Did you send this to me,Fred?
Or is someone using you to get to me?
Has anybody else gotten this e-mail?
If so what can we do about it?
From: fred@rantburg.com Add to Address Book
To: w_r_manues@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Hello
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 18:14:38 +0800
Here is the file. Attachment
your_picture.pif .pif file
Scan and Download Attachment
Scan and Save to my Yahoo! Briefcase
No, and I won't send out such things. This is a virus that's going around. I get at least a dozen of them a day.
If you get an e-mail from "me" with an attachment, it's not from me. The virus guys scan people's address books for addresses when they infect their machines, so chances are any of these you get aren't from the people they say they're from (same applies to about 85-90% of all spam). Even if I did send attachments, they wouldn't be .pifs, .exes, .vbs's, or similar explosives. Also, while I initiate very few e-mails, I never even open (much less reply) to e-mails with the subject line "Hello," "Hi" or "Request for Business Partnership."
Posted by: raptor ||
04/19/2004 9:51:55 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Sounds like an email virus I had a few months ago.
It takes addresses from your address book and "sends" mail from them to everyone else.
It always says "here is your file" or something like that and of course the attachment is a virus.
I don't remember what the virus is called, though. My office network caught it and purged it pretty easily.
#3
TIP: stay far away (don't click on them!)from .pif's, .bat's, .exe's, and AV scan all zip files as a rule.... any emails with "sketchy" subject lines or body are highly questionable, and usually never came from the person it appears sent it
Posted by: Frank G ||
04/19/2004 10:13 Comments ||
Top||
#4
this is why im niot puting e-mail adress anymore anyplace on internet.
#6
We're getting tons of these netsky viruses up here. Our server antivirus software (Trend micro) identifies them. I am even getting them from .mil addresses at Ft. Richardson. Delete button a must. Be vigilant, Raptor.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
04/19/2004 10:54 Comments ||
Top||
Who says that our dear friends in the peninsula donât move with the times?
The Supreme Commission for Tourism (SCT) has appointed a private branding consultancy to develop the Kingdomâs tourism brand identity. This is the first partnership with the private sector to materialize under the Kingdomâs new tourism strategy. Visit Saudi for a different type of holiday! Gorp at public executions! Get harrased by the Mutawwaâeen! Go & visit... stuff!
The tie-up with Landor Associates, a global brand consulting and design agency, is slated to help attract more non-traditional foreign tourists to the Kingdom. More non-trad tourist? Like they get any currently?
âLandor will develop a brand strategy to promote Saudi destinations for tourists over the next nine months,â SCT chief Prince Sultan ibn Salman said yesterday. This I have to see...
Posted by: Dave (UK) ||
04/19/2004 2:59:56 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
A Saudi envoy has assured the Bush administration that it will keep oil prices in a range of $22 to $28 per barrel and will not take actions that would harm the U.S. economy, the White House said on Monday. White House spokesman Scott McClellan declined to comment directly on remarks by journalist Bob Woodward saying that Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, had promised President Bush the Saudis would cut oil prices before November to ensure the U.S. economy was strong on election day.
Funny, last week the Saudis were supposed to be raising prices to insure Bush would lose the election.
Two contradictory statements. I guess we'll know which one's correct by September...
But McClellan said Bandar, in recent talks at the White House, "committed to making sure prices remained in a range of, I believe, $22 to $28 per barrel of oil, and that they don't want to do anything that would harm our consumers or harm our economy. Prices should be determined by market forces, and we are always in close contact with producers around the world on these issues."
"Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer."
Woodward, author of the new fiction book "Plan of Attack" on Bush's preparations for the Iraq war, said Prince Bandar pledged the Saudis would try to fine-tune oil prices to prime the U.S. economy for the election, a move they understood would favor Bush. Bush has been under attack from Democrats in recent weeks for failing to stem rising domestic gasoline prices which have hit a record of $1.80 per gallon, according to the U.S. motorists group AAA.
And now he'll be attacked for stemming the rise in price.
Prince Bandar has been the Saudi envoy to the United States for 20 years and is part of the Saudi royal family, which has had a close relationship with the Bush family for years.
Yup, just like clockwork.
On April 1, Bandar reassured the White House that the kingdom would not allow oil shortages to hurt world economic growth after Saudi Arabia led a push by OPEC to cut output by 1 million barrels a day from April.
Gee, it's like we've got the goods on the Saudis, or something.
UPDATE: Boy, that didn't take long...
Democrat John Kerry on Monday voiced unwavering support for special U.S. ties with Israel and vowed to end "sweetheart relationships" with Arab countries like Saudi Arabia that he said funded terror. Courting the Jewish vote in Florida, the state at the center of the disputed 2000 election, the presumptive Democratic nominee cited a report that President Bush and his senior advisers made "a secret White House deal" with the Saudis to deliver lower gas prices. "Last night ... it was reported that in the Oval Office discussion around whether to invade Iraq that the president, the vice president (Dick Cheney), the secretary of defense (Donald Rumsfeld) made a deal with Saudi Arabia that would deliver lower gas prices," Kerry told a town hall meeting in Lake Worth. "But here's the catch," he said. "The American people would have to wait until the election, until November of 2004."
As strategy it doesn't make any sense. Luckily for Kerry, given the public's short attention span, they'll have forgotten what he was hollering about a month from now, remembering only that he was hollering...
Journalist Bob Woodward, author of a new book titled, "Plan of Attack," also said in a CBS' "60 Minutes" interview that Bush gave national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, Cheney and Rumsfeld permission to tell Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar bin Sultan of his decision to go to war in Iraq before informing Secretary of State Colin Powell. "Now, if this sounds wrong to you, that's because it is fundamentally wrong and if what Bob Woodward reports is true -- that gas supplies and prices in America are tied to the American election, then tied to a secret White House deal -- that is outrageous and unacceptable," Kerry said.
John, didn't you complain the other day that Bush wasn't doing anything to keep the price of gas down? Oh, sorry, that was yesterday, before a different group of voters.
Posted by: Steve ||
04/19/2004 12:51:36 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The President of the United States holds that position in trust for the benefit of the American people. Use of that office for private benefit, is a Breach of Trust. Is it not obvious that G.W. Bush implemented a hands off policy, viz Saud complicity in the 9-11 massacre, in exchange for both re-election support and post-Presidency considerations? Bush Senior pocketed millions of Saud money from his Carlyle Group connections, as did VP Cheney from his post-GW2 relationship with Haliburton.
The white-wash Bush mentality is both juvenile and dangerous to American security. If Bush drooled at last week's press conference, that would have been consistent with his babbling incoherency. Rather than defend the political dead-duck in the White House, why not work for a strong Congress that takes America beyond Bush's Saud-trust work?
Posted by: Man Bites Dog ||
04/19/2004 13:47 Comments ||
Top||
#2
kerry's mouthpiece was of fox this morning quoting the woodward statement... if kerry's wants to help lower gas prices "vowing to end sweetheart deals " for arab counties is a bit of a contradiction. more kerry flip-flops - depending on who he is talking to..a few months ago, speaking to a jewish audience in new york, kerry stated ole yasser was not a partner in peace , yet in his 1997 book kerry called yasser a great statesmen.. this guy makes me puke..clinton looks better every day compared with this crooked bastard...and i can not stand clinton.
Posted by: Dan ||
04/19/2004 13:48 Comments ||
Top||
#3
man bites dog dong - what is dangerous to american security is bickering about politics. we need to go for the jugular in iran and syria - which will happen if Bush is re-elected. these countries are the movers and shakers of terrorism, once they are removed from the picture terrorists will be - well be-headed.
skerry's approach of bring in the UN will be viewed as weakness and bring on more terrorism.
Posted by: Dan ||
04/19/2004 13:52 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Actually the Saudi's are not really to blame for the high gas prices. In reality it is the EPA and its various Clean Air Act regulations which are causing high gas prices. Streamline the blends caused by the Clean Air Act to a more manageable number (say one or two) and the price of gas would drop quickly. Also building a new refinery every decade or so would help matters as well
#5
chemist i agree with you, but the sods did try,q3& q4 2003 and again in q1 of 2004, to institute oil cuts through opec. but the member states (and russia) just gave it a nod and the ramped up production to take advantage of the higher prices.
Posted by: Dan ||
04/19/2004 15:32 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Note this little piece is from Al-Reuters.
Bob Woodward is a P.O.S. for saying this!
(Actually, he's a traitor and should be put up against a wall and shot.)
Not only was he instrumental in bringing down Richard Nixon in a bloodless coup, but he's telling outright lies now about President Bush.
Bush is not in bed with the Sauds. Period.
The Sauds are the ones playing the "oil card" and driving up gas prices by limiting production.
OPEC is a Saudi-controlled monopoly, but their days of enjoying this monopoly are fast drawing to a close.
Posted by: Jen ||
04/19/2004 16:34 Comments ||
Top||
#7
be nice to eath other name calling i here is bad debate
btw i got a new straw dolly i named it boris and i keep it in the ktichen so it can see stuff fry
#8
be nice to eath other name calling i here is bad debate btw i got a new straw dolly i named it boris and i keep it in the ktichen so it can see stuff fry
looks like you picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue. I have no idea what you just wrote.
LONDON (Reuters) - The government is poised to announce plans for a referendum on a European Union constitution -- a major change of heart for Prime Minister Tony Blair. Foreign Secretary Jack Straw will make a statement to parliament on Tuesday, Blair's official spokesman told reporters on Monday. He would not explicitly confirm plans to offer the public a vote on the charter, if agreed by EU leaders. But he repeatedly declined to deny plans for a referendum, merely saying he would not pre-empt Straw's announcement. "The foreign secretary will provide an update on the EU constitution," he said. Blair will take questions in parliament on Wednesday and hold a news conference on Thursday.
A number of EU member states plan to hold public votes if an EU constitution is signed and sealed at a heads of government summit in June, as seems increasingly likely. A "No" vote in any one of them would hold up, or possibly even scupper the charter. President Jacques Chirac has been pressured to hold a vote in France. If Britain, one of the other big EU powers, leads the way, that pressure will increase, diplomats say.
I like this more and more!
For Blair, a referendum would mark a total about-turn. Until now he has insisted that a constitution would not fundamentally alter Britain's ties with the EU and so the public's approval would not be sought. "If this is true, this is an enormous U-turn which we welcome," opposition Conservative foreign affairs spokesman Michael Ancram said.
Blair's spokesman denied his apparent change of heart meant the prime minister now feared the constitution would challenge British sovereignty. "Any constitution that we agree with will not cross our red lines," he said. Blair has pledged to keep unilateral British control of areas like taxation, defence and foreign policy. A British referendum could yet prove redundant if talks between EU leaders founder again. It is also highly unlikely that Blair will call a vote before a general election expected in May 2005.
Polls show Britons could well vote against a constitution -- far less damaging for Blair after he is returned to power than beforehand -- although defeat at any point for the pro-European prime minister could cause him to consider his position. A YouGov poll in the Sun newspaper on Monday showed only 16 percent of Britons would vote 'yes' to a constitution, and 53 percent would vote 'no'. Another 28 percent were undecided.
Blair's spokesman suggested there would be no referendum soon. He said parliament would have to consider the constitution first, a process that would not start until late this year. "The parliamentary process is the right place to go," he said. "By the time it is translated and turned into legalise the constitution would not emerge from Brussels until October, November."
Posted by: Steve White ||
04/19/2004 11:52:14 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"...to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,..."
Everyone agrees that President George Bushâs lobotomy has been a tremendous success.
Dick Cheney, the vice-president, declared that he was fully satisfied with it from his point of view.
"Without the lobotomy," Mr Cheney told the American Academy of Neurology, "it might have proved difficult to persuade the president to start wars all around the world without any good pretext. But the removal of those parts of the brain associated with understanding the outcome of oneâs actions has enabled the president to function fully and without hesitation. Even when it is clear that disaster is around the corner, as it is currently in Iraq, the chief executive is able to go on TV and announce that everything is on course and that he has no intention of changing tactics that have already proved disastrous.
