| |
The Lunch Counter
|
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
|
|
It was the special prosecutor's objective to find out who 'leaked' Wilson's wife's name to Novak, who broke the  story. Well, after 3 years, we now know who the target of the prosecutor's investigation was. The number two in the Colin Powell State Department, Richard Armitage. What is disturbing is that Fitzgerald knew this in the first two months of his investigation, and Armitage wasn't charged then or now.
If the special prosecutor was investigating a supposedly treasonous act, then why did Armitage get a pass? Maybe because Valerie Plame, because of what her job was for the last few years, was not protected under the law that Fitzgerald was charged to apply? Maybe, but Fitzgerald hasn't said one way or the other. But look at what we do know.
-
We know that Fitzgerald kept the investigation in the news for years after he knew the person he was, ostensibly, after.
-
His investigation took us to the White House and just stayed there. Rove is going down. Cheney is in on it too. We heard years of this from the MSM and the Democrat party leaders. -
We know of three people who knew but remained mute about who the 'leaker' was. All the while watching the administration get tarred and feathered (worse for Scooter Libby) to the extent that public opinion reacted to it, negatively. But I digress, the three were Richard Armitage (the perp), Colin Powell, and the special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald.
According to public opinion polls on Bush and the Bush administration, the MSM deserves an Oscar for the fraud they help commit on the people of this country in this case. After three years of almost daily front-page pounding this story line, the NYT buries the Armitage news in the Washington section of the paper, reducing the whole episode to 'a tantalizing mystery.'
No one is suggesting that there was anything conspiratorial between the Powell State Department and the special prosecutor. Taken on their own, the actions of both were despicable, and in the case of Fitzgerald, maybe criminal. It isn't illegal to be disloyal for political payback. It just shows the character of the person. Criminal for Patrick Fitzgerald. Criminal in the sense that this investigation should have ended when he found out who the perp was. To take it to a grand jury if he thought there was a case, or end it. The fact that Fitzgerald did neither, and instead produced political arrows aimed at the administration for three years. This raises the question of prosecutorial abuse and professional and ethical misconduct. It's Fitzgerald who needs to answer to a grand jury.
Opinion Journal:Time to put the Plame conspiracy to its final rest.
[T]he person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson.
JOE WILSON: THE END OF AN ERROR
Remember when senators Harry Reid of Nevada, who is the minority leader, John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware and Carl Levin of Michigan, demanded security clearances be yanked from the leakers? That's when they wanted it to be Karl Rove. Now that we know who it was, I wonder if they still feel that way?
11:20:17 PM 
|
|
|
|
Monday, August 28, 2006
|
|
There's no grandstanding like French grandstanding.
Former British defense Michael Portillo has an excellent column on the French "grandstanding" once again on display in Lebanon. Portillo first applied that term -- by which he means the habit of making impressive statements with no means to put them into effect -- to the French when he dealt with them during peace-keeping efforts in Bosnia. As Portillo puts it
The French believe that what they say is at least as important as what they do. They spin grandiloquent phrases and strike postures. Rhetoric is away of life and if you point out it is divorced from all strategic reality that is thought to be nitpicking.
This time around France used the "uncelar rules of engagement" as its excuse for not supplying promised troops for the U.N. operation in Lebanon. But, as Portillo notes:
If any country could have settled such important details in advance it is France. It took the kudos for working up the UN resolution. It acted as spokesman for the Arab world within the permanent five members of the council. It insisted that the resolution should not be made under chapter 7 of the UN charter, which would have given the troops the right to impose their will by force.
Moreover, although Chirac now claims that he has reaceived assurances that enabled him to increase French numbers, Portillo says that the rules of the mission are still unspecified. The real reason for enhanced French participation, says Portillo, is that the Italians had offered to lead the deployment and the Americans had mischievously welcomed that "bizarre" idea. France "could not bear the mortification of operating under the command of its southern neighbour — least of all in Lebanon, a country so strongly tied to the French by history and culture."
