Winston Churchill, who seems to have done almost everything, fought in the British campaign against Islamic radicalism in the Sudan in the 1890âs. A figure who called himself The Mahdi â a long awaited kind of messiah â had created a Muslim army that had taken Khartoum and killed Chinese Gordon, the Victorian general sent out as viceroy. A relief expedition was organized under Kitchener that traveled up the Nile and gave battle at Omdurman. Churchill had himself attached to Kitchenerâs force and participated in the last British cavalry charge â the one at Omdurman â which he describes vividly in his book on the expedition The River War published in 1899.
In that book Churchill includes a penetrating commentary on Islamic society as he saw it then and which we would be well-advised to keep in mind even today:
âHow dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property â either as a child, a wife, or a concubine â must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.
Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science â the science against which it had vainly struggled â the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.â
I think the right way to read this is not as a counsel of despair or anathma, but rather as one of caution.
Greg Richards 1 11 06
UPDATE:
Andrew Bostom writes:
Citation for Churchill Quote, linked above:
Sir Winston Churchill, from The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248-50 (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899).
There is another classic quote on jihad slavery from that book as well:
Sir Winston Churchill, from The River War, first edition, Vol. I, pages 16-17 (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899).
â...all [of the Arab Muslim tribes in The Sudan], without exception, were hunters of men. To the great slave markets of Jeddah a continual stream of negro captives has flowed for hundreds of years. The invention of gunpowder and the adoption by the Arabs of firearms facilitated the trafficâŠThus the situation in the Sudan for several centuries may be summed up as follows:
The dominant race of Arab invaders was increasingly spreading its blood, religion, customs, and language among the black aboriginal population, and at the same time it harried and enslaved themâŠThe warlike Arab tribes fought and brawled among themselves in ceaseless feud and strife. The negroes trembled in apprehension of capture, or rose locally against their oppressors.â
#2
without exception, were hunters of men, and boys. To the great slave markets of Jeddah a continual stream of negro captives has flowed for hundreds of years. The invention of gunpowder and the adoption by the Arabs of firearmskalashnikov facilitated the traffic
#3
I don't think I could have said it better myself.
They are fighting for a miserably oppressed, meaningless life of toil and poverty. Devoid of achievement, ambition, or promise.
Remember Elizabeth Holtzman? She was a Congresscritter in the 70s and 80s. As I remember her, she was one of the nastiest, most vituperative people ever to =cough= grace the halls there.
Finally, it has started. People have begun to speak of impeaching President George W. Bush--not in hushed whispers but openly, in newspapers, on the Internet, in ordinary conversations and even in Congress.
Not a lot of people, of course, and only people of a certain stripe...
As a former member of Congress who sat on the House Judiciary Committee during the impeachment proceedings against President Richard Nixon, I believe they are right to do so.
"After all, he's a Republican. You know what they're like!"
I can still remember the sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach during those proceedings, when it became clear that the President had so systematically abused the powers of the presidency and so threatened the rule of law that he had to be removed from office. As a Democrat who opposed many of President Nixon's policies, I still found voting for his impeachment to be one of the most sobering and unpleasant tasks I ever had to undertake. None of the members of the committee took pleasure in voting for impeachment; after all, Democrat or Republican, Nixon was still our President.
This is how you know she's lying: she took delight in this as she was one of the loudest Dems trying to bring Nixon down.
At the time, I hoped that our committee's work would send a strong signal to future Presidents that they had to obey the rule of law. I was wrong.
"Liars and thieves, the lot of 'em!"
Like many others, I have been deeply troubled by Bush's breathtaking scorn for our international treaty obligations under the United Nations Charter and the Geneva Conventions.
Thus demonstrating that she doesn't understand and hasn't read the Geneva Conventions. Even the Intl. Committee of the Red Thingy agrees that we haven't violated the GC in our handling of Gitmo thugs, etc.
I have also been disturbed by the torture scandals and the violations of US criminal laws at the highest levels of our government they may entail, something I have written about in these pages.
The pages she's writing in, if you haven't clicked on the link, are in The Nation. I think they have a special section for hysterical caterwauling, though I can't tell for sure, making a point of never reading it...
But the multiple convictions of Clinton appointees didn't bother her a bit.
