mother away from her home, her children? Why don’t they respect family values in the West?” he asked of the British government.

    It’s much better to stone your women to death, beat them and cut off parts of their anatomy. Now that’s family values.

    Across the plains, Nancy Pelosi was meeting with Bassar Assad, who promised peace in our time;

    “We were very pleased with the assurances we received from the president that he was ready to resume the peace process. He’s ready to engage in negotiations for peace with Israel,” Pelosi said.

    She said the delegation conveyed to Assad “the importance of Syria’s role with Hamas in promoting peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis.”

    She did not reveal how Assad responded to the delegation’s message on Hamas and Hezbollah. Syria hosts the exiled leadership of Hamas, as well as other Palestinian radical groups, and is a major patron of Hezbollah.

    I’m sure she didn’t reveal the reaction because 1) she didn’t dare mention Hamas or Hezbollah for fear of pissing off her allies in the region; or 2) Assad told her to shut up and she quickly complied.

    But while the United States regards Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist groups, Syria insists that Hamas is a legitimate resistance movement working for Palestinian freedom and Hezbollah is a regular Lebanese political party.

    I’m sure Pelosi agreed with Ashad that Hezbollah is just a political party and influenced Ashad to ship some of their spare missiles to Howard Dean so the Democrats could model themselves after Hezbollah.

    Syria has praised Pelosi for defying the White House. The state-run Syria Times called her a “brave lady” and Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem was quoted as saying Pelosi and other members of Congress were “welcome” in Syria.

    There ya go – when a State-sponsor of terrorism praises your member of Congress, stand proud. I say we send a whole butt-load of them over there.

    Of course not to be outdone by Pelosi cavorting with a bunch of Ay-rabs, Fox news Channel reports that the House Armed Services Committee sent a “style guide” out for the Pentagon so they don’t confuse the linguine-spined Democrats who have to talk to hard-ass warrior-types;

     “When referencing military operations throughout the world, please be as specific as possible. Please avoid using colloquialisms such as, ‘the war on terrorism, or the ‘Long War’ Please do not use the term ‘global war on terrorism,’ ” according to the memo.

    [Republican John] Boehner accused Democrats of launching an “absurd effort to deny the fact that America is battling terrorism on a global scale,” according to a statement released Wednesday by his office.

    So gutless PC-speak has infiltrated the Congressional hearings. See the style guide in .pdf. Boehner sums it up nicely;

    “It’s no wonder Democrats don’t like the phrases ‘global War on Terror,’ they have completely failed to take the threat of global terrorism seriously,” Boehner said.

    Or anything else for that matter.

  • Insanity strikes Presidential hopefuls

    “Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”

    —Albert Einstein (also attributed to Ben Franklin sometimes)

    “If he vetoes it and sends it back, then we ought to send it back to him again…”

    –John Edwards

    Yes, that’s right, Democrats answer to the President’s veto is sending the same bill back, expecting different results. Some strategy, huh? Ya know why? Cuz that’s all they got. they spent a whole two years worth of political capital on getting this useless bill through their respective houses, knowing the President would veto it. They got nuthin’.

    So instead of “compromising” or engaging the President in discussion, they’re just going to send the same bill back. (Actually, I don’t know who Edwards is referring to as “we” – last I checked he had nothing to do with bill)

    As I said yesterday, I doubt they could wrangle up the votes to get a new bill sent to him as long as they have all of those stipulations. And since they loaded it up with pork to buy each other’s vote to get it through, the President has a perfect reason to veto it everytime it arrives on his desk.

    And Hillary invokes the “will of the American people” according to Stephan Dinan of the Washington Times;

       Mrs. Clinton said her campaign is conducting an online petition drive to urge Mr. Bush not to veto the bill. Presidential inaction would be the Democrats’ only hope of winning the face-off because they are nowhere near having the two-thirds majority in both houses needed to override a veto. In addition, more than 150 House Republicans have publicly pledged to back a Bush veto.
        “Mr. President, please work with us. Don’t veto the will of the American people,” Mrs. Clinton said.

    I think that’s real odd, actually – Harpie Clinton asking the President to “work with us” – everytime he works with the Democrats, he takes it right in the hip pocket. And where was this plea for cooperation while Democrats were writing the damn thing? It’s not like they didn’t know he was going to veto it.

