Brutality beyond words…..In Iraq

Liberals, This is why we cannot fail in Iraq.

CNN.com:

“There are the bloodstains on the wall, and here it is dried on the floor,” Abu Muhanad said as he walked through a torture chamber in a Baghdad mosque where more than two dozen bodies have been found.

“And here, a woman’s shoes. She was a victim of the militia. We found her corpse in the grave.”

Chunks of hair waft lazily across the floor in the hot Baghdad breeze.

“This was the torture room,” said Muhanad, the leader of a U.S.-backed armed group that now controls the mosque.

You see my friends. We simply look at Iraq as a Bush political failure. The Iraqi’s see it as thier reality. If we fail these people, we will pay dearly for a very long time.

Memo to McCain: You cannot tell the Media how to cover you!

This comes via Politico:

Sen. John McCain‘s (R-Ariz.) campaign manager Rick Davis asked Sunday for a meeting with Steve Capus, the president of NBC News, to protest what the campaign called signs that the network is “abandoning non-partisan coverage of the presidential race.”

Davis made the request Sunday in a letter that is part of an aggressive effort by McCain to counter news coverage he considers critical.

In this case, the campaign is objecting to a statement by NBC’s Andrea Mitchell on “Meet the Press” questioning whether McCain might have gotten a heads-up on some of the questions that were asked of Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), who was the first candidate to be interviewed Saturday night by Pastor Rick Warren at a presidential forum on faith.

Warren told the audience that McCain was being held in “a cone of silence” so he wouldn’t hear the questions, which were similar for both candidates.

Warren referred again to “the cone of silence” when McCain came onstage, and the senator joked: “I was trying to hear through the wall.”

Mitchell reported that some “Obama people” were suggesting “that McCain may not have been in the cone of silence and may have had some ability to overhear what the questions were to Obama. He seemed so well prepared.”

A McCain aide said that is not the case: “Senator McCain was in a motorcade led by the United States Secret Service and held in a green room with no broadcast feed.”

Mitchell made the comment in the context of saying McCain did better, and that the Obama camp was defensive. In response to the campaign’s letter, she pointed out that journalists get criticism from both sides.

“I wasn’t expressing an opinion,” Mitchell said. “I was reporting what they were saying.”

The Letter in Question:

August 17, 2008
Mr. Steve Capus

President, NBC News
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY 10112

Steve:

We are extremely disappointed to see that the level of objectivity at NBC News has fallen so low that reporters are now giving voice to unsubstantiated, partisan claims in order to undercut John McCain.

Nowhere was this more evident than with NBC chief correspondent Andrea Mitchell’s comments on “Meet the Press” this morning. In analyzing last night’s presidential forum at Saddleback Church, Mitchell expressed the Obama campaign spin that John McCain could only have done so well last night because he “may not have been in the cone of silence and may have had some ability to overhear what the questions were to Obama.” Here are Andrea Mitchell’s comments in full:


Mitchell: “The Obama people must feel that he didn’t do quite as well as they might have wanted to in that context, because what they are putting out privately is that McCain may not have been in the cone of silence and may have had some ability to overhear what the questions were to Obama. He seemed so well-prepared.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 8/17/08)

Make no mistake: This is a serious charge. Andrea Mitchell is repeating, uncritically, a completely unsubstantiated Obama campaign claim that John McCain somehow cheated in last night’s forum at Saddleback Church. Instead of trying to substantiate this blatant falsehood in any way, Andrea Mitchell felt that she needed to repeat it on air to millions of “Meet the Press” viewers with no indication that 1.) There’s not one shred of evidence that it’s true; 2.) In his official correspondence to both campaigns, Pastor Rick Warren provided both candidates with information regarding the topic areas to be covered, which Barack Obama acknowledged during the forum when asked about Pastor Warren’s idea of an emergency plan for orphans and Obama said, “I cheated a little bit. I actually looked at this idea ahead of time, and I think it is a great idea;” 3.) John McCain actually requested that he and Barack Obama do the forum together on stage at the same time, making these kinds of after-the-fact complaints moot.

Indeed, instead of taking a critical journalistic approach to this spin, Andrea Mitchell did what has become a pattern for her of simply repeating Obama campaign talking points.

