At least as far as the Associated Press is concerned:
Israel's army said it also attacked a cell that attempted to fire an anti-tank missile at Israeli forces in southern Gaza. Mohammed Abdel Al, 25, a local leader of Islamic Jihad, died of wounds he suffered in that airstrike, becoming the first death in Israel's offensive.
Actually, the first death was that of an innocent Jewish teenager kidnapped and executed shortly after the Israeli move into Gaza - from Gateway Pundit (who also has the heart-rending eulogy):
On this day, June 29th, 2006, the 3rd day of Tammuz 5766, the nation of Israel buried a true Eved Elokim, a faithful servant of the Almighty G-d of Israel. Today thousands of Jews across the State of Israel attended the funeral of 18 year old Eliyahu Pinchas Asheri, ZTK"L, the yeshiva student from the settlement of Itamar...
....A Ramallah Tanzim terror cell, taking orders from the Gaza headquarters of the Popular Resistance Committee, carried out the kidnapping and murdered of pre-military Torah academy student Eliyahu Asheri, according to the IDF...
So how does the AP classify the death of Asheri? The terrorists who snatched him make quite a clear connection:
On Tuesday, a spokesman for the Hamas-affiliated PRC told Al-Jazeera that Asheri would be "butchered in front of TV cameras" if the IDF operation in Gaza did not stop.
So Asheri was killed in retaliation for the IDF crossing into Gaza to hunt for a soldier abducted in an assault on an Israeli military outpost. So isn't the first death in the offensive that of a civilian intentionally targeted by Palestinian terrorists? Or are the only deaths that count Palestinian? Does the AP feel that Jewish life is so cheap that Asheri does not even deserve mention in this story? When the first Palestinian civilian is accidentally killed in this Hamas-instigated war, will it be dismissed as blithly as the death of an Israeli innocent directly targeted for his race?
And where is Human Rights Watch? Why are they not decrying the vile tactics used by the monsters of Palestine? Are they too busy looking for shell fragments on the beaches of Gaza? Or do the Israelis simply not fit under their definition of "Human" ?
The reporting from Gaza is blatently anti-Israeli and anti-semitic (shock!) - I hope Olmert can show some stomach, and ignore the pleas of the terrorist-lovin' EU, the warnings of the U.S. State Department, and the bleating of these faux "Rights" groups, and can do what needs to be done in the Strip from Hell...
Friday, June 30, 2006
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
Palestinians whip the flames of War
The body of an Israeli settler kidnapped at the weekend by Palestinian militants was recovered overnight by Israeli troops in the West Bank city of Ramallah, Palestinian security sources said, without providing further details...
On Wednesday, the armed Popular Resistance Committees had displayed a photocopy of the identity papers of the 18-year-old Eliahu Asheri, a settler who was reported missing Sunday from the West Bank, and threatened to kill him unless Israel halted its offensive in the Gaza Strip...
Real tough guys, those Palestinians, slaughtering innocent teenagers. If they think the Israelis are going to cut-and-run over a little spilled blood, they are deluding themselves. This most warped of all Arab societies (raised by dual liberal icons Yassar Arafat and the United Nations) needs a severe ass-kicking to teach them what the consequences are of electing a terrorist government. Any European attempts to shield the Palestinian population from the results of their actions is no different than directly aiding Hamas. No different from protecting the German people while the Nazis were carrying out the Holocaust.
Whatever happens to the Palestinians, they have brought it on themselves. If even the Gaza handover could not satiate, for one moment, their thirst for the blood of the children of Israel; then they are too far gone to be helped by any "shuttle diplomacy". Let this nasty little war play out; and may a harsh lesson be left in its wake.
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Hamas Gets Its War...
No sympathy for the poor Palestinians in this little corner - you voted for a terrorist government, you reap the rewards:
Israeli tanks and troops entered southern Gaza and planes attacked three bridges and knocked out electricity to the coastal strip early Wednesday, stepping up the pressure on Palestinian militants holding captive a 19-year-old Israeli soldier.
But these animals don't give it a second thought; they just do it again:
A Palestinian militant group on Wednesday threatened to kill an abducted Jewish settler [how about - civilian? -ed.] if Israel doesn’t stop its raid on the Gaza Strip.
Israeli Oshri Eliahu, 18, is seen in this undated photo released by the family Tuesday, June 27, 2006. A spokesman for the Popular Resistance Committees, a violent group with close ties to the Hamas-led Palestinian government, who took part in Sunday’s cross-border infiltration near Gaza in which militants killed two Israeli soldiers and abducted Cp. Gilad Shalit, said the group had taken Eliahu, a Jewish settler from Itamar in the West Bank hostage. Israel Radio reported the settler had been hitchhiking Monday night and failed to return home. (AP Photo)
And what is Syria, Israel's peace-loving neighbor, doing amid all this crisis? Would you believe...giving aid and shelter to Hamas leadership? Gateway Pundit links us to YNET:
The Syrian government has deployed security forces to protect Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal and has advised him to restrict all public activities for the time being, Hamas officials in the Gaza Strip told WorldNetDaily Tuesday.
Mashaal is believed to have called for the operation Sunday in which Hamas and other Palestinian terror groups carried out a well-orchestrated raid on an Israeli military station and kidnapped Israeli soldier Cpl. Gilad Shalit.
Alas, it seems like Shalit doesn't have much of a chance:
Hoping to head off a major flare-up, Egypt has been trying to broker Shalit's release. So has France, as the 19-year-old conscript has French as well as Israeli citizenship.
But mediators said they were close to calling it quits before the Israeli troops moved into Gaza.
DEBKA confirms, with a more sickening hypothesis:
In the two days since his abduction, none of the diplomats seeking to negotiate his release attained direct access to the kidnappers before the effort, led by Egypt, France, Turkey and others, broke down. It is feared that the Hamas faction holding the Israeli corporal have smuggled him out of the Gaza Strip through Sinai to a hostile Arab country.
No wonder Israel hit the bridges, an unusual target for them; and hence their concern about Hamas moving their captive.
Look at what the Palestinians brought upon themselves, and the region, by their choice of Hamas to represent them to the world. Was there ever any doubt that it would come to this place, with aggression and atrocities against Israel that would demand such a response? Was the election of Hamas as their leadership nothing more than a cultural suicide bomb by the Palestinians? Is their lust for Jew-blood so deep, so psychotic, that if one must die as a person or as a society in order to spill it, that the Palestinians knowingly, enthusiastically, embraced Hamas?
And meanwhile, the drums of war beat louder over Gaza, a land handed back to the Palestinians, a land they turned instantly from one of greenhouses and farms and orchards, into nothing more than their latest killing field...one can just weep.
Israeli tanks and troops entered southern Gaza and planes attacked three bridges and knocked out electricity to the coastal strip early Wednesday, stepping up the pressure on Palestinian militants holding captive a 19-year-old Israeli soldier.
But these animals don't give it a second thought; they just do it again:
A Palestinian militant group on Wednesday threatened to kill an abducted Jewish settler [how about - civilian? -ed.] if Israel doesn’t stop its raid on the Gaza Strip.
Israeli Oshri Eliahu, 18, is seen in this undated photo released by the family Tuesday, June 27, 2006. A spokesman for the Popular Resistance Committees, a violent group with close ties to the Hamas-led Palestinian government, who took part in Sunday’s cross-border infiltration near Gaza in which militants killed two Israeli soldiers and abducted Cp. Gilad Shalit, said the group had taken Eliahu, a Jewish settler from Itamar in the West Bank hostage. Israel Radio reported the settler had been hitchhiking Monday night and failed to return home. (AP Photo)
And what is Syria, Israel's peace-loving neighbor, doing amid all this crisis? Would you believe...giving aid and shelter to Hamas leadership? Gateway Pundit links us to YNET:
The Syrian government has deployed security forces to protect Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal and has advised him to restrict all public activities for the time being, Hamas officials in the Gaza Strip told WorldNetDaily Tuesday.
Mashaal is believed to have called for the operation Sunday in which Hamas and other Palestinian terror groups carried out a well-orchestrated raid on an Israeli military station and kidnapped Israeli soldier Cpl. Gilad Shalit.
Alas, it seems like Shalit doesn't have much of a chance:
Hoping to head off a major flare-up, Egypt has been trying to broker Shalit's release. So has France, as the 19-year-old conscript has French as well as Israeli citizenship.
But mediators said they were close to calling it quits before the Israeli troops moved into Gaza.
DEBKA confirms, with a more sickening hypothesis:
In the two days since his abduction, none of the diplomats seeking to negotiate his release attained direct access to the kidnappers before the effort, led by Egypt, France, Turkey and others, broke down. It is feared that the Hamas faction holding the Israeli corporal have smuggled him out of the Gaza Strip through Sinai to a hostile Arab country.
No wonder Israel hit the bridges, an unusual target for them; and hence their concern about Hamas moving their captive.
Look at what the Palestinians brought upon themselves, and the region, by their choice of Hamas to represent them to the world. Was there ever any doubt that it would come to this place, with aggression and atrocities against Israel that would demand such a response? Was the election of Hamas as their leadership nothing more than a cultural suicide bomb by the Palestinians? Is their lust for Jew-blood so deep, so psychotic, that if one must die as a person or as a society in order to spill it, that the Palestinians knowingly, enthusiastically, embraced Hamas?
And meanwhile, the drums of war beat louder over Gaza, a land handed back to the Palestinians, a land they turned instantly from one of greenhouses and farms and orchards, into nothing more than their latest killing field...one can just weep.
Monday, June 26, 2006
Israel at a Crossroads?
Atlas reports that two longstanding terrorists regimes have their filthy fingers up Hamas' ass, as the Palestinian Regime of Hate does their master's bidding:
While the U.S., European countries and many Arab leaders have been applying international pressure on the Hamas-led Palestinian government to free an Israeli soldier kidnapped in a raid yesterday, Iran and Syria today pressured Hamas to hold on to their captive, diplomatic sources involved in the negotiations told WorldNetDaily.
Oh how could you leave us, Arik Sharon?? One does not think he would have tolerated this for long; but Olmert is too wrapped up in pleasing the Eurodogs who want his people exterminated anyway...DEBKA reports on the growing frustration within the IDF:
Yitzhak Ben-Israel, a member of the prime minister’s Kadima party, said in a state radio interview on June 22: “This is not the finest hour of Israel’s national security leadership.” Pressed to elaborate on who in particular he meant, the general mentioned prime minister Ehud Olmert and defense minister Amir Peretz.
He reminded listeners that the IDF, its commanders and men, do not function in a vacuum. In Israel, after putting forward their recommendations and arguments, army chiefs must defer to the orders of elected government and bound to carry out the tasks assigned them. Therefore, since the government has instructed the IDF to confine itself to air force activity in the war against the Qassam missile – and barred all other means of warfare, the military has no option but to obey.”
The result is a simple equation, DEBKAfile’s military experts say.
Heightened Palestinian missile attacks on Israeli civilian locations generate increased air force activity to stop them. The further the Qassam launchers retreat for shelter into populated areas, the greater the number of Palestinian civilians who stand to be hurt. Therefore, the effort to avoid civilian casualties on the Palestinian side is tantamount to bringing the IDF’s counter-missile war to a full stop.
While the Israeli prime minister repeatedly vows “We will never compromise in the fight against terror,” he and the defense minister are consciously tying the IDF’s hands against pursuing this fight.
The Palestinians have long percieved hesitation to act as weakness, and have exploited it for over a decade. How long will Olmert last, basking in the reflected glory of fashionable diplomatic dinners, while his country is ruthlessly attacked?
A no-confidence vote won't be long in coming; and whomever might succeed Olmert is much more likely, given the current circumstances, to be bent towards harsher miltary and economic retalitation against Palestinians.
This is going to get way, way worse....
While the U.S., European countries and many Arab leaders have been applying international pressure on the Hamas-led Palestinian government to free an Israeli soldier kidnapped in a raid yesterday, Iran and Syria today pressured Hamas to hold on to their captive, diplomatic sources involved in the negotiations told WorldNetDaily.
Oh how could you leave us, Arik Sharon?? One does not think he would have tolerated this for long; but Olmert is too wrapped up in pleasing the Eurodogs who want his people exterminated anyway...DEBKA reports on the growing frustration within the IDF:
Yitzhak Ben-Israel, a member of the prime minister’s Kadima party, said in a state radio interview on June 22: “This is not the finest hour of Israel’s national security leadership.” Pressed to elaborate on who in particular he meant, the general mentioned prime minister Ehud Olmert and defense minister Amir Peretz.