These concerns have been compounded by growing evidence that the President deliberately misled the country into the war in Iraq.
Prime evidence that she's a moonbat.
But it wasn't until the most recent revelations that President Bush directed the wiretapping of hundreds, possibly thousands, of Americans, in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)--and argued that, as Commander in Chief, he had the right in the interests of national security to override our country's laws--that I felt the same sinking feeling in my stomach as I did during Watergate.
That was the tuna tetrazzini surprise, Liz.
As a matter of constitutional law, these and other misdeeds constitute grounds for the impeachment of President Bush.
But only if one looks at constitutional law from a particular angle. And squints. And it helps to wear special glasses...
A President, any President, who maintains that he is above the law--and repeatedly violates the law--thereby commits high crimes and misdemeanors, the constitutional standard for impeachment and removal from office.
Bush has never claimed to be exempt from the law or above it. And collecting intelligence on enemies who're actively at war with us, wherever they're located, is well within his powers as commander in chief. Unless, of course, one is standing well off to the left, squinting, and wearing special glasses...
A high crime or misdemeanor is an archaic term that means a serious abuse of power, whether or not it is also a crime, that endangers our constitutional system of government.
So the fact that Bush didn't maintain that he was above the law, only within it, and sought both legal review and Congressional oversight for what he did, must not have committed a high crime or misdemeanor.
Don't go throwing facts around. You'll confuse her.
The framers of our Constitution feared executive power run amok and provided the remedy of impeachment to protect against it. While impeachment is a last resort, and must never be lightly undertaken (a principle ignored during the proceedings against President Bill Clinton), neither can Congress shirk its responsibility to use that tool to safeguard our democracy. No President can be permitted to commit high crimes and misdemeanors with impunity.
Since GWB didn't, it isn't an issue.
But impeachment and removal from office will not happen unless the American people are convinced of its necessity after a full and fair inquiry into the facts and law is conducted. That inquiry must commence now.
And if that doesn't convince them then we need another inquiry. And then another. And another.
Posted by: Steve White ||
01/12/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
T'aint it grand when Lefties whom espouse Regulation, Policratism and despotic Bureaucratism now complain about the same, espec when they know deep down that Socialism doesn't work and was always a lie. Will say again the only thing they have left is the MSM and Amer Hiroshimas - rumors of "impeachment" and investigating Repub Congresspersons isn't enough to save 2006 or 2008 or POTUS Hillary for them.
#2
This impeachment is heady stuff for them. Read the 2006 elections as the 1974 elections. The left knows Nixon err Bush is going down, just like back then, they just know it.
The only problem is that the Nixon era was instructive, at least for me, on how to fight a war against terrorism. The front line is against our own defeatists and fifth colummnists, this person included, and in the most effective ways possible: By letting them speak and ridiculing their ideas.
No one is walking blind these days. We know what is at stake and so do the left. They don't see what's about to happen because they simply cannot fathom a military victory in the GWoT, after all the left has done to endanger US military operation and to hamstring our spooks in dealing with the murderous bastards still out there.
And they see the only way to forstall a US military victory is to take down Dubya.
I guess not enough dead Americans on the ground for them, at least they can try to make the Bush presidency a casualty of the war, at the hands of the fifth columnist left.
Doesn't anyone else think it is hilarious this woman first hints about political oppression (Finally, it has started. People have begun to speak of impeaching President George W. Bush--not in hushed whispers), then says in the very same sentance, there is not enough oppression to speak openly about impeachment?
Did she not read her own copy before publishing it?
Oh, and the Nation:
A creature of the First Communist International. That's right folks, started back in 1865 by the NY Hamilton Fish family, aorund the same time Karl Marx himself, the Rodney Dangerfield of economists was still alive, and now firmly in the hands of actor Paul Newman.
I can't believe I used to subscribe to that rag. What a waste of money.
F*cking wankers.
Seriously: Reading an article in The Nation is just like looking at an old flame ten years on and thinking: I use to hose that??
I watched every televised moment of the Watergate Hearings. It was Elizabeth Holtzman's one moment in the spotlight. After they were over, she nosedived right off the radar into oblivion. And yeah, she dressed and presented herself as "scholarly" - though nothing she said or did stood out.