But why did Chirac make such a fool of himself and his country? According to Portillo, the answer is simpe -- "France’s reluctance to tackle Hezbollah."
And that does not bode well for this mission. It's already clear that neither the U.N. force nor the Lebanese army will (a) attempt to disarm Hezbollah or (b) block arms shipments to Hezbollah from Syria. If Portillo is correct, and I suspect he is, the U.N. force is also likely to turn a blind eye to Hezbollah's rearmament.
Looking at the bigger picture, Portillo's conclusion is even more damning:
Now that British and American forces are bogged down in Iraq, this should be the moment for the French cock to crow. But what exactly has the distinctive French alternative produced for the world or France? The softer European approach to Iran over its nuclear programme was decisively rebuffed, and Europe has had to join America in calling for sanctions. When France was invited to provide leadership over Lebanon, it vacillated. Its offer of 2,000 soldiers remains underwhelming. Chirac’s pro-Arab policies have not even bought off Muslim discontent at home, as the urban riots showed.
On the other hand, French foreign policy rhetoric remains unsurpassed.
Via Real Clear Politics
[Power Line]
1:55:06 AM
|
|
As far as I'm concerned, if the path doesn't lead to a clear win on one side, and a clear loss for the other side, for however long it takes, and not a minute more, then it is most certainly 'cut-and-run.' You don't leave until you're finished. As a matter of fact, just over 60 days ago the Senate voted 87-13 to NOT pull out of Iraq on any kind of timetable. So it's not all Democrats who believe in cut-and-run, just the most vocal ones, the ones in leadership positions, not Joe Democrat in Podunk.
Dave says '[t]he Republican tactic of labeling Democrats as being for "Cut and Run" is disgusting, it's dishonest. . ,
I applaud exposing all, not just Republicans with CutAndRunNow.com, who may have A.D.D., or are too old to remember (or weren't paying attention in the first place) that war was declared on us over a decade ago. And that we didn't properly respond to it until the fall of 2001.
Nothing dishonest about going after terrorists and their sponsors, which is what we set out to do, and what we're doing now. If you don't want to finish the job, you might be seen as cut-and-run. That is not a Republican tactic, it is an observation as to the consequences of foreign policy and domestic security in Democrat hands.
Dave says 'I couldn't help myself, I had to buy CutAndRunNow.com. I'm going to put a Republican campaign site there, listing all the Republican quotes that come along that even hint of cutting and running. I expect an overflowing site. [Scripting News]
OK, we both seem to agree that cut-and-run policies do exist. That's progress. At least we're not calling it being patriotic any more.
1:51:20 AM
|
|
|
|
Saturday, August 26, 2006
|
|
In most cases, no news is good news. But when it comes to the MSM and the Bush administration, it means something else. It means sticking to the agenda, sticking to the story line.
Hurricane Katrina has replaced the minute-to-minute coverage of Bush's lowest approval rating ever, because his ratings have been going up for weeks now.
Hurricane Katrina and absurd racial accusations have replaced the minute-to-minute IED explosion in Baghdad, because that sort of violence has decreased by 41% since troop level has increased. But you'd never know it if you depend on CBS, ABS, NBS, MSNBS, and CNNBS for your news coverage.
6:34:44 PM
|
|
|
|
Friday, August 25, 2006
|
|
Thanks to GOP Bloggers for sharing. Take the poll. There's even a place for liberals / progressives to vote.
3:56:48 PM
|
|
|
|
Thursday, August 24, 2006
|
|
Pardon me boys, is that the Chattanooga Choo Choo? Chattanooga’s oldest radio station, WDOD, has ended its 11-month experiment with progressive talk radio. There is something about the business model for 'progressive radio,' otherwise known as Air America Radio, that needs refining.