He reminded listeners that the IDF, its commanders and men, do not function in a vacuum. In Israel, after putting forward their recommendations and arguments, army chiefs must defer to the orders of elected government and bound to carry out the tasks assigned them. Therefore, since the government has instructed the IDF to confine itself to air force activity in the war against the Qassam missile – and barred all other means of warfare, the military has no option but to obey.”
The result is a simple equation, DEBKAfile’s military experts say.
Heightened Palestinian missile attacks on Israeli civilian locations generate increased air force activity to stop them. The further the Qassam launchers retreat for shelter into populated areas, the greater the number of Palestinian civilians who stand to be hurt. Therefore, the effort to avoid civilian casualties on the Palestinian side is tantamount to bringing the IDF’s counter-missile war to a full stop.
While the Israeli prime minister repeatedly vows “We will never compromise in the fight against terror,” he and the defense minister are consciously tying the IDF’s hands against pursuing this fight.
The Palestinians have long percieved hesitation to act as weakness, and have exploited it for over a decade. How long will Olmert last, basking in the reflected glory of fashionable diplomatic dinners, while his country is ruthlessly attacked?
A no-confidence vote won't be long in coming; and whomever might succeed Olmert is much more likely, given the current circumstances, to be bent towards harsher miltary and economic retalitation against Palestinians.
This is going to get way, way worse....
Peter King gets it....
...while Bill "Qaeda" Keller is clueless. Can't wait to see the self-rightous expression of indignation on that traitorous b*stard's face when he gets frog-marched into a federal lockup. Well, at least if Rep. Peter King (R) has his way:
A top US lawmaker who heads a homeland security committee called for a criminal investigation of The New York Times following the newspaper's disclosure of a secret government operation to monitor international finances....
Republican Representative Peter King of New York, chairman the House Committee on
Homeland Security called the actions of the leading US newspaper "disgraceful" and said he believed it had violated counterespionage laws.
"The New York Times is putting its own arrogant, elitist, left-wing agenda before the interests of the American people," the lawmaker said as he appeared on the "Fox News Sunday" television program.
"And I'm calling on the attorney general to begin a criminal investigation and prosecution of the New York Times, its reporters, the editors that worked on this, and the publisher," he stressed.
And meanwhile, Keller stoops to explain to the unwashed masses why he exposed classified national security operations:
It's an unusual and powerful thing, this freedom that our founders gave to the press...The power that has been given us is not something to be taken lightly. The responsibility of it weighs most heavily on us when an issue involves national security, and especially national security in times of war...
The question we start with as journalists is not "why publish?" but "why would we withhold information of significance?"
...A reasonable person, informed about this program, might well decide to applaud it. That said, we hesitate to preempt the role of legislators and courts, and ultimately the electorate, which cannot consider a program if they don't know about it.
Er...maybe if the information is vital to the security of the United Staes, Bill, you ought to think about witholding it? Keller does not, in his lengthy letter, hint that the financial scrutiny the Administration is applying is in any way illegal; he admits his main reasoning in exposing the program is to open it up its existence to the electorate and elected officials. Again, why? Was Keller in fact hoping to create another backlash against Bush and the nation's military? No other base reason seems to fit his rationale for printing this story, especially since there were both Congressman and Senators (the electorate's representatives, Bill) who were kept constantly appraised of the SWIFT program.
Glenn Reynolds bashes Bill nicely:
A deeper error is Keller's characterization of freedom of the press as an institutional privilege, an error that is a manifestation of the hubris that has marked the NYT of late. Keller writes: "It's an unusual and powerful thing, this freedom that our founders gave to the press. . . . The power that has been given us is not something to be taken lightly."
The founders gave freedom of the press to the people, they didn't give freedom to the press. Keller positions himself as some sort of Constitutional High Priest, when in fact the "freedom of the press" the Framers described was also called "freedom in the use of the press." It's the freedom to publish, a freedom that belongs to everyone in equal portions, not a special privilege for the media industry.
Characterizing the freedom this way, of course, makes much of Keller's piece look like, well, just what it is -- arrogant and self-justificatory posturing.
But now I throw the onus onto Bush - if he refuses to prosecute, then he is equally responsible for these national security leaks as the profit-hungry media who print them. His refusal to hold the media accountable for exposing the "rendition flights" and the NSA's electronic surveillance has brought us to this place, where the New York Times can continue to print government secrets with impunity.
Listen to Representative King, Mr. President, and put a stop to these dangerous actions by a hostile media immediately, before even greater damage is done...
A top US lawmaker who heads a homeland security committee called for a criminal investigation of The New York Times following the newspaper's disclosure of a secret government operation to monitor international finances....
Republican Representative Peter King of New York, chairman the House Committee on
Homeland Security called the actions of the leading US newspaper "disgraceful" and said he believed it had violated counterespionage laws.
"The New York Times is putting its own arrogant, elitist, left-wing agenda before the interests of the American people," the lawmaker said as he appeared on the "Fox News Sunday" television program.
"And I'm calling on the attorney general to begin a criminal investigation and prosecution of the New York Times, its reporters, the editors that worked on this, and the publisher," he stressed.
And meanwhile, Keller stoops to explain to the unwashed masses why he exposed classified national security operations:
It's an unusual and powerful thing, this freedom that our founders gave to the press...The power that has been given us is not something to be taken lightly. The responsibility of it weighs most heavily on us when an issue involves national security, and especially national security in times of war...
The question we start with as journalists is not "why publish?" but "why would we withhold information of significance?"
...A reasonable person, informed about this program, might well decide to applaud it. That said, we hesitate to preempt the role of legislators and courts, and ultimately the electorate, which cannot consider a program if they don't know about it.
Er...maybe if the information is vital to the security of the United Staes, Bill, you ought to think about witholding it? Keller does not, in his lengthy letter, hint that the financial scrutiny the Administration is applying is in any way illegal; he admits his main reasoning in exposing the program is to open it up its existence to the electorate and elected officials. Again, why? Was Keller in fact hoping to create another backlash against Bush and the nation's military? No other base reason seems to fit his rationale for printing this story, especially since there were both Congressman and Senators (the electorate's representatives, Bill) who were kept constantly appraised of the SWIFT program.
Glenn Reynolds bashes Bill nicely:
A deeper error is Keller's characterization of freedom of the press as an institutional privilege, an error that is a manifestation of the hubris that has marked the NYT of late. Keller writes: "It's an unusual and powerful thing, this freedom that our founders gave to the press. . . . The power that has been given us is not something to be taken lightly."
The founders gave freedom of the press to the people, they didn't give freedom to the press. Keller positions himself as some sort of Constitutional High Priest, when in fact the "freedom of the press" the Framers described was also called "freedom in the use of the press." It's the freedom to publish, a freedom that belongs to everyone in equal portions, not a special privilege for the media industry.
Characterizing the freedom this way, of course, makes much of Keller's piece look like, well, just what it is -- arrogant and self-justificatory posturing.
But now I throw the onus onto Bush - if he refuses to prosecute, then he is equally responsible for these national security leaks as the profit-hungry media who print them. His refusal to hold the media accountable for exposing the "rendition flights" and the NSA's electronic surveillance has brought us to this place, where the New York Times can continue to print government secrets with impunity.
Listen to Representative King, Mr. President, and put a stop to these dangerous actions by a hostile media immediately, before even greater damage is done...
New Jersey's Shame...
....is its two far-left wing Democratic Senators, Frank Lautenberg and Robert Menendez. Talk about "selected not elected" - Lautenberg was a late (illegal) switch in the November 2002 Senatorial election for the Democrats, when it became apparent that incumbant Bob "The Torch" Torricelli was about to lose the elecion. Menedez was selected by Jon Corzine to take (and hopefully hold) his Senate seat once he become governor.
How far out of the New Jersey mainstream are these two losers?
Question: On the Amendment (Kerry Amdt. No. 4442 )
Vote Number: 181
Vote Date: June 22, 2006, 11:07 AM
Vote Result: Amendment Rejected
Statement of Purpose:
To require the redeployment of United States Armed Forces from Iraq in order to further a political solution in Iraq, encourage the people of Iraq to provide for their own security, and achieve victory in the war on terror
YEAs
13
NAYs
86
Not Voting
1
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea
Menendez (D-NJ), Yea
So both New Jersey Senators, representing 100% of the state, voted with only 11 other hardcore leftists for the Kerry amendment; which uses the word "redeployment" in place of "retreat" in Iraq. While Kerry won New Jersey in '04, it was only by a 6% margin (unlike the 20% Gore won with in 2000).
So who are Menedez and Lautenberg representing? The people of New Jersey (whom I guess they feel no responsibility to, as neither worked a campiagn cycle) or to the far-left of the national Democratic party?
Not much about it in the media, of course, as they support these positions yet know what the repecussions would be if the votes were exposed. Let's hope Kean Jr. (R), running against Menedez in November, makes sure he exposes Menedez's vote for military surrender and national disgrace. As for Lautenberg, well, he's a goner in '08; but will the weak and virtually worthless New Jersey Republican Party be able to provide a suitable challenger for the seat?
How far out of the New Jersey mainstream are these two losers?
Question: On the Amendment (Kerry Amdt. No. 4442 )
Vote Number: 181
Vote Date: June 22, 2006, 11:07 AM
Vote Result: Amendment Rejected
Statement of Purpose:
To require the redeployment of United States Armed Forces from Iraq in order to further a political solution in Iraq, encourage the people of Iraq to provide for their own security, and achieve victory in the war on terror
YEAs
13
NAYs
86
Not Voting
1
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea
Menendez (D-NJ), Yea
So both New Jersey Senators, representing 100% of the state, voted with only 11 other hardcore leftists for the Kerry amendment; which uses the word "redeployment" in place of "retreat" in Iraq. While Kerry won New Jersey in '04, it was only by a 6% margin (unlike the 20% Gore won with in 2000).
So who are Menedez and Lautenberg representing? The people of New Jersey (whom I guess they feel no responsibility to, as neither worked a campiagn cycle) or to the far-left of the national Democratic party?
Not much about it in the media, of course, as they support these positions yet know what the repecussions would be if the votes were exposed. Let's hope Kean Jr. (R), running against Menedez in November, makes sure he exposes Menedez's vote for military surrender and national disgrace. As for Lautenberg, well, he's a goner in '08; but will the weak and virtually worthless New Jersey Republican Party be able to provide a suitable challenger for the seat?
Sunday, June 25, 2006
al-Jazeera Flunky Spurned; Calls Americans Racist!
The Washington Post has enjoyed giving up their op-ed pages to terrorists and terror sympathisers for some time now; today they allow Joanne Levine to shill for bin Ladin propoganda outfit al-Jazeera with the offensive headline Al-Jazeera, as American as Apple Pie.
Sure, Joanne knows that al-Jazeera shows terrorist videotapes of American being beheaded, exploits anti-American imagery to distort Arab perceptions, acts as a bullhorn for the messages of mass murderer Osama bin Ladin, and turns up the heat constantly on the Arab-Israeli conflict, but she thoughtfully reminds us that her problems getting interviews is due strictly to the prejudice and hatred of the American people:
...the truth is that al-Jazeera is a pioneer of news independence that the U.S. government once lauded for bringing freedom of the press to the Middle East. Now it's planning to broadcast worldwide, including in the United States. But as its Arab owners work to make that a reality, the prejudice here persists, and those of us who work for the network find ourselves running, at every turn, into resistance, rejection and racism.
Is it "racism" to spurn the leading media outlet for the forces whom want to see the United States destroyed? Is it "rejectionism" to turn our back on an enemy news network whose reporters have been embedded with Iraqi insurgents in order to film attacks upon American soldiers? Is it "resistance" to refuse to speak with a representative of a media outlets whose personnel have been found to be actively working with terrorists and for insurgents? Actually, I think "resistance" is a good word here - resisting the media notion that we are guilty of racism if we choose to defend our own lives against those whom wish to exterminate us.
Hey Joanne - want to know why some folk are wary of al-Jazeera? Author Michale Wolf makes these comments:
"It's pretty hard to adequately describe the level of bloodiness during an average Al Jazeera newcast," wrote Wolff. "It's mesmerizing bloodiness. It's not just red but gooey. There's no cutaway. They hold the shot for the full viscous effect. It's vastly grislier than anything that's ever been shown on television before. It's snuff-film caliber. . . .
