The headline is for the âsomeone is definitely on drugsâ file. WaPo via AP.
Russia said Wednesday that it will begin evacuating people from Iraq this week in light of the deteriorating security situation, while four unidentified bodies were found amid a wave of kidnappings of at least 22 foreigners.
Excellent reporting... Very coherent.
The headline's been fixed on WTOP's AP feed. WaPo remains hosed as of 11 a.m. Guess they haven't noticed.
Posted by: Phil B ||
04/14/2004 9:17:04 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
Nine members of Afghanistan's national football team have gone missing while on tour in Italy. The team's spokesman said the players failed to return from a night out in the northern town of Verona on Monday. "We don't know if they were looking for economic asylum or if they just stayed out all night at a disco," AFP news agency quoted him as saying.
The series of games in Italy is the Afghan team's first appearance in Europe for 20 years. Football was banned in Afghanistan after the Taleban regime came to power in 1996. The team coach, Mir Ali Asger Akbarzola, has said the players would not be able to take part in the match against Verona on Tuesday - even if they came back in time. "It's 20 years since our national side last played in Europe and our people need football to give them hope," Italy's Ansa news agency quoted him as saying. The proceeds from the tour will go towards construction of medical centres in the Afghan capital, Kabul.
Verona police spokesman Luigi Altamura said it was unclear if the players were seeking to defect from Afghanistan. They do not have their passports with them because a team official had all the team's documents. But according to Italian radio, "the fugitives have already reached Germany, where a numerous Afghan community lives, to ask for political asylum". The game against Verona will still be played because a few Afghan players living in Germany have been called in to replace the missing team members, Ansa reported.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
04/14/2004 03:33 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Duh, guess I had brain lock.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
04/14/2004 3:35 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I thought there were supposed to be fewer of these cryptic headlines?
Shock and anger at the beating of TV presenter Rania Al-Baz by her husband run deep among women here. The story put a face to an issue that had been largely relegated to brief sensational items on the crime pages, with graphic images of Raniaâs bruised and broken face appearing prominently in several local newspapers. âIt is a very common problem, unfortunately, not just here,â said Dima Al-Sulaiman, director of the volunteer committee at the National Home Health Care Foundation. She believes social values are to blame. âAbuse starts from childhood â in how parents direct their sons and daughtersâ behavior,â she said. Other women also blame the family and society in general for making violent behavior acceptable. âSaudi men think that this is the way to solve problems. They donât know how to discuss things quietly,â said Dina Arif, a businesswoman. She says too often a woman who is beaten complains to her father, who instead of taking positive steps to protect his daughter convinces her to go back to her husband and try to work things out... What the...? The Koran imposes on Muslim men, a strict obligation of spousal battery. It is this simple: if they donât use their wives for punching bags, they go to hell.
Koran 4:34
"...As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and mis-conduct, admonish them, expel them from the marital bed, and beat them..." "Fear"? Could be deemed subjective and male-centrist. Then again, Muslims believe that the Koran is the words of their nominal deity, as recited by the nominal Angel Gabriel to Mohammed (Political Correctness be Upon Him).
Posted by: Man Bites Dog ||
04/14/2004 2:36:51 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Penis too small? Women don't respect you because you're lazy, feel entitled, but are uneducated in useful skills? Go ahead and beat 'em - you're entitled too! The Quran sez so!
Posted by: Frank G ||
04/14/2004 10:29 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Meanwhile, Human Rights Watch is busy imposing their will against the inhumane brutality of the Joos building a fence...
#3
Absolutely incredible. If something like this was to happen in America, there'd be scandal, the husband would probably go to jail, and the feminists would cry out. But, hey, the Prophet (may bees pee upon him . . . love that phrase, guys) said it's okey-dokey!
Posted by: The Doctor ||
04/14/2004 11:07 Comments ||
Top||
#4
the arab news manages heroically not to use the word 'sharia' in this article
#7
If you took all those veils off all the Moslem women, you'd find a lot of black eyes and broken noses.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
04/14/2004 17:52 Comments ||
Top||
#8
If you took all those veils off all the Moslem women, you'd find a lot of black eyes and broken noses.
This represents one of the best reasons of all to forbid the veil. I don't advocate such a thing, but the irony of this one observation is a powerful and searing indictment of this outdated tradition.
Whenever any Islamic person inquires about why Western countries want to forbid the veil or burkha, this should be the resounding reply.
#9
I was really shocked after reading what has happened to Rania.Its compelety against our religion for a husband to abuse his wife.And the thing that made me write a comment is because of the comments posted here.You all blame this on religion when it has nothing to do with it.And hey! Here in America there too is abuse .SO why dont i see anywhere that Chirstainity supports it!!!..before any of you give your ideas first know the reasons!!..its was an individual act!!!
#10
But I've read articles pointing out Islamic clerics who support wife-beating, Hanaa. Until such clerics are shouted down, shamed and forced out of their positions I think there is a religious problem here.
Posted by: A ||
04/17/2004 14:50 Comments ||
Top||
#11
.These Islamic clerics dont represent the whole muslims.There r fanatics in all religions.These are extremist.But if you read what the Quran has to say regarding how a husband should treat his wife you will only then realise that what happened here was merely an individual act.He couldnt control his angry. He is accountable for his mistake.
#12
Doing a quick google search found this memri.org article on Islamic scholars who advocate the beating of wives:-
Sheikh Muhammad Kamal Mustafa, the imam of the mosque of the city of Fuengirola, Costa del Sol, was sentenced by a Barcelona court to a 15 month suspended sentence and fined ⬠2160 for publishing his book 'The Woman in Islam.' In this book, the Egyptian-born Sheikh Mustafa writes, among other things, on wife-beating in accordance with Shar'ia law.
Sheikh Yousef Qaradhawi, one of the most influential clerics in Sunni Islam and head of the European Council for Fatwa and Research, has advocated non-painful wife-beating.
The Islamic Affairs Department of Saudi Arabia's Washington, DC Embassy: Men Have a Supervisory Authority because of Their Physical Advantages
According to the website of the embassy of Saudi Arabia's Islamic Affairs Department (IAD), wife-beating is permitted in accordance with Qur'anic verses and Hadiths used by the IAD to explain the rights a husband has over his wives
Jasem Muhammad Al-Mutawah, an expert on family matters in Islam, hosts a show on Saudi Arabia's Iqraa TV and discussed wife-beating while holding a 10-foot pool cue which he said some couples keep in the home.
... and so on.
Of course they don't represent all muslims - hopefully just a tiny minority. But there is a problem there, especially when they have access to the media (Al Jazeera and Arab state-run television).
Posted by: A ||
04/17/2004 15:22 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Yeah .I agree with you that there are some minority but what I dont agree is when everyone tries to link it with Islam.And what really got into my nerves is when one comment goes like"If you took all those veils off all the Moslem women, you'd find a lot of black eyes and broken noses"..Dont say something you dont know?! I wear veils at times?.Islam does not obligate women to wear its just a tradition .And you should know that tradition and Religion are two completrly different area. Dont link one with the other
#15
Which deadthread are you talking about RAJ?.What you think you know about Islam is wrong. It does not teach violence nor supports it!.Islam values women more.But unfortunaley its those fanatics and extremists who seem to grab your attentions.
#16
I have said nothing about Islam here, have I? That's rich, to consider me ignorant when you're the one drawing conclusions without facts beforehand.
#17
I wasnt concluding anything .And I dont recall mentioning anything about you saying bad about Islam. I was just giving my opinion..I am not considering you as an ignorant person.
Of course you were. You stated that what I know about Islam is wrong, whatever that's supposed to mean.
And I dont recall mentioning anything about you saying bad about Islam.
That's right. In fact, as far as you know I have said absolutely nothing about Islam one way or the other, so I fail to understand how you can make a judgement about my knowledge of Islam if you have no point of reference about my knowledge thereof.
#19
I am so disgraced at the events of this situation. I was horrified to read that such a bright, intelligent, beautiful mother was treated this way. My heart went out to her and I have been following this story since it hit the airwaves here in Canada. These Muslim men (so called men are disgraceful). They are no men at all. I can understand religion but right is right and wrong is wrong. What angered me more is the fact that she may still in fact loose her children which obviously are doomed if they stay with their father. I applaud the princess for stepping in and paying her hospital bills. Too bad they were not able to obtain protection for her. I only wish Rania the best in her fight against battered women. No matter the religion, her husband will be punished...if not now, in the afterlife.
A nurse claims he was told not to apply for a job at a private care home - because he was not a Muslim.
Arpan Singh Duggal rang the Mohammad Iqbal Shassab Residential Home, in Chorlton, Manchester, to inquire about the post of a psychiatric nurse he saw advertised in a job centre.
The advert asked for a qualified nurse, who could speak fluent Punjabi and Urdu, and listed the Manchester Road home as an equal opportunities employer.
But Mr Singh, a Sikh who speaks both languages and works as a disability nurse for Trafford council, says he was left stunned when Mohammad Iqbal, the homeâs owner, allegedly told him not to bother applying for the job because he was not a Muslim.
Now he is taking the home, which cares for Asian patients with mental and physical health problems, to an employment tribunal later this summer.
Mr Singh, 18, from Altrincham, said: "I just feel totally discriminated against and decided there was no alternative but to refer the matter to my solicitor and have it resolved at a tribunal.
"There was no mention anywhere in the advert that you had to be Muslim to apply.
"I have the necessary qualifications and can speak both Punjabi and Urdu, and when I rang the owner at the job centre and started to speak to him, everything was fine.
"But when he discovered I was a Sikh the conversation just seemed to fall flat and then he told me I shouldnât apply for the job because I was not Muslim.
"I couldnât believe what I was hearing. He also said he was after someone who spoke a more specific kind of Punjabi, but that was not mentioned in the job advert."
Mr Iqbal, 54, a Muslim, who has run the home for over a decade, says he was shocked to receive tribunal papers through the post and insists he never told Mr Singh not to apply for the job because he was a Sikh and not Muslim.
He admitted he should have been more specific in the job advert about the kind of Punjabi speaker he required, and said he had always tried to foster positive links with Sikhs in the past.
"It came as an absolute shock to discover that Iâm now being taken to an employment tribunal for something I didnât do," said Mr Iqbal, who employs 13 Muslim staff and cares for five Muslim patients.
"The allegation that I told this man not to apply for the job because he was a Sikh and not Muslim is completely false and hurtful.
"I have always had a good relationship with the Sikh community."
No date has been fixed for the tribunal, but it is expected to be later this summer.
Posted by: TS ||
04/14/2004 9:31:24 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
But Mr Singh, a Sikh who speaks both languages and works as a disability nurse for Trafford council, says he was left stunned when Mohammad Iqbal, the homeâs owner, allegedly told him not to bother applying for the job because he was not a Muslim. He must not get out much.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
04/14/2004 11:58 Comments ||
Top||
BEIJING (Reuters) - Vice President Dick Cheney faced further pressure to halt U.S. arms sales to Taiwan in meetings with China's communist leaders, who say the weapons are encouraging the island's pro-independence forces. Violence in Iraq, trade and the issue of North Korea's nuclear ambitions also loomed large on Cheney's agenda in China, the second stop on a week-long trip to Asia and only his third overseas mission since taking office.
"We believe the relationship is in good shape, that there are many issues to be discussed," Cheney told former president and current head of the military, Jiang Zemin.
In the highest-level visit by a U.S. official to the communist giant since President Bush's trip in early 2002, Cheney reassured Chinese leaders on Tuesday that Washington does not support separation for Taiwan but opposes the use of force to recover the island.
Cheney, a key architect of the Iraq war, was expected to try to win Beijing's support for a consensus on a U.N. role in Iraq after a June 30 transfer of sovereignty. He will also will press China's leaders to jump-start talks aimed at ending North Korea's nuclear programs.
Taiwan, however, will dominate Cheney's trip, with China increasingly concerned President Chen Shui-bian is pursuing a pro-independence agenda. In comments timed to coincide with Cheney's talks with Chinese leaders, Beijing accused Chen on Wednesday of maliciously provoking the mainland and sabotaging bilateral relations with plans to adopt a new constitution in 2008. But Li Weiyi, a spokesman for the cabinet's policymaking Taiwan Affairs Office, told a news conference that China was committed to peaceful reunification with Taiwan.
"That's why we have all those missiles pointed at 'em!"
Taiwan's defense ministry said on Tuesday it planned to finish by June its proposal for a US$15 billion special budget to buy advanced weapons from the United States and counter China's threats to invade. Taiwan says the high-tech weaponry, including anti-missile defenses, submarines and destroyers, are in response to a vast array of missiles China has pointed at the island. Chen says China has 500 missiles aimed at Taiwan as is adding one missile every six days.
Posted by: Steve White ||
04/14/2004 12:28:22 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
They proliferate to every enemy we have on the planet except the French and then they get mad when we look for a little Taiwanese payola. Where's the justice?