But that is their problem. So far they've been dependent on rich white guys to keep it, and the myth that they are so popular, afloat. That's OK, keep pumping your personal fortune down that black hole. Maybe some day they will realize why they can't attract adequate advertiser support from Americans. Don't you just love how a 'free' market economy boils things down to what really matters?
'Investors' like Hugo Chavez or George Soros might be helpful. It would be progressive radio's last chance before crying about fairness. Fairness, the prequel to the Bill of Rights that only liberals can see.
Neal Boortz w/totebag
more from BoreAmerica
8:32:00 AM
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
|
|
Joe Rosenthal: Important American Photographer Remembered.
By Debbie Schlussel
In these times of fauxtography by newswire stringers and free-lancers, it's important to remember a great American photographer who photographed the real thing.
Joe Rosenthal died Sunday at age 94. He never created poses with men in green helmets and fake dead bodies (a la pro-Hezbollah Reuters contractors in Lebanon). But this photographer with integrity and American pride took what is probably the greatest, most symbolic picture in modern American history: The raising of the flag by six U.S. servicemen at Iwo Jima, on February 23, 1945.
In the days when the Pulitzer Prize was not about America-hating, Rosenthal won the coveted award for his famous photo that depicted true American grit and sacrifice.
 
Raising the Flag at Iwo Jima: Joe Rosenthal's Historic Photo
The son of Russian Jewish immigrants, Rosenthal was ironically rejected for U.S. military service because of poor eyesight, according to The New York Times. An AP profile of Rosenthal notes that the shot he took was of the second raising of the flag on Mount Suribachi, that day. The first flag was too small. The photo he ended up with is credited for inspiring the famous Thomas E. Franklin shot of firefighter raising an American flag above the 9/11 ruins.
Of his historic photo, Rosenthal once said:
What I see behind the photo is what it took to get up to those heights--the kind of devotion to their country that those young men had, and the sacrifices they made. I take some gratification in being a little part of what the U.S. stands for.
Actually, taking that photo was no "little" thing. It was the shot that, today, is still the emblem of the American spirit.
He also wrote:
To get that flag up there, America's fighting men had to die on that island and on other islands and off the shores and in the air. What difference does it make who took the picture? I took it, but the Marines took Iwo Jima.
Unfortunately, as we noted last year, Clint Eastwood is setting out to destroy the legend of Joe Rosenthal's photo and the men in it, by depicting the Battle at Iwo Jima--America's bloodiest battle with 6,800 U.S. soldiers killed--in two anti-American films. One will show Iwo Jima from the Japanese point of view. The other will show the alleged horrible life and treatment of the six American soldiers who raised the flag.
We're sad Joe Rosenthal passed away, and that there are no photographers like him, today. But we're happy he won't be around to see Dirty Harry's dual attempts to savage the memory of his famous photo.
The old adage about a picture being worth a thousand words definitely applies to the lasting work of Joe Rosenthal. He may have died, but his pictures live on.
Read the whole AP profile of Joe Rosenthal. More on Rosenthal here. [Debbie Schlussel]
12:11:15 AM
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
|
|
Iran's reply is, let's talk. It wasn't, OK, we'll stop refining uranium. Meanwhile, the talk & delay game that Saddam pulled off for years in the United Nations, is now engaged in Iran. Like Hezbollah, Iran is in building and re-arming mode, which is apparently the U.N.'s preferred method of negotiations. Especially when the offending party, Iran, calls the UN Security Council's so-called deadline of August 31, 2006 for Iran to stop enriching uranium as 'illegal' and 'worthless.' Starting from there, Iran can drag this out for years as long as they are calling the shots.
I don't know, maybe someone should check on Brian Ross, 'Chief Investigative Correspondent' at ABC. Iran's response turned out to be the usual talk & delay game of negotiations. And not the 'day of reckoning' he envisioned for the West.
12:08:11 PM
|
|
Our Covert Enemies.