This is irresponsible journalism and sadly, indicative of the level of objectivity we have witnessed at NBC News this election cycle. Instead of examining the Obama campaign’s spin for truth before reporting it to more than 3 million NBC News viewers, Andrea Mitchell simply passed along Obama campaign conspiracy theories. The fact is that during Senator Obama’s segment at Saddleback last night, Senator McCain was in a motorcade to the event and then held in a green room with no broadcast feed. In the forum, John McCain clearly demonstrated to the American people that he is prepared to be our next President…..

We are concerned that your News Division is following MSNBC’s lead in abandoning non-partisan coverage of the Presidential race. We would like to request a meeting with you as soon as possible to discuss our deep concerns about the news standards and level of objectivity at NBC.

Sincerely,

Rick Davis
Campaign Manager
John McCain 2008

This is, of course, absolute nonsense, considering Andrea Mitchell is the wife of Allen Greenspan, the former head of the Federal Reserve and both a Republicans.

Keith Olbermann shares his thoughts about this and serveral other idiotic actions of McCain:

Transcript: (Via MSNBC)

Four times in just two days, Sen. McCain’s campaign managers have, simply, hung him out to dry.

First, trying to scapegoat the media, in the exact way that has spelled doom for other presidential candidates already watching from the sidelines.

Second, doing so with a petulant statement so full of holes that it virtually confirms that which was reported, and which set off this pointless temper tantrum in the first place.

Third, sending the candidate out to speak before the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention, even as the millstones of a series of disastrous, anti-veteran votes, still figuratively dangled from around his neck.

And fourth, encouraging Sen. McCain, while there, to address his opponent in the language of unseemly contempt, undignified calumny, and holier-than-thou persiflage unsupported by reality, near-nonsensical bluster that at best makes the speaker look like a dyspeptic grouchy neighbor shouting “Hey you kids, get out of my yard.”

“Though victory in Iraq is finally in sight,” you told the VFW today, Sen. McCain, “a great deal still depends on the decisions and good judgment of the next president. The hard-won gains of our troops hang in the balance. The lasting advantage of a peaceful and democratic ally in the heart of the Middle East could still be squandered by hasty withdrawal and arbitrary timelines. And this is one of many problems in the shifting positions of my opponent, Sen. Obama.”

The shifting positions of Sen. Obama?

Sen. McCain, on the 22nd o
f May, 2003, you said, of Iraq, on the Senate floor, “We won a massive victory in a few weeks, and we did so with very limited loss of American and allied lives. We were able to end aggression with minimum overall loss of life, and we were even able to greatly reduce the civilian casualties of Afghani and Iraqi citizens.”

Senator, you declared victory in Iraq, five years and nearly three months ago.

Today you say, “victory in Iraq is finally in sight?”

The victory you already proclaimed five years ago?

Are we going back in time Sir?

If that had not been enough, in June of 2003, with even Fox News noting “many argue the conflict (in Iraq) isn’t over,” you answered, “Well, then why was there a banner that said ‘Mission Accomplished’ on the aircraft carrier? Look, I have said a long time that reconstruction of Iraq would be a long, long, difficult process, but the conflict, the major conflict is over, the regime change has been accomplished, and it’s very appropriate.”

In 2003, your war was won, because somebody was putting up a banner.

In 2008, your war might finally be won, because you are putting up a campaign based on the mirage that Iraq is winnable.

And yet it is Obama shifting positions on Iraq?

Even if this country were to forget, Senator, the victory lap you and President Bush took five years ago just on their face, your remarks today at the VFW, Senator, are nonsensical.

“Senator Obama commits the greater error of insisting that even in hindsight, he would oppose the surge. Even in retrospect, he would choose the path of retreat and failure for America over the path of success and victory.”

This construction, Senator, is extremely simple.

If your surge worked, the troops would be home from Iraq. Or most of them, would be. Or all of them who were surged, would be. Or at least we’d have the same number of troops in Iraq now, as we did then. Or maybe one or two guys would be out of harm’s way.

Please, Sen. McCain, stop! This is embarrassing. Whether on his own impetus or an advisor’s, the Senator also foolishly invoked his opponent in that speech today.