Posted by: Super Hose ||
04/14/2004 0:43 Comments ||
Top||
#2
"Taiwan's defense ministry said on Tuesday it planned to finish by June its proposal for a US$15 billion special budget to buy advanced weapons from the United States and counter China's threats to invade. Taiwan says the high-tech weaponry, including anti-missile defenses, submarines and destroyers, are in response to a vast array of missiles China has pointed at the island. Chen says China has 500 missiles aimed at Taiwan as is adding one missile every six days."
My dear friends and their little child over in Taiwan are all sleeping better tonight, I love that.
#3
The government in Taiwan IS THE legitimate government for all of China. China belongs to Taiwan.....NOT the other way around.
Posted by: Halfass Pete ||
04/14/2004 3:37 Comments ||
Top||
#4
If China would just bother to make some sort of substantive move towards reducing the US$ 127 BILLION trade deficit with America, we wouldn't have to go around flogging our armaments in their backyard.
#5
HAP - Taiwan belongs to the Taiwanese - when the mainland's chickens come to roost (AIDS, ecenomy, raised expectations not met, Muslim guerillas, 3 gorges dam repairs (4 U Alaska Paul heh heh) industrial pollution)...who'd want it?
Posted by: Frank G ||
04/14/2004 21:27 Comments ||
Top||
PRIME Minister John Howard has backed US President George W. Bushâs commitment to usher in a new era of democracy in Iraq. Mr Bush held a press conference to defend the US strategy on Iraq, signalling he was ready to increase US troop strength in the country in the leadup to the handover to an interim Iraqi government. Mr Howard said he welcomed the presidentâs commitment to Iraq. "(I) welcome his reaffirmation of a commitment to a handover to a provisional Iraqi authority, his continued commitment to the holding of elections, his foreshadowing of the adoption of a new constitution in Iraq, including a bill of rights, which would be a first in the Arab world, his continued commitment to the goal of a free, democratic and independent Iraq," Mr Howard said. "They are all goals that the Australian Government very strongly supports." Mr Bush said the United States would stick to a deadline of June 30 for handing over political power to Iraqis. He said a UN envoy would help decide which Iraqis would be placed in charge.
Posted by: tipper ||
04/14/2004 1:30:51 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Let's just hope the UN doesn't put Sadaam back in charge.
#2
what???? Johnnie Howard is supporting a bill of rights in Iraq??? So why is he so adamant in refusing to have one in Australia? The Liberal Party has fought long and hard against its introduction.
#3
Excuse me, but did I miss something? What does "He said a UN envoy would help decide which Iraqis would be placed in charge" mean? I don't get it. Since when did the plan include UN envoys choosing the Iraqi leadership? Anybody know what they mean by that?
Severely EFL From the French MERCER Report:
... Nevertheless, the impact [of proposed EU regulations on chemicals] remains very strong on the whole industry and economy. Gee, yâa think?
The detailed analysis carried out on 14 pilot segments of the chemical and downstream industries shows that the regulation will generate increases in costs, production losses or relocation of certain productions outside Europe... The cost impact which penalizes more the smaller volume productions will entail the withdrawal of many substances (from 10 to 30% in certain sectors, which will make it necessary to reconsider a great number of downstream formulations (cosmetics, [Oy! Paris will freak!] paintsâŠ) With the domino effect, the whole of the French industry and economy will be impacted... Really? Whoâda thunk it?
These different case studies show that the disappearance of chemical substances due to REACH will cause great problems to find substitutes, to change formulations, which, with the increase in costs, will favor the relocation of production and will slow down the innovation in new products. Each time, the competitiveness and the innovation capacity of companies will be weakened faced with a global competition with no such restrictions. Welcome to Economics 101, Jacques. (Read the boring rest if you care, or if you need a cure for insomnia.) Typical EU crap. Put out a bunch of regulations without taking into account (or caring) what will happen if theyâre implemented. The economy? Unimportant! What really matters is that companies have to prove through testing that chemicals that havenât caused any harm for a hundred years are "safe". And guess whoâs paying for it? Hint: Not Brussels.
Unfortunately, weâve got politicians like that here, too, and they want back into power in the worst way.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut bskolaut@hotmail.com ||
04/14/2004 4:29:52 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Back in the early 90's I did some technical work for one of the IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission) working groups that was drafting an industrial standard for networked sensors (for the non-technically inclined, this was a scheme for allowing pressure and temperature sensors and such stuff to be connected by a sort of "baby Ethernet" to control computers in an industrial plant).
The work involved a lot of contact with European engineers and technocrats, and it left me with one overwhelming impression: Europeans, especially the French, absolutely worship rules and regulations. I didn't have very much to do with the standards drafting itself, only technical support of the effort; but I saw enough to convince me that there was something either deeply cultural or psychological going on with them: they seemed to want to cast everything possible in concrete, even technical aspects that weren't relevant to the work at hand. It was almost as if they were trying to eliminate anything which could possibly give rise to competition or innovation.
Overall, I found it very disturbing. And in light of that experience, I was not at all surprised by the encyclopedic nature of the European Constitution that was proposed a few months back. The continentals seem to have a horror of self-governance, perferring to be ruled by absolute authority.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
04/14/2004 17:19 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I think you've hit the nail on the head, Dave D. We threw off that yoke called "royalty"; the Euros never did. Even the French, who killed their royalty in their Revolution, still long to be ruled by their "betters." It's like they stay children all their lives.
It's pathetic.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
04/14/2004 18:51 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I once installed some Japanese packaging equipment in the U.S. Based on that favorable experience, I was asked to to the same "across the pond." It was totally unacceptable over there. I was actually asked: "But what if someone sticks their fingers in the heat sealer?" In Japan and the U.S. the answer is: "They're idiots and they'll burn their fingers." Across the pond the answer was to install even more guards, interlocks, keyswitches, etc. The system was almost inoperable and the operating instructions doubled in length. Had to do it -- regulatory requirements.
Posted by: Tom ||
04/14/2004 19:23 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Corzine wants to regulate chlorine or ban it, I can't remember.
Until that rich liberal cleans his own bathrooms w/o it and Congress also goes w/o, keep your hands off my Clorox.
Posted by: Fred ||
04/14/2004 10:38 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
This wtopnews.com seems a decent source of info, Fred, and one I didn't know about before; thanks for bringing it to my attention.
And this is what would happen with Saddam if we handed him over . . . this trial is not an acknowledgement of the rights of any and every individual to be tried, as some might have you believe. No, it's an insult to all of the man's victims. If I was in charge, I'd look at the casualty lists, then stare Milosevic straight in the eye and say "Guilty; death by hanging." My reasoning could be boiled down to three words: "Nuremburg. Any questions?"
Posted by: The Doctor ||
04/14/2004 11:13 Comments ||
Top||
Kinda interesting if youâre into this sort of thing...
BTW - can someone provide a link to the decorated war hero Captain Hairdoâs 2002 tax return? I havenât been able to find it, and upon initial review, I believe his preparers may have fudged his 2003 1040 by eliminating the 2210 penalty. Youâll note that page 2 of the 2210 form is missing, which would have the exception to paying the penalty this year. Also note that Part II is not filled out correctly (Reasons for filing), where one of the five boxes has to be checked. He can escape that penalty if his 2003 withholdings, etc. were greater than the 2002 withholdings, but the 2002 numberâs not there.
#1
I don't care if it is John F'ing Kerry, it's the tax holocost, cut every man a break. Damn I hate tax forms...
Some folks were born on the Forth of July, some Christmas, New Years....?
I'm a tax baby and my every birthday is marked with a dread of dicking around with 1232 forms cranked out by a meth fueled, overpai... Whoa! never mind. Ima cool now. Got a cousin working for IRA.. cool... cool... walking quietly off the scene....
#5
I think Kerry should release his military record. After all he keeps mentioning his Vietnam experience (5 months) and that he is a decorated 'war hero'....
Sensenbrenner Urges Commissioner Gorelick to Resign from the 9/11 Commission Because of Her obvious Conflict of Interest
4/14/2004 12:07:00 PM
To: National Desk
Contact: Jeff Lungren or Terry Shawn of the House Committee on the Judiciary, 202-225-2492, http://www.house.gov/judiciary
WASHINGTON, April 14 /U.S. Newswire/ -- House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R-Wis.) released the following statement:
"Yesterday, a 1995 memo written by 9/11 Commission Member Jamie Gorelick, in her former role as Janet Renoâs bootlick the second in command at the Justice Department, revealed her leftist tendencies actions in establishing the heightened âwallâ prohibiting the sharing of intelligence information and criminal information. Scrutiny of this policy lies at the heart of the Commissionâs work. Ms. Gorelick has an inherent conflict of interest as the author of this memo and as a government official at the center of the events in questions. Thus, I believe the Commissionâs work and independence will be fatally damaged by the continued participation of Ms. Gorelick as a Commissioner.
Like it hasnât already, freakinâ three ring circus.
Reluctantly, I have come to the conclusion that Ms. Gorelick should resign from this Commission.
Git! Begone, wench!!
"The Commissionâs Guidelines on Recusals state, âCommissioners and staff will recuse themselves from investigating work they performed in prior government service.â Commissioner Gorelickâs memo directing a policy that âgo(es) beyond what is legally requiredâ indicates that her judgment and actions as the Deputy Attorney General in the Brunhilda Reno Justice Department are very much in question before the Commission. Indeed Attorney General Ashcroft called this DOJ policy, âthe single greatest structural cause for September 11 ... (and) embraced flawed legal reasoning.â Commissioner Gorelick is in the unfair position of trying to address the key issue before the Commission when her own actions are central to the events at issue. The public cannot help but ask legitimate questions about her motives.
"While it is regrettable that this conflict had not come to light sooner because Gorelick feels thereâs one standard for DemocRATS and another for Republicans, this Commissionâs work and forthcoming recommendations are too important to be questioned in this way, and will may be devalued by Ms. Gorelickâs continued participation as a Commissioner. Given Ms. Gorelickâs work as the Deputy Attorney General under Janet Reno, Ms. Gorelick can be quite valuable to the Commissionâs work preparing âa full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.â However, that contribution should come as a witness before the Commission - not as a member.
Heh! Feel the burn!
"Key figures like former FBI Director Freeh, Director Mueller, Attorney General Ashcroft, former presidential adviser Richard Clarke, and National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice have all testified before the Commission and would have rightly sparked indignation about a conflict of interest had these individuals also been members of the Commission. Testifying before the Commission is Ms. Gorelickâs proper role, not sitting as a member of this independent commission."
Like I said, two standards, hopefully not in this case. Thank you, Mr. Sensenbrenner.
#1
However, that contribution should come as a witness before the Commission - not as a member.
Oh yeah, and televise that one if you dare, ABC. What fun that would be.
Thompson: "Ms. Gorelick, can you explain why you felt it was necessary to erect a wall to keep law enforcement and anti-terror personnel at DoJ from talking to each other?"
Gorelick: "Um, well ..."
Thompson: "Can you explain why it was that you felt it important to go beyond what the law required?"
Gorelick: "Well, um ..."
Thompson: "And can you further explain how it was that when others questioned this and proposed removing these obstacles, the DoJ of which you were a member and former Attorney General Reno led said this couldn't be done?"
Gorelick: Oh, um ..."
Thompson: "Thought so. Thank you."
Posted by: Steve White ||
04/14/2004 13:56 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Dems don't have the morality to recuse themselves. Never have and never will. Can you imagine a Democratic Govenor of Florida recusing himself like Jeb Bush did? Please someone make me wrong by showing me an example of a Democrat recusing themselves from a commision or committe?
#4
Gorelick is licked, so to speak. The Administration will not push for her removal because her continued presence will slowly erode all credibility in the Commission. Any further reference to the commission by Democratic candidates will be met with eyes rolling.
$5 says the Dems push her by the weekend Monday, to avoid the Sunday questions.
Posted by: john ||
04/14/2004 15:54 Comments ||
Top||
#5
How on Earth did this Jamie Gorelick ever get on the commission anyway? How did the Republicans not notice it until it was too late? The Dems just got a week's worth of anti-Bush news/propoganda from the commission, so it seems like the damage has already been done. I'm pissed that no one questioned Gorelick's appointment to the commission until now. I heard about it yesterday on Rush Limbaugh for the first time. The commission is being used as a political tool by the Dems. Has anyone else heard the jeering, clapping 911 families which are in the commission's audience? The Dems found some highly partisan, liberal family members of 911 victims and parked them next to the microphones & cameras covering the commission so they can jeer at the Bush administration officials when they're testifying and clap at the Clinton administration officials when they're testifying. Ridiculous! Unbelievable! All this going on while our troops are on the ground, fighting the WOT.
#10
Brett Hume on Fox just said a few moments ago that the chairman, Thompson, has praised Gorelick now as being a nonpartisan member of the panel. No way she's going to leave. And I bet the only places people will hear about this are Fox, Drudge and talk radio.
Posted by: AF Lady ||
04/14/2004 18:45 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Rest easy folks. If she leaves now the commission is null and void from beginning to her departure. If she remains to the conclusion then the entire hoedown is null and void. Chine
#12
Here's what I want to know...why didn't a hounddogging, factcheckin', huntin'-for-that-Pulitzer-Prize-winning-story, insightful, edgy, blow-dried member of the Press Corps discover this? Why did John Ashcroft have to tell them this was going on?