"The better Al Jazeera does, the angrier the Arabs become," wrote Wolff. "The more anti-U.S. and anti-Israel, the higher ratings it gets."
The CNN of the Arab world" is how some describe Al Jazeera, but others call it "Jihad TV," a megaphone that amplifies and glorifies Islamist terrorists, anti-Semites and other fanatical foes of Israel and the United States.
Al Jazeera broadcast the blood libel that Jews had been warned by Israel's Mossad in advance about the 9-11 attacks that destroyed the World Trade Center and thus had stayed home that day. Al Jazeera interviewed, as one of its "experts" making this claim, the American former Ku Klux Klan and American Nazi Party leader David Duke, without clearly explaining to its Arab audience who and what Duke is.
Al Jazeera routinely has described Islamist suicide-homocide bombers in Israel as "martyrs," and Palestinians as Israel's victims. Its newscasts and on-air discussions are staged to show its 50 million mostly-Muslim viewers a relentlessly visceral, emotion-charged drama in which Jews, Israel and Americans are almost always cast as villains, infidels and evil-doers.
But wait! Joanne reminds us that she is the real victim here:
...most significant, scores of people refuse to be interviewed by our reporters. On numerous stories, I have approached people who know me from my past jobs. They will talk to me on the phone, but they refuse to appear on camera, saying they can't be seen on al-Jazeera. I have heard this too often -- from officials in government and Congress as well as from other people in the media.
My department, for instance, tried to do a story about Civil War reenactors. The journalists were denied access to a reenactment because the organizers were expecting "many patriotic people" who they thought would be upset by al-Jazeera's presence. [jeez, Joanne,why not invite them to shul on Yom Kipper? - ed.]
At the recent Take Back America conference here in Washington, author Kevin Phillips would not accept a business card from our investigative reporter.
[that happened to me at a business meeting last week - should I call the Department of Human Rights? -ed.]
And finally, Joanne's warning to us all:
Each incident shrouded in bigotry has served to convince me ever more that the United States needs an outlet like al-Jazeera International, offering a wider panorama of views. These are dangerous times. And they will just get more dangerous if each side continues to retreat.
Joanne, I destest you for working for an enemy news outlet - but that does not make me a bigot, just someone who values their life and their culture.
So put the liberal PC curse-book away, it has lost all of its power against me and a growing number of Americans. And allow me to answer your self-absorbed essay with some simple down-home wisdom; you can pick either one and apply freely:
-You are who your friends are;
-When you lie down with dogs, don't be surprised to rise up with fleas.
Sure, Joanne knows that al-Jazeera shows terrorist videotapes of American being beheaded, exploits anti-American imagery to distort Arab perceptions, acts as a bullhorn for the messages of mass murderer Osama bin Ladin, and turns up the heat constantly on the Arab-Israeli conflict, but she thoughtfully reminds us that her problems getting interviews is due strictly to the prejudice and hatred of the American people:
...the truth is that al-Jazeera is a pioneer of news independence that the U.S. government once lauded for bringing freedom of the press to the Middle East. Now it's planning to broadcast worldwide, including in the United States. But as its Arab owners work to make that a reality, the prejudice here persists, and those of us who work for the network find ourselves running, at every turn, into resistance, rejection and racism.
Is it "racism" to spurn the leading media outlet for the forces whom want to see the United States destroyed? Is it "rejectionism" to turn our back on an enemy news network whose reporters have been embedded with Iraqi insurgents in order to film attacks upon American soldiers? Is it "resistance" to refuse to speak with a representative of a media outlets whose personnel have been found to be actively working with terrorists and for insurgents? Actually, I think "resistance" is a good word here - resisting the media notion that we are guilty of racism if we choose to defend our own lives against those whom wish to exterminate us.
Hey Joanne - want to know why some folk are wary of al-Jazeera? Author Michale Wolf makes these comments:
"It's pretty hard to adequately describe the level of bloodiness during an average Al Jazeera newcast," wrote Wolff. "It's mesmerizing bloodiness. It's not just red but gooey. There's no cutaway. They hold the shot for the full viscous effect. It's vastly grislier than anything that's ever been shown on television before. It's snuff-film caliber. . . .
"The better Al Jazeera does, the angrier the Arabs become," wrote Wolff. "The more anti-U.S. and anti-Israel, the higher ratings it gets."
The CNN of the Arab world" is how some describe Al Jazeera, but others call it "Jihad TV," a megaphone that amplifies and glorifies Islamist terrorists, anti-Semites and other fanatical foes of Israel and the United States.
Al Jazeera broadcast the blood libel that Jews had been warned by Israel's Mossad in advance about the 9-11 attacks that destroyed the World Trade Center and thus had stayed home that day. Al Jazeera interviewed, as one of its "experts" making this claim, the American former Ku Klux Klan and American Nazi Party leader David Duke, without clearly explaining to its Arab audience who and what Duke is.
Al Jazeera routinely has described Islamist suicide-homocide bombers in Israel as "martyrs," and Palestinians as Israel's victims. Its newscasts and on-air discussions are staged to show its 50 million mostly-Muslim viewers a relentlessly visceral, emotion-charged drama in which Jews, Israel and Americans are almost always cast as villains, infidels and evil-doers.
But wait! Joanne reminds us that she is the real victim here:
...most significant, scores of people refuse to be interviewed by our reporters. On numerous stories, I have approached people who know me from my past jobs. They will talk to me on the phone, but they refuse to appear on camera, saying they can't be seen on al-Jazeera. I have heard this too often -- from officials in government and Congress as well as from other people in the media.
My department, for instance, tried to do a story about Civil War reenactors. The journalists were denied access to a reenactment because the organizers were expecting "many patriotic people" who they thought would be upset by al-Jazeera's presence. [jeez, Joanne,why not invite them to shul on Yom Kipper? - ed.]
At the recent Take Back America conference here in Washington, author Kevin Phillips would not accept a business card from our investigative reporter.
[that happened to me at a business meeting last week - should I call the Department of Human Rights? -ed.]
And finally, Joanne's warning to us all:
Each incident shrouded in bigotry has served to convince me ever more that the United States needs an outlet like al-Jazeera International, offering a wider panorama of views. These are dangerous times. And they will just get more dangerous if each side continues to retreat.
Joanne, I destest you for working for an enemy news outlet - but that does not make me a bigot, just someone who values their life and their culture.
So put the liberal PC curse-book away, it has lost all of its power against me and a growing number of Americans. And allow me to answer your self-absorbed essay with some simple down-home wisdom; you can pick either one and apply freely:
-You are who your friends are;
-When you lie down with dogs, don't be surprised to rise up with fleas.
Saturday, June 24, 2006
Here's A Wall You Forgot, Mr. Waters!
Lou Minetti points out the collossal hypocrisy of Roger Waters' self-important demands that Israel tear down the security barrier that has saved hundreds of innocent Jews from dying at terrorists hands:
I notice that Roger has never protested the wall pictured below. Or more precisely, the double-layered electrified fence topped with razor wire and patrolled by armed soldiers.
This is a barrier the Spanish government has erected in Morocco, a sovereign country, in order to prevent African immigrants from entering Spain. But where are the shouts about an "apartheid wall"? Why don't I hear the cries of "racism!" leveled against Spain, like those that are thrown at the U.S. whenever the erection of a similar wall to run along the Mexican border is debated?
Minetti:
Spain continues to occupy African territory. It seems odd that Roger finds nothing wrong when Europeans build such a barrier in a foreign land to keep out unarmed people who want nothing except a job and a better life, but hates it when Jews build a wall in their own land to protect themselves from suicide bombers.
More European anti-Semitism, and anti-Americanism...why do we even give this crumbling continent - the home of fascism, communism, and the Holocaust - the time of day anymore?
"Marines Went Down to Baghdad..."
Now where are we going to find the band with the courage to cover this version of the Charlie Daniel's Band classic?
The marines went down to Baghdad, they was looking for a terrorist to kill.
They were in a bind 'cos they was way behind: And had a body bag to fill.
When they came across this old house in a city named Baqubah,
And a marine jumped up on the missile launch and said: "Boy let me tell you what:
"I bet you didn't know it, But Zarqawi is in that hut,""
And if you'd care to look in there, there's a whole bunch of Muslim nuts ."
"Now they've got a pretty good hideout, boy, but this day will be his last"
"I bet you 500 pounds of warplane missiles, I'll hit his sorry ass. "
The marine said: "My name's Johnny and it might be a sin,
"But I'll take my chances, They're gonna regret, 'cos I'm the best that's ever been."....
...I don't feel right lifting the whole thing; go check out the rest here at The Outlaw Republican!
The marines went down to Baghdad, they was looking for a terrorist to kill.
They were in a bind 'cos they was way behind: And had a body bag to fill.
When they came across this old house in a city named Baqubah,
And a marine jumped up on the missile launch and said: "Boy let me tell you what:
"I bet you didn't know it, But Zarqawi is in that hut,""
And if you'd care to look in there, there's a whole bunch of Muslim nuts ."
"Now they've got a pretty good hideout, boy, but this day will be his last"
"I bet you 500 pounds of warplane missiles, I'll hit his sorry ass. "
The marine said: "My name's Johnny and it might be a sin,
"But I'll take my chances, They're gonna regret, 'cos I'm the best that's ever been."....
...I don't feel right lifting the whole thing; go check out the rest here at The Outlaw Republican!
WaPost Discovers Sderot?
The Israeli city of Sderot (inside the infamous "pre-1967 borders, thank you) has been bombed relentlessly by Hamas since Israel gave them the Gaza Strip. But of course, the world and the media turned a blind eye, perferring to remain fixated on wild claims that Israel is shelling Palestinian picnikers. But lo and behold! What do we find in today's Washington Post? A story sympathetic to the plight of the residents of this beseiged city?
A city of 22,000 on the western edge of the parched Negev region, Sderot is best known as the bull's eye for Palestinian rocket launchers. The Israeli military reports 17 crude rockets, known generically as Qassams, have been fired int
o Sderot so far this month from the nearby Gaza Strip. Many more have landed in the empty fields that surround the city.
Since June 9, Palestinian gunmen have fired more then 120 rockets toward Israel. Made in Gaza machine shops, they range in length from 2 1/2 to 6 1/2 feet. Fired from a tripod, they travel between two and six miles, depending on the size of their engine and warhead.
Some of the missiles failed to reach beyond Gaza's border, while many more landed harmlessly in empty fields. But in this month alone, a house, a religious school and a college campus have been damaged by missile strikes, and an elderly man from Sderot was gravely injured by Qassam shrapnel.
So I am thinking to myself, "Wow! The Washington Post is actually doing the right thing for once and exposing some of the hate and death that Hamas perpetrates upon Isreal on a daily basis!"
But alas, there is a caveat - see, it isn't actually those pesky Jews that the writers here are concerned about; it's the fact that people with black skin live in this city and that the apparent lack of a brutal IDF response may be racial discrimination:
When large numbers of North African Jews immigrated to the young Jewish state in the 1950s, the government placed them in slapdash cities in the hinterlands and, in the eyes of many, forgot about them.
In the last decade, Sderot has filled with immigrants from the former Soviet Union and Ethiopia. While strengthening Israel's Jewish majority, the arrivals have struggled with language, cultural assimilation and a stumbling economy. Unemployment and alcoholism run high here.
OK, I get it - if Israel defends its cities against Palestinian rocket attacks by firing back into Gaza, they are oppressors, but if they fail to defend cities filled with black Jews, they are still oppressors, this time of their own minority population. Just can't win, huh? Note how the WaPost gives prominent space to those who support offensive action:
Eli Moyal, now in his second term as Sderot's mayor, responded by declaring Peres "persona non grata" in the city. He called on Olmert to fire the Nobel peace laureate and former Labor Party prime minister, even though he had already demanded Olmert's resignation a day earlier. Moyal also has declared that Defense Minister Amir Peretz is no longer welcome in Sderot, his home town.
The government has spent millions of dollars in Sderot over the past two years to reinforce public buildings against rocket attack, and this week the Israeli cabinet proposed a new package of educational, cultural and security programs.
"This is losing the war," said Moyal, who said he intended to walk the roughly 40 miles to Jerusalem beginning Sunday to highlight his city's plight. "We should not be protecting ourselves from terrorism but fighting it."