"I would like to commend the surgeons, nurses and all involved with the operation," said Mr Cheney.
Similarly, Donald Rumsfeld regards the surgery as an unqualified success. He writes in this monthâs American Medical Association Journal: "The presidentâs prefrontal leucotomy has successfully removed all neural reflexes resistant to war-profiteering. It is a tribute to the medical team who undertook this delicate operation that, no matter how close the connection between those instigating military action and the companies who benefit from it, the president is able to carry on as if he were morally in the right."
Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defence, is also delighted at the beneficial effect that medical intervention has had on the president. "Just imagine how the president might have responded to Ariel Sharonâs crazy schemes if we hadnât had the foresight to take out the neural pathways normally connected with perception and understanding," Mr Wolfowitz told a meeting of the Association of Muslim Neurosurgeons For An All-Jewish Israel. "The president is now capable of treating the man responsible for the massacres at Shatila and Sabra as a decent human being, whose advice on how to deal with the problems of Israel is worth not only listening to, but also taking."
With all this acclaim for the US presidentâs lobotomy, it is scarcely surprising that Tony Blair, should have decided to follow suit and undergo similar psychosurgery.
Thanks to the inhibition of specific presynaptic terminals, Mr Blair now appears to feel totally comfortable giving his support to the US massacre in Falluja and to the activities of US snipers who have been so busy in that city shooting women, children and ambulance drivers in revenge for the murder of four mercenaries.
It is also believed that intervention in the motor speech area of his cortex now enables Mr Blair to describe Iraqis who respond negatively to having their houses blown up as "fanatics, extremists and terrorists".
Similarly ablation of the oculomotor nerve means that Mr Blair is now able to see Israeli plans to retain Jewish settlements in the West Bank as a big step forward in the Middle East peace process.
What has come as a complete surprise, however, is the recent revelation that Mr Blairâs brain surgery may even predate President Bushâs. For without the removal of large portions of his cerebellum, it is hard to understand how the British prime minister could have turned down Mr Bushâs no-strings offer to keep British troops out of combat in Iraq.
Political commentators are thus finding it impossible to say whether it is Mr Bush or Mr Blair who has pioneered the use of executive lobotomies in the war against terrorism.
Posted by: Murat ||
04/19/2004 9:04:25 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
What is it about juvenile leftist crap like this that makes it so irresistable to gullible wogs? Just curious...
Posted by: Dave D. ||
04/19/2004 9:41 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Don't you love it? The Murat's of the world are reduced to putting up silly stuff like this rather than serious articles, to justify their "logic".
Posted by: B ||
04/19/2004 10:31 Comments ||
Top||
#3
To Murat, this is logic.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
04/19/2004 10:36 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Murat you are totally right unlike the GWB Appreciation Society Members who have replied. Bush is a war criminal and Blair and indeed Howard are happy to support him in his slaughter of innocent Iraqis(all of them as the coalition had no right to invade in the first place)
CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez threatened to stop selling oil to the United States if Washington doesn't stop "intervening in Venezuela's domestic affairs." "In (President) Bush's case, he should cease the madness of directly intervening Venezuela's internal affairs. That would spark a conflict here, and it would be absurd to continue selling oil to them," Chavez told the Italian newspaper Liberazione in comments published Sunday by Venezuela's state news agency, Venpres.
Chavez did not specify what he meant by "directly intervening." In the past, he has hallucinated accused the United States of being behind a failed April 2002 coup against him and of sponsoring current efforts to overthrow his leftist government.
Washington repeatedly denies the idiotic claims.
Chavez previously threatened to stop selling oil to the United States only if it invaded or blockaded Venezuela. Venezuela, the world's fifth biggest oil exporter, provides about 15 percent of U.S. oil imports, and the United States is the biggest importer of Venezuelan oil.
Is he sampling some of the regional product?
Posted by: Steve White ||
04/19/2004 12:38:49 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
If ever there were a place that justified direct US intervention, it's Venezuela. Chavez is just another Noriega with pretensions. The fact that he's been allowed to pervert Venezuela's democracy has been a destabilizing factor for all of South America. Castro is going to die soon of old age, but Hugo and Lula could use a little help shuffling off this mortal coil.
#2
Hey, Hugo! If we decided to "intervene", you'd know. Until then, STFU!
Actually, he's making these noises to endear himself to anti-American sentiment. For those folks, he doesn't need evidence, just the right words. I figure he'll be called a "great statesman" by a Democrat sometime this summer, if it hasn't already happened.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
04/19/2004 8:20 Comments ||
Top||
#3
chavez must one of those foriegn leaders kerry is talking about....
this is digusting how kerry is trying to have leaders of foriengn countries interfer in our politics. if Bush tried to interfer in another countries election the left would pounce!
Posted by: Dan ||
04/19/2004 11:30 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Bush has done a good job in not taking the bait. I'll check Boucher's breifing and see if it came up.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
04/19/2004 20:51 Comments ||
Top||
EFL Romano Prodi, European Commission president and a key figure in the Italian left-wing opposition, has supported Spainâs decision to withdraw its troops from Iraq and said Europe was finding common ground on the issue. He said at a meeting of Italian centre-left allies that Spainâs move was aimed at putting pressure on the international community to resolve the Iraq crisis. "With this decision, Spain has fallen into line with our position," Mr Prodi told reporters, referring to his political alliance in Italy which has said Italian troops should also come home from Iraq unless the United Nations (UN) takes charge there. "The divide that prevented Europe from having a common position is being overcome," he added.... To Prodi, Zapetera, and the rest of the EUroweenies, from GW who, in many respects, resembles "Henry V":
"Scorn and defiance; slight regard, contempt,
And any thing that may not misbecome
The mighty sender, doth he prize you at."
#1
Just as a thought experiment, imagine how people like Prodi would react if the holy United Nations did "take charge" in Iraq, but (and I realize I'm deep into Fantasyland here) decided that bringing individual freedom to Iraq was critical, and that bringing freedom to Iraq required a massive commitment of European troops. Kofi gets on TV and announces that to prevent another Rwanda and to defeat terrorism everywhere, the Security Council is requiring 50,000 troops from Spain, 50,000 troops from Italy, etc., to be immediately deployed to Iraq. I wonder how long Prodi's love of the UN would survive that announcement.
The point being that, as Prodi uses the term, "UN" is a synonym for "not fighting."
Posted by: Matt ||
04/19/2004 18:09 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Better yet, Matt: if Kofi asked for 50,000 troops from Italy, the answer would be, "we can't even if we wanted to." They don't have 50,000 first-line troops to send. Ditto the Spanish, ditto the French, even the Germans. They don't have them. Add up the total commitment of the European partners in the Coalition and it doesn't hit 50,000.
You set the bar too high. For your thought experiment, make it 10,000 troops instead -- the answer's still the same :-)
Posted by: Steve White ||
04/19/2004 18:43 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Good point, which raises the question of what we could possibly get from Kerry's "internationalism" effort in terms of soldiers willing to go in harm's way (leaving aside the UK/AUS.) A brigade? The French Foreign Legion? The Papal Guard?
Posted by: Matt ||
04/19/2004 19:24 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I wouldn't turn down the Papal Guard. It might make the diplomacy a bit tough, though.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
04/19/2004 19:55 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Prodi backs Spanish decision to quit Iraq
Of course he does; it's so nuanced.
Wanker.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
04/19/2004 20:44 Comments ||
Top||
#6
"If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our [allies]." Samuel Adams
(Brackets indicate slight alteration from the original)
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
04/19/2004 20:48 Comments ||
Top||
EFL Whatâs arabic for chutzpah?
"Muslims across Spain are lobbying the Catholic church in Cordoba to make a symbolic gesture of reconciliation between faiths by allowing them to pray in the cityâs cathedral. Cordobaâs Renaissance-era cathedral sits in the centre of a 10th century mosque complex, and local Muslims want to be allowed to pray there again. They have appealed to the Vatican to intercede on their behalf. A spokesman for the local bishop said that the proposal faced many obstacles and it would be many years before it came to anything. Nowadays, Cordoba is a small provincial capital, but 1000 years ago it was one of the great cities of the world. As the capital of Moorish Spain, it became one of Islamâs holiest places and a centre of Islamic art and scholarship to rival Baghdad.
#1
Interesting. As a Jew I CANT pray in a Cathedral - cant hold a jewish prayer in the presence of all those graven images, etc. An Orthodox Jew cant even go inside one. Sharia must be more lenient than Halacha in this respect.
#2
The Spainish should not be surprised by this - they voted for it.
It'll be interesting what the Vatican says.
Posted by: Yosemite Sam ||
04/19/2004 17:51 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Broadening their spirit of reconciliation, these Moslems ought to advocate also that Jews be allowed to pray in all the places in the Moslem countries where there used to be Jewish communities -- and that Christians be allowed to pray in all the places where there used to be Christian communities. A good country to start this campaign would be Saudi Arabia, where there used to be both Jewish and Christian communities.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
04/19/2004 17:55 Comments ||
Top||
#4
"Prime-Minister" Zapatero, trial lawyer, will make a speech to the 57% who voted for OTHER than the Socialists: That it is good "social responsibility" to let the Moslems pray in the Cordoba, and those opposed are racists.
The small number of Greens and Communists will be happy to go along. They're in his coalition. The Conservatives, and ethnics (Catalans, Basques) are maybe not so sure that PC should enter the Church, even though the ethnics may be sympathetic on other issues.
#5
Next thing after they are allowed to prey pray in the cathedral is that they be allowed to put squawkboxes up for the 5x daily call to prayer. It will never stop until it is Dhimmi City.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
04/19/2004 18:24 Comments ||
Top||
#6
I thought this must be a Scrappleface article, but no. Why does everyplace that Islam occupies becomes a "holy place"? This is an honest query. What makes a place holy in the Islamic faith? I ask this because everything is annoited with holiness.
#8
Mr. Yosemite Sam has it correct. Reap what you sow....We all knew that iraq was only a pretext and not the motivation behind the Madrid attacks.
Jews being allowed to pray in a mosque will never happen - you know the religion of peace and tolerance and all that lip service.
Personally a person should be able to pray to whatever god/religion in whatever location. But that is my humble opinion.
Posted by: Dan ||
04/19/2004 19:08 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Muslims are allowed to worship in the cathedral. Of course, they have to convert to Catholicism, first, and have to follow the RC catechism, but they are allowed to worship there.
(And if they're allowed we'd damn well see those ugly minarets around the Hagia Sophia taken down and the place reconsecrated, and that monstrosity built on the Temple Mount taken down and the site handed over to its rightful owners.)
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
04/19/2004 19:13 Comments ||
Top||
#10
For Muslims, the most important part of the mosque is the mihrab, the recess in the south-eastern wall which indicates the direction of Mecca for prayer.
In the Córdoba mosque, the mihrab is outside the cathedral itself, so in theory it would be possible for Muslims to pray without affecting ceremonies in the cathedral.
#11
We'll let them pray in the cathedral at Cordoba when
Christians can pray in the cathedral (now a mosque) of Saint Sophia in Istanbul (formerly Constantinople).
#12
Stavros, great point!
When I visited Jerusalem in 1970 as a Christian pilgrim, nobody but Muslims were allowed into the Dome of the Rock mosque, even though the site is sacred to Muslims, Jews and Christians.
Note also though how now that the Islamists have had their way with Spain, they feel so free to have the run of the place.
Time for the Re-Reconquista!
Posted by: Jen ||
04/19/2004 21:31 Comments ||
Top||
#13
It'll be interesting what the Vatican says
Out of respect for others, I will refrain from making a lame joke here.
Posted by: B ||
04/19/2004 21:45 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Moslems want to pray in Spanish cathedral
Sure, no problem. Right after Christians openly worship on a regular basis, unharmed, in Arabia, Iran, etc.