Previous political careers have foundered on the rocks of the VFW Convention: The Republican majority in Congress and the Senate, the very viability of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, began to unravel at this convention two years ago—that was the venue for the first of Rumsfeld’s two references to Bush critics as Nazi Appeasers.

Prudence and judgment, demanded that Sen. McCain tred lightly. Instead he told the convention, “I suppose from my opponent’s vantage point, veterans concerns are just one more issue to be spun or worked to advantage.”

This would explain why he has also taken liberties with my position on the GI Bill.

“As a political proposition, it would have much easier for me to have just signed on to what I considered flawed legislation. But the people of Arizona, and of all America, expect more from their representatives than that, and instead I sought a better bill. I’m proud to say that the result is a law that better serves our military, better serves military families, and better serves the interests of our country.”

Sen. McCain spoke out against that very bill last May on the asinine premise that the rewards to our heroes were so good that it didn’t encourage them to stay in the service. Or perhaps force them. More over, Sen. McCain missed 10 of the 14 Senate votes on Iraq up to the middle of last year. This year, he has missed them all including one to honor the sacrifice of the fallen.

He has voted to table or oppose:
# $20 million for veteran’s health care facilities
# $322 million for safety equipment for our troops in Iraq
# $430 million for veterans outpatient care
# $1 billion in new equipment for the National Guard

And, in separate votes:
# $1,500,000,000 in additional Veterans’ medical care, to be created by closing tax loopholes
# $1,800,000,000 in additional Veterans’ medical care, to be created by closing tax loopholes

And yet, Sir, you have the audacity to stand in front of the very Veterans you repeatedly and consistently sell out, and claim it is your opponent who has put politics first, and country second.

“Behind all of these claims and positions by Sen. Obama lies the ambition to be president,” you said, with a straight face, today. “What’s less apparent is the judgment to be commander-in-chief. And in matters of national security, good judgment will be at a premium in the term of the next president as we were all reminded ten days ago by events in the nation of Georgia.”

Senator, three points:
# Your increasingly extremist and reactionary language towards Sen. Obama really the method by which you want to try to achieve the Presidency or perhaps split the country if you succeed?
# Criticizing a man for having quote “the ambition to be president?” Seriously? You do realize you are currently running for president, as well, right? That either you also have “ambition to be president” or, what?, somebody’s blackmailing you into it?
# You might want to ask somebody, somebody other than say, your Foreign Policy Advisor, Randy Scheunemann whether or not you are making a jackass out of yourself every time you bring up the conflict between Georgia and Russia.

The Georgians have paid Mr. Scheunemann and his companies 800-thousand dollars over the last several years to lobby for them. It’s pretty clear the Georgians have bought Mr. Scheunemann. And, Sen. McCain, it sure as hell looks like the Georgians thought they had bought you.

When you had the tastelessness to paraphrase the rallying cry of 9/11 and say that we are now all Georgians, that nation’s President called you out. He said that your words were very nice, but he needed action not a verbal receipt from a lobbyist and his pet Senator!

Going back to the beginning of this sad 48 hours of paranoia from the McCain Campaign.

We have manager Rick Davis’s unfortunate letter to NBC News, about Andrea Mitchell’s reporting on the possibility that Sen. McCain violated the so-called “Cone of Silence” for the Rick Warren Presidential Forum over the weekend.

The coverage of this detail, and that forum in general, is, to start with, overwrought. But Mr. Davis has elevated them to the ridiculous.

As Nate Silver at the website 538.com noted, Andrea’s reporting, reporting of what the Obama camp claimed, included two essential observations:
# “McCain may not have been in the cone of silence” and that he
# “May have had some ability to overhear what the questions were to Obama.”

Rick Davis writes to NBC: “The fact is that during Senator Obama’s segment at Saddleback last night, Senator McCain was in a motorcade to the event and then held in a green room with no broadcast feed.”

As Silver astutely notes, for roughly the first half of Obama’s participation, his own campaign manager places McCain in a car where he could have been made aware of the questions to Sen. Obama. “In a motor vehicle,” Silver writes, “one may use the radio, a cell phone, a Blackberry, Bluetooth Wireless, a Sling box, and perhaps a satellite TV feed. Whether McCain actually used any of those devices, we have no idea. But he absolutely had the ability to use them, which is all that Mitchell had reported. Silver also tripped over Mr. Davis’s strange observation that for roughly the second half of Obama’s participation, his own campaign places McCain “in a green room with no broadcast feed.” Not a green room without cell service or internet, nor without a closed-circuit feed, nor, for that matter, without a guy running back from the audience with notes, written in crayon.