The public works that the WaPost describes above is a liberal's dream in dealing with terrorists attacks, and would have been the preferred response to 9/11, as opposed to actually going to the Middle East and fighting those whom launch the terror attacks. Seems like when immigrant Israelis are being attacked, the rules change. Shouldn't the same defense apply to all? Isn't the WaPost showing a subliminal undercurrent of racism here, by suggesting that native Israelis and Jews from Europe deserve less of a physical defense than North African Jews? Shouldn't the same standard of foreign policy be applied to both?
And finally, one more point of interest from this report:
Most of the rockets now pack very little explosive, like the one that landed on the roof of a hilltop high school yeshiva here and left a hole the size of a beach ball.
Avi Suleimani, 18, was sitting in his classroom praying when he heard the alarm and then a boom. "We thought it had landed far away from us," Suleimani said. "But one of the students opened the door and saw it had landed in the classroom next door." The classroom was empty.
And if the classrom was full?
And if the hole was not blown in an empty (luckily!) Israeli classroom, but a classroom full of private school students in suburban Maryland, do you think the Washington Post would dismiss it so blithely?
Yeah, me neither...
A city of 22,000 on the western edge of the parched Negev region, Sderot is best known as the bull's eye for Palestinian rocket launchers. The Israeli military reports 17 crude rockets, known generically as Qassams, have been fired int
o Sderot so far this month from the nearby Gaza Strip. Many more have landed in the empty fields that surround the city.Since June 9, Palestinian gunmen have fired more then 120 rockets toward Israel. Made in Gaza machine shops, they range in length from 2 1/2 to 6 1/2 feet. Fired from a tripod, they travel between two and six miles, depending on the size of their engine and warhead.
Some of the missiles failed to reach beyond Gaza's border, while many more landed harmlessly in empty fields. But in this month alone, a house, a religious school and a college campus have been damaged by missile strikes, and an elderly man from Sderot was gravely injured by Qassam shrapnel.
So I am thinking to myself, "Wow! The Washington Post is actually doing the right thing for once and exposing some of the hate and death that Hamas perpetrates upon Isreal on a daily basis!"
But alas, there is a caveat - see, it isn't actually those pesky Jews that the writers here are concerned about; it's the fact that people with black skin live in this city and that the apparent lack of a brutal IDF response may be racial discrimination:
When large numbers of North African Jews immigrated to the young Jewish state in the 1950s, the government placed them in slapdash cities in the hinterlands and, in the eyes of many, forgot about them.
In the last decade, Sderot has filled with immigrants from the former Soviet Union and Ethiopia. While strengthening Israel's Jewish majority, the arrivals have struggled with language, cultural assimilation and a stumbling economy. Unemployment and alcoholism run high here.
OK, I get it - if Israel defends its cities against Palestinian rocket attacks by firing back into Gaza, they are oppressors, but if they fail to defend cities filled with black Jews, they are still oppressors, this time of their own minority population. Just can't win, huh? Note how the WaPost gives prominent space to those who support offensive action:
Eli Moyal, now in his second term as Sderot's mayor, responded by declaring Peres "persona non grata" in the city. He called on Olmert to fire the Nobel peace laureate and former Labor Party prime minister, even though he had already demanded Olmert's resignation a day earlier. Moyal also has declared that Defense Minister Amir Peretz is no longer welcome in Sderot, his home town.
The government has spent millions of dollars in Sderot over the past two years to reinforce public buildings against rocket attack, and this week the Israeli cabinet proposed a new package of educational, cultural and security programs.
"This is losing the war," said Moyal, who said he intended to walk the roughly 40 miles to Jerusalem beginning Sunday to highlight his city's plight. "We should not be protecting ourselves from terrorism but fighting it."
The public works that the WaPost describes above is a liberal's dream in dealing with terrorists attacks, and would have been the preferred response to 9/11, as opposed to actually going to the Middle East and fighting those whom launch the terror attacks. Seems like when immigrant Israelis are being attacked, the rules change. Shouldn't the same defense apply to all? Isn't the WaPost showing a subliminal undercurrent of racism here, by suggesting that native Israelis and Jews from Europe deserve less of a physical defense than North African Jews? Shouldn't the same standard of foreign policy be applied to both?
And finally, one more point of interest from this report:
Most of the rockets now pack very little explosive, like the one that landed on the roof of a hilltop high school yeshiva here and left a hole the size of a beach ball.
Avi Suleimani, 18, was sitting in his classroom praying when he heard the alarm and then a boom. "We thought it had landed far away from us," Suleimani said. "But one of the students opened the door and saw it had landed in the classroom next door." The classroom was empty.
And if the classrom was full?
And if the hole was not blown in an empty (luckily!) Israeli classroom, but a classroom full of private school students in suburban Maryland, do you think the Washington Post would dismiss it so blithely?
Yeah, me neither...
Friday, June 23, 2006
Frog-March Bill Keller!
While the lefties masturbate to the thought that Karl Rove may yet one day face a jury for daring to lead the Republicans to victory in successive elections, their spiritual leader, Bill Keller (the executive editor of the New York Times), is hell-bent on leading the terrorists to victory over America. Oh, well - what do they say in the Middle East - "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"? Keller sides with those whose victory would be a death blow to international security, but if it might topple George Bush, hey! Keller's on board!
Here's Andrew McCarthy from NRO:
Yet again, the New York Times was presented with a simple choice: help protect American national security or help al Qaeda.
For the second time in seven months, the Times has exposed classified information about a program aimed at protecting the American people against a repeat of the September 11 attacks.
On this occasion, it has company in the effort: The Los Angeles Times runs a similar, sensational story. Together, the newspapers disclose the fact that the United States has covertly developed a capability to monitor the nerve center of the international financial network in order to track the movement of funds between terrorists and their facilitators. The effort, which the government calls the “Terrorist Finance Tracking Program” (TFTP), is entirely legal. There are no conceivable constitutional violations involved.
What could outweigh the need to protect a valid effort to shield Americans from additional, barbarous attacks? Bill Keller, executive editor of the New York Times, smugly decreed that the Bush administration’s “access to this vast repository of international financial data” was, in his singularly impeccable judgment, “a matter of public interest.” And you probably thought George Bush was the imperious one. And that the public’s principal interest was in remaining alive. Wrong again.
From Michael Ledeen at The Corner:
Keller et al have confirmed yet again that they don’t care about national security, at least in this war (sorry, the current circumstances; they don’t think we’re at war). What they really want is the defeat of George W Bush, and the devil take the consequences. They have forgotten that the terrorists love to behead journalists. But Daniel Pearl, well, it’s such a long time ago, you know...
...These people are not acting like journalists at all. They are acting as a fourth branch of government, co-equal with the others. They arrogate to themselves the power to classify and declassify, to protect or reveal secrets and sources, as they see fit. Which is to say, according to their political ambitions.
Let's define treason for a mnoment, OK?
Treason - violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
Let's look at the opening lines of the Times' article:
Under a secret Bush administration program initiated weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, counterterrorism officials have gained access to financial records from a vast international database and examined banking transactions involving thousands of Americans and others in the United States, according to government and industry officials.
The program is limited, government officials say, to tracing transactions of people suspected of having ties to Al Qaeda .
So the Times admits A) The program was a government secret and B) it is limited to suspected terrorists and their allies. So why betray this secret program that was helping track terrorist funding and alliances? Let's look closer at Keller's comments:
"Bill Keller, the newspaper's executive editor, said: "We have listened closely to the administration's arguments for withholding this information, and given them the most serious and respectful consideration. We remain convinced that the administration's extraordinary access to this vast repository of international financial data, however carefully targeted use of it may be, is a matter of public interest."
Really, Bill? May I suggest a different motive, that of trying again to smear the President and damage the war effort? Look at some of the unfounded phrases tossed about in this article:
While tight controls are in place, the official added, "the potential for abuse is enormous."
...all the programs grew out of the Bush administration's desire to exploit technological tools to prevent another terrorist strike, and all reflect attempts to break down longstanding legal or institutional barriers to the government's access to private information...
"There was always concern about this program," a former official said.
These are opinions or unattributed comments, all used in defense of exposing what even the Times admits was a successful tool for capturing terrorists; a number of examples of which are given within the article. So why expose this wonderful program that has helped keep America safe since 9/11? Let's look at that definition of treason again:
Treason - violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
Bill Keller is guilty of treason.
Let the cry begin: Frog-march Bill Keller out of his palatial New York offices, from whence he distributes classified government information related to the War on Terror, and toss him in the federal lockup! Let a jury of his "peers" decide if he is guilty of the charge of treason; perhaps Bill can convince a Bronx jury that he exposes American secrets in order to somehow better protect them.
But do you know what? I seriously doubt that argument would hold much water with Editor Bill's precious "common man"...
Here's Andrew McCarthy from NRO:
Yet again, the New York Times was presented with a simple choice: help protect American national security or help al Qaeda.
For the second time in seven months, the Times has exposed classified information about a program aimed at protecting the American people against a repeat of the September 11 attacks.
On this occasion, it has company in the effort: The Los Angeles Times runs a similar, sensational story. Together, the newspapers disclose the fact that the United States has covertly developed a capability to monitor the nerve center of the international financial network in order to track the movement of funds between terrorists and their facilitators. The effort, which the government calls the “Terrorist Finance Tracking Program” (TFTP), is entirely legal. There are no conceivable constitutional violations involved.
What could outweigh the need to protect a valid effort to shield Americans from additional, barbarous attacks? Bill Keller, executive editor of the New York Times, smugly decreed that the Bush administration’s “access to this vast repository of international financial data” was, in his singularly impeccable judgment, “a matter of public interest.” And you probably thought George Bush was the imperious one. And that the public’s principal interest was in remaining alive. Wrong again.
From Michael Ledeen at The Corner:
Keller et al have confirmed yet again that they don’t care about national security, at least in this war (sorry, the current circumstances; they don’t think we’re at war). What they really want is the defeat of George W Bush, and the devil take the consequences. They have forgotten that the terrorists love to behead journalists. But Daniel Pearl, well, it’s such a long time ago, you know...
...These people are not acting like journalists at all. They are acting as a fourth branch of government, co-equal with the others. They arrogate to themselves the power to classify and declassify, to protect or reveal secrets and sources, as they see fit. Which is to say, according to their political ambitions.
Let's define treason for a mnoment, OK?
Treason - violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
Let's look at the opening lines of the Times' article:
Under a secret Bush administration program initiated weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, counterterrorism officials have gained access to financial records from a vast international database and examined banking transactions involving thousands of Americans and others in the United States, according to government and industry officials.
The program is limited, government officials say, to tracing transactions of people suspected of having ties to Al Qaeda .
So the Times admits A) The program was a government secret and B) it is limited to suspected terrorists and their allies. So why betray this secret program that was helping track terrorist funding and alliances? Let's look closer at Keller's comments:
"Bill Keller, the newspaper's executive editor, said: "We have listened closely to the administration's arguments for withholding this information, and given them the most serious and respectful consideration. We remain convinced that the administration's extraordinary access to this vast repository of international financial data, however carefully targeted use of it may be, is a matter of public interest."
Really, Bill? May I suggest a different motive, that of trying again to smear the President and damage the war effort? Look at some of the unfounded phrases tossed about in this article:
While tight controls are in place, the official added, "the potential for abuse is enormous."
...all the programs grew out of the Bush administration's desire to exploit technological tools to prevent another terrorist strike, and all reflect attempts to break down longstanding legal or institutional barriers to the government's access to private information...
"There was always concern about this program," a former official said.
These are opinions or unattributed comments, all used in defense of exposing what even the Times admits was a successful tool for capturing terrorists; a number of examples of which are given within the article. So why expose this wonderful program that has helped keep America safe since 9/11? Let's look at that definition of treason again:
Treason - violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
Bill Keller is guilty of treason.
Let the cry begin: Frog-march Bill Keller out of his palatial New York offices, from whence he distributes classified government information related to the War on Terror, and toss him in the federal lockup! Let a jury of his "peers" decide if he is guilty of the charge of treason; perhaps Bill can convince a Bronx jury that he exposes American secrets in order to somehow better protect them.
But do you know what? I seriously doubt that argument would hold much water with Editor Bill's precious "common man"...
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
Monday, June 19, 2006
Joe Lieberman, Torn Asunder By His Own...