Oh, yeah - and Jews too.
I like living, so I won't hold my breath.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
04/19/2004 22:02 Comments ||
Top||
MOSCOW: Nearly 20 Vietnamese nationals were injured in a blast that wrecked a Moscow dormitory building, Russian news agencies reported.
Ah, college life in Moscow, the girls, the parties, the explosions
According to Moscow police, an explosive device sparked the explosion, the Interfax news agency quoted the police spokesman Kirill Mazurin as saying.
However, "the version of a terrorist act is not considered," Mazurin stressed.
Just a very, very large firecracker.
Additional: An explosive caused a blast that ripped through a university dormitory in Moscow where Vietnamese traders rent rooms, injuring 18 people including three children, police said Monday. Police and emergency officials had initially attributed the Sunday night explosion at the Moscow Institute of Transport Engineering dormitory to a gas leak. Moscow police spokesman Yevgeny Gildeyev said, however, that an explosive had detonated on the street outside the entrance to the dormitory basement. Prosecutors have opened a criminal investigation on charges of "malicious hooliganism," he said. Investigators are considering various motives but the most likely is an attempt to establish control over business, Gildeyev said. The force of the blast was equal to about 17.5 ounces of TNT, he said.
So it was a big firecracker after all.
The explosion shattered most windows in the eight-story building in northeastern Moscow, but there was no fire and the building didn't suffer major structural damage. Five hundred people were evacuated and nine of the injured, including one child, were hospitalized, Gildeyev said. The building serves as a dormitory for students of the transport institute and houses Vietnamese traders who rent rooms in one of its wings. Foreign vendors often rent out rooms in such dormitories, where prices are low and cash-strapped universities are looking for extra revenue.
Somebody was sending a message.
Posted by: Steve ||
04/19/2004 8:42:08 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
ROME (AP) - Hundreds of fans of ancient Rome dressed up as gladiators and marched by the ruins of the forums Sunday to mark the birthday of the city, which legend says was founded on April 21 2,757 years ago. The actual anniversary is Wednesday, but the "gladiators," armed with spears and sporting helmets, turned out to stroll down Via dei Fori Imperiali, which is closed to traffic on Sundays. The boulevard leads to the Colosseum, Rome's monument which hosted bloody gladiatorial combat to the thrill of the masses in the city's ancient days of glory.
Legend has it that Rome was founded by twin brothers, Romulus and Remus, on April 21, 753 B.C.
"I'm retired military from the United States Air Force and this is my hobby," said Dan Hight, from Utah and dressed up as Vespasian, the emperor who began construction of the Colosseum during his rule from 69-79 A.D. Others dressed up as Roman senators and legionaries. Leading the marchers was a young woman dressed a vestal virgin, a select group of young girls whose duties included tending the sacred fire.
Posted by: Steve White ||
04/19/2004 12:33:21 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Leading the marchers was a young woman dressed a vestal virgin..
Something you'd be hard-pressed to find in L.A. ...
#2
Actually, Wednesday is Rome's 2,756th birthday. There was no Year 0, so you have to subtract one when doing the arithmetic. And Vestal Virgins served for 30 years, so they weren't necessarily "young" women. They were recruited young, like 12-14, and could retire and marry -- or sleep around, I guess -- when their 30 years were up, but some of them were obviously over 40. And if any of them were found not to be virgins before the 30 years were up, like if they turned up pregnant, as happened now and then, they were dropped into a dark chamber below the street and left there to die of starvation. The Younger Pliny was witness of one such scene, and mentions that the poor woman's wailing could be heard for days.
Posted by: Dr. Weevil ||
04/19/2004 6:43 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Legend has it that Rome was founded by twin brothers, Romulus and Remus, on April 21, 753 B.C.
When shown the plans of Rome, Remus was reported to remark: "Wow! This could take ALL DAY to build."
#4
According to legend, Romulus & Remus were suckled by a she-wolf (a-la Kipling's Mowgli), which must do something to one's psyche.
Because Romulus killed Remus (a-la Cain/Abel). Rome's beginnings appear to have influenced its legacy.
#5
I've always had a soft spot for Vespasian, one of the best of the emperors. He was a no-nonsense kind of man, also one of the few emperors who died in bed.
His last words were "Ah, me! I fear I'm becoming a god!"
Posted by: Fred ||
04/19/2004 22:24 Comments ||
Top||
I joined the Moveon.org mailing list a few months ago in a fit of "know thy enemy" enthusiasm. Recently, Moveon has been under FEC scrutiny at the behest of the RNC as a possible illegal soft money funnel to Kerryâs campaign. Check out the bolded text from this Moveon email excerpt. Rather damning Iâd say.
"Dear MoveOn member,
Tomorrow, from Lincoln City, OR to Kent, OH to Peaks Island, ME, MoveOn members will holding over 1,000 bake sales to help raise some dough (sorry) and take our country back. Itâs a great way to demonstrate the contrast between Bushâs millionaire-backed campaign and our grassroots movement.
The creativity and energy folks are putting into their sales is just astounding. Over 11,000 bakers have signed up to help. And just take a look at some of the salesâ titles..."
#1
Well the real grass roots party is the Republican. That is where the money comes from. Mom and Pop. $50-$100. I'm gald I changed parties in 2000. The democratic party does not represent this ocuntry. MR Soros has a habit of trying to buy elections based on his worldview.
#4
Mr. Soros will no doubt be buying $1,000,000 worth of cookies.
Posted by: B ||
04/19/2004 21:02 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Oh, come on. Don't go this way, guys. It's not like anyone who reads a newspaper or has access to google can't find innumerable instances of Republican uses/misuses of allegedly 'non-profit' organizations whose entire purpose is circumventing -- as close to the edge as possible -- the campaign fund-raising laws that Bush fought against witoothth -and-nail for years (even when he was governor of Texas). Of course, that didn't stop him from attempting to take credit for them anyway -- one of the funniest bits of absurdity in years.
#6
well...golleee...I guess if the evil Repooplicans do it - then I guess that makes it ok.
That's why you use crack -right anonymous4340? Cause everyone else is doing it.
Posted by: B ||
04/19/2004 21:54 Comments ||
Top||
#7
No, that was neither the intent or the implication, sorry. The misuse of these organizations is distasteful and contrary to the purpose and intent of the campaign fund-raising laws: regardless of the 'side' one is on. And incidentally, I'm not a registered Democrat nor do I consider myself a 'liberal'. I do know the general definition of intellectual honesty, however.
#8
well..ok, so politicians are a sub species of humans. If that's your point, I can respect that.
Posted by: B ||
04/19/2004 22:06 Comments ||
Top||
#9
No, not the point (although it's an interesting one -- I don't think it could be supported by any sort of evidence, however). The only point was: skulduggery, underhandedness, misdirection, intentional obfuscation of issues, ad-hominem argumentation, and just plain intellectual dishonesty is disreputable and demeaning to the human spirit -- and culturally self-defeating -- regardless of who is perpetrating the behavior.
Even the Bible warns against this kind of behavior in the parable of the mote and beam...
#10
Well, mr/mrs anonymous4340....NO LIBERAL considers himself/herself to be a liberal. To a man/woman, they all think they're "middle of the road", or "moderate". For you to even say;"...nor do I consider myself a "liberal", tells me that you most likely are exactly that.....a liberal.
Posted by: Halfass Pete ||
04/19/2004 22:47 Comments ||
Top||
#11
seems to me anon is trying awfully hard to pin this on just the Repoops without appearing to be biased..so me thinks you have a point halfassed.
Not working. Be like Avis.
Posted by: B ||
04/19/2004 22:51 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Interesting comments indeed. As mentioned, some focus on my supposed 'liberalness' without ever addressing a single issue raised in the posts themselves, and -- of course -- with no knowledge whatever of the poster. I believe this was mentioned earlier and referred to as 'ad hominem' argumentation.
There appears to be truly no point in continuing this.
Posted by: B ||
04/19/2004 23:15 Comments ||
Top||
#14
anonymous4340, you come here criticizing Republicans, in your defense of corrupt democrats. "Republicans do it too", so democrats are JUSTIFIED. And then you present your bonafides, "....nor do I consider myself a liberal". YOU are the one who threw your denial of being a liberal, into the mix. We just chunked it back at you......
Posted by: Halfass Pete ||
04/19/2004 23:36 Comments ||
Top||
#15
I apologize for not being more familiar with this site and those who post to it: I have no idea who 'Avis' or 'Aris' or any other such party is.
Again, no actual discussion or dialogue on any issues.
Fact: Moveon just admitted it specifically was spending to support Kerry.
Fact: DOing so outside of the campaign finance reform laws is a crime.
Conclusion: Democrats are so desperate and insanely angry about Bush they are resorting to criminal acts to try to defeat him.
Why have you not addressed that? Your fingerpointing and handwaving doesnt address the central issue: Moveon.org is ILLEGALLY coordinating with the Kerry Campaign.
#17
I'm sorry again -- I thought I made this clear.
IF the articles claimed are true, and IF these activities are actually against the newly-enacted campaign-finance reform laws, then those those responsible should both be prosecuted through the legal system AND be publicly exposed (and made fun of!) through the public media just such as this.
No disagreement here at all. Just so that such treatment works for ALL sides (note that I did not say 'both' sides for there are most certainly more than two...) -- intellectual honesty is universal.
#18
The problem is that the first impulse for Democrats is to start pointing at Republicans and jawing that they aren't doing anything the other side isnt doing.
Thats a grade school sort of morality that has eaten the Democratic party from the inside until it is left hollow and hate filled, and can only incoherently rage against its loss of political power.
#19
No need to worry about the GOP, Anon4340.
CFR was primarily aimed at the abuse of Soft Money.
And who has abused Soft Money seemingly forever?
The Dimocrats.
The GOP doesn't sneak around and use soft money.
We don't have to.
Posted by: Jen ||
04/19/2004 23:58 Comments ||
Top||
#20
Jen - quite true. Republican campaing contributions are far more likely to be from individuals in less than $1000 amounts. Democrats get their money from financiers like Soros and big organizations like Unions.
The REAL people's party, according to finance, has been the Republican Party.
#21
I know, O.S.
I wasn't doing that well financially in 2000 during the Florida Recount (which I call the Gore Coup Attempt) and I was one of thousands of ordinary Americans who gave Bush $25.00 to finance his part of the recount expenses and the transition team.
Member how Clinton wouldn't give the Bush Team the keys to the Transition HQ and then Cheney had his heart attack?
Awful days, but we came through for the guy we loved!
And if the troll doesn't believe me, look up the 2000 donations at GeorgeWBush.com!
Posted by: Jen ||
04/20/2004 0:08 Comments ||
Top||
#22
Back again. Please don't go into campaign contribution issues unless you actually have some data to contribute. Wanna go into which industries have major bills in front of the current Congress (e.g. drug industries, energy firms, etc) and how much each industry and its 'lobbyist' cronies have given to each party? Guess what, guys: the GOP wins hands down. And the interesting part is that even though they hold an absolute majority in both houses, they can't get a single item on their 'A' list of "priority bills" passed. We live in interesting times....
#23
THere you go again, trying to change the subject.
The subject is: Did MOVEON illegally coordinate and support the Kerry Campaign?
The answer is YES and all your attempts to obfuscate it and point fingers makes you look all the more guilty.
Thanks you for such a marvelous demonstration of the Democrats inability to face the truth and tendendcies to break the laws.
And also, you cannot refute that Bush derives far more of his funds from small individual contributors. Its his "grass roots" campaign that started last year.
Go to the proper page for the FEC< and you'll see this to be the truth.
SOros and his big money cronies are trying to buy the election by bypassing the campaign laws. Kerry would be floundering without the illicit support because he cannot raise funds individually in the volume that the Republicans have done.
So consider one of your cherised illusions banished. The party of Big Money and Bought Influence is now the Democrat Party. As an example, take a look at Kennedy's delays of judicial appointments to bend a legal case for one of his big contributors. That will soon be investigated as an ethics violation. Something Kennedy and liberal Democrats seem to commit quite often these days.