Rick Davis’s argument is, in short, illegitimate.

It is an attempt to pick a fight with the media, over the journalistic equivalent of chewing gum in class.

“This is irresponsible journalism and sadly, indicative of the level of objectivity we have witnessed at NBC News this election cycle,” he writes.

“We are concerned that your News Division is following MSNBC’s lead in abandoning non-partisan coverage of the Presidential race. We would like to request a meeting with you as soon as possible to discuss our deep concerns about the news standards and level of objectivity at NBC.”

What Davis is really saying here, of course, is that he wants no level of objectivity, that the only campaign he wants questioned is Obama, and that “partisan coverage” consists of questioning whether McCain or his campaign support the stage whispers branding Obama as somehow ‘foreign,’ or whether McCain is to be inoculated from all criticism by dint of his military service.

Sen. McCain, did you pay any attention to the Democratic primaries?

Did you notice the hair-pulling frenzy of some of Sen. Clinton’s supporters who could not face the possibility that her loss might have been her fault or theirs and thus it must be ours?

Do you remember the apoplexy of a washed up Republican operative named Ed Gillespie, writing a furious letter to NBC on behalf of President Bush?

Mr. Bush’s support has since dropped.

And Sen. Clinton’s supporters have now relocated to such a degree that her “eighteen million voices” first re-counted themselves as “two million” and were then unable to get even 250 people to show up at a meeting.

The public sees through this nonsense, Senator, they see through it quickly.

NBC and MSNBC do not have the power to seriously impact an election.

If we did, Sen. Pat Buchanan would already be serving with you.

Besides which, Senator, who in your camp thought it was a good idea to take a shot at NBC and MSNBC during the Olympics on NBC and MSNBC?!?

During the Olympics, Sen. McCain, on which you have already run millions of dollars’ worth of McCain Campaign commercials on NBC and MSNBC!?!

Senator, let me wrap this up. You and your campaign need a serious and immediate attitude adjustment. Despite what you may think, Sen. McCain, this is not a coronation. Despite how you have acted, Sen. McCain, you have no automatic excuse to politicize anything you want.

Despite how you have whined, Sen. McCain, you have no entitlement to only sycophantic, deceptive, air-brushed coverage in the media. And despite how you have strutted, Sen. McCain, you have no God-given right to the Presidency.

Let’s have an adult campaign here, in other words and I am embarrassed to have to say this to a man who turns 72 at the end of this month Senator, grow up!

Once again, I very much agree with Olbermann. John McCain had better clean up that campaign, otherwise, he might just find himself beaten by a very marxist Liberal.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Justice for 9/11 victims or an overreaching justice system? You Decide

I have mixed feelings on this.

The Story Bin Laden’s Former Driver Found Guilty in Split Decision (Via NYTimes.com)

A panel of six military officers convicted a former driver for Osama bin Laden of a war crime Wednesday, completing the first military commission trial here and the first conducted by the United States since the end of World War II.

But the commission acquitted the former driver, Salim Ahmed Hamdan, of a conspiracy charge, arguably the more serious of two charges he faced. His conviction came on a separate but lesser charge of providing material support for terrorism.

Mr. Hamdan, who has said he is about 40, faces a possible life term. The sentence is to be set in a separate proceeding before the same panel that is to begin this afternoon. As the verdict was read, Mr. Hamdan, who has been in custody since he was detained in Afghanistan in November of 2001, stood passively at the defense table in a white headscarf, his head bent slightly down.

The conviction of Mr. Hamdan, a Yemeni who was part of a select group of drivers and bodyguards for Mr. bin Laden until 2001, was a long-sought, if somewhat qualified, victory for the Bush administration, which has been working to begin military commission trials at the isolated naval base here for nearly seven years.