Only old Sam Ervin made a serious impression. "Are you casting aspersions on my veracity?", he asked one witness in his inimitable drawl. Zoom! Off to the dictionary to verify the level of zip in "aspersions", lol. Of course, he is also known for this quote: "I'll have you understand I am running this court, and the law hasn't got a damn thing to do with it." Interesting to watch and hear, yeah. Saint Sam? Hardly.
John Dean was a welcome sight in court, cuz it meant Maureen would be sitting behind him and we could look at her while he droned.
The only other moment worthy of note was when Butterfield made the off-hand comment about the existence of recording equipment in the Oval Office.
Holtzman? Pfeh. Lightweight Lefty Loser who only wished she had Sam's presence and Barbara Jordan's oral delivery. 4 terms and wrote some utterly-forgettable books to stretch it out and pad her pockets. Good riddance.
It's little wonder that she'd want to relive her moment of "fame". She's just an oldie, now, dreaming of imagined former glory.
Mo Dean....NOW yer cookin'. My parents could never understand why I developed such an interest in politics.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
01/12/2006 5:45 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Surprised she didn't throw "the stolen Florida election of 2000" into the mix, or mention the "assasination of Paul Wellstone" or the "9/11 inside job" in to the mix. Naughty Lizzie! Just for that, I'm docking you 50 Moonbat Points for incomplete work.
Posted by: Mike ||
01/12/2006 6:54 Comments ||
Top||
#6
A former buddy of mine who slid off into the shallow end of the DU/moveon.org pool about a year or two ago was talking like this - before I stopped spending a lot of time talking to him. It was all about "house of cards that is this administration" or "something is wrong with America, during the '70's people cared about abuse of power and did something about it during Watergate". He couldn't be made to see that a) no actual abuse of power has occurred, b) the country is demographically older and wiser NOW than it was in 1973, c) there are information streams to contravene the predominant left of center one, and d) people have rediscovered the disastrous consequences (at least for now) of being self-dishonest and ignoring a true threat so that they can live a life free from anxiety. Try as I might to get him to see that this situation wasn't Vietnam, he was inflexibly committed (invested, perhaps?) to seeing it that way.
I suspect this talk of abuse of power is all projection, and chatter about impeachment is an attempt to relive/recapture youth, and these folks are simply so ossified into one particular point of time that they cannot - ahem - move on.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
01/12/2006 6:58 Comments ||
Top||
#7
You should thank them for their services. I mean, when the dust settles from American Civil War II, the making of lists is going to be so easy cause they're all out there identifying themselves.
#11
âA high crime or misdemeanor is an archaic term that means a serious abuse of power, whether or not it is also a crime, that endangers our constitutional system of government.â Gee I didnât know that Ex-Congresspeople could rewrite constitutional law? This is their new mantra: âIt may not have been illegal, but it wasnât right.â They can read polls like any other and even the most extreme polls show that most people donât feel a law was broken. That is probably because (DUH) there was no law broken. The only thing broken were the itty bitty feelings of the LLL that maybe just maybe there phone sex call to âOmar and his camelâ might have been intercepted. They would rather see a hundred 9/11 than have someone listen to their private phone calls, I would rather they listen to a hundred of my phone calls than have another 9/11.
#12
If one does a "google" search using the words
"Impeach Bush" one would find that their is almost a cottage industry dedicated to this action.
Interestingly enough Con. John Conyers (D) has introduced a resolution in the U.S. Congress to "censure" President Bush & V.P. Cheney. Check this out:
Stand with Congressman Conyers
Demand Censure for Bush-Cheney Misconduct
Investigate Impeachable Offenses
I am taking steps against the Bush Administrationâs handling of the Iraq War and its collection of intelligence. I am going to need you to stand with me in fighting for accountability.
Join me to demand censure for Bush and Cheney in addition to the creation of a Special Committee to investigate impeaching the Bush Administration for its widespread abuses of power.
I have sought answers from the administration to questions arising from the Downing Street Minutes, the Valerie Plame leak, and scores of other abominable abuses of power that pervade the activities of this White House. 121 Members of Congress and many citizens like you have joined me in asking these questions of the President.
I have just completed a thorough review of this administrationâs misconduct and have produced a 250-page report that provides evidence suggesting further steps to be taken. [A copy of the report may be found at Raw Story.com and also at CensureBush.org where additional action items may be found.]