Michael Barone has long been known as a moderate, nuts-and-bolts observer of the political scene. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that only over the last few years, as Michael has observed the impotence--at best--of the Democratic Party in the face of existential threats to our civilization, has he come out as a conservative. In today's column he lays it on the line:
In our war against Islamo-fascist terrorism, we face enemies both overt and covert. The overt enemies are, of course, the terrorists themselves. ***
Our covert enemies are harder to identify, for they live in large numbers within our midst. And in terms of intentions, they are not enemies in the sense that they consciously wish to destroy our society. On the contrary, they enjoy our freedoms and often call for their expansion. But they have also been working, over many years, to undermine faith in our society and confidence in its goodness. These covert enemies are those among our elites who have promoted the ideas labeled as multiculturalism, moral relativism and (the term is Professor Samuel Huntington's) transnationalism.
[T]he default assumption of our covert enemies is that in any conflict between the West and the Rest, the West is wrong. That assumption can be rebutted by overwhelming fact: Few argued for the Taliban after Sept. 11. But in our continuing struggles, our covert enemies portray our work in Iraq through the lens of Abu Ghraib and consider Israel's self-defense against Hezbollah as the oppression of virtuous victims by evil men. In World War II, our elites understood that we were the forces of good and that victory was essential. Today, many of our elites subject our military and intelligence actions to fine-tooth-comb analysis and find that they are morally repugnant.
We have always had our covert enemies, but their numbers were few until the 1960s. *** They have propagated their ideas through the universities, the schools and mainstream media to the point that they are the default assumptions of millions. Our covert enemies don't want the Islamo-fascists to win. But in some corner of their hearts, they would like us to lose.
That is a very measured critique of a segment of our society that wields great power and wishes its own country great ill. I would only add that these liberals want us to lose, not just in some small corner, but with their whole hearts; in fact, our defeat is the only thing they whole-heartedly work for. [Power Line]
8:26:59 AM
|
|
|
|
Monday, August 21, 2006
|
|
Did you know Hugo Chavez is Citgo in the United States?
According to the Washington Times, the U.S. subsidies - a result of what the Times called "an obscure 20-year-old oil pricing formula - are part a supply contract between Venezuela's state-owned Petroleos de Venezuela (PDVSA) and its wholly owned U.S. subsidiary, Citgo Petroleum Corp., which forces Citgo to buy PDVSA's crude for at least $5 a barrel over market prices."
and. . .
Because Citgo is no longer a publicly traded stock, it no longer files reports with the SEC.
I just found another use for my Citgo gas card.
  
Hugo Chavez Gets U.S. Handouts [NewsMax.com]
1:24:05 AM
|
|
Is that it Joe? Is the Bush administration your target, or are you actually going to run on a platform that doesn't simply attack, remove, or impeach someone from the other political party?
It's politics talking again. And Joe is proving to be no exception when he used to be an exception. But that was before he became part of the Gore ticket in 2000, when he morphed into something entirely different. The senator had been supportive of what was going on in Iraq, under the Bush-Rumsfeld team. Now it sounds an awful lot like 'I was for him before I was against him.' And this is after his 4 trips to Iraq where he said terrific progress is being made. It's a dumb move that will get him nowhere. The rabid left, where the campaign cash is, isn't interested in him, forever. They want him kicked out of the party and his name removed from the ballot.
 Compared to Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, neither Joe Lieberman, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and John Edwards combined would have the wherewithal to come close to fighting this war as well as he has done, when taking into account the uniqueness of this war, where there is no standing army, but plain-clothed suicidal soldiers, Islamofascists, all over the world. Quite the contrary, the consensus of that bunch is retreat and surrender in any number of other ways they care to describe it.
Lieberman calls on Rumsfeld to resign (AP).