At first thought, One would think “Great! One of the terrorists was convicted.” However upon closer inspection, one sees the following:

Mr. Hamdan was convicted by a panel of six senior military officers who, according to an order of the military judge, could not be publicly identified. The panel deliberated for eight hours over three days. As permitted under the law Congress passed for trials here in 2006, the trial included secret evidence and testimony in a closed courtroom.

Critics have long claimed that the military commission system here does not meet American standards of fundamental justice, in part because the Military Commissions Law allows hearsay evidence and evidence derived through coercive interrogation methods. The public is not allowed in the courtroom, and legal documents are often never released.

After closing arguments Monday, Charles D. Swift, a former Navy lawyer who has represented Mr. Hamdan for years, said the two-week proceeding here had been a trial that did not follow the American rule of law and that the defense believed American courts would eventually correct the legal errors here. Mr. Swift called the military commission “a made-up tribunal to try anybody we don’t like.”

My question is not if this man deserved to be tried or not, it is HOW he was tried. This whole argument of “He is not a United States citizen, he does not have the right that citizens of the United States possess”, does not wash with me. I am sorry, but we treated Japanese prisoners better than we treat these people.

I just wonder, how long it will be, before our own Government will start treating its own citizens like barbaric animals? If we allow this sort of unconstitutional nonsense to continue, it could be sooner than you think. Could you imagine the horror of being subjected to this sort of a trial? All for insulting a Islamic person or their supposed “Holy Koran”?

Or if someone like me, a protestant, for insulting a roman catholic? It could happen, and believe me, the Roman Catholic Church would be most pleased, after all, they did torture my Baptist forefathers.

I simply give you my opinion. You decide what to do with it.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Justice for 9/11 victims or an overreaching justice system? You Decide

I have mixed feelings on this.

The Story Bin Laden’s Former Driver Found Guilty in Split Decision (Via NYTimes.com)

A panel of six military officers convicted a former driver for Osama bin Laden of a war crime Wednesday, completing the first military commission trial here and the first conducted by the United States since the end of World War II.

But the commission acquitted the former driver, Salim Ahmed Hamdan, of a conspiracy charge, arguably the more serious of two charges he faced. His conviction came on a separate but lesser charge of providing material support for terrorism.

Mr. Hamdan, who has said he is about 40, faces a possible life term. The sentence is to be set in a separate proceeding before the same panel that is to begin this afternoon. As the verdict was read, Mr. Hamdan, who has been in custody since he was detained in Afghanistan in November of 2001, stood passively at the defense table in a white headscarf, his head bent slightly down.

The conviction of Mr. Hamdan, a Yemeni who was part of a select group of drivers and bodyguards for Mr. bin Laden until 2001, was a long-sought, if somewhat qualified, victory for the Bush administration, which has been working to begin military commission trials at the isolated naval base here for nearly seven years.

At first thought, One would think “Great! One of the terrorists was convicted.” However upon closer inspection, one sees the following:

Mr. Hamdan was convicted by a panel of six senior military officers who, according to an order of the military judge, could not be publicly identified. The panel deliberated for eight hours over three days. As permitted under the law Congress passed for trials here in 2006, the trial included secret evidence and testimony in a closed courtroom.

Critics have long claimed that the military commission system here does not meet American standards of fundamental justice, in part because the Military Commissions Law allows hearsay evidence and evidence derived through coercive interrogation methods. The public is not allowed in the courtroom, and legal documents are often never released.

After closing arguments Monday, Charles D. Swift, a former Navy lawyer who has represented Mr. Hamdan for years, said the two-week proceeding here had been a trial that did not follow the American rule of law and that the defense believed American courts would eventually correct the legal errors here. Mr. Swift called the military commission “a made-up tribunal to try anybody we don’t like.”

My question is not if this man deserved to be tried or not, it is HOW he was tried. This whole argument of “He is not a United States citizen, he does not have the right that citizens of the United States possess”, does not wash with me. I am sorry, but we treated Japanese prisoners better than we treat these people.

I just wonder, how long it will be, before our own Government will start treating its own citizens like barbaric animals? If we allow this sort of unconstitutional nonsense to continue, it could be sooner than you think. Could you imagine the horror of being subjected to this sort of a trial? All for insulting a Islamic person or their supposed “Holy Koran”?

Or if someone like me, a protestant, for insulting a roman catholic? It could happen, and believe me, the Roman Catholic Church would be most pleased, after all, they did torture my Baptist forefathers.