Were they too busy creating 'gotcha' questions for the President? Inquiring minds want to know!
Posted by: Fred ||
04/14/2004 13:14 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I still don't buy it. Those same 142 (mostly) Saudis and Bin Laden kin "fearing reprisals" could have easily been secured in the downtown DC Ritz-Carlton until the US government had a chance to question them thoroughly, not just check their names against a useless pre- 9/11 "terror watch list", which, as the Commission is proving, had no actual information on it.
I object strenuously to any whitewashing of Saudi influence by this 9/11 commission, because Jamie Gorelick was hired by a law firm that represents The Magic Kingdom AFTER she was named to the Commission. This is capital B, capital S.
IMO, a big handful of Bin Laden relatives would have made a very nice carrot before we dropped the 10th Mountain stick on top of Osama's pointy beturbanned head.
#2
Just remember, this special plan was set up and approved by .....Dick Clarke: Star Witness, Celebrity Bookhound, Apologist Extrodinaire, Friend to All Clinton, Enemy of All Bush....
Parker would call this the one big Get out of Jail Free card.
Posted by: john ||
04/14/2004 14:03 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I don't know what's with the above blog entry but it crashes my Mozilla 1.6 browser instantly.
If I can't read it without crashing it must be an unfriendly site.
#5
There's a javascript applet in the page's header. That's the only thing I can think of that would cause a crash. Lots of jpegs posted, but no more than some sites.
...from Vanderleun at www.americandigest.org . SEVERELY EFL'd, read the whole thing - these are the highlights as I saw 'em...
Question: When is it permissible in the United States to call a distinguished African-American an "Uncle Tom'" Answer: When he's a Republican and you're a Democrat.
That's the way it is over on the Daily ("Screw 'Em) Kos. You see, it seems that Secretary of State Powell is in the minds of these twisted people guilty of.... guilty of.... what? Of being a Republican? Of being an African-American that doesn't seem to want to follow the party line? Strange. The message is that anyone or anything that stands with or supports, not the policies nor the positions of George Bush, but the very person of George Bush is to be attacked and denigrated with every slur at their command.
I will spare my gentle readers the details of my own political odyssey since September 11, but I will note that as of last year I was determined to vote Republican instead of Democrat in the coming elections more out of sorrow than anger. But that was then and this is now. Now I have come to the place where the whole sorry spectacle and circus of the Democrats over the last year has finally angered me. The party whose ideals once excited me has become a parody of itself, a dangerous parody. Instead of inspriation it delivers either numbing boredom or sheer despair at its intellectual and spiritual poverty. Instead of telling us what sort of New Jerusalem it would have us build as our City on the Hill, it takes us into the slums of the soul. Instead of waving the bright banners of how, it dons the rags and bones of defeatism and appeasement. Instead of leading the parade, it wants to make us content with following after the elephants with a shovel and a wheelbarrow. When it needs to supply us with someone to believe in, to follow, to admire and to trust, it offers up John F. Kerry and his rollicking side-kick Ted Kennedy. It's like after sitting through the long and tedious circus of the primaries, the party went out and chose Emmett Kelly; the saddest clown of them all.
From the party that gave us FDR, Truman, JFK and even, yes, LBJ, the Democrats have gone through a process of gradual but increasingly shrill devolution to the party of such weak, tepid and compromised souls as Carter, Clinton, and now Kerry. And the men the Party puts up are only the shadows of the compromises it has made with itself. And it has made many compromises over the years.... and become the poorer for each one of them. Perhaps the reason the Democrats are still so obsessed with Vietnam is that it was the war that pitched them into the quagmire of their own making; a quagmire that sucks them deeper into the pit of inconsequence with each passing election.
True, they did start to climb out of the quagmire of sixties politics and Vietnam with Clinton, but it was only for a few years until Clinton's own sixties tendencies sucked them back down. What we see instead is a party that has been so out of power for so long, and is so deeply out of touch with so much of the body politic that it has turned in upon itself in its hunger for power and, through starvation, has begun to consume itself from the core out. This is why we are starting to see such chilling incidents as the ad in a newspaper in Florida by a Democratic Political Club calling for the killing of Donald Rumsfeld. That's why we are almost certain to see a move in the next few months on the part of the Democrats to bring a Bill of Impeachment against both the President and the Vice-President. It won't pass. It won't be expected to pass or even make it to the floor. It will be there just for the "news-cycles" it will churn up.
And this all arises from deep within the monsters from the id that now control and move the Democratic Party across out political landscape like a mob of extras from The Dawn of the Dead. It's an indecent and disgusting spectacle and I suspect there's more than a few million long-time Democrats who are revolted by it. Bush-Hate, racism, calls for the death of Republican cabinet members, snide innuendo, joy at the death of Americans in Iraq, the endless political thumbsucking of the 911 Commission, and there's more on the way, much more. It's a tired, sick and crazed political party that is so greedy and hungry for power that it will do anything, including selling this country down the drain, to get it back. I'll have no more to do with it. I'm not the only one. ..I'm going to go one step further. I believe some time before the election, you will see a direct, unambiguous call for 'armed resistance' against the Bush Administration from a national political figure.
God help us all.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
04/14/2004 12:02:35 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I go a step further, and say what I've said before: There will be violence related to this election. I'm undecided on whether it will happen before or after the voting, but I'm completely sure it will come from the left.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
04/14/2004 12:41 Comments ||
Top||
#2
One place may be during the DNC in Boston. There is a large demonstration being planned by Vets Against Kerry in Boston to coincide. It will be interesting to see if the local Iron Worker AFLCIO thugs come out of thier local bars and try and start something and other hate Bush goons make there presence felt.
Posted by: Bill Nelson ||
04/14/2004 12:48 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Bill - Don't forget the Teamsters, the Ultimate ThugsTM. Ted Kennedy's thugs boyz would 'mark' one of Mitt Romney's leaders with a hat (during Kennedy's Senate run, early 90's); said hat wearer got his ass kicked rather badly within the minute. Cops didn't do a damn thing about it.
#4
Vanderleun's description of his political odyssey pretty much tracks mine (Democrat for 31 years, Republican since this time last year), though mine began long ago. The events since 9/11 weren't a sea change for me, simply the last straw.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
04/14/2004 13:07 Comments ||
Top||
#5
I've been a Republican since jimmy carter's "glorious" days as our Commander in Chief.
Since then I've witnessed the unstoppable slide, of the democratic party, into ever more perversion, and murder of the innocent. I don't understand how anyone can vote for a goddamn democrat. They're a bunch of dicksucking, baby killing, carpetbaggers, hellbent on destroying The United States.
Bring on the "armed resistance". I've got something for those faggot motherfuckers.
Posted by: Halfass Pete ||
04/14/2004 13:54 Comments ||
Top||
#6
I found myself nodding vigorously through the whole thing. Thought I was a Democrat, and until 9/11 the thought of voting for a Republican was ludicrous. The Dems have no idea just how many people they've alienated.
#8
EX Dem here too up to 2000. Never again. This is not the party of Lieberman and moderates trying to pull the country together. In Kerry's own words "...liars and crooks..". That really unites the country well since at leat 1/2 are GOP. Nice job Ketchup Man. The GOP is somewhat right of center but closer to the middle than the far left Dims.
Posted by: Bill Nelson ||
04/14/2004 15:29 Comments ||
Top||
#9
..I'm going to go one step further. I believe some time before the election, you will see a direct, unambiguous call for 'armed resistance' against the Bush Administration from a national political figure.
believe some time before the election, you will see a direct, unambiguous call for 'armed resistance' against the Bush Administration from a national political figure.
I don't doubt it, but what will they "resist" with? Signs, puppets, and lattes? Moonbats don't "believe" in guns, you know.
Normal Americans, on the other hand....
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
04/14/2004 16:44 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Democrats will hold the Million Donkey March.
The "ticket", Kerry-Hillary will be in attendance. They will go to the mall in Washington, hold their fists aloft (hence 'armed'), and sing such songs as, "Kum-By-Ya", "We Shall Overcome",
"Blowin' in the Wind".....etc, etc, etc. You get my drift.
#12
I was a kinda hopin they'd do Suicide is Painess which me and the missus Flagg (not CID nor OSS, she may be MI6) like to kick up the feet to. I wasn't hear, say howdy to Henry.
Posted by: Col Flagg ||
04/14/2004 18:12 Comments ||
Top||
#13
One place may be during the DNC in Boston...It will be interesting to see if the local Iron Worker AFLCIO thugs come out of thier local bars and try and start something..
"Chicago '68", anyone? The real question is whether it'll happen in Boston or NYC.
Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry insisted on being awarded his first Purple Heart in Vietnam event though his injury amounted to no more than a "fingernail scrape," his commanding officer at the time now says. Retired Lieutenant Commander Grant Hibbard tells the Boston Globe that he can still recall Kerryâs wound, and that "it resembled a scrape from a fingernail," the paper said. "Iâve had thorns from a rose that were worse," Hibbard insisted. Still, the former Navy man remembered that Kerry insisted on receiving a Purple Heart for the wound he said was incurred during a Dec. 3, 1968 skirmish with Viet Cong near Cam Ranh Bay. "He had a little scratch on his forearm, and he was holding a piece of shrapnel," Hibbard told the Globe. "People in the office were saying, `I donât think we got any fire,â and there is a guy holding a little piece of shrapnel in his palm."
Posted by: Unmutual ||
04/14/2004 11:29:11 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
snicker
Posted by: B ||
04/14/2004 11:33 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Nyuk nyuk nyuk nyuk....."War Hero" my ass. Opportunist ya.
Posted by: Bill Nelson ||
04/14/2004 11:38 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Hmmm. Why am I not surprized by this?
Posted by: Dave D. ||
04/14/2004 11:45 Comments ||
Top||
#4
ROTFLMFAO! Kerry's digging his own political grave!
This goes in the Classics!
Posted by: Steve from Relto ||
04/14/2004 11:58 Comments ||
Top||
#5
I thought he took that first slug in the head. Had to pry it out while in the field using the famous K-bar. Also heard that he refused morphine. There was a shortage from all the other more seriously wounded as the battle was very intense.
One young man actually got hit in the buttochs!
Shame on the Globe for shining any light on this subject.
#6
Sounds like Hibbard didn't grasp that Kerry considered three Purple Hearts to be his ticket home.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
04/14/2004 12:31 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Steve:
Kerry's not digging his own grave, because you're never going to hear about this from the major media. Their take is still, and always will be, that Kerry's a "decorated war hero." You won't hear that he put himself in for the Silver Star, either. With luck, it'll get on Fox, but that's as far as it will go. Jennings, Rather and Brokaw love this guy, not to mention "journalists" like Katie C. and Chris ("I started as a speech writer for Jimmy Carter") Matthews. Theyll do anything to get him elected.
Posted by: Infidel Bob ||
04/14/2004 13:50 Comments ||
Top||
#8
The rules and regulations regarding the Purple Heart are here. I found this interesting and whether or not Kerry actually met the criteria is doubtful. While clearly an individual decoration, the Purple Heart differs from all other decorations in that an individual is not "recommended" for the decoration; rather he or she is entitled to it upon meeting specific criteria. See link for details.
#9
I think breaking this story would be a mistake for Republicans and bad for the USofA. I saw it in an email from Free-Lebanon a week ago and I've liked it less and less ever since.
Suppose it's true:
1) It doesn't mean Kerry was a bad soldier - just a glory hog. He still has plenty of war stories to say he was a solid soldier.
2) It calls attention to the gap between Bush's and Kerry's service
3) No need to break another public figure's myth - better to focus on his policies and let him say stupid things, like Sadr is a "legitimate voice" than to call attention to where he's strongest. That is, unless you want him to win.
If I were Kerry, I'd take on this story at some point just to make his service an issue as much as possible.
#10
If I were Kerry, I'd take on this story at some point just to make his service an issue as much as possible.
Sawt al-Shebaab, oooooooohhhh! Perhaps you're right . . . I think we better just keep it all hush, hush; so, maybe if we're lucky noone will realize what a mess up of a President we have and how great Kerry is . . . //sarcasm off.
#11
I too think that Kerry should demand air time to get this story out there. Good idea Sawt al-Shebaab!! Quick, somebody call AAR and see if you can get them to highlight this!!!
Posted by: B ||
04/14/2004 16:33 Comments ||
Top||
#12
No, you won't hear about this on ABC/CBS/NBC/CNN/BBC/etc... even though they went apeshit because someone on the planet did not see Bush in Alabama.
I wonder about his other purple hearts. Were they also 'fingernail scratches'?
#14
Supposedly Kerry's looking for a Catholic archbishop to ex-communicate him as well.
Kerry knows that there are plenty cult of the victim members in the middle. If I were him, I'd say, "Look at these Republicans, trying to trash my war service when, as Cheney said or his non-service, 'I had better things to be doing.'" And then he trots out the veterans who served with him and they say, 'He pulled me out of the Mekong Delta, saved my life.' And it's a net loss for the Republicans.