#24
Anon4347, how about YOU contribute some data to back up those lies you're spewing?
(You couldn't be talking about lobbyists like Democrat Linda Daschle, wife of Sen. Tom, who makes sure that laws which aren't too odious to the airline industry are passed?
In fact, interesting times, indeed:
why didn't the 9/11 Commission reveal that although Al Gore was head of a commission about airline terrorism which came up with findings that might have prevented the 9/11 hijackings (like instituting "racial profiling" of Arab males), his committee's findings and recommendations were buried by Linda Daschle and her airline cronies because they would have hurt the industry?)
As for energy lobbyists, who was in bed with Enron?? How about Clinton and Gore!
Signing the Kyoto Protocol and implementing it would have benefitted the Natural Gas industry, the very industry brokered by... Enron.
Similarly, who did Gray Out Davis turn to for power when California was experiencing rolling blackouts?
Enron.
When the Dimocrats stop saying that the Republicans "do it,too and therefore it's OK" and start cleaning up their act, maybe then Americans will elect them to office again.
We don't do it, too and if on the off chance there is a crooked Republican, we make sure he takes the responsibility and punishment for same unlike Dims like the Clintons who've made a private fortune rivalling Donald Trump's on soft money from the ChiComs, selling presidential pardons, insider tips on cattle
futures, and God knows what else!
Posted by: Jen ||
04/20/2004 0:48 Comments ||
Top||
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Former Rep. Cynthia A. McKinney, the Georgia Democrat who suggested that the Bush administration had prior warning of the September 11 attacks, says an independent commissionâs investigation into the matter justifies her concerns. which she proceeds to deny in the next breath:
"What it proves is that we need to have answers to the question that I originally asked," Mrs. McKinney said in an interview.
Mrs. McKinney said she was right to question what the White House knew before the attacks, but that some comments about the administration were taken out of context and have become an "urban legend" among her foes.
Her comments March 25, 2002, during an interview on KPFA radio in Berkeley, Calif., implied that the White House allowed the attacks so investment groups specializing in defense contracts would benefit from an ensuing military buildup. She singled out the Carlyle Group, where Mr. Bushâs father, former President George Bush, was an adviser.
"What did this administration know and when did it know it, about the events of September 11?" Mrs. McKinney said at the time. "Who else knew, and why did they not warn the innocent people of New York who were needlessly murdered? What do they have to hide?"
Mrs. McKinney now says she never meant to imply Mr. Bush let the attacks occur so others could benefit.
"There was a lot of heat and fury. Innocent Americans were attacked. ... Our country was reacting. Iâm part and parcel of that atmosphere," said Mrs. McKinney, who is running for her old congressional seat, which she lost to fellow Democrat Denise Majette, now a Senate candidate. Her original words are right here for all to see. McNinny overestimated the influence of the tin-foil conspiracy industry. She paid the price and now she is demanding a refund.
However, Mrs. McKinney still has few kind words for the White House.
"The Bush administration keeps giving us answers that donât answer, explanations that donât explain and conclusions that donât conclude," she said in Fridayâs interview. We have her word for this, it must be true.
She praised the 10-member commission examining pre-September 11 intelligence failures and said she found "absolutely riveting" the testimony by former counterterrorism chief Richard A. Clarke, who depicted Mr. Bush as obsessed with invading Iraq. More lefty depravity. Itâs almost funny how the crazed war-monger Clarke is suddenly a hero to the Left, now that his pronouncements support their parochial goals. Itâs not quite as brazen as lard-ass Mooreâs endorsement of General Clark, whom he had earlier accused of war crimes, but it is close.
Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy ||
04/19/2004 9:55:36 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
So she's still a Democrat, eh?
Why hasn't the party distanced itself from her? Perhaps because the party agrees with the antisemitic witch?
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
04/19/2004 10:07 Comments ||
Top||
#2
There it is... she's practically mainstream now in the Dem caucus. Richard Ben-Veniste followed along this type of paranoid thread in his questioning of John Ashcroft. I thought Ashcroft shut that noise down pretty well.
the Carlyle Group Reminds me of that old Limbaugh caller who used to urge Rush to "keep an eye on Carlucci." Then again, I must have missed the last quarterly meeting of the VRWC. Anyone have a current org-chart? Thanks! :)
#3
"The Bush administration keeps giving us answers that donât answer, explanations that donât explain and conclusions that donât conclude," she said in Fridayâs interview.
I can't decide if she's trying to be Jesse Jackson of Johnnie Cochran.
#4
. I can't decide if she's trying to be Jesse Jackson of Johnnie Cochran.
Hee hee:
"reiterations that don't reiterate, repetitions that don't repeat, and slogans that don't, er, sloganate."
#5
eLarson, All you have to remember is that âthe manâ is responsible for everything. If you drop out of school it is because of âthe man.â If you donât qualify for a high paying job it is because of âthe man.â I have a lefty coworker that ranted about the many evils of the Carlyle Group. I asked her that if half of what she said was true (rape/pillage/plunder) why wasnât this company under investigation? Her answerâ¦â¦THE MAN! P.S If you miss another meeting 'The Man' says you are out of the VRWC!
Ebertâs op-ed piece regarding the rights of Howard Stern and Rush Limbaugh is not the worst thing Iâve ever seen, and ebert ultimately comes down on the right side of the issue.
But in the course of coming to the point he crams more vitriol towards the right - toward Limbaugh - toward Bush - and toward all us stoopid Repuwbwicans - than Iâve seen in a long time from a mainstream "entertainment reporter".
Itâs amazing how Ebert can accuse Limbaugh of "canned slogand and cheap shots" when in fact every issue Ebert cares to "discuss" is put forth in the form of the tired old LLL slogans and groundless "cheap shots".
Ebert: Donât quit your day job. You are out of your league discussing politics.
#1
Ebert's essay shows that Intolerance and Hypocrisy are the only "sins" (I'm sure they have a less Judgmental term...) the Left cares about. He tries to cleverly state "Say what you want about Stern, but at least he's no hypocrite! Unlike that seedy LIMBAUGH guy..."
(For the record, Rush Limbaugh hasn't been charged with anything at all... except in the court of public opinion. I daresay I can figure out what Roger Ebert believes about it.)
Typically I find Ebert's reviews to be on the elitist side (check out the ones where he goes into his philosophy of reviewing). Therefore I'd say he's being uncharacteristically kind in ascribing to the majority of Americans a pretty Libertine attitude to sex and its description and depictions. I wouldn't be so quick to assume the majority of Americans share his viewpoint.
He is right, though, in that the airwaves of America shouldn't be dominated by programming fit for 9-year-olds. Parents need to play a role in policing what their kids take in, and I think his essay would have been far stronger if he'd emphasized that point.
#4
The Bush FCC went after Howard Stern (May the Holy Ghost Give him Mouthwash) immediately after Stern began criticizing Bush. Is that good government?
Posted by: Man Bites Dog ||
04/19/2004 19:18 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Bullshit, MBD. The FCC had received so many complaints in general that they decided to act; Stern had the poor judgement to be an ass at the wrong time.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
04/19/2004 19:23 Comments ||
Top||
#6
man bites dog dong - please right after?
Posted by: Dan ||
04/19/2004 19:47 Comments ||
Top||
#7
He should go to Saudi Arabia and denounce their censorship policies. In that case it would be "two thumbs off".
By Ron Brownstein, Los Angeles Times (LRR). Mentioned in John Leoâs weekly column for those of you who donât want to go through the LATâs registration. Snipped from a larger article on the 9/11 commission:
. . . so far, most Americans recoil from efforts to blame Bush for the attacks. One leading Democratic interest group recently asked a focus group in Florida to respond to a potential television ad accusing Bush of negligence in failing to stop the attacks. The result was volcanic â against the ad. "They were so angry I thought they were going to turn the tables over," said a Democratic operative who watched the session. "It was a very polarizing ad, and it pushed people who were on the fence decidedly away from us."
Posted by: Mike ||
04/19/2004 10:23:05 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"They were so angry I thought they were going to turn the tables over," said a Democratic operative who watched the session. "It was a very polarizing ad, and it pushed people who were on the fence decidedly away from us."
The focus group organizers then concluded that water is wet and that the Pope is Catholic.
#3
The last couple of years have convinced me that the Democratic Party leadership views the rank and file as a collection of semi-retarded, ignorant, closed-minded bigots with low intelligence, very short attention spans, and a psychopathic hatred of Republicans.
While that description fits a few, most Democrats are just decent people who want their leaders to give them straight talk, competent governance and a fair shake. And above all, they don't want their leaders to bullshit them.
It's no surprise this ad got the response it did.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
04/19/2004 12:31 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I doubt the focus group was made up of dedicated Democrat voters; likely it was "undecided voters", since those are the ones ads are intended to target.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
04/19/2004 14:46 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Ideally, your focus group would include a broad range of opinion, so you give the ad a thorough test. The perfect political ad would (1) enthuse (or at least not annoy) the people in your camp, (2) persuade the undecideds, and (3) sow fear, uncertainty, and doubt (or at least inspire grudging respect) among the opposition.
Posted by: Mike ||
04/19/2004 15:43 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Now if the focus group had been thinking, they would have stood up and applauded the ad... and waited for the fallout when they actually aired the thing. %)
Posted by: Cthulhu Akbar ||
04/19/2004 16:39 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Damn, they're focus-group testing their ads first. Too bad - I would have loved to see the reaction if this one had aired.
It amazes me they would even talk about it. Whatever happened to deny, spin, etc.?
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
04/19/2004 16:47 Comments ||
Top||
#8
"It was a very polarizing ad, and it pushed people who were on the fence decidedly away from us."
"They also decided to shelve the planned ad blaming President Bush for Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction and American Idol."
The commissioners are ignoring a document that shows that President Clinton was alerted in 1996 to the possibility of a 9/11-style attack; instead they focus on the Aug. 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Brief (PDB).
Having harassed the Bush administration into declassifying the Aug. 6 PDB, the Commission must now demand that a PDB from the Clinton administration also be declassified. Unlike the Aug. 6 document, which gave no information about hijacking jets to crash into U.S. targets, the 1996 PDB gave specifics about al-Qaida plans to carry out exactly that kind of attack.
Sometime in the summer of 1996 President Clinton was given a PDB that described in chilling detail an al-Qaida plot known as Operation Bojinka (Arabic for "Loud Bang"). It involved using hijacked jet planes to crash into the Pentagon, the White House, the World Trade Center and other buildings in the U.S.
Sometime in the summer of 1996, the Operation Bojinka information was communicated to President Clinton in a PDB, according to now retired Air Force Lt. Col. Robert "Buzz" Patterson, who was a military aide to Clinton from May 1996 to May 1998, one of five officers entrusted with carrying the satchel containing the codes for launching nuclear weapons.
On page 139 of Pattersonâs book "Dereliction of Duty: The Eyewitness Account of How Bill Clinton Compromised National Security," published in March 2003, he wrote:
"During the summer of the 1996 attacks, I myself learned firsthand that the administration knew that terrorists were plotting to use commercial airliners as weapons.
"One late-summer Saturday morning, the president asked me to pick up a few daysâ worth of PDBs that had accumulated in the Oval Office. He gave them to me with handwritten notes stuffed inside the folders and asked that I deliver them back to the NSC.
"I opened the PDB to rearrange the notes and noticed the heading "Operation Bojinka." I keyed on a reference to a plot to use commercial airliners as weapons and another plot to put bombs on U.S. airliners. Because I was a pilot, this naturally grabbed my attention. I can state for a fact that this information was circulated within the U.S. intelligence community, and that in late 1996 the president was aware of it."
This book was published a full YEAR before the Condi Rice testimony. It makes mention of PDBs on terrorism. Once again, if it ainât benefitting the LLLs, it ainât newsworthy. Richard Clarke contradicts himself every three seconds, but HIS claims are important and worthy of investigation while Pattersonâs claims are not.