I simply give you my opinion. You decide what to do with it.

Editorial: Honestly, When does the political truce start?

I have asked the question aloud many times here in the last few weeks. However, I have never really felt the need to write about this question at all. That is, until now.

America is a nation divided, Liberals hate Conservatives, Conservatives Hate Liberals, Moderates think they are both crazy, and Libertarians hate everybody. I mean, how much more can this Nation stand of this sort of a thing? It is about as bad as the McCarthy era, only worse. At least back on those days, there was a bit of civility amongst the people. Nowadays? Ha! We are fortunate that the readers of “The Nation” and “The National Review” do not have access to the Nations Missile defense system; otherwise, I truly believe that this Nation would be blown to kingdom come.

Keith Olbermann; A man that I respect highly, not only as a writer, but as a political commentator, made a comment on his show a while back, which was possibly one of the most brilliant things to ever come out of that liberal talking bobble head’s mouth, since I have been watching his show. It was, in fact, a short quaint statement; something that I would never expect to hear out of his gullet anyhow.

“A truce would be nice”

I do not believe that Keith realized what he had said. Possibly he did. Perhaps Keith is feeling what many people, I think, are feeling as well. When is the civility in Politics ever going to come back? When are Conservatives and Liberals going to be able to be around one another, without wanting to shout epitaphs at one another? When are things going return back to normal here in America?

I ask this because a few things have happened here in the last few days. For one, a writer, of whom I have a great deal of respect for, decided that the political discourse in America had just gotten to be a bit much and he stopped writing. Second, I happened to notice that a copyright law blogger, just decided that the whole idea of writing had just become too depressing and that he was stopping.

My question is this; has the political atmosphere in America gotten so poisonous that it has seeped into the general consciousness of society to the point where political writers and even non-political writers are just to the point where they are ready to just throw their hands up and give up? Has this President caused this? Has this war caused this? It absolutely boggles the mind.

I write this; not with a solution or an answer, but a question, what will it take? When will the return to normalcy begin? Will it be after the President has left office? Will it be after the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have finally ended? Will there ever be a day in this country; on this planet, that Conservatives and Liberals, Republicans and Democrats, and yes; even Libertarians will be actually able to exist in the same Country and be able to understand one another, but not necessarily agree? Is this normalcy even possible anymore? Did it ever exist at anytime in the past?

Martin Luther King Jr., his politics aside, made a profound choice of words once. Those words spoke of “of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into veins of people normally humane.” I believe that the President of the United States of America, in his misguided mission to bring Democracy to the Middle East, has injected the people of the United States of America with a drug of hate. A hatred of a War; A hatred of a war that no one wanted to be involved with, a hatred of war that was unwanted, unneeded, and very unjustified. A war that was sold to the Nation like a book sold to a blind man, only the pages in this book, were blank.

This hate is not visible; it is not much readily seen. However, there are times when it comes to this surface and rears its ugly head. Just this past week, John McCain’s campaign produced a political ad, attacking Barack Obama. In this ad flashed the images of two well-known white starlets and then an image Barack Obama. Yes, the underlying message was that Obama was in the same league as these women. However, on the sub-conscience level there was a comparison to be made, between White and Black. Barack Obama instead of taking that “Higher Plane” that Dr King spoke of, he allowed himself to be dragged into the hate game. He goes off and makes a comment like “I don’t look like those guys on the Dollar Bills.” Some people would say that Obama played the race card, which is a misconception, what Obama did was play John McCain’s hand sub-consciously. This all comes from that drug of hate, of which Dr. King spoke about.

What is the antidote for this drug of hate? That is a very complex answer. What we need is a truce, a truce that says, I do not agree with those who are of another political persuasion, but I wish them no ill will. Because whether we want to admit it or not, regardless of whether we are Conservatives or Liberals, Democrats or Republicans, we are all still Americans. This is our country and the quicker we all talk ourselves down from the ledges, remove ourselves from the battle stations, and try carry on a civil discourse, rather than the poison of the past. We will never be the nation we were, before September 11, Before the War in Iraq, before President Bush took office. Before everything went berserk in America.

That truce is looking very good right now.