I agree, the first time I heard this story, I thought - gosh, if that's true kerry's screwed. But I thought the same about the cheating on his wife story. On more reflection, I think breaking this story would end up a net positive for Kerry.
#16
wKtW - I tend to agree with Sawt that for the Bush people to bring this up would be bad politics. We bloggers & Rantburgers, on the other hand, can rant and rave and make all the jokes we want about it nonetheless. Regardless, it still speaks to Kerry's character as, um, less than forthright and as a self-important opportunist, not exactly the character traits that endears to the electorate.
#17
No, RBers aren't "screwed" on this one.
All 3 of Kerry's Purple Hearts were for scratches.
None of his "war wounds" put him in sickbay even overnight.
He awarded these medals to himself as his own CO and then opted for the "3 Purple Hearts and you're out" rule so he could go home.
All told, his "heroic service" in Vietnam lasted all of 4 months on a "swift boat" that rarely went near any enemy action.
Many of us think that Kerry served, however briefly, in Vietnam for just such a time as right now--so he'd look good running for the presidency.
He was being groomed, almost from birth, for high political office by both his own Forbes family and by the Mass. Kennedy political machine.
(There are photos of Kerry on JFK's yatch so that puts his chumminess with the Kennedys before 1963 and it probably goes back a lot farther than that.)
Even so, any "heroic" service he rendered in Vietnam was cancelled out by his craven behavior after the war, his heavy involvement in the antiwar movement as head of VVAW and his subsequent record as a Senator of treating with the (North) Vietnamese and basically endorsing all that Ho Chi Minh wanted.
As a Senator, he sold out the rights of his fellow "baby killers" by leaving POWs and MIAs still in Vietnam to their fate and by turning a blind eye to human rights abuses of the Vietnamese people.
"Net positive for Kerry" my ass!
Posted by: Jen ||
04/14/2004 17:55 Comments ||
Top||
#18
There are two phrases that come to mind, dating back to the Vietnam War when I was in the Army: glory grabber and buddyfucker.
Both are applicable to Kerry, the latter phrase to his post-Navy career as a Jane Fonda suckup and all-around turncoat.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
04/14/2004 18:09 Comments ||
Top||
#19
Let's all gather around Dem. Rep. Lucky and Mucky and just admit... it was a damn fine Botox job on the jr. Senator from MA. No?
#20
Well Mr Hairdo's network friends will have to report discontent with a lot of Vets come July when the DNC is in Boston. There is a large protest being planned by Vets Against Kerry. Though I hope no violence occurs this thing will bring up NAM again. The Teamsters and other Dimmy thugs will be just hanging around to see what happpens. It seems like a "Perfect Storm" for something to happen.
Posted by: Bill Nelson ||
04/14/2004 20:51 Comments ||
Top||
#22
Jen...re: Rantburgers screwed...it was a joke...
but I do have to agree, it's best to leave this to the shadowy types to get the word out and let the Administration keep from getting any little fingernail scratches from the crossfire. If they get three of them, Bush might get sent home to Texas.
Posted by: B ||
04/14/2004 21:00 Comments ||
Top||
#23
I'd leave it alone; look at Kerry's voting record - that's enough right there to screw him. If he debate's Bush all they have to do is pull up every bill Kerry f*cked up on when he voted over the past 19 years. The war record has too much risk for back firing imho on the Republicans.
By CARRIE JOHNSON, Times Staff Writer
The ad appears on page 39 of the Gabber, a free weekly newspaper in Pinellas. By Tuesday afternoon, its message had been spread worldwide, from the Drudge Report to CNN to Rush Limbaughâs radio show. The reason: The $175 ad buried in a tabloid known mostly for club listings included an inflammatory line about Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. "And then thereâs Rumsfeld, who said of Iraq, "We have our good days and our bad days,â " read the ad bought by the St. Petersburg Democratic Club. "We should put this S.O.B. up against a wall and say "This is one of our bad days,â and pull the trigger."
Within minutes after Matt Drudge posted the missive on his Internet site, the Gabberâs tiny Gulfport office was overwhelmed by telephone calls. "An outrage," said Pinellas Republican chairman Paul Bedinghaus. "I am shocked beyond words," said Florida Republican chairman Carole Jean Jordan. Democrats, including presidential candidate John Kerryâs campaign, disavowed the ad, calling it "unauthorized" and "unfortunate."
It was written by Ken Steinke, 75, president of the St. Petersburg Democratic Club, who has a history of political zealotry. He was arrested in 1993 for throwing Republican campaign signs off an overpass. Steinke didnât answer his phone Tuesday. A man who answered the door at his Gulfport condominium said Steinke wouldnât be available for comment.
The ad was written by Mister Stinky? Really?
On the bright side: Gabber publisher Ken Reichart never dreamed his 13,000-circulation publication would get such publicity. "Iâm surprised by the reaction," he said. "It must be a slow news day."
Posted by: Unmutual ||
04/14/2004 9:52:00 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The headline for this article in the St. Petersburg Times is:
Political ad helps Gulfport weekly find world audience
Yup, just a "political ad". Calling for assasinations is politics as usual, apparently.
#2
Calling for assasinations is politics as usual, apparently.
For Democrats? Yeah, it is.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
04/14/2004 10:20 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I complained yesterday by e-mail (see comment #8 here), and got a reply today from the Kerry people:
This ad is outrageous and does not in any way reflect the position of our
campaign. We hope that those responsible will retract the statement, apologize for it and move on to more productive pursuits.
It would be better--for them, and for the world in general--to be more emphatic, and more public, about denouncing it.
Posted by: Mike ||
04/14/2004 10:29 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Mike - and rejecting the contributions by any of the traitorous moonbats encouraged by the ad...don't hold your breath
Posted by: Frank G ||
04/14/2004 10:31 Comments ||
Top||
#5
I may be mistaken in this age of PC Elightenment, but isn't making threats against a federal official or employee entitle one to a game of rock hockey in the Big Arena?
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
04/14/2004 11:42 Comments ||
Top||
#6
To my surprise, Al-Jazeera's English-language version (known under the tradename "CNN") has picked this story up.
Posted by: Matt ||
04/14/2004 12:13 Comments ||
Top||
#7
I wasn't expecting a lot, but on the other hand Kerry did the right thing in the Kos Kerfuffle, so I figured it was only sportsmanlike to give him a chance to do it here.
Posted by: Mike ||
04/14/2004 13:36 Comments ||
Top||
#8
UPDATE: According to CNN, Kerry made a public statement denouncing the ad and calling for its retraction.
I'm not going to vote for the guy, but at least give him credit for doing the right thing here.
Posted by: Mike ||
04/14/2004 17:15 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Bastards. Kerry backing out again. We meant it. BusHitler wants my social money for haliburton.
#10
Sally's right. We can't do withoyut our social money, i'd have to fall back on coupon clipin. Lucily I found a Bong today and am going to hock it at key coin shoppe. I'm hpping for $
Posted by: Williams Park Wally ||
04/14/2004 18:22 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Kerry backing out again. We meant it. Kerry backing out again. BusHitler wants my social money for haliburton.
Posted by: GreenSeatSally
Yes, we are aware that the doper-left's commitment to peace and non-violence is bullshit, that you emulate your jihadi allies in being driven by conspiracy theories, and that you are whipping yourselves up for a violent showdown.
We have discussed this trend many times here, but thank you for confirming it.
Since the average dope-left conformist literally doesn't know which side of a gun the sights are on, your coming "revolution" can end only way, and not with Rummy against the wall.
The moonbat explosion will be in November if Bush wins, next spring if Kerry wins (since he has no intention of meeting moonbat demands.)
BTW, Kerry isn't backing out of anything, he had nothing to do with this and there is reason for a senile Stalinist in Florida to presume to speak for him.
#12
Kerry doesn't "meet moonbat demands...?"
That's odd, given that he's a moony himself and the presumptive nominee of the Moonbat Party.
Even if Skeery had "nothing" to do with this, I'll bet he thought it was "funny" and that the fellow Dimocrats who ran it were just "high-spirited."
The best Lurch can come up with in his comatose patrician dream world is to call the GOP "lying and crooked."
Posted by: Jen ||
04/15/2004 4:25 Comments ||
Top||
Richard Brookheiser, of all people, in New York Observer, of all pubs. Excerpt...
A[n]... event landed on the front page of the April 10 issue of The New York Timesâthe grinning Iraqi man, all teeth, displaying a pair of American boots he had looted from an attacked supply convoy. This shot was more badly staged than most. No crowd, not even of idle boys, was gathered for an Adoration of the Boots. The man was, seemingly, all by himself, performing for Your Correspondent. College girls on spring break show their boobs for Girls Gone Wild; this Iraqi showed his boots for Baathists Gone Wild. American men support the strip show with their bottomless appetite for flesh; Americans support the boot show with their appetite for failure.
Only some Americans have an appetite for failure, Richard...
Hence the need for other voices, other chat rooms. An Iraqi blogger named Ali asked, days after the fighting began, "Whatâs good about this riot?" ... Historically, Ali explained, most Shiites wait calmly for the appearance of the Twelfth Imam, a messianic figure who will repair a broken world. Others, following the example of Khomeini, believe in leaders who can prepare the way for the Twelfth Imam. "After the fall of Saddam," Ali wrote, Shiites of both persuasions hoped "that democracy will give them their golden opportunity to take the lead in Iraq for the first time since the seventh century." So they "started a muscle show [show of force?] all over Iraq." Yet they soon discovered "that the democracy that is about to take place in Iraq was not the dictatorship of the majority they were dreaming about. Instead the democracy that was presented to them and which they couldnât refuse was a liberal democracy that gave all minorities their right to preserve their religious and ethnic identity âŠ. They were annoyed to be awakened from their vivid dreams." Sadrâs annoyance took the form of violence; more moderate clerics grumbled.
What does Ali hope for? "When this riot will be crushed ⊠all the clerics will no longer seem as strong as they seemed before, and once they see ⊠Sadir [his spelling] in handcuffs, they will think a million times before committing a similar stupidity in the future." Even though we are not clerics, we can offer a prayer: from his lips to Godâs ears.
Mohammed, another Iraqi blogger, wrote this at the height of the fighting on April 9, which was also the anniversary of the fall of Saddam. "Itâs the day that brought me back to life âŠ. A year ago at the same date, the thieves and criminals prevented me from celebrating my freedom in the open air, and today thieves, criminals and fanatics are doing the same, but they will not steal my happiness âŠ. A year ago, words failed me as I met the 1st American soldier, and I still remember his name, âCorporal Adam,â and all I could utter was âthank you!â [How] could I ever put my whole life in [a] few words? How could I have thanked that soldier enough? How could I have told him what it meant to me to see him and his comradesâwho brought me back to lifeâat last? ⊠I lit the 1st candle today to celebrate my 1st year as a free man."
Mohammed could speak to the unnamed Marine stationed in Iraq whose e-mail was posted by Andrew Sullivan on April 10, and which began in the classic laconic American mode: "Things have been busy here âŠ. This battle is the Marine Corpsâ Belleau Wood for this war âŠ. We have to find a way to kill the bad guys only. The Fallujahans are fired up and ready for a fight (or so they think). A lot of terrorists and foreign fighters are holed up in Fallujah. It has been a sanctuary for them. If they have not left town they are going to die. Iâm hoping they stay and fight."
Andrew Sullivan (at andrewsullivan.com) was my link to Ali, who appeared at Iraqthemodel.blogspot.com, which is where I found Mohammed. Are they a representative sample? Do I look like a pollster? Do they have their own agendas? No doubt. But their agendasâthe desire for liberty, and the determination to secure itâcompare favorably with those of the Boot Man, who is at best mischievous, at worst a fanatic too cowardly or incompetent to take up an AK-47, but willing to help the cause of re-enslavement in little ways. The confusion of voices from the ground, on whatever side, is infinitely more interesting than Bob Kerreyâs audition for a Vice Presidential nomination at the hearings of the 9/11 commission.
Posted by: Mark ||
04/14/2004 06:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Mohammed, another Iraqi blogger, wrote this at the height of the fighting on April 9, which was also the anniversary of the fall of Saddam. "Itâs the day that brought me back to life â¦. A year ago at the same date, the thieves and criminals prevented me from celebrating my freedom in the open air, and today thieves, criminals and fanatics are doing the same, but they will not steal my happiness â¦. A year ago, words failed me as I met the 1st American soldier, and I still remember his name, âCorporal Adam,â and all I could utter was âthank you!â [How] could I ever put my whole life in [a] few words? How could I have thanked that soldier enough? How could I have told him what it meant to me to see him and his comradesâwho brought me back to lifeâat last? ⦠I lit the 1st candle today to celebrate my 1st year as a free man."