AP - Sen. Joe Lieberman, attacked by fellow Democrats as being too close to the White House on the Iraq War, on Sunday called on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to resign but said the United States cannot "walk away" from the Iraqis.[Yahoo! News: Politics News]
12:58:12 AM
|
|
|
|
Sunday, August 20, 2006
|
|
Highlighting just how ineffective and impotent Kofi Annan and his United Nations are, he pulls out all the diplomatic stops to get Iran to agree to halt it's uranium enrichment program. The U.N. ignores its own resolutions when they don't work, 1559, so it comes down to 'pretty please with a cherry on top.' Says Kofi: "I appeal to the government of Iran to seize this historic opportunity ... Iran's reply, I trust will be positive."
Tehran is expected to officially reply to Annan on Tuesday, August 22nd. There's that date again.
U.N.'s Kofi Annan Appeals to Iran [NewsMax.com]
Iran's reply is, let's talk. It wasn't, OK, we'll stop refining uranium. Meanwhile, the talk & delay game that Saddam pulled off for years in the United Nations, is now engaged in Iran. Like Hezbollah, Iran is in building and re-arming mode, which is apparently the U.N. preferred method of negotiations.
6:58:32 PM
|
|
|
|
Friday, August 18, 2006
|
|
New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin still making excuses for his performance. Before a convention of Black journalists, he says it's because he, and 60% of New Orleans, is Black.
"And I, to this day, believe that if that would have happened in Orange County, California, if that would have happened in South Beach, Miami, it would have been a different response," Nagin said.
I agree with that assessment. The difference is the leaders there would have used their buses, and the people would have handled it better. The un-preparedness of the good mayor has nothing to do with his skin color, it's his attitude, compounded by incompetence.
"We're not going to let that happen. They're going to give us our money, and we're going to rebuild this city."
Nagin blames delays on racism, red tape (AP).
AP - New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin on Friday blamed racism and government bureaucracy for hamstringing his city's ability to weather Hurricane Katrina and recover from the disaster that struck the Gulf Coast nearly a year ago.
But oh how quickly we forget what the Mayor said at his re-election speech May 20, 2006, just three months ago .
"President Bush. I want to thank you, Mr. President. You and I have probably been the most vilified politicians in the country. But I want to thank you for moving that promise that you made in Jackson Square forward. We now have $3 billion for levees. We have $8 billion for incentives. We have $10 billion for housing. You are delivering on your promise, and I want to thank you for all the citizens of the City of New Orleans."
[Yahoo! News: Politics News]
11:40:55 PM
|
|
More from the 'open tent' party. After shunning Sen. Joe Lieberman because of his position on the war on terror, the heavyweights at the DNC are threatening more who don't tow the line. But first on the agenda is to change their primary rules "with the aim of expanding the presence of minorities, gays, lesbians, bisexuals, trans-gender people and people with disabilities in the party." This is the first indication I've noticed where the DNC is looking to expand minorities in real political positions. Are they feeling a need to catch up to the GOP, where minorities stand on their ability?
A noble mission for any political party, but in the case of the DNC today, I think that retaining minorities might be more accurate. Could they be noticing that the party has moved left of the base of their constituents? The more success they have in nominating gays, lesbians, bisexuals, trans-gender or some other type of sexual mutant, the faster they're going to leave their base behind, for Joe Lieberman. They continue to make the smallest percentage of our population the most important, ignoring the other 90 percent. True, they are champions of and for the homeless. Everyone should have a shopping cart and a refrigerator box, because they care.
 The message to potential democrat candidates is this, if you don't go along with the rule change, then you won't get any delegates. Says rules committee member from South Carolina, Carol Khare Fowler, "If you campaign in a state that is outside the rules, then you're not entitled to delegates from that state."
Democrats may punish candidates (AP). [Yahoo! News: Politics News]
Catering to constituency groups rouses friction among Democrats.
5:05:41 PM
|
|
|
|
Thursday, August 17, 2006
|
|
Satellite Blackout in Tehran.