Al Qaeda's #2, Ayman al-Zawahiri Dead?

This would be sweet…

Via The Jawa Report:

Stratfor reports that the United States is attempting to verify rumors coming out of Pakistan that al Qaeda’s #2, Ayman al-Zawahiri, was killed in a July 28 Predator airstrike.

Intelligence sources told The Jawa Report last week that ‘the hunt was on’ in Pakistan for a ‘big fish’. Could this be the big fish they were talking about?

The major — and I mean major — caveat here is that Zawahiri has been rumored to have been killed on a number of previous occasions.

US Forces are said to be going to make an announcement soon about the rumors.

The stupid chorus of “Can we go home now?” from the commie left to start in 5…4…3…2..1

Others: protein wisdom, ThreatsWatch, JammieWearingFool and The Strata-Sphere

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Interesting: Did Iraq's WMD's end up in Syria and Labanon?

Could be!

This is via WorldNetDaily:

A former American overseer of Iraqi prisons says several dozen inmates who were members of Saddam Hussein’s military and intelligence forces boasted of helping transport weapons of mass destruction to Syria and Lebanon in the three months prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Don Bordenkircher – who served two years as national director of prison and jail operations in Iraq– told WND that about 40 prisoners he spoke with “boasted of being involved in the transport of WMD warheads to Syria.

A smaller number of prisoners, he said, claimed “they knew the locations of the missile hulls buried in Iraq.”

Some of the inmates, Bordenkircher said, “wanted to trade their information for a release from prison and were amenable to showing the locations.”

The prisoners were members of the Iraqi military or civilians assigned to the Iraqi military, often stationed at munitions facilities, according to Bordenkircher. He said he was told the WMDs were shipped by truck into Syria, and some ended up in Lebanon’s Bekaa Valley.

I know, WND is not exactly known for their accuracy, but if this is true. We might have more problems on our hands, than we think.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Excellent Reading: Chuck Baldwin Says.. "Save The Planet? How About Saving The Republic?"

I post these here, because I believe Chuck Baldwin is a honest voice within the Conservative Community.

Save The Planet? How About Saving The Republic?
By Chuck Baldwin
July 30, 2008

This column is archived at
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2008/cbarchive_20080730.html

Yesterday, the Politico quoted House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as saying, "I’m
trying to save the planet; I’m trying to save the planet." She was
responding, of course, to pressure that she and her fellow Democrats are
experiencing to suspend a congressional ban on offshore oil drilling in the
face of skyrocketing energy prices. It would be really wonderful, however,
if the liberal congresswoman could get as energized about saving our once
great republic.

Herein lies another problem: the vast majority of our politicos (from both
major parties) do not even seem to know what kind of country the United
States was designed to be. Virtually every reference made to the United
States by our civil magistrates is that we are a "democracy." That’s odd;
someone should have told our Founding Fathers, because they emphatically
rejected the concept of creating a "democracy" in favor of creating a
constitutional republic.

Has anyone quoted the Pledge of Allegiance lately? Does it say, "And to the
democracy for which it stands"? Or does it say, "And to the republic for
which it stands"? Of course it says "republic."

At the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention, a passerby asked
Benjamin Franklin, "Well, Doctor, what have we got–a republic or monarchy?"
Franklin replied, "A republic–if you can keep it."

Ladies and Gentlemen, that is the sixty-four million dollar question: Can we
keep our republic? Can we keep our constitutional form of government? Can we
keep our constitutionally protected liberties?

In Federalist No. 10, James Madison ("The Father of the U.S. Constitution")
said, "[D]emocracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention;
have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of
property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been
violent in their deaths."

The fear of what happens to freedom and liberty under democratic rule is
what prompted Madison and the rest of America’s founders to labor so hard to
create what they did: a constitutional republic.

Under God, it is allegiance to the Constitution that has preserved our
liberties, our peace and happiness, our security, and our very way of life.
Furthermore, it is the repudiation and rejection of constitutional
government that is responsible for the manner in which these very same
blessings are currently being lost.

Someone needs to remind Rep. Pelosi that it is not her duty (nor does she
have the power) to "save the planet." And by the same token, someone needs
to remind Senators Barack Obama and John McCain that they are not
campaigning to be President of the World, but President of the United
States.