Posted by: Super Hose ||
04/14/2004 11:56 Comments ||
Top||
#2
this is not the message that the dems/left want out..it's a quagmire I tell you..and if you do not believe me look no further than lovely teddy kennedy..the man who has never served..a man who got started soley due to his fathers influence peddling... a quagmire i tell you a quagmire.. teddy say's so
Posted by: Dan ||
04/14/2004 12:31 Comments ||
Top||
Posted by: Steve White ||
04/14/2004 12:20:17 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I'm impressed with what he said and with the fact that he wasn't fielding strictly questions that he knew were coming.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
04/14/2004 0:40 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I'm just now watching the video. I'm generally impressed, though I think he needs to be more of a sledgehammer when dealing with the press -- hit 'em in the head early and often. He's never going to be a gifted speaker but he can press a point home.
I haven't seen any gaffes, though the liberal bloggers are (as usual) finding fault with everything he said.
Posted by: Steve White ||
04/14/2004 0:55 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Troubled by his refusal to identify islamo-facism with islam. Also, why he has paused operations in Suni Triangle is a bit lame (Something important is missing here.) His body language did not match his statements. Again, I would love to be a fly on the wall in his office.
I mostly support what he is doing but the press conference was really quite awful.
#4
Steve, I agree totally. Be a cowboy and stop trying to be politically correct. But other than politically correctness he came off as human and at ease with his outlook.
And how about the terms he set for sadr and the Falluja rabble.
#6
I heard why he stopped - look at: what was accomplished prior to the temporary halt, the Islamic calendar, logistics, Iraqi forces, infiltration, and image in the region.
1) What was accomplished prior: cordon of major trouble centers, a chokedown of supplies, and revealing the weak points on supply routes and securing them.
2) Too many outsiders at Najaf to go with an attack there. Had to wait until they were gone.
3) Logistics: had to force oppen supply routes and gear up - Ops like this need to be conducted with a Bang, so "oozing in" supplies and forces is not an option. Have to commit them at the same time to have bigger impact, bigger shock.
4) Had to chase down the disloyal Iraqi provisionals, plus train up and gear up the loyals. This includes pulling more Kurds down from N Iraq into striking and patrolling positions.
5) Needed time for remote sensors and coverts to work their way in, as well as sniper teams to recon and set up. Additionally, needed to move up artillery and perp for fast op-tempo air ops and proper military intelligence prep.
6) Image: makes the US look a bit better by at least pretending to negotiate and play nice. This was aimed more for overseas consumption. And Last but not least, it lets the Iraqi govt look like they are in charge of the negotiations (After all they are doing a large part of the negotiating), so they can save face by saying "Hey we tried to cut a deal, we held off the Americans, but you didnt deal fair, so we are letting the Americans have their way"
Obvious enough if you look at all the angles.
Ony problem is that cease fires tend to have a life of their own, and by restarting ops, we could be made to look like the bad guys here. Watch for a precipitating event to cause Ops to begin again (hostage deaths, bombing or attack, something like that).
#7
3dc, some more mutilated bodies were found. His knowledge of that might have been the distraction you noted.
Old Spook, will the Khurdish forces improve our ability to closeout the Iranian influence? Are there one or several highways that can be shutdown to limit Iranian visitors to camel traffic only?
Posted by: Super Hose ||
04/14/2004 3:48 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Regarding Bush's continuing to differentiate Islamofascism from Islam overall, I don't think he's laboring under any illusions.
When Bush says, "Islam is a religion of peace," what he really means is, "...and if it isn't a religion of peace right now, it's goddamn well gonna be one by the time we get done with it."
Right now, we're determining just which parts of Islam want to be at war with us, and which don't; and giving the parts which aren't quite sure if they want war with us, a chance to reflect-- and to silence the lunatics in their midst.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
04/14/2004 7:23 Comments ||
Top||
#9
It was interesting to see today's press corps. Instead of asking questions that were meaningful they were questions meant on embarassing the President in some cases. I don't know if any of these "reporters" realize that the US is composed of a lot of people between LA and NYC and we don't like our President being disrespected. You may disagree which is fine. I loved his answer on the polls and his take was right. The American people sans (I hate any French words) the big city Dim Machines, know where he stands and support him.
Posted by: Bill Nelson ||
04/14/2004 7:55 Comments ||
Top||
#10
I had forgotten how viciously the Washington press corps hates this particular president. I mean he doesn't play the saxophone, give them hugs, or anything!
#11
I had ABC on for Bush's speech.Before speech,usual gloom and doom from Peter Jennings so I flipped away til speech started-I haven't watched TV "news" programs and pre/post event analysis for over a decade.After press conference was over,Jennings looked tired,subdued and asked his political commentator didn't the press corps look bad.Commentator started spinning away so I flipped to NBC hoping to catch Scrubs.Instead I got Brokaw asking his reporter if Bush was denying the buck stopped w/Bush and his reporter agreed slaming Bush for not accepting responsibility for 9/11.Out of curiosity I flipped to Fox News and their anchor was asking his group if Bush had done just ok or really good.
I thought press corps did horrible job.No questions on Iran,no questions on does US have enough infantry in total to fight WOT,nothing on food-por-oil scandal(duh!),nothing on what if we don't like constitution Iraq comes up with,no why not fire CIA and FBI bosses,etc.
I also thought there were several shots against Kerry by Bush in speech/press conference(maybe because I'd read Kerry's op-ed just before).
On the whole I think Bush looked good,and there just might be a reason he hasn't lost a major election.George Bush is comfortable with himself and people get that.
Posted by: Stephen ||
04/14/2004 11:00 Comments ||
Top||
#12
I thought he did very well, at least in his prepared remarks. I flipped the TV off halfway through the first press question, when I heard the words "Vietnam" and "quagmire." Anymore, the establishment press is little more than the propaganda arm of the Democratic Party: they have no intention of informing their viewers, only indoctrinating them.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
04/14/2004 11:43 Comments ||
Top||
#13
The Pres did fine. I think he confounded the reporters by not answering questions he did not want to answer, and skwering Clarke's sanctimonious apology. Pres Bush laid it out; "The person who is responsible is bin-Laden" Of course the reason he and the veep are appearing together is because if they were seperate, and just one comma was different, jerks like Ben-Viniste and Goerlick would demand an impeachment. They would both say the same thing. However one would say a meeting happened at 10:00 AM, and the other would say 11:00 AM, and it would become a criminal offense.
#14
Dave Nelson has a good point, Gephardt didn't get much traction from his "miserable failure" routine. Talk about a miserable failure of a campaign. Couldn't even get past Iowa.
Steven also right on. The "gotcha" question are so sophomoric. Like teenagers trying to score points at a birthday party.
#15
i sure hope that when Bush said "gosh" that euro weazels were squirming..man i like Bush just because he can say "gosh" and be ashamed!
Posted by: Dan ||
04/14/2004 12:34 Comments ||
Top||
#16
there is one thing Bush has not done and that is spell out clearly who the enemy really is. Bush needs to signal out iran and put those bastards on notice. i am sure it has alot to do with Bush agreeing to allow the euro whimps to take the lead in regards to iran. which they utterly failed at. economics and diplomacy will not work with these ragheads.
has anyone heard skerry mention iran? i believe i heard him mention that diplomacy is the way to go with iranians. this will just play into their hands and allow them the time to create a nuke force.
Posted by: Dan ||
04/14/2004 12:38 Comments ||
Top||
#17
i sure hope that when Bush said "gosh" that euro weazels were squirming..man i like Bush just because he can say "gosh" and be ashamed!
duuh..ment to say not be ashamed! my bad
Posted by: Dan ||
04/14/2004 12:40 Comments ||
Top||
#18
Overall, it was a positive performance. He was clear he's in Iraq for the long haul, and ended it with "When I say something, I mean it."
BUT...Ever have a job interview and you're asked what your greatest weakness is? The parallel is when he was asked if he had made mistakes. He flubbed it as he could have could have prepared an answer that would have not painted him as a ninny, but would have shown he's done some thinking since the invasion. His answer isn't going to change my vote for him, but what about undecideds? We'll see.
Since we're on the topic, here is my list of mistakes:
1)We hadn't infiltrated AQ, but a Marin County New Age white boy airhead DID using mommy and daddy's money. The CIA couldn't have done better? There are thousands of Arabic/Pashtun/Farsi-speaking former Peace Corps Volunteers all over America, and nobody at Langley thought about finding 100 reliable, loyal ones with the moxie of TE Lawrence to do the job? They exist, believe me. Inexcusable.
2) David Kay, hired by the CIA, and his parting media blitz on "We were wrong". I think Kay is a competent guy who knows the ins and outs of weapons inspections, but he had to have known what a firestorm his comments would cause. If not, he's a naive fool who should have been told to keep his mouth shut BEFORE he took the job. Couldn't he have just gone quietly into the night saying that there was still much work to be done to say for certain on WMD status in Iraq? This would have been the truth, by the way. Moreover, why didn't CIA make sure he LEFT with that understanding? I'm not saying to take away Kay's first amendment rights, but students ask me questions every day about screw ups at my schools and I always protect my admin bosses, knowing that you don't diss the guys who cut your paycheck in front of the clients.
3) W brought up last night the liklihood that WMD are still in Iraq. This is what I still believe, or at least if they are not, then exhaust all possiblities before issuing mea culpas from the Admin to Pentagon to State on how we screwed up. After all, The Beltway a few months ago was abuzz that they hadn't been found, but nobody in Govt. spoke up effectively. W should have gotten everybody in line and said he appreciated Kay's efforts, but nobody could say with certainty that WMD's aren't there. He could have used IAEA incompetence re Libya and Exhibit A to bolster his case.
3) The Mullahs are still in power in Iran. Why, George Tenet? If what I read on other blogs is true, the situation is ripe for an agressive tipping-point policy re Iran. But the finesse required is obviously beyond Tenet's competence.
4)The above mistakes point to my shock at W's continued retention of Tenet. Fire him, W. Don't worry, he won't collect unemployment insurance for long.
5) Should have put more troops on the borders with Iran, Syria, and the Magic Kingdom. Here is where we could have used the Shinsheki numbers, though not in the way Shinsheki envisaged. Be adaptable. We rolled in in three weeks, now let's put those extra guys to work. Or at least understand the number of guys we had go in was just right, but border patrol would require follow up deployments. People don't want to use the border crossings? Too bad. Assume the worst, arrest or fire away. Word would have gotten back to Teheran and Damascus, plus the Iraqis would have known we meant business. Read Michael Ledeen at NRO for more info.
#5 would have served well as Bush's answer last night. He could have said that he fully understood that he had neglected this detail and was taking immediate steps to stem the tide of trouble makers from exterior and at the same time take care of the al-Mahdi types in interior.
6) W didn't announce the creation of new divisions or further expansion of the military. I think it's time he got around to it. Maybe that's why he couldn't have put troops on the borders post-liberation. But, it's been 2 1/2 years since the attacks. We can't count on the Kerry branch of the Dems to help out, nor can we count on the UNSC, nor on our good friends in the Coalition, as they don't have the manpower/money. WE will have to lead. So, W, tell Rummy to dust off the files and get him the money.
Faster, please, as I see and hear more references to Vietnam. Not that I believe it is, but I don't count; after all, I live in Chicago and I see my state voting Kerry. All this talk by McLaughlin/Matthews/Russert/and other liberal media types et al. will basically change the debate from how we have to ensure success in Iraq to how we avoid another Vietnam. PREEMPT now, W! I'm deathly afraid of all this chatter turning into a self-fulfilling prophecy resulting in Kerry's election. Then we'll have the diner-en-ville crowd ruling the roost with subsequent discussions "serieuses" en ce qui concernent les complexites du tiers-monde and what injustice we have done to provoke the unwashed masses to hate us. Je sais, Kerry will spout, il faut devenir comme eux.
I've sat in many salons, folks, and heard the vile spewing against us, and this is when the great ones Bill and Hill were in office. What do you think the new kind of multilateralist will have in store for the US and others unwilling to fight Islamofascism? We must stem the tide, and right now.
Posted by: Michael ||
04/14/2004 13:04 Comments ||
Top||
#19
My sense is that the Dimocrats are starting to get the message. Prior to the Press Conference last night Ben Veniste was on CNBC. When asked directly whom to blame for 9/11, his response: "Nineteen terrorist hijackers".
Posted by: john ||
04/14/2004 13:07 Comments ||
Top||
#20
Change next-to-last sentence to "those willing to fight Islamofascism"
Posted by: Michael ||
04/14/2004 13:19 Comments ||
Top||
#21
I'm not the world's biggest fan of GWB's domestic policies (Medicare/ drug "entitlement" spending and illegal alien legislation are my biggest beefs), and I think the WoT is being fought half-heartedly at times...
But I really like hearing him speak and watching him on television. He truly does have leadership qualities along with being a down to earth guy.
The more often he gets on TV prior to the election the better. I think most people really took to him and his demeanor following 9/11, and those feelings will resurface and be remembered the more people see W on television.
What are the LLL media pundits going to say when Bush wins the election in a landslide?
How are they going to explain why they had Kerry and Bush running "neck and neck" up until Nov 1st, only to have Kerry get his ass handed to him on election day?