It is time to take bolder measures in our pursuit of justice. This White House has responded to questions about its conduct with misleading statements, obfuscation, and vicious attacks against their critics. We must take the next step towards restoring accountability in our federal government. To this end I have:
⢠Introduced a resolution of censure for both President Bush and Vice-President Cheney, and;
⢠I am calling upon Congress to create a select committee similar to the Ervin Committee, which investigated President Nixonâs Watergate crimes. This select committee should investigate those offenses which appear to rise to the level of impeachment.
This administration must be held accountable for its misdeeds. We have considerable work to do and I am going to need your help to make this effort successful. Join me in sending a message to the President, the media, and the American people that we are not going to stand for an imperial presidency any longer.
Sincerely,
John Conyers
Now how seriously this is being taken is debatable,and with Republicans in control of
Congress, the chances of success are negligible.
Redacted by moderator. Comments may be redacted for trolling, violation of standards of good manners, or plain stupidity. Please correct the condition that applies and try again. Contents may be viewed in the sinktrap. Further violations may result in banning.
#15
You know Bird Dog I like Conyers. He is a good gauge for whether or not a program is good or effective. If Conyers (and the CBC) are against it, it must be a good program. On the flip side if he favors some piece of legislation then most people should run from it. So far I have found that this yardstick is 100% full proof. So if Conyers thinks that Bush should be impeached then you can bet that it wonât happen and most of congress is against it.
#16
Heh, BDS. I don't post text for which I could provide a link - that's the pneumatic troll's specialty to make its posts seem important. Hit the tip jar, parasite.
Posted by: Red Dog ||
01/12/2006 11:29 Comments ||
Top||
#18
Thanks, kid!
Hey, ya want a free turkey?
Posted by: John Conyers ||
01/12/2006 11:46 Comments ||
Top||
#19
Cyber Sarge:
There are a lot of Congressmen you can say that about..
But you know, I did do a "google" search on "Impeach Bush" and I was really surprised that all these different organizations are "actually"
persuing this action.
I dont know if you would agree with this or not but I think the one thing that Bush and Clinton have in common is that they are both polarizing figures. It seems people either love them or hate them with no middle ground.
Redacted by moderator. Comments may be redacted for trolling, violation of standards of good manners, or plain stupidity. Please correct the condition that applies and try again. Contents may be viewed in the sinktrap. Further violations may result in banning.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
01/12/2006 12:25 Comments ||
Top||
#25
BirdDog, you seem not to read some of the things you've been told about .com.
He and I have had our disagreements a few times, but I respect his exerience and point of view even when I don't agree with him.
It would become you well - and gain you a more respectful audience for your own views - if you acknowledged with simple respect that .com brings both experience in the middle east and a long history of participation here at Rantburg to his comments.
He doesn't need to start his own site. He's EARNED the right to be a major contributor and commenter here. He regularly brings useful links, first hand reports and a clear analysis to important stories about the GWOT.
You're welcome to do the same. The status is earned, though - you can't just demand or claim it.
#26
Impeach Bush - the collective manifestation of BDS. Never mind there's no offense on which to base such action. It reminds me of some Dhimmicrat Congress Critter "There's no evidence that any crime has been committed, which is exactly why we need further investigation" The Dems are no longer part of the politcal discussion in this country. They've reteated to the corner of the room to play with their navels, drool endlessly while muttering something about the Evil Chimp Overlord having stolen their ball of string.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
01/12/2006 12:41 Comments ||
Top||
Maybe you misuderstand what I was saying.
I actually was complimenting .com as being
a very opinionated poster. That's not to say
he cant start his own website and partipate
in this one also.
Even though though he and I
disgree on most political subjects, I think he
is just as passionate in his beliefs as I am.
My only objection him is when he starts acting like he is "running" this site.
#29
BirdDog? Is that the tag today?
One suggestion for Cassini, Left Angle, GrandAm would be to get mature enough to keep one handle and take his beating like a man.
That wouldn't be too hard to do, would it? Even for a cement bag like you?
#31
Bird Dog no doubt there are many ?hundreds? of organization that are âperusingâ the impeachment of Bush. But can I point out a little legal document called the Constitution that states that only Congress can remove a President from office. Also I sincerely doubt there is a huge groundswell of support of these organizations outside their echo chamber. Any rational person would be turned off by the vitriolic nature of 99% of those sites you get on a Google search for Impeachment and Bush, the other are just plain stupid.