    Since Clinton and Edwards love to govern by polls they should take a look at them;

       More voters are likely to blame Democrats in Congress if funds fail to reach the troops in time, Republican pollsters say. A poll conducted last week for the Republican National Committee showed that 50 percent of voters would blame Democrats compared with 40 percent who would blame the president. The survey also showed that 56 percent of voters support fully funding the Iraq war while 38 percent oppose full funding.

    Yikes! Geez, Hillary, where are your American people now?

    AP’s Jennifer Loven reports that Dingy Harry still thinks he has the support of the American people, too;

    Democrats, buoyed by recent Republican defections from Bush on Iraq, shot back that they are the ones pursuing effective solutions overseas in response to a national desire for change from his approach.

    “We are not going to allow the president to continue a failed policy in Iraq. We represent the American people’s vision on this failed war,” Senate Majority leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said at a ceremony for a new Nevada National Guard armory near Las Vegas. “We have said time and time again the troops will have everything they need.”

    Yeah, well, we don’t believe you, Harry, especially whe your rock star candidates say things like this;

    “We have to come back, and we have to say: All right, we will constrain you in a different way,” Mr. Obama said.
        He proposed that Congress pass short-term spending bills and let the administration know: “If you have not initiated the withdrawal at that point, we will put you on an even shorter leash.”

    How do you shorten the leash without strangling the troops? Everything you dipshits have touched turns to crap, how can the American people trust you on this?

  • The problem with Islam; the Left

    An excellent opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal today by Tawfik Hamid entitled “The Trouble With Islam” actually should be entitled “The Trouble With Overeager Liberalism”;

    The grave predicament we face in the Islamic world is the virtual lack of approved, theologically rigorous interpretations of Islam that clearly challenge the abusive aspects of Shariah. Unlike Salafism, more liberal branches of Islam, such as Sufism, typically do not provide the essential theological base to nullify the cruel proclamations of their Salafist counterparts. And so, for more than 20 years I have been developing and working to establish a theologically-rigorous Islam that teaches peace.

    Yet it is ironic and discouraging that many non-Muslim, Western intellectuals — who unceasingly claim to support human rights — have become obstacles to reforming Islam. Political correctness among Westerners obstructs unambiguous criticism of Shariah’s inhumanity. They find socioeconomic or political excuses for Islamist terrorism such as poverty, colonialism, discrimination or the existence of Israel. What incentive is there for Muslims to demand reform when Western “progressives” pave the way for Islamist barbarity? Indeed, if the problem is not one of religious beliefs, it leaves one to wonder why Christians who live among Muslims under identical circumstances refrain from contributing to wide-scale, systematic campaigns of terror.

    Doctor Hamid has been trying to found a more peaceful version of Islam (which shouldn’t be that hard, relatively speaking) but is confounded by the Left’s inability to criticize anything that’s not Western in origin;

    Western appeasement of their Muslim communities has exacerbated the problem. During the four-month period after the publication of the Muhammad cartoons in a Danish magazine, there were comparatively few violent demonstrations by Muslims. Within a few days of the Danish magazine’s formal apology, riots erupted throughout the world. The apology had been perceived by Islamists as weakness and concession.

    Worst of all, perhaps, is the anti-Americanism among many Westerners. It is a resentment so strong, so deep-seated, so rooted in personal identity, that it has led many, consciously or unconsciously, to morally support America’s enemies.

    Funny, ain’t it? Here we are trying to free people from their masters yet we’re the bad guys. Personally, I could give two rat’s asses which prophet a person believes, or what their particular God tells them to do – until it starts infringing on my life, and that of my family. And that’s the basic problem – because the Left won’t get on board and start condemning these human rights abuses, Islam will continue to test the limits of what we’ll accept – until it’s too late.

    Dr. Hamid’s last line sounds like something I heard on South Park once about four years ago;

    Tolerance does not mean toleration of atrocities under the umbrella of relativism. It is time for all of us in the free world to face the reality of Salafi Islam or the reality of radical Islam will continue to face us.

    Maybe we should have listened to South Park creators before we came to this point.

    And so we have folks like this Mahmud Faruq Brent Al Mutazzim who was just pleaded guilty to conspiring to help a terrorist organization and his loving sister;

    A woman who identified herself only as his sister Atullah questioned outside court what the word terrorism means in America.

    “What is terrorism? If you step on an ant, it’s terrorism,” she said.

    Asked what her brother’s intentions were, she said: “To serve God, to pray and help mankind.”

    Yeah, doesn’t everybody go to terrorist camps to serve God?