Attacks on weak allies in Iraq show the problem with Kerryâs internationalism.
The U.S. Army has a slogan for the new type of warfare that pits often a single soldier against a handful of attackers: "An Army of One." It evokes the power of a small unit or even a lone soldier on the battlefield to bring the full crushing weight of the U.S. military on the enemy. Given the latest developments in Iraq, President Bush might want to adapt a similar strategy for the U.S. diplomatic corps. Call it a Coalition of One.
This is no admission that John Kerry is correct in describing the coalition of the willing as "fraudulent." Rather itâs a truth that neither Mr. Kerry nor Mr. Bush is likely to admit. Allies are nice, but when it comes to fighting, there is no substitute for the U.S. military. Asking coalition partners to put lives on the line to performing missions better left to the U.S. military risks losing international cooperation on things America canât do alone--such as stopping weapons proliferation by interdicting ships, forcing down airplanes and inspecting packages shipped internationally.
This hard reality is evident in the recent attacks in Iraq and on full display from Madrid to Tokyo to the floor of the United Nations. The U.N. dickers over whether to sanction the new Iraqi government. Meanwhile, NATO demurs on sending troops or of taking a symbolic role in running the country. Terrorist bombings in Madrid seem to have succeeded in driving Spain from the coalition. In Tokyo, Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi is trying to make sure his country doesnât follow Spainâs example. Mr. Koizumi overcame his countryâs longstanding policy of not sending military forces abroad to dispatch 350 soldiers to Iraq. But he must now face a public that is tepid on the war and anxious over three Japanese hostages. The terrorists say theyâll burn the Japanese civilians alive unless Mr. Koizumi withdraws his troops.
In some cases, hostages are taken in hopes of scaring off countries that didnât have much to do with the liberation of Iraq but that are now helping to rebuild it. Seven Chinese nationals were grabbed near Fallujah and released yesterday. Other abductions include three Pakistanis, two Turks, a Filipino and a Nepalese--all of whom were released shortly after being kidnapped. South Korea also saw several of its citizens taken prisoner, one of whom escaped and the rest were released. Ukrainian forces were driven from Kut; only American firepower brought the city back under coalition control. These are a lot of headaches considering that some of these countries have not sent troops and most of the allies that have sent only a few hundred or a few thousand soldiers that often rely on American supply lines. Britain, with 8,700 troops, has the largest military contingent in Iraq next to the U.S.
The original model the Bush administration had for the coalition in Iraq is a good one. Most of the fighting would be done by U.S. and British soldiers. Other coalition partners would focus on peacekeeping, civil engineering projects and in some cases gathering intelligence and fighting small-scale engagements. The problem now is that fighting is breaking out all over the country as terrorists have figured out the chink in the in the coalitionâs armor: allies with soft public support at home or limited military resources. It is here that al Qaeda finds an alliance with Iraqi insurgents. As coalition partners sour on keeping troops in Iraq, they may also find it possible to scare them away from full cooperation in the world-wide war on terror. Spain is trying to belie that belief by promising to send more troops to Afghanistan in lieu of those it is withdrawing from Iraq. But after the Madrid bombings, terrorists can now hope to intimidate other Western powers.
This is about where Mr. Kerry might want to rethink his internationalist approach. The kidnapping and targeted terrorism will likely continue. The terrorists are testing Americaâs will by holding Halliburton employee Thomas Hamill hostage, and they are hoping to see which of the weaker allies can be scared off. Dragging along the French or the Germans would only have left a larger opening for the enemy to exploit. Whether our side has one face or many, the enemy must always be met by a coalition that is of one mind and of one purpose.
Posted by: tipper ||
04/14/2004 5:45:07 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The man is right! Excepting the UK the other coalition members don't have the capacity to do a serious amount of fighting. Irrespective of whether they have the political will. The damage is being done to reconstruction efforts not to military capabilities.
Posted by: Phil B ||
04/14/2004 6:06 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Powerful stuff. But we dont have enough soldiers to do all the occupation stuff. He is wrong on that score. We can tear down a Saddam with less then we used, but we can not police it all, and be prepared to fight another regional war if a Kim Jong gets froggy. Allies help fill the gaps.
And I would also include the Aussies with the Brits, Aussies can fight.
#4
Can anyone point me to any instance of Kerry stating plainly why he considers this coalition "fraudulent?" Or to any instance of him specifying precisely which nations would have to be added to it, to correct whatever deficiency he's claiming exists? I can't find a thing. All I can find are vague generalities about having the U.N. "take the lead" or some such nonsense. When has the U.N. ever taken the lead, anywhere, and succeeded? Certainly not in Kosovo; I don't think they've even restored electrical service there yet, after years of U.N. administration.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
04/14/2004 6:26 Comments ||
Top||
#5
DaveD, unless we are serving Frog and Kraut, it is fraudulent to him and his socialist buddies.
#6
Yeah, that's the conclusion I came to long ago; but I'm wondering if he's ever said anything to the contrary.
So this pussy is afraid to utter the words "France" and "Germany" in his speeches, but he keeps whining that their absence renders the coalition "fraudulent." What a leader!
Posted by: Dave D. ||
04/14/2004 6:54 Comments ||
Top||
#7
The second largest military group in Iraq, after the United States, is the Iraqi army and civil defense forces. There have been some problems with the existing Iraqi security forces, but since they number over 150,000, it is truly apparent that the numbers giving problems are small.
I would not expect the Iraqi police to stand up to a much better equipped militia, and withdrawing was both a prudent and a reasonable choice when they were faced with Sadr's thugs. American police are not equipped and trained for such a task, either.
The unit that refused to go to Fallujah was poorly led. Unit failures are nearly always leadership failures; see 1st Cav in Korea or Kasserine Pass in North Africa. The Iraqis were being told that theirs was a defense of the nation role, and they were understandably anxious to be placed into a position they were not prepared for in advance, fighting their fellow Iraqis.
Don't forget that two batllns. of Iraqis are serving well in Fallujah. Police, Facility Security, Border Guards and Civil Defense forces are all at their posts and serving their nation throughout Iraq today. That's something I wish Bush had said last night.
#9
Anon4052: I'm perfectly aware that France and Germany are what Kerry means when he talks about the so-called "allies" who've allegedly made the coalition "fraudulent" by not being a part of it.
What I'm asking is, is there any documented instance of Kerry having the balls to actually call them by NAME instead of hiding behind the generic term "allies".
To the best of my knowledge, he never has.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
04/14/2004 11:52 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Dave D. - I agree with you: Kerry never made any such statements. My point is to add to yours- I believe that Kerry's failures are as a result of his upbringing, and not to expect him to give the answer you and I would like to see!
#11
i would just like to hear from anyone who said the same about wars in the past ..in bosnia/yugo it was an american show. basically the same breakdown of percentages..with americans the majority as in iraq today..hell the last war where our allies?? were a majority was in WWI!
Posted by: Dan ||
04/14/2004 12:24 Comments ||
Top||
Testimony of Mrs. Barbara Y. Martinez, Deputy Director, National Domestic Preparedness Office, FBI
Before the United States House of Representatives
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations, and Emergency Management
June 9, 1999
"Preparedness for Terrorism Response"
-snip-
...As you know, in the past few years, the President of the United States and Congress have taken significant steps to increase our national security and to promote interagency cooperation. Most recently, cooperative efforts against terrorism have been extended to include state and local agencies and professional and private sector associations as well.
For example, in the preparation of the Administrationâs Five-Year Interagency Counterterrorism and Technology Crime Plan, the Attorney General directed the Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, to host a meeting of individuals who represent the various emergency response disciplines that would most likely be involved in the response to a terrorist event. More than 200 stakeholders representing local and state disciplines of fire services and HAZMAT personnel; law enforcement and public safety personnel; emergency medical and public health professionals; emergency management and government officials; and various professional associations and organizations attended the two-day session.
Collectively, they made recommendations to the Attorney General; James Lee Witt, Director of FEMA; Dr. Hamre, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, and other federal officials on ways to improve assistance for state and local communities. These recommendations have been incorporated in the Administrationâs Five-Year Plan mentioned above.
The most critical issue identified by stakeholders was the need for a central federal point of coordination. Due to the size and complexity of both the problem of terrorism and of the federal government itself, it was no surprise that the many different avenues through which aid may be acquired, by state and local officials, and the potential inconsistency of those programs was deemed to be simply overwhelming. In essence, the federal government, though well intentioned, was not operating in an optimal manner nor was it effectively serving its constituents with regard to domestic preparedness programs and issues in an optimal manner.
State and local emergency response officials made a strong recommendation to the Attorney General for the coordination and integration of all federal assistance programs that reach state and local agencies for terrorism preparedness. In heeding that recommendation and seeking to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of federal support programs that provide grants for equipment, training, exercises, and information sharing, the Attorney General proposed the establishment of the National Domestic Preparedness Office.
In proposing the establishment of the NDPO, the Attorney General consulted the National Security Council, Department of Defense, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Health and Human Services, and other relevant agencies regarding the creation of a single coordination point within the federal government to better meet the needs of the Nation.
Mission of the NDPO
The NDPO, if approved, will provide a forum for the coordination of all federal programs that offer WMD terrorism preparedness assistance for state and local officials. Through such coordination, it is believed that the vital efforts of the Office of Justice Programsâ Office for State and Local Domestic Preparedness Support, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), the Department of Defense (DoD), the National Guard Bureau (NGB), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and other agencies will better serve the states and local communities of this country.
It is intended that the NDPO will serve as a much needed clearinghouse to provide information to local and state officials who must determine the preparedness strategy for their community. In keeping with Stakeholdersâ requests, the NDPO will also provide a forum for the establishment of agreed-upon standards to guide the execution of federal programs.
Federal participants that will serve in a full-time capacity at the NDPO, once approved, will include the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Department of Defense, the National Guard Bureau, the Department of Energy, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Office of Justice Programs, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. We have also received commitments from other agencies including the U.S. Coast Guard, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, to provide personnel in the future.
Stakeholders also cited the need for formal representation of state and local officials with the federal agencies in the form of an Advisory Board to guide the development and delivery of more effective federal programs. Federal agencies agree that their participation is critical to the whole process of domestic preparedness. Therefore, in addition to the Advisory Board, it is anticipated that when fully staffed, approximately one-third of the NDPO will be comprised of state and local experts from various disciplines.
Stakeholders identified six broad issue areas in need of coordination and assistance. These areas are: Planning; Training; Exercise; Equipment Research and Development; Information Sharing; and Public Health and Medical Services. I would like to highlight how the proposed NDPO would address each of these areas.
In the area of Planning, the NDPO would facilitate the distribution of the United States Government Interagency Domestic Terrorism Concept of Operations Plan and other Planning guidance for state and local communities. The benefit of such guidance is to explain to state and local planners the logistics of how federal assets may be included in their local emergency response plans.
In the area of Training, the NDPO would continue the DoD initiative to establish and maintain a compendium of existing federal training courses available to emergency responders. It would also establish a mechanism to ensure federal training programs comply with national standards such as those issued by the National Fire Protection Association and Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Finally, it would develop a national strategy to make sustained training opportunities and assistance available to all communities and states. For example, the Office of Justice Programs Office for State and Local Domestic Preparedness Support will incorporate into the training programs that it supports standards that have been coordinated through the NDPO process.
In connection with the Information Sharing program area, the NDPO can implement a mechanism to facilitate access by personnel outside law enforcement to information that may be important for preparedness and consequence management. Internet web-sites, both public and secure have been proposed for the sharing of public safety information. Links to several existing web-sites may also be built.
In the Exercise program area, the NDPO will formally adapt a military software application for civilian use to track the lessons learned during exercises and actual events. The NDPO will provide this tool to participating communities and will maintain an After-Action Tracking database for the repository and review of all lessons that might assist other communities.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
04/14/2004 4:03:54 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
EFL one of the Anon crowd posted the transcript that included Ashcroftâs grenade late yesterday. I think it will cause a stir on talk radio and should be picked up by Fox. I guess weâll see.
9-11 Commission member Jamie Gorelick wrote a 1995 memo that established a "wall" between the criminal and intelligence divisions, hindering the ability of the U.S. government to detect the Sept. 11, 2001, plot, according to testimony today by Attorney General John Ashcroft.
The document by Gorelick, who served as deputy attorney general under President Clinton, helped establish the "single greatest structural cause" for Sept. 11, which was "the wall that segregated criminal investigators and intelligence agents," Ashcroft said in his prepared statement Gorelick was a Democratic appointee to the commission probing how the government handled the threat to terrorism leading to the 9-11 attacks.
"Government erected this wall," Ashcroft said. "Government buttressed this wall. And before September 11, government was blinded by this wall." The attorney general, who declassified the document for the commission, said he believed panel members were not aware of it, even though it was written by one of their own. "Although you understand the debilitating impact of the wall, I cannot imagine that the commission knew about this memorandum, so I have declassified it for you and the public to review," he said. "Full disclosure compels me to inform you that its author is a member of this commission."