#32
How long between the next Presidential election and the first impeach whomever website appears? I'm betting people will buy 'em up during the primaries.
I have a suggestion. Why dont you set up your own website? You seem to be very opinionated and have a lot to say. It would make a lot of sense to me
because for some reason it appears that you think you are running THIS site. lol
Considering some of the lengthy pieces i see posted in here..puh leeze
I excepted the article. It was actually much longer. Seriously though, you should think about
setting up your own webpage. I'm sure you'll have a lot of participation as opinionated as you are.
BTW: by definition of "interet troll" YOU definitely fit it to a tee. Is that YOU pictured above? LMAO
Peggy gets out her little-used carving knife and goes after some of the pompous windbags of the World's Most Excrutiating Deliberative Body. The result is one of the finest takedowns you will ever read:
The great thing about Joe Biden during the Alito hearings, the reason he is, to me, actually endearing, is that as he speaks, as he goes on and on and spins his long statements, hypotheticals, and free associations--as he demonstrates yet again, as he did in the Roberts hearings and even the Thomas hearings, that he is incapable of staying on the river of a thought, and is constantly lured down tributaries from which he can never quite work his way back--you can see him batting the little paddles of his mind against the weeds, trying desperately to return to the river but not remembering where it is, or where it was going. I love him. He's human, like a garrulous uncle after a drink.
In this, in the hearings, he is unlike Ted Kennedy in that he doesn't seem driven by some obscure malice--Uh, I, uh, cannot, uh, remembuh why I hate you, Judge Alioto, but there, uh, must be a good reason and I will, um, damn well find it. When he peers over his glasses at Judge Alito he is like an old woman who's unfortunately senile and quite sure the teapot on the stove is plotting against her. Mr. Biden is also unlike Chuck Schumer in that he doesn't ask questions with an air of, With this one I'm going to trap you and leave you flailing like a bug in a bug zapper--we're going to hear your last little crackling buzz any minute now!
But what interests me most is Judge Alito, and his ability to just sit there and listen. To show nothing, like a stunned ox, or, as Sen. Dianne Feinstein put in on CNN, like a person with clear judicial demeanor.
How does he do it? This wonderful look of enforced blandness. It's a low affect tour de force.
And it cannot be easy. When Mr. Biden says things like, "Try to follow me, Judge Alito," as he goes on one of his long, sterile journeys, I wonder if Judge Alito has to control himself with an act of will. I wonder if he has an inner Regis Philbin, and wants to throw out his arms and say, "Follow you? If I follow you, we'll both wind up lost!" When Mr. Biden says, "Now this is a somewhat subtle point," I wonder if Judge Alito wants to say, "Joe, if it were a subtle point you wouldn't be making it!"
This is the authentic sound, though not the authentic words, of Joe Biden, and this is what Judge Alito has to discipline himself not to respond to:
What if a fella--I'm just hypothesizing here, Judge Alito--what if a fella said, "Well I don't want to hire you because I don't like the kind of eyeglasses you wear," or something like that. Follow my thinking here. Or what if he says "I won't hire you because I don't like it that you wear black silk stockings and a garter belt. And your name is Fred." Strike that--just joking, trying to lighten this thing up, we can all be too serious. Every 10 years when you see me at one of these hearings I am different from every other member of Judiciary in that I have more hair than the last time. You know why? It's all the activity in my brain! It breaks through my skull and nourishes my follicles with exciting nutrients! Try to follow me.
I had to quit watching - I began to realize I wasn't just thinking what a bunch of retarded demented fools and dyspeptic ulcers on the American body politic these DhimmiWitless wonder were - I was beginning to say it aloud.
#3
Done a little research, found a nice multi-cult lunch menu for the Ted, Chuck, Nancy and all the dems for the remainder of the hearing. Hot dogs are the specialty this week:
#4
I've felt many emotions reading Peggy's columns: pride, anger, fear, comfort, and tears (both happy and sad), but this is the first time I've laughed. I didn't know she has such a razor-sharp wit.
At the risk of overplaying her hand, I wish she'd wield that razor more often.