Joe Lieberman is one of the few stand-up men of good character in Democratic party; and although I have criticized him in the past primarily for not denouncing some of the rising anti-semitism within his own party, I have a soft spot for the guy in my heart. That's why I feel bad watching the Democrats make this guy a target for their Bush-hatred; they are like animals eating their own. Mark Steyn:
...the most significant portent for the Dems may not be their stupendous flopperoo in the California special election nor the death of Zarqawi nor the non-indictment of Karl Rove -- though, taken together, they render pretty threadbare the Democrat strategy of relying on Republican immigration splits, bad news in Iraq and the GOP's "culture of corruption." No, the revealing development is Joe Lieberman's troubles in Connecticut. Six years ago, he was the party's beaming vice presidential nominee. Two years ago, he was an also-ran for the presidential nomination. This summer, he's an incumbent senator struggling not to lose in his own primary to a candidate who's the darling of the anti-war netroots left. What's the senator done to offend the base? Nothing -- except be broadly supportive of the Iraq campaign and other military goals in the war on terror. He's one of a very few Democrats who give the impression they'd like America to win.
But in today's Democratic Party it's the mainstream that gets marginalized. Forty years ago, George Aiken recommended that in Vietnam America "declare victory and go home." Today, the likes of Jack Murtha, John Kerry and Ted Kennedy have come up with their own ingenious improvement: Declare defeat and go home.
No surprise then seeing the one of the other darlings of the far left, mad scientist Al Gore, stab his former running mate in the back, then twisting the knife:
Interviewed on Bloomberg TV, Al Gore refused to endorse his former vice presidential running mate, Sen. Joe Lieberman (C-CT), in his re-election race. Said Gore: "I am not involved. I typically do not get involved in Democratic primaries. Joe is my close friend, Joe and Hadassah are close to Tipper and me and it would be very difficult for me to ever oppose him. But I don't get involved in primaries typically. He's a great guy and he's right on a lot of other issues."
Of course, Gore did get involved in the 2004 Democratic presidential primaries and backed Howard Dean over Lieberman.
Jonah Goldberg comments on our modern-day Brutus at The Corner:
Al Gore refuses to endorse Joe Lieberman — his former running mate — in Lieberman's re-election fight. I guess Lierberman would have been good enough to run the government if something bad happened to Gore. But he's not obviously the best qualified to be the junior senator from Connecticut, even though he had the same job when Gore tapped him in 2000.
The question is, how far left are the voters in Connecticut? Will the average upper-middle-class suburbanite in Danbury turn out a high profile, hard-working Senator in order to appease the banshee howls of the "netroots"? If Lieberman survives, will the Democratic politicans realize the powerlessness of these internet activists to influence elections (what's Kos now, 0 for 19 with his endorsed candidates?) ? Conversely, if Lieberman is forced out, will the far left take over the party and force its agenda to the radical fringe?
Either way, some sort of implosion seems like it is about to happen at the heart of the Donkey party; and most likely the Republicans (if they can avoid shooting themselves in the foot) will be there to pick up the pieces, and the voters. The media seems to believe that current voter disenchantment with Bush and the right bodes well for the Democrats. Based on this display of interparty treachery, and the anti-American ravings of idiots like John "the Cringing Chicken" Murtha, why do I have the feeling that come 2006, the Democrats will be complaining about another "stolen" election?
Is it too early to start predicting Republican gains come this November?
...the most significant portent for the Dems may not be their stupendous flopperoo in the California special election nor the death of Zarqawi nor the non-indictment of Karl Rove -- though, taken together, they render pretty threadbare the Democrat strategy of relying on Republican immigration splits, bad news in Iraq and the GOP's "culture of corruption." No, the revealing development is Joe Lieberman's troubles in Connecticut. Six years ago, he was the party's beaming vice presidential nominee. Two years ago, he was an also-ran for the presidential nomination. This summer, he's an incumbent senator struggling not to lose in his own primary to a candidate who's the darling of the anti-war netroots left. What's the senator done to offend the base? Nothing -- except be broadly supportive of the Iraq campaign and other military goals in the war on terror. He's one of a very few Democrats who give the impression they'd like America to win.
But in today's Democratic Party it's the mainstream that gets marginalized. Forty years ago, George Aiken recommended that in Vietnam America "declare victory and go home." Today, the likes of Jack Murtha, John Kerry and Ted Kennedy have come up with their own ingenious improvement: Declare defeat and go home.
No surprise then seeing the one of the other darlings of the far left, mad scientist Al Gore, stab his former running mate in the back, then twisting the knife:
Interviewed on Bloomberg TV, Al Gore refused to endorse his former vice presidential running mate, Sen. Joe Lieberman (C-CT), in his re-election race. Said Gore: "I am not involved. I typically do not get involved in Democratic primaries. Joe is my close friend, Joe and Hadassah are close to Tipper and me and it would be very difficult for me to ever oppose him. But I don't get involved in primaries typically. He's a great guy and he's right on a lot of other issues."
Of course, Gore did get involved in the 2004 Democratic presidential primaries and backed Howard Dean over Lieberman.
Jonah Goldberg comments on our modern-day Brutus at The Corner:
Al Gore refuses to endorse Joe Lieberman — his former running mate — in Lieberman's re-election fight. I guess Lierberman would have been good enough to run the government if something bad happened to Gore. But he's not obviously the best qualified to be the junior senator from Connecticut, even though he had the same job when Gore tapped him in 2000.
The question is, how far left are the voters in Connecticut? Will the average upper-middle-class suburbanite in Danbury turn out a high profile, hard-working Senator in order to appease the banshee howls of the "netroots"? If Lieberman survives, will the Democratic politicans realize the powerlessness of these internet activists to influence elections (what's Kos now, 0 for 19 with his endorsed candidates?) ? Conversely, if Lieberman is forced out, will the far left take over the party and force its agenda to the radical fringe?
Either way, some sort of implosion seems like it is about to happen at the heart of the Donkey party; and most likely the Republicans (if they can avoid shooting themselves in the foot) will be there to pick up the pieces, and the voters. The media seems to believe that current voter disenchantment with Bush and the right bodes well for the Democrats. Based on this display of interparty treachery, and the anti-American ravings of idiots like John "the Cringing Chicken" Murtha, why do I have the feeling that come 2006, the Democrats will be complaining about another "stolen" election?
Is it too early to start predicting Republican gains come this November?
Sunday, June 18, 2006
North Korea in Photos
While the world frets over a possible missle test by North Korea, I'll link you to a photo shoot taken by a Russian businessman (one Artemii Lebedev) on a recent trip there (the photos are posted on a US Military website). How bad is the situation inside North Korea? I'll take three out of the many posted above to express a point...
First, let's see how the average North Korean family needs to spend its day to survive, and mantain some dignity:
First, let's see how the average North Korean family needs to spend its day to survive, and mantain some dignity:
Next, what does the capitol city of Pyongyang really look like? A bird's eye view:
No wonder they prefer pictures to be taken at night, where only the tallest building are lit and visible - it hides the hovels that scatter even the showcase city of this evil regime.
It's a genocide of a different type - the hate crime is perpetrated upon the very spirits and souls of the North Koreans by their leaders, who keep them locked in a psychotic hellhole in order to retain power over them. There is no difference between the peoples of the prosperous South and impoverished North except in the philosophy of their leadership. Kim Il Song and his compadres are like demented foster parents who keep their children locked up in closets; stunting and warping them for life for their own ends.
It is a crime, a tragedy, and our shame will be that much greater when, eventually, the gates fall from the DMZ and the horror stories really spill out.
In the meantime, view the pictures!
Accepted into Princeton!
Who'll be teaching classes in "international crisises diplomacy" at Princeton this fall, as well as contributing to the Council on Foreign Relations, a oft-cited(by the MSM, of course) liberal think tank? Why, none other than high school dropout and recently deposed German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer !
The Bush administration didn't much like what Joschka Fischer had to say during the Iraq war. So what will Washington say now that the former German foreign minister is trading his parliament seat for a professor's cap at Princeton? This fall, Fischer will teach the next generation of American elites about international crisis diplomacy at the university.
Fischer will begin his new job as a guest professor at the Ivy League institution....
Well, as long as you hate conservatives, I guess you are eligible to teach at Princeton.
At David Medienkritik, they remind Joschka what the situation might be like had the world followed the guidance of his far-left Green party:
Unfortunately for Mr. Fischer, not everyone has forgotten that his policies would have left Saddam Hussein and his sadistic sons in power for decades to come with little or no hope of democratic change in the region. Not everyone has forgotten that the German government believed that Iraq had WMD and was close to building a nuclear weapon. If anything, Mr. Fischer was Saddam's secret helper, and for that he should be held accountable.
The late Michael Kelly wrote about Fischer back in 2003:
Mr. Fischer, who are you?
You are the foreign minister of Germany. You have been that since 1998, when Germany's left-wing Greens party, of which you are a leader, won enough in the polls to force the Social Democratic Party into the so-called Red-Greens coalition government.
But for the formative years of your political life, you were no man in a blue government suit. You were a man in a black motorcycle helmet. That is what you were wearing on that day in April 1973 when you were photographed, to quote the New Left historian Paul Berman, "as a young bully in a street battle in Frankfurt." {link to Fausta for the photo}
As Berman reported, Mr. Fischer, you rose in public life as an important figure in the anti-American, anti-liberal, neo-Marxist, revolution-minded German radical left of the generation of 1968
In 1969, you attended the meeting of the Palestine Liberation Organization in which the PLO resolved that its ultimate aim was the extinction of Israel -- that is to say, the extinction or expulsion of the Jews of Israel.
This is whom Princeton feels is qualified to be awarded a professorship...the question, of course, is why does this once-prestigious university feel it to be their duty to recruit undistinguished street thugs from abroad to impose anti-American theology and values to the next generation of adults? What kind of vision, exactly, does Princeton have for the future of America?
Hiring Joschka Fischer says a lot about what the minds at Priceton think of their country; and which direction they, and the liberal elite, would like to see it head...
The Bush administration didn't much like what Joschka Fischer had to say during the Iraq war. So what will Washington say now that the former German foreign minister is trading his parliament seat for a professor's cap at Princeton? This fall, Fischer will teach the next generation of American elites about international crisis diplomacy at the university.
Fischer will begin his new job as a guest professor at the Ivy League institution....
Well, as long as you hate conservatives, I guess you are eligible to teach at Princeton.
At David Medienkritik, they remind Joschka what the situation might be like had the world followed the guidance of his far-left Green party:
Unfortunately for Mr. Fischer, not everyone has forgotten that his policies would have left Saddam Hussein and his sadistic sons in power for decades to come with little or no hope of democratic change in the region. Not everyone has forgotten that the German government believed that Iraq had WMD and was close to building a nuclear weapon. If anything, Mr. Fischer was Saddam's secret helper, and for that he should be held accountable.
The late Michael Kelly wrote about Fischer back in 2003:
Mr. Fischer, who are you?
You are the foreign minister of Germany. You have been that since 1998, when Germany's left-wing Greens party, of which you are a leader, won enough in the polls to force the Social Democratic Party into the so-called Red-Greens coalition government.
But for the formative years of your political life, you were no man in a blue government suit. You were a man in a black motorcycle helmet. That is what you were wearing on that day in April 1973 when you were photographed, to quote the New Left historian Paul Berman, "as a young bully in a street battle in Frankfurt." {link to Fausta for the photo}
As Berman reported, Mr. Fischer, you rose in public life as an important figure in the anti-American, anti-liberal, neo-Marxist, revolution-minded German radical left of the generation of 1968
In 1969, you attended the meeting of the Palestine Liberation Organization in which the PLO resolved that its ultimate aim was the extinction of Israel -- that is to say, the extinction or expulsion of the Jews of Israel.
This is whom Princeton feels is qualified to be awarded a professorship...the question, of course, is why does this once-prestigious university feel it to be their duty to recruit undistinguished street thugs from abroad to impose anti-American theology and values to the next generation of adults? What kind of vision, exactly, does Princeton have for the future of America?
Hiring Joschka Fischer says a lot about what the minds at Priceton think of their country; and which direction they, and the liberal elite, would like to see it head...
Friday, June 16, 2006
Washington Post - Leaning Just a Tad Left Today?