The memo, entitled "Instructions on Separation of Certain Foreign Counterintelligence and Criminal Investigations," contained orders to FBI Director Louis Freeh and others. It said: "We believe that it is prudent to establish a set of instructions that will more clearly separate the counterintelligence investigation from the more limited, but continued, criminal investigations. These procedures, which go beyond what is legally required, will prevent any risk of creating an unwarranted appearance that FISA is being used to avoid procedural safeguards which would apply in a criminal investigation."
-snip- repeat of Ashcroft sttements from yesterdayâs post linked above.
The Landmark Legal Foundation, a national public interest law firm, has formally requested that Gorelick step down from the commission because she is "hopelessly conflicted" in her role as a member. The group, headed by Mark Levin, contends there are "numerous issues about which she has knowledge" resulting from her service as deputy attorney general from 1994 to 1997.
As the second most powerful Justice official, Landmark notes, Gorelick oversaw the management, budget and policy objectives of the department, including the FBI, which are a key focus of the commission.
Gorelick recused herself from testimony today by former FBI Director Louis Freeh, but Landmark said this is no substitute for her testimony. "Moreover, as a commission member," the group said, "Ms. Gorelick will have input into the commissionâs findings, including those related to areas involving her past role. If Ms. Gorelick does not immediately step aside, many in the public will undoubtedly conclude that the commissionâs work has been compromised."
As an example, Landmark quotes former Chief Assistant United States Attorney Andrew C. McCarthy, who said Gorelick was "an architect of the governmentâs self-imposed procedural wall, intentionally erected to prevent intelligence agents from pooling information with their law-enforcement counterparts."
McCarthy stated in a National Review column Gorelick was "committed to the bitter end to the law enforcement mindset" of addressing terrorism.
Writing in National Review Online, Ethan Wallison, notes during questioning of National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Gorelick pointed to a report from 2001 that indicated, in her own words, that "we have big systemic problems. The FBI doesnât work the way it should, and it doesnât communicate with the intelligence community." In the ensuing dialogue, however, Rice apparently implicated Gorelick in the allegation.
Gorelick: Now, you have said that your policy review was meant to be comprehensive. You took your time because you wanted to get at the hard issues and have a hard-hitting, comprehensive policy. And yet there is nothing in [the policy review] about the vast domestic landscape that we were all warned needed so much attention. Can you give me the answer to the question why?
Rice: I would ask the following. We were there for 233 days. There had been a recognition for a number of years before â after the â93 [World Trade Center] bombing, and certainly after the [thwarted] millennium [attack in Los Angeles] â that there were challenges inside the United States, and that there were challenges concerning our domestic agencies and the challenges concerning the FBI and the CIA. We were in office 233 days. Itâs absolutely the case that we did not begin structural reform at the FBI.
Popcorn please.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
04/14/2004 1:35:03 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I missed this today. After watching the blame game going on in the press I wonder how much of this gets out. Problem is, that it's not a big story when a hack is compared to a president.
#2
McCarthy stated in a National Review column Gorelick was "committed to the bitter end to the law enforcement mindset" of addressing terrorism.
Stuff in the National Review will make it into radio talk and Drudge had an article from CNN that gave the Gorelick memo a paragraph or so in a two page article. It's hard to say whether it will fly.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
04/14/2004 3:30 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Kucky, I posted an article late concerning Trilogy. Did you get a chance to look at it?
Posted by: Super Hose ||
04/14/2004 3:51 Comments ||
Top||
#4
As the "Anon" who posted this yesterday, I just wanted to get some more input from the world, and give the Atty General a few kudos! There are all kinds of PDBs, and various and sundry extraneous acronyms for reecyclable paper. In fact some career bureaucrats put out so many memos and directives they forget even the important ones which should have a bearing on one position in a future commission. Hmm...
#5
Anon, it was a good catch.
I hope it has legs. Here is a taste of the reaction from another link that was titled Gorelick Licked:
Not only did Ashcroft add to the growing pressure on Gorelick to testify before the commission rather than serve on it, specifically about what she and the administration she served failed to do about terrorism. Above all, he discredited her in the eyes of her fellow commissioners. Clearly she had never informed them of this memorandum. Now they were caught by surprise and made to look foolish.
One could detect the power of Ashcroft's bombshell in the subsequent questioning. Richard Ben-Veniste's edge turned to smarm. He greeted the two surprise guests who had accompanied Ashcroft to the hearing, his respected former deputy Larry Thompson and Solicitor General Ted Olson. Ben-Veniste referred to him as "Mr. Olson," and offered renewed condolences on the death of Barbara Olson on 9/11. With Olson on Ashcroft's side, there was no way he could look bad.
Ben-Veniste's only pointed question proved an embarrassment, repeating as it did morning press stories fed by Democrat leaks to the effect that Ashcroft would be asked about why he had started flying in government planes and not commercially before 9/11. When Ashcroft replied that all his personal flying had continued to be done commercially, as was his wife's, Ben-Veniste was left red-faced, grasping at a dwindling number of straws.
But he couldn't have been more red-faced than Gorelick. Initially she tried mouthing denials to fellow commissioners that she was author of the memo. But when a copy was handed to her, listing her as initialed author, she had nowhere to hide.
Her round of questions came last. Unlike Bob Kerrey, say, who was cordial with Ashcroft and even said it was good to see the AG "on the mend" after his recent hospitalization and operation, Gorelick established no human contact during her half-hearted queries -- none of which engaged the central point of Ashcroft's opening statement. The Democrats wanted to play hardball, but ended up clubbed on the head themselves.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
04/14/2004 12:14 Comments ||
Top||
#6
[utters sympathetic groan for Gorelick, sounding exactly like what would be uttered upon seeing a male sports figure taking a hit on the cajones. Or being asked to get circumcised after the age of 30...]
U.S. President George W. Bush should raise Israeli human rights violations in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip when he hosts Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon at the White House on Wednesday, Human Rights Watch said today. âPresident Bush has said that respect for human rights is central to his administrationâs policy in the Middle East,â said Joe Stork, acting Middle East and North Africa director at Human Rights Watch. âBut that policy wonât have any credibility unless he presses Sharon to address Israelâs routine violations of basic Palestinian rights.â "These guys are Bahro! Untermenschen! Beast-people!
Human Rights Watch called on President Bush to tell Prime Minister Sharon that the United States expects Israel to end policies amounting to collective punishment. These policies include crippling restrictions on Palestinian movement within the occupied West Bank that go beyond legitimate security needs, the demolition of homes belonging to the families of alleged armed militants, and the widespread destruction of homes and property in areas of the Gaza Strip for unsubstantiated security reasons. âCivilian settlements in territories under military occupation violate international humanitarian law, so an Israeli initiative to end those settlements in the Gaza Strip is welcome,â Stork said. âBut the United States should not accept a quid pro quo in which Sharon seeks to consolidate or expand illegal settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.â Then his harp broke a strng.
Human Rights Watch said that Israelâs construction of a âseparation barrierâ beyond the Green Line and inside the occupied West Bank has worsened an already severe humanitarian crisis in the West Bank by imperiling access to essential civilian needs such as work, water, medical care and education. Israel has argued that the barrier is intended to improve security from Palestinian attacks against targets in Israel, but the barrierâs route has been designed to incorporate and make contiguous with Israel civilian settlements constructed with government support over the past three decades. âThe separation barrier further encroaches on local land and resources in order to consolidate control over these illegal settlements,â Stork said. "The Jews just need to recant never again and let themselves be exterminated!"
Posted by: Steve from Relto ||
04/14/2004 10:23:12 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
I agree:
Sharon's Israeli human rights violations include not cracking down hard enuf on the Paleo-psychos to ensure the safety of innocent Israelis
Posted by: Frank G ||
04/14/2004 10:46 Comments ||
Top||
#3
There the Palestinians were playing with puppies and minding their own business when the evil Zionist conspiracy showed up and started building these walls....
#4
A classic case of juxtaposing unrelated statements in order to create the semblance of an argumnet.
Posted by: Phil B ||
04/14/2004 11:47 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Listen, I've been around the RB city sqaure blocks a few times... but I still don't get the harp action... I hate it when I'm ignorant. Is it from a popliar work of some sort?
Waedueramae Mamingchi was educated for eight years in Saudi Arabia, studying Arabic and the precepts of Islam before returning to his home in southern Thailand. The Saudi stint greatly enhanced his standing among his community. But in the fear-filled post-9/11 world, Muslim leaders like Waedueramae say schooling and spiritual guidance in the Middle East has made them suspect in the eyes of the Thai government as it battles an Islamic separatist insurgency in the south. "When we go to learn abroad, they say we went to learn to be terrorists," said Abdulraman Abdulsamad, another respected Muslim leader. "They accuse us of going to train to be terrorists."
Prejudices, say local Muslims, were in evidence in early February when army rangers raided the grounds of an Islamic school owned and run by Waedueramae after a soldier was shot to death about 800 yards away. "The soldiers continued to search, and this is why we got upset. Villagers came and watched this," Waedueramae, who lives on the premises, said. Heavy-handed government attempts against escalating violence have sharpened tensions between Muslims — a majority of the population in Thailand's southernmost provinces of Narathiwat, Pattani and Yala — and officials, recruited mainly from Thailand's Buddhist majority. The government denies it is targeting Arab-educated Muslims. "That is not true," government spokesman Jakrapob Penkair said. "If that were the thought of the government, all students who go abroad to further their education would be barred."
Posted by: Fred ||
04/14/2004 10:46 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"after a soldier was shot to death about 800 yards away"
I thought the Thais could understand cause=> effect. The inability to understand seems to be cultural, exceptionally in particular to Islamists
Posted by: Frank G ||
04/14/2004 12:54 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I wonder how long it is going to take the outside world to realize what sort of overall role Saudi Arabia has played in promoting world terrorism. The House of Saud has clung to its tenuous wealth and power by allowing Wahhabist fundamentalists to run riot in their country.
Every year, jetliners bought and fueled by the immense oil wealth of Ibn Saud are donated and used to ferry poor Muslim pilgrims from around the world to Mecca for the Haj. Once they arrive, these malleable minds are delivered up to the tender mercies of those rabid Wahhabist clerics that dominate Saudi faith.
If anyone ever wonders how it is that Wahhabism has managed to infect so much of global Islam, look no farther than the House of Saud. In order to have their race horses, peregrine falcons, harems and air conditioned palaces, they have willingly bred up a large part of international terrorism. Their incredible wealth will probably prevent them from ever having to answer properly for this crime against humanity.
#1
Huh. Can't say as I've missed it. Even if I had tuned in, the dead air would have sounded pretty much like it did on Day One, so I wouldn't have thought anything was amiss.
On line there are some rumors about right wing elements pressuring the holding company to pull us off the air.
If anything I would think rightwingers would want it to stay online simply as a gross example of what comprises the left's thinking these days...
As much as I'd like to, I don't buy it. I think this is probably a typical hardball business scenario that is indicative of AAR's unexpected success and somebody who was betting against that success trying to renegotiate.
Bwahahahaaa...
Oppsies! You were serious.
Well, ahem, that's good news, then, the success and all. And I know from personal experience, there is a large group of folks who hope it stays on the air right through November. They're called rightwingers.
So why pull it off the air so early in its existance? Wouldn't such a move be counterproductive to negotiations? Wouldn't you want to stay on the air to continue your success?
#3
As you know if you live in LA or Chicago AAR is down in those locales. I wouldn't know that even if I lived in either city 'cause Al Franken doesn't have anything to say worth listening to. But I did miss the call on the duration. I figured Air America would last 'til Nov. 3d.
#4
I was looking at their web site and their line up. Remember when Democrats used to be cool? Their line-up looks like GEEK Central!!
That geeky little Republican guy with the little bow-tie actually looks far more with it than this cesspool of uncool.
The only really funny thing about this, wittless, geeky, "boy band" line up for the DNC is just how uncool their "anti-establishment" dance has become.
They just don't have any rhythm. It's like watching sockpuppets trying to be funny.
Posted by: B ||
04/14/2004 13:51 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Oh woe is me. I'm in the LA Metro area. Arrrgh. Blackout! Woe is me. Woe is me. Woe is me. Just like the NFL.
Just have to "poison" my ears with Rush now. Tsk Tsk Tsk
(Ha ha ha ha ha. . . . .)
It doesn't get any better than this - trial lawyer sycophants sunk by trial lawyers!
#6
Wow. I knew they'd fail, but not quite so quickly or spectacularly. It's nice, if a little Orwellian, that they can attribute their failure to their "unexpected success". Momma always said if life gives you lemons, make lemonade. Hey! Maybe they could try a lemonade stand! A progressive lemonade stand, that'll teach those evil little Republican bastards engaging in capitalism.
BTW, any radio professionals out there? Does it bug you at all that a bunch of "intellectual" amateurs assumed they could come in and do your job?
#7
muck have you considered applying for a position with air America? I thinked you'd be a natural. Talking Meat With Mucky would be an excellent show title.