What every elected officeholder is expected and required to do is very
simple: they are required to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution
of the United States of America. Period. End of story.

Our public servants are not charged with saving the snail darter or the
Spotted Owl, or saving the profits of the international bankers, or saving
Wall Street in general, or saving the perks of corporate lobbyists, or
saving Freddie and Fannie, or saving the peoples of the world from all the
bogeymen, or even saving humankind or the planet itself. What our public
servants are charged with, however, is preserving (saving) our
constitutional republic.

Of course, the problem is, the people who are charged with the preservation
of our republic are the ones who are the most responsible for its
destruction. The American people have far more to fear from Nancy Pelosi,
Barack Obama, and John McCain than they do from any foreign adversary,
because our leaders have proven that they have absolutely no fidelity to the
principles of constitutional government. They have no compunction about
eviscerating the protection of our freedoms, or about abolishing the
vanguard of our liberties. They are Machiavellian, making King George of old
look like a mere amateur.

No, I take that back. It is not our civil magistrates who are most
responsible for the destruction of our republican form of government: it is
"We the people."

At the end of the day, it is the responsibility of the people to govern
themselves. We must be willing to hold our civil magistrates accountable to
the contract they made with us, which is to uphold constitutional
government. It is our duty to "throw off" any system of government that does
not secure our liberties and protect our constitution. And this we have not
done.

Christian pastors and ministers have failed us. The "Religious Right" has
failed us. College professors have failed us. High School teachers have
failed us. Newspaper editors and publishers have failed us. TV news anchors
and reporters have failed us. Parents have failed. Friends have failed. The
two major political parties have failed. As a whole, no one is talking
about, or even thinking about, the loss of constitutional government,
national independence, and sovereignty. Few seem even conscious that this is
taking place.

Worrying about which major party wins a general election is like worrying
about whether Coke or Pepsi sold more soft drinks last month. Pick your
poison. One is just as bad as the other. Neither has any fidelity to the
Constitution or to the principles of liberty, which it represents. Both John
McCain and Barack Obama are enemies to constitutional government. Both are
in the process of sacrificing our national sovereignty to global entities.
Both men lied when they took an oath to preserve and protect the
Constitution. So, why should we care which impostor wins the election?

It is up to the American people to enforce constitutional government. From a
Christian perspective, it is "We the people" who are the "powers that be" in
Romans chapter 13. Under our form of government, the source of authority and
the source of legitimacy reside with "We the people." We are not the slaves
of any king or despot. Our elected leaders are public servants, not private
masters. In a nutshell, they work for us. They are contracted to preserve
our liberties and our way of life. When they fail, they must answer to us.

So, when will the American people pick themselves up by the bootstraps and
start acting like free citizens and stop groveling before these imbecilic
political parties? When will we set this political house in order?

Of course, all of this demands that each of us understands constitutional
government and the principles upon which liberty rests. It also demands that
each of us be prepared to do whatever is our personal duty to preserve this
republic.

Patriotism is more than waving a flag on July 4th, or singing The National

Anthem at a ball game, or wearing a flag lapel pin on Flag Day. For an
American, real patriotism means that we are willing to preserve and protect
our constitutional republic. Remember, Franklin’s answer: "A republic–if
you can keep it."

Nancy Pelosi can talk about saving the planet all she wants to: her duty,
however, is to preserve, protect, and defend the U.S. Constitution. And that
is also the job of every single American citizen. Unfortunately, most of us
are no better at doing our job than Pelosi is at doing hers.

Chuck Baldwin’s Website
Chuck Baldwin For President 2008

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The New York times whines about not having enough graphic war images

You know, I am not a big fan of war myself, But, I couldn’t help by think of the utter hypocrisy of the article by the New York Times.

In essence, the New York Times is whining about not having enough graphic pictures of the war in Iraq.

Quoting a Liberal Photo boy in the NYT:

“It is absolutely censorship,” Mr. Miller said. “I took pictures of something they didn’t like, and they removed me. Deciding what I can and cannot document, I don’t see a clearer definition of censorship.”

This will be continued after the jump… (Warning: the rest contains graphic photos, Not safe for kids!)

Continue reading “The New York times whines about not having enough graphic war images”