Jeez, can't the Washington Post find one editorial writer who disagrees with the paper's anti-Bush, anti-Republican, anti-war stance? Based on today's columns, apparently not:
Stay the Course? What Course? - Eugene Robinson
Fresh from his triumphal visit to Baghdad -- a place so dangerous he had to sneak in without even telling the Iraqi prime minister -- George W. Bush is full of new resolve to stay the course in his open-ended "global war on terror." That leaves the rest of us to wonder, in sadness and frustration, just what that course might be and where on earth it can possibly lead.
Robinson is sick; living in a dark, hateful liberal Disneyland where we "assasinated" al-Zarqawi, Gitmo inmates are heroes and young Americans defending his right to write his bilge are enemies. He is by far the most vile of the bunch.
Michael Kinsey is the most pretentous pouser of the lot, with The Name Is Kafka . . . Franz Kafka:
In a twist fully worthy of Kafka, or at least Joseph Heller ("Catch-22"), the very suspicion that bad things are going on is a reason you can't find out. As a CIA legal document explains: "CIA confirmation of the existence of [evidence] would confirm a CIA interest in or use of specific intelligence methods and activities."
Oooh, Kinsey, you read books! Too bad it didn't make you any smarter; the CIA makes a perfect arguement here, essentially saying that they can neither confirm nor deny certain types of speculation as they may give evidence of the agency's information gathering techniques. It makes perfect sense - but alas, Kinsey, you are not even smart enough to confuse the people you are trying to scam with your bogus arguments. How utterly pathetic.
In A Shift Among the Evangelicals, E.J Dionne continues his poetry of wishful thinking that has become his singular style:
When the Southern Baptist Convention elected the Rev. Frank Page as the group's president at its meeting this week in Greensboro, N.C., the news appeared on the back pages of most secular newspapers -- or it didn't appear at all.
...he also signaled that the spirit he hopes to embody is quite different from that of the angry, right-wing, politicized preacher who has been a stock figure in American life for more than two decades.
The mellowing of evangelical Christianity may well be the big American religious story of this decade...
Hey E.J., if you don't like the stereotypical "angry white preacher", than stop creating and exploiting this stereotype/straw man (note to self: white men are still the only acceptable ethnic group to bash!). And your "big religious story"? Just like the rise of Cindy Sheehan and the fall of the Republicans, your fiction is likely to fail you again. Sorry E.J., but if you were judged on producing accurate results like the rest of us working slobs, the only place you'd get a job is Pravda.
And who's this idiot Dan Froomkin? The War Over the War - here's a sampling of the bile this moonbat spews on the pages of what masquerades as a reputable newspaper:
...Bush yesterday made it clear: Not only is he set in his path -- he's embracing the divisive nature of the war and declaring it the No. 1 campaign issue of the 2006 mid-term elections.
It's somehow appropriate that this was also the week that Bush political guru Karl Rove slipped the clutches of the CIA leak investigation. For it is Rove who is the mastermind of the war over the war...
Got your tinfoil hat on, Dan? 'cause all the people on the WaPost editorial board seem to be wearing on these days; it's all the rage...what a mess, what a disgrace, to be bunking with al-Qaeda ...
Stay the Course? What Course? - Eugene Robinson
Fresh from his triumphal visit to Baghdad -- a place so dangerous he had to sneak in without even telling the Iraqi prime minister -- George W. Bush is full of new resolve to stay the course in his open-ended "global war on terror." That leaves the rest of us to wonder, in sadness and frustration, just what that course might be and where on earth it can possibly lead.
Robinson is sick; living in a dark, hateful liberal Disneyland where we "assasinated" al-Zarqawi, Gitmo inmates are heroes and young Americans defending his right to write his bilge are enemies. He is by far the most vile of the bunch.
Michael Kinsey is the most pretentous pouser of the lot, with The Name Is Kafka . . . Franz Kafka:
In a twist fully worthy of Kafka, or at least Joseph Heller ("Catch-22"), the very suspicion that bad things are going on is a reason you can't find out. As a CIA legal document explains: "CIA confirmation of the existence of [evidence] would confirm a CIA interest in or use of specific intelligence methods and activities."
Oooh, Kinsey, you read books! Too bad it didn't make you any smarter; the CIA makes a perfect arguement here, essentially saying that they can neither confirm nor deny certain types of speculation as they may give evidence of the agency's information gathering techniques. It makes perfect sense - but alas, Kinsey, you are not even smart enough to confuse the people you are trying to scam with your bogus arguments. How utterly pathetic.
In A Shift Among the Evangelicals, E.J Dionne continues his poetry of wishful thinking that has become his singular style:
When the Southern Baptist Convention elected the Rev. Frank Page as the group's president at its meeting this week in Greensboro, N.C., the news appeared on the back pages of most secular newspapers -- or it didn't appear at all.
...he also signaled that the spirit he hopes to embody is quite different from that of the angry, right-wing, politicized preacher who has been a stock figure in American life for more than two decades.
The mellowing of evangelical Christianity may well be the big American religious story of this decade...
Hey E.J., if you don't like the stereotypical "angry white preacher", than stop creating and exploiting this stereotype/straw man (note to self: white men are still the only acceptable ethnic group to bash!). And your "big religious story"? Just like the rise of Cindy Sheehan and the fall of the Republicans, your fiction is likely to fail you again. Sorry E.J., but if you were judged on producing accurate results like the rest of us working slobs, the only place you'd get a job is Pravda.
And who's this idiot Dan Froomkin? The War Over the War - here's a sampling of the bile this moonbat spews on the pages of what masquerades as a reputable newspaper:
...Bush yesterday made it clear: Not only is he set in his path -- he's embracing the divisive nature of the war and declaring it the No. 1 campaign issue of the 2006 mid-term elections.
It's somehow appropriate that this was also the week that Bush political guru Karl Rove slipped the clutches of the CIA leak investigation. For it is Rove who is the mastermind of the war over the war...
Got your tinfoil hat on, Dan? 'cause all the people on the WaPost editorial board seem to be wearing on these days; it's all the rage...what a mess, what a disgrace, to be bunking with al-Qaeda ...
Capitol Justice!
Georgia Representative and Democrat Cynthia McKinney gets off scott-free for an assault on a peace officer which probably would have brought a felony conviction against an average citizen:
A grand jury declined Friday to indict Rep. Cynthia McKinney in connection with a confrontation in which she admitted hitting a police officer who tried to stop her from entering a House office building.
The encounter began when McKinney tried to enter a House office building without walking through a metal detector or wearing the lapel pin that identifies members of Congress.
McKenna did not recognize her as a member of Congress and asked her three times to stop. When she ignored him, he tried to stop her. McKinney then hit him.
McKinney described the encounter as "racial profiling," insisting she had been assaulted and had done nothing wrong.
McKinney is black. McKenna is white.
She received little public support for that stance, even within the Congressional Black Caucus.
If the CBC, now becoming infamous for protecting lawmaking lawbreakers within their own ethnic group, did not support McKinney, you know her arguement must have been weak. Yet, with so many witnesses to the assault, methinks U.S. Attorney Kenneth Wainstein didn't try to hard to make his case here.
Doubt we'd see similar circumstances if you or I had thrown those punches...
A grand jury declined Friday to indict Rep. Cynthia McKinney in connection with a confrontation in which she admitted hitting a police officer who tried to stop her from entering a House office building.
The encounter began when McKinney tried to enter a House office building without walking through a metal detector or wearing the lapel pin that identifies members of Congress.
McKenna did not recognize her as a member of Congress and asked her three times to stop. When she ignored him, he tried to stop her. McKinney then hit him.
McKinney described the encounter as "racial profiling," insisting she had been assaulted and had done nothing wrong.
McKinney is black. McKenna is white.
She received little public support for that stance, even within the Congressional Black Caucus.
If the CBC, now becoming infamous for protecting lawmaking lawbreakers within their own ethnic group, did not support McKinney, you know her arguement must have been weak. Yet, with so many witnesses to the assault, methinks U.S. Attorney Kenneth Wainstein didn't try to hard to make his case here.
Doubt we'd see similar circumstances if you or I had thrown those punches...
Thursday, June 15, 2006
Cut and Runners
The Senate rejected a call for the withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraq by year's end on Thursday as Congress erupted in impassioned, election-year debate over a conflict that now has claimed the lives of 2,500 American troops.
The vote was 93-6 to shelve the proposal, which would have allowed "only forces that are critical to completing the mission of standing up Iraqi security forces" to remain in 2007.
And who were "the six", the six United States Senators who honestly believe that the correct course of action, for the country and for the world, is for American forces to leave Iraq immediately?
John Kerry of Massachusettes
Russ Feingold of Wisconsin
Barbara Boxer of California
Robert Byrd of West Virginia
Tom Harkin of Iowa
Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts
May they be held accountable for their vote.
(Hat Tip: Stop the ACLU)
Update: Via ScrappleFace, of course -
Kennedy: Vote Shows 93 Senators Out Of Mainstream
“The six of us represent the heart’s cry of every red-blooded American,” said Sen. Kennedy. “We hear the voice of the people, and the people say they want immediate, unconditional withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq.”
The vote was 93-6 to shelve the proposal, which would have allowed "only forces that are critical to completing the mission of standing up Iraqi security forces" to remain in 2007.
And who were "the six", the six United States Senators who honestly believe that the correct course of action, for the country and for the world, is for American forces to leave Iraq immediately?
John Kerry of Massachusettes
Russ Feingold of Wisconsin
Barbara Boxer of California
Robert Byrd of West Virginia
Tom Harkin of Iowa
Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts
May they be held accountable for their vote.
(Hat Tip: Stop the ACLU)
Update: Via ScrappleFace, of course -
Kennedy: Vote Shows 93 Senators Out Of Mainstream
“The six of us represent the heart’s cry of every red-blooded American,” said Sen. Kennedy. “We hear the voice of the people, and the people say they want immediate, unconditional withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq.”
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
Misleading Headline of the Day !
U.S.-trained expert says shell was Israeli
A U.S.-trained military expert disputed on Wednesday an Israeli claim that it had nothing to do with an explosion that killed eight Palestinian beachgoers
But Marc Garlasco, a military expert from New York-based Human Rights Watch, inspected the damage, the shrapnel and the wounds and came to a different conclusion....
Garlasco was the first independent expert to examine the scene, though Israel has doubts about his conclusions and about Human Rights Watch. He was in Gaza doing research for the human rights group when the explosion killed eight people on Friday afternoon, seven of them relatives.
....Israeli officials consider the human rights group biased in favor of the Palestinians.....
Israeli army spokesman Capt. Jacob Dallal said Wednesday that the beach area is used by militants, so "this is also a battleground. This area is used for terror groups to launch (rockets) on Israel," noting that a rocket was fired from the area on Wednesday.
Israeli analyst Gerald Steinberg, who heads a watchdog group called NGO Monitor, charged that Garlasco is not a credible expert, and Human Rights Watch officials have "a long and carefully documented history of exploiting human rights claims to promote a clear anti-Israel political and ideological bias."
As we discussed yesterday, seems like besides their "expert's" opinion, Human Rights Watch has no - what's that word again? - evidence to support their position. Israel seems to have done its due dilligence; not that it matters to a media and a world population that cannot wait to evicerate them.
The headline is galling; it tries to refute Israel's protestation of innocence by claiming a U.S. expert declared the ordinance ot be of Israeli origin, when it is simply the claim of the hired hand of a George-Soros funded leftist organization...so let's learn a bit about this AP-declared expert, shall we? From Mother Jones, of all places:
Marc Garlasco is the senior military analyst at Human Rights Watch (HRW), and is HRW’s resident expert on battle damage assessment, military operations, and interrogations. Marc also leads HRW’s work on Abu Ghurayb, civilian military contractors, and non-lethal weapons.
Marc is the co-author of two HRW reports: “Razing Rafah: Mass Home demolitions in the Gaza Strip,” and “Off Target: The Conduct of the War and Civilian Casualties in Iraq.” He led a team of researchers in July 2004 on a one-month mission to Gaza, Israel, and Egypt to investigate home demolitions in Rafah. Before that he led a five-week mission in 2003 throughout Iraq to assess the conduct of the war in Iraq.
Seem like a real non-biased guy, right? But the sad part is, it just doesn't matter - the Palestinians could run off anti-Israel libel on an old mimeograph machine on a daily basis a la Josef Goebbels, and the world would trip over themselves in a rush to believe it, and to see whom could damn the Jews to hell the loudest....
No thanks to this miserable headline from the AP...