Surreal.
Posted by: Unmutual ||
04/19/2004 10:10:26 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Clinton obviously misread that PDB; he read it as 'Operation Boink', then started his relationship with Monica...
#2
Clinton should have no problem remembering this; according to Senator Shrew, he was "obsessed" with stopping terrorism.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
04/19/2004 10:24 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Whenever he wanted to spend private time diddling an intern, he told Hillary "I'm going into a counter-terrorism meeting and can't be disturbed". THAT'S why she thinks he was obsessed
Posted by: Frank G ||
04/19/2004 12:14 Comments ||
Top||
#4
This just makes me sad. To think a President would ignore this to such a degree.
Posted by: Charles ||
04/19/2004 12:15 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Who was implementing her "wall" memo in 1996. Geez-I can't remember - There was this flunkey to Janet Reno - She's on some kinda panel now... Who am I thinking of . Darn. Janey. . . Jamie something-or-other. . . .
#9
I remember them finding plans to do a 9/11 style attack back in the late 90s. Agents in the Philipines found the plans. The planes were to hit the West Coast of the US, but by then they would be low on fuel. I guess Al Queda reconsidered the plans. Still, the plans were there so its hard to credit claims that nobody thought of it.
#1
History will be cruel to Clinton and Gorelick, that much is clear.
Posted by: B ||
04/19/2004 10:28 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Document: Oklahoma City Bombing Was Taped
WASHINGTON - A Secret Service document written shortly after the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing described security video footage of the attack and witness testimony that suggested Timothy McVeigh may have had accomplices at the scene.
"Security video tapes from the area show the truck detonation 3 minutes and 6 seconds after the suspects exited the truck," the Secret Service reported six days after the attack on a log of agents' activities and evidence in the Oklahoma investigation.
The government has insisted McVeigh drove the truck himself and that it never had any video of the bombing or the scene of the Alfred P. Murrah building in the minutes before the April 19, 1995, explosion.
Several investigators and prosecutors who worked the case told The Associated Press they had never seen video footage like that described in the Secret Service log.
Posted by: Frank G ||
04/19/2004 16:10 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Isn't collecting videotapes from nearby surveillance cameras standard operating procedure in these investigations?
If it's found that Iraq was involved in the OK city bombing, I expect the LLL to argue that the statute of limitations has run out and Iraq can't be prosecuted.
Posted by: Daniel King ||
04/19/2004 17:37 Comments ||
Top||
In his account to "Tour of Duty" author Douglas Brinkley, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry described his first encounter with enemy forces in Vietnam as an inconsequential skirmish that "hardly qualified as combat." But on Sundayâs "Meet the Press," Kerryâs recollection of the episode was far more dramatic, with the top Democrat saying the confrontation not only was "frightening" but also was probably the worst combat his unit had experienced during the entire war. Defending himself against charges that he put in for a Purple Heart for a relatively minor flesh wound after the Dec. 2, 1968 skirmish, Kerry told NBC newsman Tim Russert: "We were in combat. We were in a very, very - probably one of the most frightening - if you ask anybody who was with me, the two guys who were with me, was probably the most frightening night that they had that they were in Vietnam."
But in his account to biograpger Brinkley, Kerry dismissed the altercation as "a minor skirmish." "It was a half-assed action that hardly qualified as combat," he confessed, in a discrepancy first reported Sunday by FreeRepublic.com. "I felt terribly seasoned after this minor skirmish," Kerry continued to Brinkley. "But since I couldnât put my finger on what we had really accomplished or on what had happened, it was difficult to feel satisfied."
"Meet the Press" moderator Tim Russert was apparently unaware of the contradiction and did not question Kerry on his newly dramatized account. Kerryâs earlier, much tamer version of his first encounter with the enemy appears on pages 146 and 148 of "Tour of Duty."
Posted by: Bill Nelson ||
04/19/2004 8:08:45 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Yummm..I think I'll have waffles for breakfast this morning.
Kerry: Rantisiâs killing was justified
By JANINE ZACHARIA Well, there goes the CAIR vote. Wait. What are they gonna do? Vote for Bush? It doesnât seem to worry Kerry a bit that they might desert to Nader. Apparently, he has finally gotten the message that terror-apologist support costs more votes than it is worth.
US Senator John Kerry, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, said on Sunday Israelâs killing of Hamas leader Abdel-Aziz al-Rantissi was justified because Israel "has every right in the world to respond to any act of terror against it."
"Hamas is a terrorist, brutal organization," he told NBCâs Meet the Press.
"It has had years to make up its mind to take part in a peaceful process. They refuse to ... and I support Israelâs efforts to try to separate itself and to try to be secure."
Combined with the public rebuke of Kos "Screw âem" Zuniga and "Red" Steinkeâs "shoot Rumsfeld" ad, this is another sign that the extreme Leftâs 35 year reign of dominance in the Democratic Party is coming to an end.
At Free Republic, they dismiss this as simple pandering, but the same might be said of any statement that reflects a significant body of voter opinion.
This leaves the left-conformist wackos without a home in partisan politics, and makes a violent outburst by that element all the more likely. This "disenfranchisement" (lack of dictatorial power for lefties) will drive them absolutely berserk.
The extreme left is not a small noisy fringe element, it is a well-established and well-funded complex of interests, centered on media culture and the academic world.
As we have speculated here for some time, they are whipping themselves up for a violent confrontation. The downward spiral of their demented rhetoric must inevitably overcome self-preservation and be translated into action.
I will make my prediction again: a second civil war in November if Bush wins, next spring if Kerry wins.
Fortunately, it will not be anything like the last one. The rebels will be practically helpless this time and their raging hubris will not compenstate for the lack of weapons and know-how.
The far leftâs dominance began with a violent uprising, at the Chicago convention in 1968, it will end in a similar but much worse outburst.
Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy ||
04/19/2004 5:09:56 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
that is true,israel has right to defense itself,and alqaida or any muslim man has right to kill any american wherever he meets him or her.
#3
Anonymous, you either don't support the vast majority of Muslims in bitching and lying about the deaths of civilians at American hands, or you are a self-professed hypocrite.
Thousands of jihadis have received their raisins for sharing your belief about their right to commit wanton murder, and that is only a start. As I said, the terrorist fifth column in this country and in Europe is not immune.
But thank you anyway for helping to justify my frequent calls for a global version of Gideon/Phoenix against jihad sympathizers and collaborators.
We can do this, you bastards can't handle a nation whose people you outnumber by 200 to 1, even with the support of media culture slaves and brain-dead status-seekers the world over.
One last thing, people who actually knew what they were doing (NVA regulars as opposed to movie-slave bullet-catcher jihadis) tried to exercise their presumed right to kill me.
I am still here, and many of them are not.
John Kerry could say the same, if he wanted to further alienate terror apologist swine as I devoutly hope he does.
The game is over, asshat, and you are about to pay the bill, with ruinous interest.
#4
Unfortunately, they'll probably still cling to him as "the lesser evil" (read: not Bush) -- it's been why some conservatives are only grudgingly voting Republican ... triangulation and stealing the issues of your doesn't work when they hate you for who you ARE ...
Posted by: Edward Yee ||
04/19/2004 10:12 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Typical, he was against it, but now he is for it. Whose handling this vacuous shell that appears to be a man?
Posted by: B ||
04/19/2004 10:34 Comments ||
Top||
#6
I believe the Democrat party will cease to exist within the next 20 years (hopefully sooner).
With the way the Bush-type Republicans are apt to increase entitlement spending and enact programs which used to be bastions of the left (illegal immigrant legislation etc.), they have hijacked the same types of socialist rhetoric that the Dems have been famous for. (the Bush-type "new" Republicans are also soft on the WoT IMO, but they are certainly better than the alternative.)
Existing Dems will get on the bandwagon with the "new" Republicans, while the old Republicans will join forces with individual-rights parties like the Libertarians etc., and these will become the prevailing parties in Washington politics. The remaining Dems will go far-Left and join up with wacko parties like the Greens and have no chance in hell of gaining widespread support.
#7
While I hope that GW will sweep it in Nov, I think Spain showed us the danger of underestimating the voting power of idiotarians. Oh I know - we aren't Spain.... but as I've said before, the dead and brain-dead can be expected to vote in mass during the next election.
Posted by: B ||
04/19/2004 10:53 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Anonymous: alqaida or any muslim man has right to kill any american wherever he meets him or her.
Would it be true, in turn, that any non-Muslim has the right to kill any Muslim wherever he meets him or her? Or is the right to randomly kill people of other religions restricted to Muslims?
#9
that is true,israel has right to defense itself,and alqaida or any muslim man has right to kill any american wherever he meets him or her.
what an idiot - it is not about being a muslim or a christian or jew - it is about self-defense of a state. alqueda is not a state - just supported by states.
if the west espoused this mentality then there wouldn't be a muslim country - it would be smoldering ash heap.
B - you cannot assume the american people will be so conniving - dem or repub - will not cave to these bastards.
Posted by: Dan ||
04/19/2004 11:36 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Anon, the terrorists are the one who live in fear not us. Their world got a lot smaller since 9/11, financial resources are dwindling, and itâs getting damn hard to get new recruits. Ever see a video of some purported terrorists in some luxurious palace or anything approaching Holiday Inn quality residence? They have even resorted to audio only threats because they either canât afford it or they sight of their âleaderâ walking amongst rubble was that exciting to the little Jihadis out there. Do you think Hamas leaders have a moments to rest or do they cringe when they hear helicopters? P.S. We should put a bounty on ALL Hamas, Al Qaida, IJ, whomever and let capitalism take over. Support it with a 1% terror tax. They would be exterminated in about a year.
alqaida or any muslim man has right to kill any american wherever he meets him or her.
Lemme see-Hamas leaders, and bin-Laden are supposed to sit cozily (they think), sending dupes and suckers out to kill themselves, and kill and maim others.
you bastards can't handle a nation whose people you outnumber by 200 to 1, even with the support of media culture slaves and brain-dead status-seekers the world over.
#12
This is Kerry tring to keep American Jewish vote,esp.in New York.(Remember,he opposes death penalty,except for OBL.)If Kerry was consistant(hehehehehehehe!)he would be calling for UN to send peacekeepers to Israel/West Bank and asking the UN to come up w/peace plan.
Posted by: Stephen ||
04/19/2004 14:56 Comments ||
Top||
#13
I see Kerry's using the Clintons' focus group method of deciding policy.
Earth to Kerry: Think up your own damn policies; don't ask us what they should be.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
04/19/2004 16:32 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Barbara - that would require him to think!!
Posted by: B ||
04/19/2004 22:59 Comments ||
Top||
A Secret Service document written shortly after the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing described security video footage of the attack and witness testimony that suggested Timothy McVeigh may have had accomplices at the scene.
"Security video tapes from the area show the truck detonation 3 minutes and 6 seconds after the suspects exited the truck," the Secret Service reported six days after the attack on a log of agents' activities and evidence in the Oklahoma investigation.
Several investigators and prosecutors who worked the case told The Associated Press they had never seen video footage like that described in the Secret Service log.
The document, if accurate, is either significant evidence kept secret for nine years or a misconstrued recounting of investigative leads that were often passed by word of mouth during the hectic early days of the case, they said.
"I did not see it," said Danny Defenbaugh, the retired FBI agent who ran the Oklahoma City probe. "If it shows what it says, then it would be significant."
Secret Service spokesman Charles Bopp declined to discuss the video footage reference, saying it would be addressed by witnesses later this week at the capital murder trial of McVeigh co-defendant Terry Nichols. "It is anticipated Secret Service employees will testify in court concerning these matters," he said.
Other documents obtained by AP show the Secret Service in late 1995 gave prosecutors several computer disks of enhanced digital photographs of the Murrah building, intelligence files on several subjects in the investigation and a file detailing an internal affairs inquiry concerning an agent who reconstructed key phone evidence against McVeigh.