#10
Dayyyyummmm! And two weeks ago, I predicted that Air America Radio wouldn't last until the 4th of July!... The negotiations on the leases in LA and Chicago probably ran into a brick wall... Or the Hispanics and African Americans backlashed, revolted and decided they wanted their original stations and formats back!
Posted by: Jack Deth ||
04/14/2004 14:50 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Dan Gurney for President! Oh, wait...
Posted by: Pete Stanley ||
04/14/2004 15:14 Comments ||
Top||
#14
According to Drudge,RightNation threads, and Rush. Someone wrote a check that bounced to the tune of over $1,000,000 for both the LA and Chicago markets!... Don't the folks at MoonBat Central understand anything about Capitalism???.. Laughing so hard my sides hurt!
Posted by: Jack Deth ||
04/14/2004 15:48 Comments ||
Top||
#15
Wow - thanks for the tip to go check the comments thread over there, Raj.
Mucky's even less coherent there than here - we just be good for him. lol
#16
this isa trajic. anyone have subscribe to chicago tribune? their news story there saying aar bounce checks and that why its off. im just hope the blog stays cuz i have fun and lean making hiaku there. they are very nice peple there.
#18
Since the LLL loves conspiracy theories, I'm gonna post one of my own. *g*
Everybody with a functioning brain stem knew this radio ad buy network was going to fail. They roll the dice anyway and its a complete failure.
So why pay the bill? Just dump it (and their bills) and go, and then claim that their "Voice" was driven from the airwaves by a great conspiracy concocted by the Right Wing Radio Machineâ¢.
Lots of raving and gnashing of teeth over the Supression of Dissent, and Soros (and whoever else funded this lunacy) gets to keep their money.
/LLL Off
Posted by: Laurence of the Rats ||
04/14/2004 16:38 Comments ||
Top||
#19
Nah...Karl Rove did it. He planned the whole thing ..from start to finish ...just to spectacularly embarrass the dems.
He even paid for the pre-advertising hype to let everyone know it was out there - so that we'd all see it go down in a blaze of Dimmicrat flag burning Glory.
Posted by: B ||
04/14/2004 16:51 Comments ||
Top||
#20
Lets just say: theat confirms some suspicions I had about Mucky for some time now.
#22
muck4doo, I can't decide if you are the dumbest troll on the net or the most brilliant satirist I've ever seen, but I'm always entertained by your posts. Dude, you are the William Hung of blog commenters!
#25
muck4doo is definately Frank J. from IMAO, making him indeed one of the most brilliant satirists on the web. I've said this several times and the muckster has never tried to deny it.
#26
I wonder how long before they can't afford to pay Franken for his show?
Posted by: Charles ||
04/14/2004 18:16 Comments ||
Top||
#27
muck4doo is either Frank J. or a fan. He first appeared here on Rantburg after Frank posted a satire of a DU Thread. One of the characters in the satire was muck4doo.
Excellent work, Frank J or whoever he/she/it is. :)
Posted by: Laurence of the Rats ||
04/14/2004 18:23 Comments ||
Top||
#28
Muck4doo is the best troll i ever laugh at,he is really entertaining.
#30
LOTR, I think you may be right about Frank J. or a fan. Mucky isn't quite as good as Treachers' Puce. But he's worth reading for the entertainment value.
Posted by: Scott ||
04/14/2004 19:21 Comments ||
Top||
#31
William Hung of blog commenters!
Best laugh I had today!
Posted by: Phil B ||
04/14/2004 20:10 Comments ||
Top||
#32
BH, me too, best laugh I had today !
Posted by: Carl in N.H. ||
04/14/2004 20:36 Comments ||
Top||
Posted by: Fred ||
04/14/2004 10:39 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
But the last group of cases is the hardest to deal with because poverty and lack of education prevent people from understanding the need for vaccinations, Thompson said.
He forgot to include the third reason: Muslim clerics.
#2
What is going on? Has the mainstream media fired all its editors.
Posted by: Phil B ||
04/14/2004 11:12 Comments ||
Top||
#3
These morons in northern Nigeria are breeding up a disaster of monumental proportions and all because they have refused to let their flocks participate in the local polio vaccination programmes. They claim the vaccines are tainted with HIV/AIDS or infertility compounds to reduce birth rates in this predominantly Muslim area. This, despite proof from scientific tests that the vaccine is pure.
Africa is now facing polio outbreaks in areas that have not had a case in years. A majority of this is due to these Imams. They need to be arrested for the intentional murder of those who are now dying of polio. We need to remove such backwards hidebound clergy when they pose such a threat to nations of other people. If these Imams have any personal wealth, it should be distributed amongst the polio victims.
This is picture perfect example of rabid anti-western mentality biting off its own nose (and those of others) to spite its own face. Quite simply, they are murderers.
#6
mhw: Dalrymple is City Journal's UK correspondent. He is a psychiatrist and apparently works in a hospital in a rough neighborhood. His writing is anecdotal, but very perceptive.
#7
This is excellent, but I completely disagree with this..no really, I do!
Devout Muslims can see (as Luther, Calvin, and others could not) the long-term consequences of the Reformation and its consequent secularism: a marginalization of the Word of God, except as an increasingly distant cultural echoâas the âmelancholy, long, withdrawing roarâ of the once full âSea of faith,â in Matthew Arnoldâs precisely diagnostic words.
I think we have just passed through another stage where we are free to decide if we want religion based on its spiritual merit, rather than because "we are heretics" if we do not.
You can choose the pagan lifestyle - but at some point, if you are smart, you start to see the wisdom in Christianity - not because you will go to hell - but because it makes sense.
I think this generation is beginning to understand Christianity as it was once understood: faith, hope, charity, forgiveness, sin and redemption... rather than as the Santa Claus that we pray to for presents.
I liken it to the civil rights movement. The idea of civil rights - is a good one. Jessie Jackson came and perverted it to a point where it is a joke - special rights for minorities at the expense of whites- unrecognizable from the good intentions of its foundings. But the concept of civil rights is still as good as it always was. The foundation of the idea is solid. It's the better way.
And so I see that with Christianity. Perhaps we had to be free to fall to the depths of paganism to which we have fallen to once again understand that concepts of sin/sinners and redemption that Jesus taught to us. Only, now, we do it entirely of our own free will - not because the State makes us do so.
Posted by: B ||
04/14/2004 14:16 Comments ||
Top||
He has banned beards and listening to car radios, and instituted a national holiday in honour of a melon. Now the worldâs craziest dictator has identified a new and pressing danger to his people: gold teeth. It was atone of the interminable events in his honour that the President of Turkmenistan, Saparmurat Niyazov, turned to the young student from an agricultural university reading an address praising her President and told her to get her gold teeth removed and replaced with white ones. "Hereâs the health minister, himself a dentist," he told the unfortunate woman. "He will give you white teeth."
The great dictator did not stop there. He had some remarkable advice for the people of his former Soviet republic on how to avoid losing their teeth. "I watched young dogs when I was young," he said. "They were given bones to gnaw. Those of you whose teeth have fallen out did not gnaw on bones. This is my advice." Gold teeth are popular in the desert country where, despite the health ministerâs credentials, dentistry standards are poor and many lose their teeth young. But they are expected to disappear in coming weeks: tips from Mr Niyazov are regarded as law.
This sort of eccentricity is becoming the norm under Mr Niyazov, who prefers to be known as Turkmenbashi, "Leader of the Turkmens". In many ways he is the classic dictator. Turkmenistan is littered with gold statues of him, including a giant revolving one in the capital, Ashgabat. He has appointed himself "president for life", and his rule is absolute. But in Mr Niyazovâs case this has meant his country of five million isforced to live under some of the weirdest laws of our times. Two months ago he used another television appearance to ban beards and long hair for men. Opera and ballet are not allowed, because Mr Niyazov decided they were unnecessary. He has changed street names in Ashgabat to numbers, and forced his ministers to take part in a 36km "health walk"...
Posted by: Lux ||
04/14/2004 4:00:33 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
the revolving statue is designed so it always points at the sun (not sure whether he legislated against nigthtime yet). But, hey, if you get yourself a golden statue, you might as well do something with it, it's only logical.
#2
the revolving statue is designed so it always points at the sun
I believe it turns so the sun always shines on the "beloved leaders" face, as befits a living god.
Posted by: Steve ||
04/14/2004 8:37 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Some of the laws don't seem so terribly weird. For example, given the region in which Turkmens live, the banning of beards is not such a bad idea. It could actually be interpreted as a clever form of profiling, to easily identify infiltrators from the Pankisi Gorge.
#5
Its one hell of a walk (and swim) from the Pankisi Gorge to Turkmenistan.
Posted by: Phil B ||
04/14/2004 9:19 Comments ||
Top||
#6
For some reason this page brings up three apochalyptic christian google ads. I tell you man its a sign! I'm not sure of what, but its definitely a sign.
Posted by: Phil B ||
04/14/2004 9:23 Comments ||
Top||
#7
the revolving statue is designed so it always points at the sun
At least in Turkmenistan they know where the sun don't shine.
#9
I'd say that we might want to put this guy on our list of people to send to an early retirement, but there's something I find oddly endearing and amusing about his laws . . . we need to get this guy into the Senate; he'd be better than half the jokes we have in there now. Maybe he could take Ted Kennedy's seat.
Posted by: The Doctor ||
04/14/2004 11:16 Comments ||
Top||
#10
The Wacky Misadventures of Dictator Saparmurat Niyazov!
UNITED NATIONS, April 13 -- U.N. special envoy Lakhdar Brahimi is expected to wrap up his mission to salvage Iraq's political transition on Wednesday and to publicly outline elements of a new formula for creating a provisional Iraqi government, according to U.S. and U.N. officials. But Secretary General Kofi Annan warned Tuesday that the surge of violence endangers the ability of the United Nations to reopen a mission in Baghdad to help during and after the transfer of power from the U.S.-led occupation. "For the foreseeable future, insecurity is going to be a major constraint for us," Annan said. "So I cannot say I'm going to be sending in a large U.N. team."
"Buck-buc-buc-buc-CAAAAA!"
After two of its proposals were rejected by influential Iraqi leaders, the Bush administration turned to the United Nations to mediate an alternative so the occupation can end as scheduled on June 30. After more than a week of talks with Iraqis, Brahimi on Monday previewed his plan to U.S. administrator L. Paul Bremer and Robert Blackwill, the National Security Council's Iraq troubleshooter who has been in Baghdad during the Brahimi mission, U.S. officials said. Brahimi is expected to discuss parts of the plan at a news conference Wednesday in Baghdad, officials said. The draft includes two possible steps to form a government more representative than the current 25-member Governing Council, which includes former exiles who have limited popular support, according to recent polls.
One step calls for the United Nations, the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority and Iraqi leaders to choose members of a provisional government that would assume sovereignty on June 30. The second step calls for a small national convention, similar to the loya jirga held to select Afghanistan's postwar government, to create a large consultative body, according to officials from coalition countries familiar with the plan. If this plan is adopted, it could mean disbanding the Governing Council, although some of its members may have roles in either the first or second step.
How about holding an election? I'm told that's one way to get a representative government.
U.S. officials said they expect Brahimi to meet Wednesday with the son of Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, the supposedly popular Iraqi religious leader who rejected the earlier U.S. plans and called for direct elections. Sistani has also rejected the interim constitution because it doesn't give the Shi'ites everything they want was not produced by elected representatives. Brahimi is expected to discuss both issues with Sistani, U.S. officials said. Brahimi is then to return to New York for talks with Annan, officials said.
The Bush administration hopes the new U.N. plan will be a turning point that revives the deadlocked political process and provides momentum to counterbalance recent security problems, the officials say. "The United Nations is indeed moving the ball forward on the political issues, even while we deal with other issues of security," State Department spokesman Richard A. Boucher told reporters Tuesday.
Annan said he will delay a final decision on the future of the United Nations in Iraq until Brahimi returns to New York and "we reassess the situation." But his grim appraisal of what he called a "deteriorating situation" reflected mounting concern about the prospects for a significant U.N. role if violence does not subside.
Maybe you'll let us handle security this time. Ask your employees' union.
The U.N. chief said he was committed to U.S. plans to transfer sovereignty to Iraqis on June 30, noting that Iraqis "are anxious to see the end of occupation as soon as possible." But he indicated that a U.N. timetable for holding national elections as early as January may lapse if the Iraqis fail to reach agreement on an election law by next month.
Annan's concern about security in Iraq comes as he battles a bureaucratic insurgency within the United Nations over Iraq policy. A group of about 60 midlevel U.N. staffers has formally protested Annan's decision to discipline a handful of U.N. officials for failing to provide adequate security at the Baghdad headquarters of the United Nations before the Aug. 19 terrorist attack killed 22 people there. The staffers said the organization's top leaders should accept greater responsibility for the tragedy.
That would establish a precedent at the U.N. all right.
Officials from the organization's peacekeeping, political affairs and emergency relief operations signed the letter, urging Annan to reconsider his decision and provide some of those punished with an opportunity to defend themselves, according to several officials who signed the document.
Posted by: Steve White ||
04/14/2004 12:43:55 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
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.