Blog of the Week Vital Perspective notes that the government of Iran is going from building to building in Tehran, smashing satellite dishes. This can only be construed as an effort to cut Iranians off, as much as possible, from news originating in the outside world. Which strikes me as ominous, especially with August 22 only five days away.
[Power Line]
5:18:32 PM
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
|
|
|
|
Sunday, August 13, 2006
|
|
If there ever was a case for not letting your guard down, this is one. Last week there was a report that two Muslims were arrested in Dearborn, Michigan, thanks to an alert salesperson at a cell phone counter. Today there are more similar cases. One in Caro, Michigan, and another in Taylor County, West Virginia. Be honest with yourself on this one point, these Muslims are not interested in going into the cell phone business. They are making money by reselling them to persons who will use the chips in the phones to make detonators for bombs, like the kind that went off in Madrid and London. Still waiting to hear the local Muslim community speak up against such terrorist plotting and planning, not to mention all the other attempts and successes that the terrorists have had to date.
Like it or not, if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. And I'm not just talking about Muslims the world over. Politicians who fight the administration on prosecuting this war are in there too. That's not a partisan statement either. Democrats will get their chance to be irresponsible if and when they get elected as a majority party and to the White House. Call me crazy, but I believe that when fighting a war, everybody should be behind the President, no matter how disappointed you may feel for losing two Presidential elections, and every tool in the anti-terrorist toolbox that can be used should be used.
10:29:02 AM
|
|
|
|
Saturday, August 12, 2006
|
|
|
|
Friday, August 11, 2006
|
|
Just a wild guess, but maybe if they got out in front of this issue by constantly denouncing any and all the terrorists attacks, instead of being mute, things might different. If profiling bothers you, get used to it. Expect it. If the terrorists matched a profile of a fat old white guy, I'd expect to be scrutinized more too. The silence coming from Mosques in our neighborhoods can too easily be misunderstood.
Poll: Muslims Face Bias in United States [NewsMax.com]
2:15:06 AM
|
|
It seems both the New York Times and Dave Winer of Scripting News have not listened to Dick Cheney lately, like in the past year or so. He wasn't alone in the opinion that too many people are still in a pre-9/11 mindset, and that wasn't the first time he has made exactly the same point. That phenomena is pretty much common knowledge among conservatives and has been for years. The fact that Cheney said it again a couple days ago, while true, stands on its own without the NYT attaching some connection to that and the London Plot. But when you either aren't paying attention or just don't know what you're talking about, I can see how one can be so surprised as would a 'punch in the gut.'
Says the New York Times:
'It comes like a punch to the gut, at times like these, when our leaders blatantly use the nation’s trauma for political gain.'
There was nothing blatant about it. And if truth causes political gain, it's far better than lying to get political gain. But there's still no connection of the 9/11 comment to the London Plot. It's only political gain because of their belief system. If they could see the light and be on the same page in this war with Bush, then they too would be on the right side. Wouldn't that make them feel great?
One can hardly believe that the New York Times is physically in New York City when they think terrorists are just terrorists because they're really angry. The WTC attack wasn't anger, it was war. The New York Times are among those who still don't get it. These Islamofascists only want us dead, they don't care how angry they might appear. In the second paragraph, emphasis added, the New York Times boils the war-on-terror down to frustration. Over what? Frustration born of being stuck on stupid in the twelfth century maybe:
There is nothing Americans want more than to win the war on terror, to come to a place where people no longer feel it is a fine thing to forfeit their own lives and the lives of innocents in order to make the world notice their anger and frustration.
And Dave asks:
Also note yesterday's news was completely managed by the US and British governments. How much faith do you have in their honesty? Why?
Do I have faith in our government? Compared to what, the New York Times? ROFL Seems reasonable to me that the media would have felt 'managed' yesterday. They had no advance leak to trump them on. In that respect, yesterday was also a defeat for the New York Times. Besides, who else beside the principles would know what the hell is going on? There are no press 'embeds' in the secret services. Nor should there be.