"These abstract sheets are sensitive documents which we have protected from disclosure in the past," said a Secret Service letter that recounted discussions in late 1995 with federal prosecutors on what evidence would be turned over to defense lawyers.
Lawyers for Nichols say they have never been given the security video, photo disks or internal investigative file referenced in the documents.
The trial judge has threatened to dismiss the death penalty case if evidence was withheld. McVeigh was executed in 2001 on a separate federal conviction. Nichols was sentenced to life in prison on federal charges before being tried by the state this year.
The only video prosecutors introduced at trial showed the Ryder truck without any visible passengers as it passed a security camera inside a high-rise apartment building a block away from the Murrah building.
But the Secret Service log reported on April 24 and April 25, 1995, that there was security footage showing the Ryder truck pulling up to the Murrah building. The log does not say where such video came from or who possessed it.
A log entry on April 25 states that the security footage allowed agents to determine the time that elapsed between suspects leaving the truck and the explosion.
An entry a day earlier on the same log reported that the security video was consistent with a witness' account that he saw McVeigh's getaway car in the lead before a woman guided the truck to its final parking spot in front of the Murrah building.
"A witness to the explosion named Grossman claimed to have seen a pale yellow Mercury car with a Ryder truck behind it pulling up to the federal building," the log said. The witness "further claimed to have seen a woman on the corner waving to the truck."
A Secret Service agent named McNally "noted that this fact is significant due to the fact that the security video shows the Ryder truck pulling up to the Federal Building and then pausing (7 to 10 seconds) before resuming into the slot in front of the building," the log said. "It is speculated that the woman was signaling the truck when a slot became available."
Defenbaugh said the FBI had talked to several witnesses suggesting two people had left the truck, but prosecutors never introduced the scenario at trial because it couldn't be corroborated. That's why a new security video would be significant, he said.
"It would have taken the investigation in a very specific direction," Defenbaugh said. "Rather than having to go down an eight-lane highway during rush hour, we would have gone down a faster path with just two or four lanes."
Defenbaugh said the FBI kept a log similar to the Secret Service document inside the Oklahoma City investigation command center that might help solve the mystery of the video. Justice officials declined to discuss documents, citing the ongoing Nichols' trial.
In addition to the witness mentioned in the Secret Service document, a woman working in Murrah's Social Security office who was rescued from the rubble and a driver outside the building both reported to the FBI seeing two men leave the truck, according to government documents.
The Secret Service log contained other information about the case - including that McVeigh made 30 calls to an Illinois gun dealer in the months before the attacks to seek dynamite and that the gun dealer subsequently failed a lie detector test. The Secret Service lost six employees in McVeigh's bombing, the single largest loss in agency history.
Nichols' attorneys last week asked the judge to dismiss the case on grounds the government withheld evidence, including the security video footage.
New documents obtained by AP show the Secret Service provided prosecutors other evidence that may not have been provided to defense lawyers, including a file showing the Secret Service agent who reconstructed crucial phone evidence against McVeigh was subjected to an internal affairs investigation and eventually cleared for her conduct in the case.
FBI officials say that file details allegations the agent wrongly collected grand jury-subpoenaed phone information about McVeigh's calls without FBI knowledge, and kept it for weeks while she produced analysis that helped the investigation.
The internal investigation caused complications for prosecutors. They decided it tainted the agent as a witness and they chose instead to hire an outside expert to re-do the phone analysis for trial, officials said.
Bopp said the Secret Service did nothing wrong.
"The Secret Service worked cooperatively with the FBI and other federal state and local law enforcement throughout the investigation," Bopp said. "The expertise of the Secret Service on electronic crimes and telecommunications provided unique and timely information to the ongoing investigation."
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
04/19/2004 5:48:39 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
i have always believed there was more to this....and why did clinton close the investigation so soon? why was he so quick to accept that this was homegrown?
Posted by: Dan ||
04/19/2004 19:41 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Ya think the "multiple suspects" might be: Shakers, Quakers, and Mormons? Naw...me neither...
Posted by: Mark ||
04/19/2004 19:44 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Why is this all coming out now?
Posted by: joe ||
04/19/2004 20:58 Comments ||
Top||
#4
"Why is this all coming out now?"
Shakeups going on in various security and intelligence agencies, below the press radar ? Certain people, with vested interests in keeping certain things hidden, being moved out of the way ?
Or, it could all be conspiratorial nonsense.
Posted by: Carl in N.H. ||
04/19/2004 21:02 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Carl is correct. A Conspiracy. Of Vast proportions. Of extreme Right Wingers. Yes! The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy (TM).
Posted by: Mr. Davis ||
04/19/2004 22:03 Comments ||
Top||
EFL-- hat tip Instapundit, The Volokh Conspiracy
The relevant history regarding the wall is well known, Gorelick has recused herself from consideration of her own actions and those of the Justice Department while she was there, and her fellow commissioners have spoken up in her defense. This is offered as Gorelickâs wind-up. If it is adopted as the new standard, the commission should stop wasting everyoneâs time and money right now.
First, the relevant history of many aspects of the 9/11 investigation is extensively well documented; yet, the commission has insisted on calling witnesses â despite the fact that our nation is at war and many of the witnesses have been taken away from their wartime responsibilities for hours (and sometimes days) to comply with commission requests for information and testimony. To this point, no witness has been permitted to get away with a curt "you donât need me â youâve already got enough information."
Second, Gorelickâs conflict is not so tidy as to be solved by avoiding inquiry into her time in the Justice Department. If that were the case, John Ashcroft could have been a commissioner â and just imagine the howling if someone had proposed that. Gorelickâs conflict, central to the matter of intelligence lapse, goes to the heart of the commissionâs investigation. Whenever she asks a question on another subject â even if she does it in good faith â the public is entitled to wonder whether she is trying to shift blame or scrutiny away from herself. The legitimacy of the commission is thus critically undermined.
Finally, the support of Gorelickâs fellow commissioners is irrelevant. Again, these are the same guys who were screaming for Rice three weeks ago, for no better reason than that Clarke had made allegations Rice was in a position to shed light on. Ashcroft has now made assertions far more central to the salient matter of institutional impediments to information sharing. That those same commissioners are not being consistent, that they are not calling for Gorelick to step down and be sworn as a witness, is inexplicable.
Iâm sure they have all bonded; Iâm quite certain they admire and respect Gorelickâs powerful mind and exemplary work ethic â theyâd be foolish not to. But imagine for a moment that Gorelick had not been appointed to serve on the commission. Is there anyone on the planet who doesnât think sheâd have been subpoenaed to testify after her memorandum came to light during last weekâs proceedings? Is there anyone who thinks she could have avoided testifying under such circumstances by writing an op-ed? And much more
#1
When the Dems get caught like this it seems that answer is to filibuster and change the subject. Kean's attitude still pussles me though, "Stay out of our business", seems like it comes from someone that is intemperant, as with any judging function, this kind outburst would seem to disqualify one from being a chairman of such a comission.
Also, Zell Miller said today on Hannity that Gorelick should step down.
Some of the Senate's most vehement Democratic critics of President Bush's policies in Iraq have never gone there during the war. We obtained a copy of an official list of all the members of Congress who have visited Iraq since May.
We count 211 members, including 37 senators. Missing from the traveling senators are Sens. John Kerry of Massachusetts, the presumptive party presidential nominee; Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts; Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia; Richard J. Durbin of Illinois; and Byron L. Dorgan of North Dakota. "Your five lead dogs have never gone," said a Republican staffer. "The people who have been there are quieter."
There's a profound thought. Bobbie, Teddie, Dickie, all should go to Iraq and see for themselves. I'm going to write Durbin, he's one of my senators.
The staffer said lawmakers return from such trips, known as "co-dels" for congressional delegations, with the impression that progress is being made in rebuilding post-Saddam Hussein Iraq and introducing democratic ideals.
Four senators have traveled to Iraq twice. Only Sen. Jack Reed, Rhode Island Democrat and West Point graduate, has gone three times. Additional trips have been postponed given the spike in violence in Iraq.
Posted by: Steve White ||
04/19/2004 12:26:30 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Further down in the article it tells us Mr. Krohn, previous PA officer for Army Sec White says, "I think it's time to think seriously about ensuring continuity of coverage," Mr. Krohn writes. "Reporters embedded with units fighting the war take their own chances, and they are universally respected for the risks they take and the work they do. But the folks in the bureaus take huge risks without much protection. I don't get to vote on this, but I think the leadership in CPA should consider donating some space so credited media could move trailers in on the friendly side of the walls."
I guess with Sadaam gone to protect them, they are at the mercy of the people we are fighting against. I say let them stay outside the walls, and maybe they will learn to appreciate the benefits of stopping those who promote war on the US. As far as I can read from their coverage - they are supporting "the other side". I can't imagine why we'd want to let them inside our walls. No wonder today is his last day. Fool.
I wrote this. Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9, Part 10
During the weeks preceding the Oklahoma City bombing, the US Government received various reports from sources in Iran, Syria and the Philippines warning that bombs would be detonated at US Government buildings, in particular at buildings with courthouses. A warning was therefore sent to all federal courthouses on March 15. This warning indicated that bombings were being organized by the Iranian regime and would begin soon after the Iranian New Yearâs Day, which was March 21. (Gerald Posner, Why America Slept: The Failure to Prevent 9/11, chapter 10; most of this article is from that source.) John Gannon, a CIA deputy director during that period, confirms an extraordinary amount of intelligence reporting and relevant communications "chatter" along those lines during those weeks.
Within hours of the bombing, the US Government received seven phone calls from callers claiming to represent Middle Eastern terrorist groups that had organized the bombing. Because of the warnings and claims, FBI Headquarters immediately informed its domestic and foreign field offices that "the likely group" guilty of the bombing was Islamic Jihad, a group supported by Iran.
Eyewitnesses at the site reported suspicious activities featuring Middle Eastern men:
* Shortly before the explosion, a woman had been in an elevator descending to the ground floor. Also in the elevator was a young Arab man, wearing a backpack, who hurriedly pushed the elevator buttons as if trying to get off. She followed him out of and away from the building a few moments before the explosion. The woman was still close enough to the building that she was knocked off her feet by the explosion.
* Several minutes before the explosion, a pedestrian near the building saw a yellow Mercury parked near the federal building. The car sped off, bounced over a concrete barrier in the roadway, swerved to avoid a dumpster, and almost hit the pedestrian.
* Shortly before the explosion, a man saw two men run from the federal buildingâs vicinity toward a brown Chevy pickup truck. He described the two men as wearing beards and as "possibly of Middle-Eastern descent."
* Shortly before the explosion, a woman was walking several blocks away from the federal building and noticed three vehicles that seemed to be moving as a group. All the occupants seemed to be Middle Eastern men. One man in one of the cars was staring so intently at something that she herself turned to look in that direction and saw the federal building, which was still standing normally. One of the vehicles was a yellow Mercury, and another was a brown pickup.
* Right after the explosion, a woman ran out of another building, located about five blocks from the federal building, to look at the federal building and was almost hit by a brown pickup that had raced around a nearby corner. There were three male occupants, at least two of whom looked like Middle Eastern men. At least one of the occupants had an obviously very angry expression on his face. Later, when she was shown photos of suspects, she selected a photo of an Iraqi with ties to terrorist groups.
* A few hours after the explosion, a group of three people reported seeing a brown pickup with three Middle Eastern occupants speeding out of town. That report was compelling enough to prompt the police to issue an all-points bulletin, authorized by the FBI, to search for the pickup.
As soon as Timothy McVeigh was identified as the culprit who rented the Ryder truck that carried the explosives, US Government investigators discounted all such eyewitnesses. "We went from a Middle Eastern case investigation to an all-domestic on the turn of a dime," says Buck Revell, then the FBIâs Assistant Director for Criminal Investigations and the FBIâs representative on the Restricted Interagency Group for Terrorism.