A U.S.-trained military expert disputed on Wednesday an Israeli claim that it had nothing to do with an explosion that killed eight Palestinian beachgoers
But Marc Garlasco, a military expert from New York-based Human Rights Watch, inspected the damage, the shrapnel and the wounds and came to a different conclusion....
Garlasco was the first independent expert to examine the scene, though Israel has doubts about his conclusions and about Human Rights Watch. He was in Gaza doing research for the human rights group when the explosion killed eight people on Friday afternoon, seven of them relatives.
....Israeli officials consider the human rights group biased in favor of the Palestinians.....
Israeli army spokesman Capt. Jacob Dallal said Wednesday that the beach area is used by militants, so "this is also a battleground. This area is used for terror groups to launch (rockets) on Israel," noting that a rocket was fired from the area on Wednesday.
Israeli analyst Gerald Steinberg, who heads a watchdog group called NGO Monitor, charged that Garlasco is not a credible expert, and Human Rights Watch officials have "a long and carefully documented history of exploiting human rights claims to promote a clear anti-Israel political and ideological bias."
As we discussed yesterday, seems like besides their "expert's" opinion, Human Rights Watch has no - what's that word again? - evidence to support their position. Israel seems to have done its due dilligence; not that it matters to a media and a world population that cannot wait to evicerate them.
The headline is galling; it tries to refute Israel's protestation of innocence by claiming a U.S. expert declared the ordinance ot be of Israeli origin, when it is simply the claim of the hired hand of a George-Soros funded leftist organization...so let's learn a bit about this AP-declared expert, shall we? From Mother Jones, of all places:
Marc Garlasco is the senior military analyst at Human Rights Watch (HRW), and is HRW’s resident expert on battle damage assessment, military operations, and interrogations. Marc also leads HRW’s work on Abu Ghurayb, civilian military contractors, and non-lethal weapons.
Marc is the co-author of two HRW reports: “Razing Rafah: Mass Home demolitions in the Gaza Strip,” and “Off Target: The Conduct of the War and Civilian Casualties in Iraq.” He led a team of researchers in July 2004 on a one-month mission to Gaza, Israel, and Egypt to investigate home demolitions in Rafah. Before that he led a five-week mission in 2003 throughout Iraq to assess the conduct of the war in Iraq.
Seem like a real non-biased guy, right? But the sad part is, it just doesn't matter - the Palestinians could run off anti-Israel libel on an old mimeograph machine on a daily basis a la Josef Goebbels, and the world would trip over themselves in a rush to believe it, and to see whom could damn the Jews to hell the loudest....
No thanks to this miserable headline from the AP...
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
Irrefutable Evidence?
"There is irrefutable evidence of European complicity in the unlawful practice of renditions," Amnesty said in the letter.
Amnesty's report draws largely the same conclusions as those issued by EU lawmakers on Monday, and last week by the Council of Europe, a European human rights watchdog. None produced hard evidence
"The whole evidence question is overrated, it's a bit cynical," said Dick Oosting, director of Amnesty's EU office
Amazing. It is now OK to draw conclusions while having no facts to support them, because "Evidence is overrrated"? I wonder how Oosting would feel were he charged with some henious crime, sans hard evidence, because to provide it would be "overrated", or "cynical"?
Can I put that quote over Amnesty's doorway, please?
Amnesty's report draws largely the same conclusions as those issued by EU lawmakers on Monday, and last week by the Council of Europe, a European human rights watchdog. None produced hard evidence
"The whole evidence question is overrated, it's a bit cynical," said Dick Oosting, director of Amnesty's EU office
Amazing. It is now OK to draw conclusions while having no facts to support them, because "Evidence is overrrated"? I wonder how Oosting would feel were he charged with some henious crime, sans hard evidence, because to provide it would be "overrated", or "cynical"?
Can I put that quote over Amnesty's doorway, please?
"Evidence is overrated"!
Now the quote I want to put over Kofi Annan's doorway, well, that's not printable in a family blog. Israel, usually the first nation to find fault with itself, declares they did not shell a Gaza beach. The AP, though, begs to differ:
Defense Minister Amir Peretz said Tuesday that Israel was not responsible for a blast that killed eight Gaza beachgoers, rebuffing Palestinian accusations that blamed an Israeli artillery round
An Israeli inquiry concluded the blast was caused by an explosive buried in the sand, not from Israeli shelling on the afternoon of the Palestinian family's beach picnic.
It was not clear how the explosive got there, or whether it might have been an unexploded Israeli shell from an earlier military barrage.
And what evidence do you have to support that bit of speculation? Wishful thinking, or is it simply that again "evidence is overrated"? Wait, here is some "evidence":
Human Rights Watch battle damage assessment expert Marc Garlasco said he examined the shrapnel on the beach, saw the civilians' injuries and concluded the blast was caused by an Israeli shell.
"Our information certainly supports, I believe, an Israeli shell did come in," Garlasco said, ruling out a land mine...
Showing aerial photographs and film, the head of the Israeli inquiry, Maj. Gen. Meir Klifi, declared: "There is no chance that a shell hit this area. Absolutely no chance."
So who do you believe? The congential liars in the Palestinian camps (Jenin! Jenin!), a left-wing "battle assessmen expert," or an Israeli Major-General? Certainly Kofi Annan knows who he believes - via Little Green Footballs:
UN Secretary General Kofi Annan described as “odd” the suggestion by the Israeli investigation.
“To find a mine on the beach is rather odd,” he told reporters at the UN headquarters
Odd? Hey, genius - ever hear of Omaha Beach? It's been done for, oh, sixty-odd years now, and Kofi knows that. He also cannot have the Palestinians lose their victim status, so he simply disposes of an inconvienent truth, just like Amnesty disposes of the need for evidence when they need to maintain a storyline.
The left is living in denial, and the Islamists are gleefully exploiting it. The left will lie, directly to a willing world's face, in order to maintain the shattered illusions of their world view; and the jihadis are more than pleased to provide them with material.
And what does that say about a world anxious to accept these types of hateful claims and lies at face value?
It does not bode well....
Now the quote I want to put over Kofi Annan's doorway, well, that's not printable in a family blog. Israel, usually the first nation to find fault with itself, declares they did not shell a Gaza beach. The AP, though, begs to differ:
Defense Minister Amir Peretz said Tuesday that Israel was not responsible for a blast that killed eight Gaza beachgoers, rebuffing Palestinian accusations that blamed an Israeli artillery round
An Israeli inquiry concluded the blast was caused by an explosive buried in the sand, not from Israeli shelling on the afternoon of the Palestinian family's beach picnic.
It was not clear how the explosive got there, or whether it might have been an unexploded Israeli shell from an earlier military barrage.
And what evidence do you have to support that bit of speculation? Wishful thinking, or is it simply that again "evidence is overrated"? Wait, here is some "evidence":
Human Rights Watch battle damage assessment expert Marc Garlasco said he examined the shrapnel on the beach, saw the civilians' injuries and concluded the blast was caused by an Israeli shell.
"Our information certainly supports, I believe, an Israeli shell did come in," Garlasco said, ruling out a land mine...
Showing aerial photographs and film, the head of the Israeli inquiry, Maj. Gen. Meir Klifi, declared: "There is no chance that a shell hit this area. Absolutely no chance."
So who do you believe? The congential liars in the Palestinian camps (Jenin! Jenin!), a left-wing "battle assessmen expert," or an Israeli Major-General? Certainly Kofi Annan knows who he believes - via Little Green Footballs:
UN Secretary General Kofi Annan described as “odd” the suggestion by the Israeli investigation.
“To find a mine on the beach is rather odd,” he told reporters at the UN headquarters
Odd? Hey, genius - ever hear of Omaha Beach? It's been done for, oh, sixty-odd years now, and Kofi knows that. He also cannot have the Palestinians lose their victim status, so he simply disposes of an inconvienent truth, just like Amnesty disposes of the need for evidence when they need to maintain a storyline.
The left is living in denial, and the Islamists are gleefully exploiting it. The left will lie, directly to a willing world's face, in order to maintain the shattered illusions of their world view; and the jihadis are more than pleased to provide them with material.
And what does that say about a world anxious to accept these types of hateful claims and lies at face value?
It does not bode well....
Monday, June 12, 2006
Israel Under Seige
And how much of it is Israeli Prime Minister Olmert's fault? Apparently enthralled with his newfound prestige, he globe-trots trying to be a good little Jew for EU functionaries, while Israel is shelled without mercy from the animals ruling Gaza. Actually, DEBKA has the best headline:
As Israeli prime minister takes his realignment plan from one European non-buyer to the next, Sderot and its Negev neighbors battered by Hamas missiles are in danger of depopulation
Will Olmert Give up Sderot too?
As it turned out, the first leg of the prime minister’s tour was mostly a waste of time; British prime minister Tony Blair declined to hear of his realignment plan for the West Bank, even though Olmert pledged 90% of the West Bank for a Palestinian state and a major effort to achieve a negotiated agreement with the Palestinians. He also omitted to endorse Olmert’s ringing declaration that Israel will not tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran.
The Israeli leader’s entire trip is dogged by TV footage of a Palestinian child, 7 of whose relatives were killed in an explosion on Gaza beach last Friday. It is taken for granted that Israeli artillery was responsible, even though a military probe points strongly in the direction of a Hamas bomb trap laid on the beach for Israeli commandos.
With its prime minister far away, the small town of Sderot is being battered non-stop by Qassam missiles night and day from the Gaza Strip one kilometer away. One citizen was seriously injured, dozens suffered minor injures, the schools are shut for lack of shelters, and a steady exodus of refugees is depleting the struggling Negev town of 20,000 inhabitants.
The Hamas threat to turn Sderot into a ghost town is coming true...
The more Hamas is allowed to win significant victories like these, the more power it will gain internally; the more similar groups will pop up all over the Middle East. Olmert remains paralized by the video making its rounds in Europe of a 7 year old girl crying for her father, killed by an alleged "Israeli shell" on the Gaza beachfront. Of course, it now appears as if that little girl lost her dad to a mine planted on said beach by Hamas to repel an Israeli "invasion":
The IDF probe investigating the deaths of seven Palestinian civilians, caused by an explosion on a beach in Gaza on Friday evening, concluded that chances were slim that the accident was caused by IDF shelling.
According to Channel 2, the findings, expected to be formally released on Tuesday, showed an inconsistency between the shrapnel found in the body of one of the wounded babies and the metal used in IDF artillery. Moreover, the investigation noted the absence of a large enough crater at the site of the explosion, as would be expected if an IDF shell had landed there.
The leading theory currently entertained, suggested that an explosive charge, buried by Palestinians on the Gaza beach to prevent Israeli infiltration, was behind the explosion.
Throughout the whole investigation, army officials complained about the lack of Palestinian cooperation. Unconfirmed reports further suggested attempts by Palestinians to remove shrapnel from the bodies of the wounded, treated in Israeli hospitals, thus impeding the investigation.
Of course, the European press wants none of this truth-stuff, and sticks to the Palestinian propoganda line even as the story crumbles. Apparently, not only is Olmert unable to defend Israel militarily, he cannot even defend them from the Arabists and hate-media outlets overseas.
All this, while Ariel Sharon, Israel's last great lion, slumbers in a netherworld between life and death. One almost prays for a Hollywood-style plot twist here - Sharon to rise, one more time, to defend Israel and its peoples from the beast that slathers at its door, before falling back to sleep for the last time...
If it has come to this, at hope's end, where the JerseyNut loses all hope in common sense and the truth of one's own eyes, and resorts to praying for a miracle, than perhaps we are looking at the end of the bright light that shines to us from the Holy Land...
As Israeli prime minister takes his realignment plan from one European non-buyer to the next, Sderot and its Negev neighbors battered by Hamas missiles are in danger of depopulation
Will Olmert Give up Sderot too?
As it turned out, the first leg of the prime minister’s tour was mostly a waste of time; British prime minister Tony Blair declined to hear of his realignment plan for the West Bank, even though Olmert pledged 90% of the West Bank for a Palestinian state and a major effort to achieve a negotiated agreement with the Palestinians. He also omitted to endorse Olmert’s ringing declaration that Israel will not tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran.
The Israeli leader’s entire trip is dogged by TV footage of a Palestinian child, 7 of whose relatives were killed in an explosion on Gaza beach last Friday. It is taken for granted that Israeli artillery was responsible, even though a military probe points strongly in the direction of a Hamas bomb trap laid on the beach for Israeli commandos.