Faith in government just doesn't compute. We are the government. We elect people we know to take care of the paperwork (the government) for us. And I'm not predisposed to accept the notion that our government is inherently dishonest. Likewise, I don't expect them to share their secrets or open 'war strategy' to public debate. Both ridiculous expectations.
2:00:19 AM
|
|
|
|
Thursday, August 10, 2006
|
|
Today, British intelligence caught and arrested 21 (so far) Muslim Islamofascist terrorists found to be plotting to blow up US airliners in mid-air from London to major cities in the United States. It's a good thing. But it isn't over by a long shot. As in this report and this one from the Telegraph.co.uk, and the news reporting I've heard on the radio so far today, there is not one mention of the word Muslim, or Islamic, Islamofascist. Let it be known of the coincidence that all 21 of those caught so far were Muslim Islamic Islamofascists. 21 out of 21, with ties to Afghanistan early reports show. The MSM may be in denial, forced upon them by their self-imposed so-called 'political correctness,' but you don't have to be. Know the enemy for who and what it is.
When Karl Rove said just two days ago that the whole Ned Lamont/Lieberman episode was a gift, he was right. But I don't think he knew how soon he would be proven right. The Democrats have refused to believe that there is a global war-on-terror for years, insisting on fighting it from a law enforcement perspective, with the addition of giving them rights guaranteed to US citizens under our Constitution and laws.
Using this event, let's extrapolate their theory on security in the United States. First of all, we shouldn't be eavesdropping on calls to or from terrorists or suspected terrorists, same with their financial records and such. OK, so you can kiss preempting an attack goodbye. Next, after the 8 or 10 airliners blew up, killing thousands of Americans, President Gore, or President Hillary, or President Kerry, would immediately send out the FBI to get them. Oh but, the 'them' just blew themselves up. Oh well, hold a news conference to condemn the attacks and project the appearance of being strong, firm, and resolute in getting the perpetrators. After that, it's so who's on American Idol tonight? After that, and with the help of the New York Times and CIA leakers held over from the Clinton administration, the Muslim Islamic extremists begin planning their next attack.
Let's take a poll, who's plan would you feel safer with, the Bush plan, or the Democrat's plan?
10:18:38 AM
|
|
Eh! What's so unusual about carrying 600 cell phones and $10,000 in cash? Nothing if you're an Islamic terrorist. Debbie Schlussel has the details on this from Dearborn, Michigan. And kudos for the sales clerk who was properly suspicious enough to call police, that led to the arrest of two terrorists with enough chips for hundreds of bomb detonators. Also in their possession was a map of all Wal-Mart locations where those prepaid TracPhones are sold.
But remember, there is no war-on-terror going on. Just ask the Democrat Party leadership.
12:28:07 AM
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, August 08, 2006
|
|
Some Other Faked Reuters Photos of Note.
By Debbie Schlussel
Now that Reuters photog Adnan Hajj has been outed and fired for fabricating and altering photos of alleged war scenes in Lebanon (outed by Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs, the The Dissident Frogman, and others--thanks to Michelle Malkin for the round-up), we thought you'd want to see some other interesting photos that Hajj took.
The photos--courtesy of one of our favorite sites, Sultan Knish--are very interesting, indeed. Our favorite is this one, below. I mean, Israel is really not fighting fair when it uses the Starship Enterprise to attack Hezbollah and the innocent Klingons of Lebanon. That's gotta be a violation of the Geneva Conventions against torture by intergalactic mechanisms.
And there are more pics of the unconventional weapons that Israel is using--Al Gore, Riverdance, etc. All thanks to the "photography" of Adnan Hajj. Beam me up, Scotty. And beam on over to Sultan Knish to see the rest of the "pics" suitable for Al-Reuters. It's a great laugh. [Debbie Schlussel]
11:28:39 PM | |
[
[