Dewey Clarridge, Chief of the CIA Counter-Terrorism Center, says that the identification of McVeigh and Nichols as the culprits "knocked the wind out of many of my former colleagues. There was little incentive for the Agency to fund a large operation against Arab militants when suddenly the concern was with domestic ones."
===============
Immediately after the explosion was reported by the mass media, Abdul Hakim Murad, who had been extradited from the Philippines to the United States exactly one week earlier, declared to a guard that Ramzi Yousefâs so-called "Liberation Army" had carried out the bombing.
===============
On April 21, two days after the bombing, a phone call was made from the Nicholsâ home in Herington, Kansas, to a boarding house in Cebu City in the Philippines. Less than two hours later, Nichols surrendered to the police.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
04/19/2004 12:09:28 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Posner says, after recounting alot of this information, that they were all mistaken. Now, that's not really credible, is it? I think he was led astray by his government sources.
Do you think John Doe #2 is Hussain al-Hussaini or Jose Padilla, or someone else entirely?
Posted by: Pete Stanley ||
04/19/2004 0:32 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I want to believe this, but I feel like I have to approach it with the same skepticism as the 9-11 conspiracy theories.
Regardless, McVeigh was killed too soon. Should have let him rot for 25 years and gilled him every 4 months. Too many unanswered questions.
Posted by: joe ||
04/19/2004 0:39 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Nice job Mike. I remember hearing how Clinton was relieved to find a white dude to stick this on. Sorry that it's now going to the grassy knowle area of history.
I think we are at war with Islamic nuts. I think their leaders and money men should be exterminated. Bummer!
#4
Yeah, the Feds rushed judgment at the time, and later exhonerated the Saudi government for its facilitating role in the massacre of 3,000 Americans on September 11, 2001. Facts have no currency in this sick, sick world.
It is my judgment that George Walker Bush's attempt to export the American social-political system to Iraq, is a irreparable failure. The non-governmental workers are currently locked in compounds, and will return to work when hell freezes over. If elections are ever held in that savage country, the winners - the Islamofascist Shia oligarchy - will exterminate the Turkemen, Kurd and Christian minorities. If that is "freedom," then Hitler must have been a "freedom fighter." So what's the cover-story?
Posted by: Man Bites Dog ||
04/19/2004 3:08 Comments ||
Top||
#5
MBD - wow! Have a cup of coffee. While I agree it's been disappointing to see the Iraqi's fail to get with the program, it's a bit over the top to throw in the towel so early. It's far too soon to assume that the little brown folk are incapable of democracy. Without the meddling of Iran, Syria and SA, and some key hits on the right "leaders", I still think they have a chance of moving forward.
I'm glad Bremer's going to be replaced soon. Not to disparage him, he's done a fine job, but I think it's time we get someone fresh to look at the situation anew. I'm not so sure about Negraponte (sp?). I just don't know enough about him.
I still wonder if we shouldn't just carve them up into different states, as was proposed before the war. Whatever, I believe that the people are capable of democracy - it's those already in power that are having a problem with the idea.
#1
Soros said the foundation planned to appeal and called on the United States to reconsider ties with Uzbekistan, its closest regional ally and home to hundreds of U.S. troops stationed at a military base near the Afghan border
"Marvin?"
"yes sir?"
"I'm reconsidering our aid to Uzbekistan..... whatever it is now....double it"
"yes sir"
"and send a thank-you card"
Posted by: Frank G ||
04/19/2004 12:18 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Soros said the foundation planned to appeal and called on the United States to reconsider ties with Uzbekistan, its closest regional ally and home to hundreds of U.S. troops stationed at a military base near the Afghan border.
Ahhh...another deranged billionaire, totally out of touch with reality. I'm sure the Tides foundation will give him some press, maybe even NPR. Dream on rich boy, you can only buy so much influence in this world. Looks like your dreams of world domination are running smack into reality.
The times they are a chang'n.
Posted by: B ||
04/19/2004 13:25 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I should offer a hat-tip to the Chicago Sun-Times, which is where I encountered the story this morning (dead tree edition).
#4
B> In short -- decrying French and Russian ties to Iraq's brutal dictatorship is more than okay as said ties only benefitted France and Russia to the injury of Iraqi people. Decrying American ties to Uzbekistan's brutal dictatorship is wrong as said ties benefit America to the injury of Uzbeki people.
Gotcha.
So far I've not seen anything wrong with what Soros' foundation has done -- unless supporting democracy is a wrong thing when done in countries with regimes not especially targetted by the US administration for elimination.
#5
So far I've not seen anything wrong with what Soros' foundation has done -- unless supporting democracy is a wrong thing when done in countries with regimes not especially targetted by the US administration for elimination.
If Soros' minions want to go in there and start slamming people, they shouldn't be too surprised when the people in charge get a little irritated.
go reread my post. Next time you talk to me, please address what I have written or just scroll on by. Thanks.
Posted by: B ||
04/19/2004 16:14 Comments ||
Top||
#7
B> I saw you heavily insulting a guy because he founded a foundation that urged against having friendly ties with brutal dictatorships.
I've, ofcourse, also seen you insult me because I *didn't* urge against *invading* a certain other brutal dictatorship.
In my previous post, I try to reconcile these two opinions of yours.
If there's a different way to reconcile them than the one I suggested, please make it known.
Bomb-a-rama> "If Soros' minions want to go in there and start slamming people, they shouldn't be too surprised when the people in charge get a little irritated."
True, but I was acting on the assumption that B wasn't the dictator of Uzbekistan. I grant you, that if he is indeed the dictator of Uzbekistan, then he does have reason to get irritated.
#8
Aris,
You are correct, Uzbekistan is a tough one. Karimov is no saint but neither is he a Saddam, who we did support in the past.
I despise Soros and his opinions on US politics and US power, but from what I can tell, his activities in Eastern Europe, the Balkans, the Caucus and Central Asia are mostly positive - although Soros has always been controversial and he seems to be sparking even more resentment and backlash lately. I just wish he would apply the vast resources and efforts of his Open Society Foundation towards the Middle East where creating a more open society is the biggest and most important challenge of the Century.
Getting back to Uzbekistan, I think the choice is clear. Like Mumbarak in Egypt, you have to support Karimov. While the lefties call us hypocrites and the possibility of "Blowback" is there if Karimov falls or weakens, the current needs are dire. Like Elliot Ness in the Untouchables, you do what you have to do. It's not like the choice is a Karimov dictatorship or a parliamentary democracy. The main oppositition are Islamic fundamentalists - just like in Egypt.
Posted by: John in Tokyo ||
04/19/2004 18:42 Comments ||
Top||
#9
OK..I'll bite, though I know it's wasted finger effort.
Please reread my post. What I said was that Soros is a deranged multibillionaire who has lost touch with reality to think the US would come running to his defense. You weakly and unsupportedly claim that, "So far I've not seen anything wrong with what Soros' foundation has done" when in fact you know full well that he has attempted his own regime changes - something that really gets your panties wadded when you talk about the US doing that in Iraq. So whose the hypocrite here?
I don't recall saying anything about whether or not the US should or should not have ties with Uzbekistan, nor did I make any justification of their abuses of human rights - I just said that Soros was deranged to think that we would give a darn if his meddling little foundation was given the boot.
Like I said, read it again.
Posted by: B ||
04/19/2004 21:19 Comments ||
Top||
#10
"something that really gets your panties wadded when you talk about the US doing that in Iraq."
Wrong. Wrong in all counts. Wrong absolutely.
For starters, Soros hasn't invaded any country, so he *isn't* doing what US is doing in Iraq. Unless you think that the means don't matter one bit when doing "regime change".
Secondly, I don't have any objection to "regime changes", even by means of invasion, when said regime changes are about overthrowing brutal dictatorship and installing democracies. As opposed to overthrowing secular dictatorship and installing Islamist ones in their place, which is the most likely end result in Iraq.
Third, I may have misunderstood the article but it was my impression that Soros was urging the US to reconsider ties with Uzbekistan, not because Soros' foundation was evicted, but because of its general human rights and civil liberties record. You are missing the forest for the tree, B.
Fourth, who do you think you are kidding? It gets "my panties wadded" when I see USA doing that in Iraq? No, it gets "my panties wadded" when I see USA utterly *failing* to do that in Iraq and in neighbouring countries. When I see the entire US army being mobilized to the *benefit* of the Iran-Syria axis and never to its detriment.
As you should well know had you read any of my actual posts.
#11
"when in fact you know full well that he has attempted his own regime changes - something that really gets your panties wadded when you talk about the US doing that in Iraq. So whose the hypocrite here?"
I wonder how many times I'll have to scream out "I FIND NOTHING MORALLY WRONG WITH OVERTHROWING DICTATORSHIPS" till B finally, *finally* gets it and stops slandering me.
#12
well my mistake then Aris. I guess that explains why you can see nothing wrong with Soros' foundation. I UNDERSTAND now how you could become easily confused and think that the decision by the Uzbecks, to refuse allow Soros' foundation to work towards overthrowing their government (as well as our own electoral process) would be considered by you (and only you) to be my condoning civil rights violations and abuse of human rights by Uzbeckisan
At least, I can only conclude that must be how you think, since you somehow distorted my comments re: Soros' foundation, to be a justification for Uzbeck human rights abuses... when in fact, IT IS CLEAR FROM MY POST (if you had bothered to read it...which is where our little discussion began) that I was only addressing Soros and his foundation's penchant for mischief.
It's all clear to me now. I apologise for your misunderstanding.
Posted by: B ||
04/20/2004 11:22 Comments ||
Top||
#13
You are calling the Soros foundation's support for human rights in Uzbekistan to be "a penchant for mischief".
How did I distort this plain fact?
And how did the Soros foundation try to overthrow "your electoral process" btw? I must have missed that newsitem.
Posted by: B ||
04/20/2004 15:38 Comments ||
Top||
#16
Given how you've repeatedly claimed I hold positions which are the exact opposites than the ones I've actually (and repeatedly) stated, I don't think you can lecture me on my reading skills.
Your claims that I misread you is just annoyance on how I show the core meaning of your words by removing the babble surrounding it -- for example the way that the fact you are *annoyed* at what Soros does (e.g. you calling him names, 'deranged' 'out of touch with reality' 'dreams of world domination'), indicates that you are annoyed at what Soros *does*.
And yeah, we can declare this discussion thread officially dead. But I'll ask you next time to speak in English what you mean, and mean what you say (Lewis Caroll reference, that one) -- because I do know some German but am not that fluent in it.
Safire pegs this one correctly -- this scandel won't go far unless it gets a few friends in high places. Just the key paragraphs here.
By WILLIAM SAFIRE
WASHINGTON â How fares the multination cover-up of the richest rip-off in world history?
... what of those "mass media reports" about the scope of the corruption, which are backed by the initial findings of Congress's General Accounting Office? Editorialists have dutifully tut-tutted. Reporters have passed along some details of what the G.A.O. estimates is a $5 billion fraud (not counting $5 billion more in smuggled oil). The Financial Times, working with Italy's Sole, recently advanced the story, interviewing a middleman to show how an apologist for Saddam got $400,000 to finance a film.
But outrage that drives coverage is selective, and there is little establishment appetite to pursue this complex scandal. Speaking power to truth, Newsweek headlines "Anti-U.N. Campaign," and reports dark suspicions by U.N. bureaucrats that the scandal was "drummed up" by the doves' Iraqi villain, Ahmad Chalabi.
France's U.S. ambassador writes under "Oil-for-Food Lies" in The Los Angeles Times that "unfounded accusations . . . have been spread by a handful of influential, conservative TV and newspaper journalists in the U.S." He noted that all 15 members of the Security Council approved all the oil-for-food contracts, and "the complete contracts were only circulated to the U.S. and Britain, which had expressly asked to see them. . . ." (And State shut its eyes â and has no list?)