#5
great piece, but I'm still holding a grudge over her hit piece she wrote about Bush's democracy speech after his inauguration. It was a great speech and she panned it, exposing her own petty jealousy at the expense of the nation. I suppose everyone has a bad day and gets grumpy - but she lost my respect and will probably never earn it back.
Hat tip Powerline
The mainstream U.S. media outlets have failed to report a major terrorist plot against the U.S. - because it would tend to support President Bush's use of NSA domestic surveillance, according to media watchdog groups.
News of a planned attack masterminded by three Algerians operating out of Italy was widely reported outside the U.S., but went virtually unreported in the American media.
Italian authorities recently announced that they had used wiretaps to uncover the conspiracy to conduct a series of major attacks inside the U.S.
Italian Interior Minister Giuseppe Pisanu said the planned attacks would have targeted stadiums, ships and railway stations, and the terrorists' goal, he said, was to exceed the devastation caused by 9/11.
Italian authorities stepped up their internal surveillance programs after July's terrorist bombings in London. Their domestic wiretaps picked up phone conversations by Algerian Yamine Bouhrama that discussed terrorist attacks in Italy and abroad.
Italian authorities arrested Bouhrama on November 15 and he remains in prison. Authorities later arrested two other men, Achour Rabah and Tartaq Sami, who are believed to be Bouhrama's chief aides in planning the attacks.
The arrests were a major coup for Italian anti-terror forces, and the story was carried in most major newspapers from Europe to China.
"U.S. terror attacks foiled," read the headline in England's Sunday Times. In France, a headline from Agence France Presse proclaimed, "Three Algerians arrested in Italy over plot targeting U.S."
Curiously, what was deemed worthy of a worldwide media blitz abroad was virtually ignored by the U.S. media, and conservative media watchdog groups are saying that is no accident.
"My impression is that the major media want to use the NSA story to try and impeach the president," says Cliff Kincaid, editor of the Accuracy in Media Report published by the grassroots Accuracy in Media organization.
"If you remind people that terrorists actually are planning to kill us, that tends to support the case made by President Bush. They will ignore any issue that shows that this kind of [wiretapping] tactic can work in the war on terror."
"The mainstream media have framed the story as one of the nefarious President Bush 'spying on U.S. citizens,' where the average American is a victim not a beneficiary," commented Brent Baker, vice president of the Media Research Center, a Washington, D.C.-based organization dedicated to encouraging balanced news coverage, "so journalists have little interest in any evidence that the program has helped save lives by uncovering terrorist plans."
The Associated Press version of the story did not disclose that the men planned to target the U.S. Nor did it report that the evidence against the suspects was gathered via a wiretapping surveillance operation.
Furthermore, only one American newspaper, the Philadelphia Inquirer, is known to have published the story that the AP distributed. It ran on page A-6 under the headline "Italy Charges 3 Algerians." The Inquirer report also made no mention of the plot to target the U.S. - although foreign publications included this information in the headlines and lead sentences of their stories. Nor did it advise readers that domestic wiretaps played a key role in nabbing the suspected terrorists.
One obvious question media critics are now raising: Did the American media intentionally ignore an important story because it didn't fit into their agenda of attacking President George Bush for using wiretapping to spy on potential terrorists in the U.S.?
"It's clear to me," says AIM's Kincaid, "that they're trying their best to make this NSA program to be an impeachable offense, saying it is directed at ordinary Americans. That's why they keep referring to this as a 'program of spying on Americans' - whereas the president keeps pointing out it's a program designed to uncover al-Qaida operations on American soil."
Sharon is a super terrorist protected and supported by global super terrorist systems (British and American) to spread chaos, murder, and destruction in the Arab World. Such as other terrorists like him, such as Nazi Hitler, Fascist Mussolini, Chilean Pinochet and Yugoslavian Milosevic to name just a few, Sharonâs terror has lately come to an end. He had suffered a stroke that booted him out of the political arena.
Due to the huge misleading propaganda spread by powerful media, owned by the wealthy global terrorist systems, many nations still cannot differentiate between terrorists and freedom fighters. Thus many would follow President Bush into believing that Sharon is â .. a good man, a strong man, who cared deeply about the security of the Israeli people, and a man who had a vision of peace.â
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