With its prime minister far away, the small town of Sderot is being battered non-stop by Qassam missiles night and day from the Gaza Strip one kilometer away. One citizen was seriously injured, dozens suffered minor injures, the schools are shut for lack of shelters, and a steady exodus of refugees is depleting the struggling Negev town of 20,000 inhabitants.
The Hamas threat to turn Sderot into a ghost town is coming true...
The more Hamas is allowed to win significant victories like these, the more power it will gain internally; the more similar groups will pop up all over the Middle East. Olmert remains paralized by the video making its rounds in Europe of a 7 year old girl crying for her father, killed by an alleged "Israeli shell" on the Gaza beachfront. Of course, it now appears as if that little girl lost her dad to a mine planted on said beach by Hamas to repel an Israeli "invasion":
The IDF probe investigating the deaths of seven Palestinian civilians, caused by an explosion on a beach in Gaza on Friday evening, concluded that chances were slim that the accident was caused by IDF shelling.
According to Channel 2, the findings, expected to be formally released on Tuesday, showed an inconsistency between the shrapnel found in the body of one of the wounded babies and the metal used in IDF artillery. Moreover, the investigation noted the absence of a large enough crater at the site of the explosion, as would be expected if an IDF shell had landed there.
The leading theory currently entertained, suggested that an explosive charge, buried by Palestinians on the Gaza beach to prevent Israeli infiltration, was behind the explosion.
Throughout the whole investigation, army officials complained about the lack of Palestinian cooperation. Unconfirmed reports further suggested attempts by Palestinians to remove shrapnel from the bodies of the wounded, treated in Israeli hospitals, thus impeding the investigation.
Of course, the European press wants none of this truth-stuff, and sticks to the Palestinian propoganda line even as the story crumbles. Apparently, not only is Olmert unable to defend Israel militarily, he cannot even defend them from the Arabists and hate-media outlets overseas.
All this, while Ariel Sharon, Israel's last great lion, slumbers in a netherworld between life and death. One almost prays for a Hollywood-style plot twist here - Sharon to rise, one more time, to defend Israel and its peoples from the beast that slathers at its door, before falling back to sleep for the last time...
If it has come to this, at hope's end, where the JerseyNut loses all hope in common sense and the truth of one's own eyes, and resorts to praying for a miracle, than perhaps we are looking at the end of the bright light that shines to us from the Holy Land...
Sunday, June 11, 2006
"Voters"? Why Not "Citizens"?
Robert Kaiser, the associate editor of the Washington Post, tells us why is was so important to expose the American government's alleged tactic of "overseas renditions":
...Downie [Leonard, executive editor of the WaPost] rejected the suggestion that he kill the story altogether. "It raised important issues for American voters about how their country was treating prisoners, and it raised significant civil liberties issues," he said. Journalists are inclined to publish what we learn -- that's our job.
But did it really raise any important issues, boys? Note the lack of hue and cry by the American "voters" {also note the choice of words - "voters", not "citizens"? That's because the editors of the Post want to influence voters, not inform citizens...} over the renditions; they understood the logic of this type of manuevering during this type of warfare. The only ones who raised any "issues" were the usual suspects - diehard Bush critics in Congress, liberal media outlets, and bureucrats in the EU nations named in the rendition reports.
But it certainly did curtail the alleged practice of rendition, and maybe that's a result of the WaPost reporting based on what apparently it believed (and few others outside their immediate mindset) was a "significant civil liberties issue".
Well, the truth always comes out, and now matter how bipartisan Kaiser tries to lead us to believe his thought process is, he finally loses it at the end:
Intimidation by classification already seems to be a hallmark of this administration, which has created classified secrets at an unprecedented pace -- 14 million in fiscal 2005, compared with 8 million in 2001, according to the National Archives. The Bush administration has encouraged the use of more than 60 new categories ("sensitive but unclassified," for example) to control the distribution of millions more facts and documents.
Steven Aftergood, who works on classification issues for the Federation of American Scientists, calls the administration's approach to secrets "a cultivation of fear as a policy driver." He adds: "We are being told that nothing is more important than the external threat that confronts us, and nothing is more valuable than security in the face of that threat." Aftergood calls this "craven, and an insult to the millions of Americans who have given their lives to defend this country."
Personal bile, supported by the rantings of some unknown Beltway "scientist", is what drives the Washington Post to reveal every government secret it feels may harm the presidency, and the governing party's policies. The rest of this piece is simply a cover.
'ol Kaiser just had to lift up his skirt...!
...Downie [Leonard, executive editor of the WaPost] rejected the suggestion that he kill the story altogether. "It raised important issues for American voters about how their country was treating prisoners, and it raised significant civil liberties issues," he said. Journalists are inclined to publish what we learn -- that's our job.
But did it really raise any important issues, boys? Note the lack of hue and cry by the American "voters" {also note the choice of words - "voters", not "citizens"? That's because the editors of the Post want to influence voters, not inform citizens...} over the renditions; they understood the logic of this type of manuevering during this type of warfare. The only ones who raised any "issues" were the usual suspects - diehard Bush critics in Congress, liberal media outlets, and bureucrats in the EU nations named in the rendition reports.
But it certainly did curtail the alleged practice of rendition, and maybe that's a result of the WaPost reporting based on what apparently it believed (and few others outside their immediate mindset) was a "significant civil liberties issue".
Well, the truth always comes out, and now matter how bipartisan Kaiser tries to lead us to believe his thought process is, he finally loses it at the end:
Intimidation by classification already seems to be a hallmark of this administration, which has created classified secrets at an unprecedented pace -- 14 million in fiscal 2005, compared with 8 million in 2001, according to the National Archives. The Bush administration has encouraged the use of more than 60 new categories ("sensitive but unclassified," for example) to control the distribution of millions more facts and documents.
Steven Aftergood, who works on classification issues for the Federation of American Scientists, calls the administration's approach to secrets "a cultivation of fear as a policy driver." He adds: "We are being told that nothing is more important than the external threat that confronts us, and nothing is more valuable than security in the face of that threat." Aftergood calls this "craven, and an insult to the millions of Americans who have given their lives to defend this country."
Personal bile, supported by the rantings of some unknown Beltway "scientist", is what drives the Washington Post to reveal every government secret it feels may harm the presidency, and the governing party's policies. The rest of this piece is simply a cover.
'ol Kaiser just had to lift up his skirt...!
Saturday, June 10, 2006
Jenin, Jenin, everywhere!
Jihadis worldwide know that the Western liberal media just loves scandals in which they can eat their own. So they are providing them, and like lemmings, the press rushes to report every tainted account they can dredge up, the more horrifically anti-Western the better. They never learned the lesson of the mythical "Massacre of Jenin", most likely because they so dearly wanted it to be true (see Dan Rather/falsified Bush documents!).
So we have Haditha, where U.S. Marines are dragged into Leavenworth based upon charges by some of the most vile anti-Americans left alive in Iraq, with very little proof and virtually no physical evidence (no one in Haditha will allow a body to be exhumed to check if they really were executed at gunpoint, oddly enough - those Muslim customs, you know...). The media salivates at the chance to bash American servicemen/women and throw accusations that the "coverup" went, you know, "all they way up the ladder".
And now we have the "incident on the beach" in Gaza, where the media is running gleefully with the claims that the Israelis knowingly shelled a beach full of civilians. Now, Hamas has declared the "truce" is off, and it is all Israel's fault, don't you know! Except, of course, like Jenin, this story is beginning to fall apart as well. From Atlas:
...Israel is investigating. But Mark Regev, the Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman who said that Israel believes such shelling of civilians to be unacceptable also told the BBC that naval or air shelling have been ruled out. Other possibilities are explored. In the meantime Hamas vows to end the unilateral cease fire with Israel.
The BBC also features an eyewitness by a jounalist named Sami Yousef who just happened to be on the beach during the shelling. He ends his account thus:
I've heard people in the last few hours calling for revenge. If an attack happens inside Israel it will make them a little bit happy. It might also make them reject the referendum planned by [Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud] Abbas. Do I smell a Hamas member exploiting an opportunity (with BBC acquiescence) or is it something more sinister?
Sounds like something more sinister; like Jenin, all of a sudden the Palestinians refuse to co-operate with the investigation:
IDF sources say Palestinians have not disclosed information regarding exact location, time of explosion that killed seven civilians on north Gaza beach; ‘this makes it very difficult to form clear picture of what happened,’
IDF sources said Saturday that the Palestinians are not cooperating in the investigation of the Gaza beach incident....
And what do we have here? Perhaps this was nothing more than one of those infamous Palestinian "work accidents":
As the IDF continued its investigation into the cause of the explosion that killed seven Palestinians on a Gaza beach on Friday, with the initial assumption being that an errant artillery shell was to blame, Defense Minister Amir Peretz said Saturday night that it was possible the blast was an "internal Palestinian incident." IDF officers said that an "internal Palestinian incident" referred to the possibility that terrorists had fired a Kassam rocket which went off target and hit the crowded Gaza beach between Sudaniya and Beit Lahiya
Amazing - we may compare the finger pointing to Jenin, but this event (with Hamas' subsequent declaration of war) seems little different from Poland's "attack" on a German military outpost that "started" WWII. Yet this time, the West offers nary a peep in response. Will the media correct its rush-to judgement reporting, or will they just let it sit there, in order not to upset their pre-determined storyline?
Alas, you know the truth as well as I - but how many Marines may suffer, how many Jews may be slaughtered, how much more blood must be shed, to appease the media's rapacious hunger to devour their peoples?
Jenin, Jenin, everywhere....
So we have Haditha, where U.S. Marines are dragged into Leavenworth based upon charges by some of the most vile anti-Americans left alive in Iraq, with very little proof and virtually no physical evidence (no one in Haditha will allow a body to be exhumed to check if they really were executed at gunpoint, oddly enough - those Muslim customs, you know...). The media salivates at the chance to bash American servicemen/women and throw accusations that the "coverup" went, you know, "all they way up the ladder".
And now we have the "incident on the beach" in Gaza, where the media is running gleefully with the claims that the Israelis knowingly shelled a beach full of civilians. Now, Hamas has declared the "truce" is off, and it is all Israel's fault, don't you know! Except, of course, like Jenin, this story is beginning to fall apart as well. From Atlas:
...Israel is investigating. But Mark Regev, the Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman who said that Israel believes such shelling of civilians to be unacceptable also told the BBC that naval or air shelling have been ruled out. Other possibilities are explored. In the meantime Hamas vows to end the unilateral cease fire with Israel.
The BBC also features an eyewitness by a jounalist named Sami Yousef who just happened to be on the beach during the shelling. He ends his account thus:
I've heard people in the last few hours calling for revenge. If an attack happens inside Israel it will make them a little bit happy. It might also make them reject the referendum planned by [Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud] Abbas. Do I smell a Hamas member exploiting an opportunity (with BBC acquiescence) or is it something more sinister?
Sounds like something more sinister; like Jenin, all of a sudden the Palestinians refuse to co-operate with the investigation:
IDF sources say Palestinians have not disclosed information regarding exact location, time of explosion that killed seven civilians on north Gaza beach; ‘this makes it very difficult to form clear picture of what happened,’
IDF sources said Saturday that the Palestinians are not cooperating in the investigation of the Gaza beach incident....
And what do we have here? Perhaps this was nothing more than one of those infamous Palestinian "work accidents":
As the IDF continued its investigation into the cause of the explosion that killed seven Palestinians on a Gaza beach on Friday, with the initial assumption being that an errant artillery shell was to blame, Defense Minister Amir Peretz said Saturday night that it was possible the blast was an "internal Palestinian incident." IDF officers said that an "internal Palestinian incident" referred to the possibility that terrorists had fired a Kassam rocket which went off target and hit the crowded Gaza beach between Sudaniya and Beit Lahiya
Amazing - we may compare the finger pointing to Jenin, but this event (with Hamas' subsequent declaration of war) seems little different from Poland's "attack" on a German military outpost that "started" WWII. Yet this time, the West offers nary a peep in response. Will the media correct its rush-to judgement reporting, or will they just let it sit there, in order not to upset their pre-determined storyline?
Alas, you know the truth as well as I - but how many Marines may suffer, how many Jews may be slaughtered, how much more blood must be shed, to appease the media's rapacious hunger to devour their peoples?
Jenin, Jenin, everywhere....