  • WaPo is still spazzin’ out over “the 16 words”

    In an article entitled How Bogus Letter became a Case for War by Peter Eisner, the Washington Post is still living in the past, still beating dead horses, still suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome and I guess they can’t find anything else to complain about at Walter Reed;

    It was 3 a.m. in Italy on Jan. 29, 2003, when President Bush in Washington began reading his State of the Union address that included the now famous — later retracted — 16 words: “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”

    Like most Europeans, Elisabetta Burba, an investigative reporter for the Italian newsweekly Panorama, waited until the next day to read the newspaper accounts of Bush’s remarks. But when she came to the 16 words, she recalled, she got a sudden sinking feeling in her stomach. She wondered: How could the American president have mentioned a uranium sale from Africa?

    Maybe because the British intelligence community still stands by the information in the letter. The whole reason Ms. Burba thinks the letter is a forgery is because it mentions Niger sending 500 tons of uranium to Iraq every year. She claims it would take every truck in Niger to move that much uranium – and it may, I’m in no position to argue that with her.

    But Hussein, in 2000, when the letter was allegedly written, had every reason to believe that the sanctions against him would be lifted – afterall everyone thought that Gore was going to be our next President, and you know damn well he’d have lifted the sanctions with the help of Hussein’s cronies in the Oil for Food scandal, Russia and France.

    If the Washington Post thinks they can discount this whole story because some journalist “googled” the available truck tonnage in Niger, they really ought to think again. We found tons of mortar and artillery shells that Hussein had trucked from Jordan after the sanctions were imposed in 1990 buried in Kuwait. When the criminals of the world smell money, means are of little concern to them. I know it’s hard for the Washington Post and Peter Eisner to understand that.

    So let’s have Christopher Hitchens explain it to them;

    To summarize, then: In February 1999 one of Saddam Hussein’s chief nuclear goons paid a visit to Niger, but his identity was not noticed by Joseph Wilson, nor emphasized in his “report” to the CIA, nor mentioned at all in his later memoir. British intelligence picked up the news of the Zahawie visit from French and Italian sources and passed it on to Washington. Zahawie’s denials of any background or knowledge, in respect of nuclear matters, are plainly laughable based on his past record, and he is still taken seriously enough as an expert on such matters to be invited (as part of a Jordanian delegation) to Hans Blix’s commission on WMD. Two very senior and experienced diplomats in the field of WMDs and disarmament, both of them from countries by no means aligned with the Bush administration, have been kind enough to share with me their disquiet at his activities. What responsible American administration could possibly have viewed any of this with indifference?

    Exactly. What RESPONSIBLE administration could have ignored it? And just because the WaPo think that the “16 words” are the sole reason we went to Iraq doesn’t mean rational, thinking humans can’t mention a few more reasons.

  • Where are the Human Rights Democrats?

    According to John at Powerline, the Democrats are sitting on HR 267 that would condemn the Iranian capture and treatment of 15 British sailors and marines. The Democrats keep preparing for their Spring Break.

    Meanwhile the Iranians are broadcasting video footage of the capture and propaganda footage of the Brits along with the public release of their mail, a clear violation of the laws of land warfare.

    Dick Durbin couldn’t wait to call our own troops SS guards, so where is on this? Why is Pelosi so retiscent about being on the side of our closest and oldest ally? Where’s Amnesty International and the Red Cross who’ve spent reams of paper trying to convince the American public that the US is the worst terrorist in the world?

    Jimmy Carter called Israel an apartheid government. So where is the little cretin now? You’d think he’d have lots of advice and thoughts on dealing with hostages in Iran, but apparently not. I guess he’s still a little gun shy about Iran.

    John Murtha said our troops were cold-blooded murders. What has he got to say about this illegal capture and mistreatment of British troops by the Iranians?

    Not a friggin’ peep from the self-righteous Left.

    Pound sand you hypocritical freaks.

    Read the Right Wing Nut House’s Iran tries the old bait and switch.

  • Waving the white flag

    Of course everyone has heard how the Senate feels about our troops – they loaded up their surrender flag with pork. From the Washington Post;

    Senate Democrats scored a surprise victory yesterday in their bid to force President Bush to end the Iraq war, turning back a Republican amendment that would have struck a troop withdrawal plan from emergency military funding legislation.

    And everyone knows that Chuck Hagel, a former paratrooper in the mold of Hugo Chavez, is the reason that the Democrats pulled off their little coup;

    The defection of a prominent Republican war critic, Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, sealed the Democrats’ win. Hagel, who opposed identical withdrawal language two weeks ago, walked onto the Senate floor an hour before the late-afternoon vote and announced that he would “not support sustaining a flawed and failing policy,” adding: “It’s now time for the Congress to step forward and establish responsible boundaries and conditions for our continued military involvement in Iraq.”

    Yep, that’s exactly how you attract Republicans to your primary effort, Chuckie. You can just keep your paws off the Airborne Day proclamation this year, thanks.

    And good ol’ Dingy Harry Reid is bravest when he’s surrendering as reported by S.A. Miller in the Washington Times;

       “We are not going to back down from the essential language in this bill,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, said of the mandate that a troop pullout start almost immediately with the goal of a complete exit by next March.

    Yep, you’ll back down from our enemies, though, won’t ya, Harry?

    All’ya’all may already know all of this. And you probably know that the president will veto anything resembling a surrender movement that crosses his desk. But, have you read Blackfive’s reactions from the troops?

    UPDATE: A word from Gunnery Sgt Krueger (in Iraq) on Powerline.

  • How disengenuous can you get?

    I’m reading about the recent riots in Paris and how “youths” are clashing with police. Then the AFP mentions how the thing started with a 33-year-old. Since when is a 33-year-old a “youth”? Why can’t these journalists just tell us that this supposed religion of peace is represented in Europe by a bunch of anarchists?

    They also chanted slogans of “police are everywhere, justice is nowhere” and “down with the state, police and bosses”.

    And, as Little Green Footballs points out, “citizen journalists” are forbidden in France these days so we have to rely on the truth-deficient mainstream press.

  • John Doe protections passed

    Audrey Hudson of the Washington Times writes;

    House Republicans yesterday surprised Democrats with a procedural vote to protect public-transportation passengers from being sued if they report suspicious activity — the first step by lawmakers to protect “John Doe” airline travelers already targeted in such a lawsuit.
        After a heated debate and calls for order, the motion to recommit the Democrats’ Rail and Public Transportation Security Act of 2007 back to committee with instructions to add the protective language passed on a vote of 304-121.
        All 121 of the “no” votes were cast by Democrats, while 199 Republicans and 105 Democrats voted in favor.

    What could have possibly stopped a rational person from voting for protection against specious lawsuits?

    Rep. Bennie Thompson, Mississippi Democrat and chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, opposed the motion over loud objections from colleagues on the House floor, forcing several calls to order from the chair.
        “Absolutely they should have the ability to seek redress in a court of law,” said Mr. Thompson, who suggested that protecting passengers from a lawsuit would encourage racial profiling.
        “This might be well-intended, but it has unintended consequences,” Mr. Thompson said, before he accepted the motion to recommit.

    Unintended consequences like what? Like someone who acts suspiciously might be investigated? Like a terrorist attack might be averted because people aren’t thinking about the litigious consequences of reporting suspicious people?

    Actually we all know know that Mr. Thompson is more concerned about the self-esteem of Muslims than he is about the safety of the flying public.

    And then CAIR chimes in;

    Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), said in an open letter yesterday to the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty that “the only individuals against whom suit may be raised in this litigation are those who may have knowingly made false reports against the imams with the intent to discriminate against them.”
        The Becket Fund criticized the lawsuit last week and in a letter to Mr. Awad asked that the “John Does” be removed from the lawsuit, however CAIR is standing by the decision.

    You know if CAIR is involved it might be an effective deterent to terrorism. You can see how your representative voted here. (In case the link is wrong, go here and click on “110th 1st session (2007)” in the right column, then on Roll Call vote #200). Mine voted “No” even though I faxed, emailed and called his office. You know Chris Van Hollen is going to get an earful today.

    What really worries me is that there’s nothing anywhere about this vote, except the Washington Times. there’s not even an “Action Alert” about it on CAIR. Looks like the media is keeping this on the “down-low”.

    UPDATE: Chris Van Hollen’s office denies that the vote ever happened. He tried to tell me that the Times story was a mistake – no one from New Mexico introduced any motions on Tuesday. And then, though it never happened, it was a political maneuver by the minority to block legislation. I’ve had a couple dust-ups with this idiot’s staff in the past, it’s clear to me that they have no respect for their constituency.

    UPDATE II: Michele Malkin gives us the John Doe Manifesto.