Lawyers and accountants hired by Iraq's Governing Council will appear before Chairman Christopher Shays' national security subcommittee on Wednesday. The Connecticut congressman offers journalists a useful briefing memo, but expect little coverage; this scandal has no friends. Â
Posted by: Steve White ||
04/19/2004 12:41:29 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
How could anyone profit from this, impossible! I'll punch anyone in the nose that even hints at such impropriety. This is more than just honor, it's.......nation wide!
#1
The fighting began on March 13, 1954, and on May 7 shell-shocked survivors of the French garrison hoisted the white flag to signal the end to one of the fiercest battles of the 20th century
I agree! CNN is leading into its international news with an image of Ho Chi Minh's tomb. The role of the media hasn't changed one bit, but now we have the Internet and we can bypass their moronic self-serving crap, and I for one am delighted I don't have to listen to their ignorant childish posturing in order to find out what is happening in the world.
Posted by: Phil B ||
04/20/2004 7:49 Comments ||
Top||
Posted by: B ||
04/19/2004 21:52 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
he's a propaganda cartoon for a guy who's losing audience as the boomers age... I won't lose any sleep
Posted by: Frank G ||
04/19/2004 22:02 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I think I speak for the majority of Americans when I say that we are only sorry that the character managed to survive.
Posted by: B ||
04/19/2004 22:03 Comments ||
Top||
#3
This was a news item on the Yahoo home page. Slow news day. But really instructive of the media mind set - as if this was some cultural milestone, a significant event.
Posted by: John in Tokyo ||
04/19/2004 22:11 Comments ||
Top||
#4
"A leg, an arm... could easily part with that as opposed to some other mechanics of nature."
Trudeau's probably not much of a fan of "Gettysburg", come to think of it.
New book serves as witty eulogy for punctuation
Lynne Truss fears the English language could be in its death throes. Proper, written English, that is -- the kind with correctly placed apostrophes, elegantly positioned semicolons, commas in all the right places and in none of the wrong ones. Itâs being shoved aside, she thinks, by an electronic onslaught of uncapitalized, unpunctuated, ill-thought-out Internet verbiage. Truss, a longtime writer and editor, is sure that trying to halt the decline would be hopeless, but she wants her new book, "Eats, Shoots & Leaves" to at least serve as a warm and funny eulogy to a little-heralded but crucial piece of the language: punctuation.
... "Eats, Shoots & Leaves," whose title comes from a corny punctuation joke about a panda in a bar, is a lighthearted, affectionate tribute to the system of jots, dots and dashes that make written language intelligible. "Sticklers unite," Truss urges in the bookâs introduction. "You have nothing to lose but your sense of proportion, and arguably you didnât have a lot of that to begin with." ... She blames the decline on the failure of schools to teach the basic rules, and on the explosion of communication technologies that have allowed punctuation ignoramuses everywhere to deluge others with their poorly organized thoughts. "People who donât know their apostrophe from their elbow are positively invited to disseminate their writings to anyone on the planet stupid enough to double-click and scroll," she writes.
Posted by: Yosemite Sam ||
04/19/2004 17:52 Comments ||
Top||
#2
IIRC, punctuation was introduced during the Middle Ages. Before that, you guessed where the sentence began and ended. Questions were defined by syntax, not punctuation. English uses more punctuation than most languages -- maybe too much. The pendulum swings back and forth. Now it's swinging towards less punctuation. I guess this means muck4do is actually in the vanguard. Frightening.
Over the years I've hired a lot of people and interviewd a lot more. Inevitably, the programmers, analysts and engineers who were sloppy or ignorant of grammar and punctuation were also inaccurate and sloppy in technical work.
I don't have a problem with 133t speak, but if that's the best someone can do, the chances are they will lose out on that technical job to someone from Taiwan or Japan or Korea or Mexico whose English may not be native, but who are much more disciplined in their thought and communications.
#8
Angie, thanks for the correction, although 'illiterate barbarian' is a little harsh.
On a serious note, there have always been different versions of English used in different contexts. For example many people speak informal English (and different variants of informal English), but write formal English. I see no problem with the Internet having a casual style of English.
Posted by: Phil B ||
04/19/2004 22:21 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Ok, the funeral benefits are an interesting perk, but what about the dental plan and 401k?
A dental plan is no longer needed seeing how Israel has already drawn their fangs.
401k benefits are distributed by First Arafat Bank of Palestine. (see bona fides below)
Yediot said Ghussein, interviewed in London where he now lives, personally deposited half a billion dollars in secret bank accounts for the Palestinian leader. The daily said Ghussein had transferred between $7.5 and $8 million each month from Palestinian public funds to Arafat's personal account.
NOTICE: These bona fides contain forward-looking statements within the meaning of international terrorism laws that involve risks and uncertainties. Certain statements contained in this report are not purely historical, including statements regarding our expectations, beliefs, intentions or strategies regarding the future that are forward-looking. These statements include statements concerning projected death tolls, international financial support, attrition, brigade strength, corruption, bribery margins or other fanatical items; timing and level of rocket attacks; demand for and market acceptance of Israel's utter destruction; and strategic development and proposed new assaults and atrocities.
EFL - check the link, as I left out some of the fine details.
The coastal city of Brunswick [GA]⊠passed a law last month that places conditions on public demonstrations.
Organizers of protests⊠must put up refundable deposits equal to the cityâs estimated cost for clean up and police protection. Demonstrations may only last 2 hours, 30 minutes. Signs and banners may not be carried on sticks that might be brandished as weapons. And the signs may not be larger than 2-by-3 feet.
Sweet.
One public demonstration organizer sez: "It makes it impossible to express oneself through assembly or speech on public property unless you have money."
No, it forces you to be responsible enough to pay a deposit to cover potential âpublicâ expenses.
Brunswick, Savannah and surrounding counties have passed ordinances governing protest permits. The American Civil Liberties Union has threatened to sue, saying the laws "place impermissible limits on free speech."
You can say whatever you want, but it is NOT the duty of the taxpayer to pay for police protection and damage to âpublicâ property.
Asshats Observers say the citiesâ actions fit a national pattern of managing dissent with beefed up laws and police powers that constrict constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and assembly.
The new laws are a response to the violent protests during the 1999 World Trade Organization meeting in Seattle and the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in 2001.
I donât know about THIS angle, but I am 100% for the concept of the protestors paying deposits (i.e. renting) public property for their demonstrations. There is nothing here that says they canât be backed by private individuals instead (that is, if they can find any willing to pony up the dough for idiotarian conventions the protests.
Posted by: Unmutual ||
04/19/2004 9:46:43 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I disagree. An ordinance like that may well be unconstitutional on the ground that costs might be calculated based on the likely reaction to the message. The Supreme Court struck down such an ordinance in FORSYTH COUNTY v. NATIONALIST MOVEMENT, 505 U.S. 123 (1992).
#2
That's a good point, but what is your opinion of a flat rate deposit?
While I agree that attempting to calculate "likely results" in such a way is an improper use of governmental censure, I also defend the gov's and the taxpayer's right to protect public property by requiring those who use it to accept the costs involved.
Charging the same rental fee that is already charged for weddings etc. on "public" property (parks, etc.) is not unusual or discriminatory at all in my view. In fact, it is the only proper way to distribute the usage of "public" property.
#4
What about pink tanks?
Seriously, I think some provision for holding organizers responsible for damage and other extra costs is only fair to the rest of the taxpayers.
The problem, as Anon and Unmutual point out, lies in the prior restraint implications of requiring a deposit.
OTOH, accountability after the fact is impractical in many cases because the most destructive demonstrators are the ones least likely to remain in the jurisdiction: they trash the place then split for the Village or Mom and Dad's place in the Hamptons.
What is it with idiotarians and Kit-Kat bars anyway? After a recent Greenpeace riot/demo in Dallas, the place was covered with litter: retro-psychedelic handbills, Evian bottles, and enough Kit-Kat wrappers to supply several years worth of eco-propaganda if they had been recycled. Are these the grass-munchy Oreos of the 21st century or something?
#5
I think that a flat fee might be constitutional. A flat fee would be less objectionable than a fee contingent on the communicative impact of expression. Under the court's caselaw a flat fee is probably a content neutral restriction upon speech which must only pass an intermediate level of scrutiny. My tentative guess is that such a requirement is constitutional. However, the city must be even handed in its enforcement. If the ordinance vests in city officials the discretion to waive the requirement the ordinance is still unconstitutional.
#5
Mr. Bush, God bless him, is walking a tightrope. I understand that with vital operations in Iraq and others, it's in our interest, as Americans, to try to stabilize our Arab allies as much as possible, and, after all, that can't be much harder than stabilizing a roomful of supermodels who've just had their drugs taken away.
Best analogy I've ever heard...
Of course Arab supermodels would be covered head to toe, so one wouldn't know if they were really supermodels or not.
EFL
-----------------
Egypt
Hi, I am from Egypt. This is my first blog ever. I would love to use it in making my voice heard. I hope you enjoy the stuff I write here.
Sunday, April 18, 2004
Comments (42) | Trackback (0)
Below are the answers to the questions I got.
Do you know of any other Egyptians that feel the same as you do about Iraq and the U.S.?
Yes but very few though. Nearly every news outlet that an Egyptian is exposed to is fervently anti-America and so it is quite normal for such an attitude to develop.
... I tend to compare Mubarak with other Arab leaders and heâs surely doing a much better job. For example, you cannot compare Mubarak with Saddam or Syriaâs Asad.... Despite all the economical and social problems that weâre facing, Iâd rather have Mubarak forever than a single day with the radical Muslim Brotherhood in power. This is my priority.
By his own admission, he is an unusual Egyptian in some ways (e.g., he doesnât think the Paleos should have RoR to Israel proper) but his feelings about Mubarak may be more representative.
Posted by: mhw ||
04/19/2004 8:36:18 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
EFL
Two nuclear submarines, one British and one American, surfaced near the North Pole on Monday for an impromptu game of soccer, Britainâs Royal Navy said. The two vessels surfaced through two naturally occurring gaps in the ice about half a mile from each other after completing a joint underwater exercise. Geez. Why donât they just play real football?
"The crews of HMS Tireless and USS Hampton are gearing up for a game of football," Commander John Parris said. "It will probably be English football (soccer) since I doubt our lot know much about playing American football," Parris told Reuters from Portsmouth in southern England. "I expect there will also be the mother of all snowball fights." ...And a lot of oddly shaped yellow snow angles.
Posted by: Dragon Fly ||
04/19/2004 7:52:11 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Sounds like a good time. :)
Posted by: Laurence of the Rats ||
04/19/2004 8:51 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Could you imagine two Arab countries being able to do this? Hold a nuclear submarine exercise BELOW THE PERMANENT ICE PACK AT THE NORTH POLE and then decide (presumably while still underwater) to surface and meet up with each other? The Arab League can't even hold a summit in a five-star hotel. Stupid, backwards @sshats.
Posted by: Tibor ||
04/19/2004 9:56 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Tibor:
"The Arab League can't even hold a summit in a five-star hotel. Stupid, backwards @sshats"
They have some pretty good curses about mustaches, though...
Let's not throw out the baby with the bath water..
Posted by: Carl in N.H ||
04/19/2004 15:59 Comments ||
Top||
TRIPOLI, Libya (AP) - Moammar Gadhafi on Sunday called for the abolition of Libya's three decade-old exceptional courts and other strict laws criticized by human rights groups. During talks in Tripoli with judges and prosecutors, the Libyan leader urged delegates meeting across the country since Saturday in weeklong annual People's Congress forums to annul the laws, which were passed three years after Gadhafi seized power in a 1969 military coup. Libya's exceptional laws have, among other things, banned the formation of political parties and stipulated death penalties for dissidents.
Is Jupiter aligned with Mars?
The official news agency JANA reported that Gadhafi also called for an end to arrests without warrant and urged the congresses to endorse international anti-torture conventions.
His appeal Sunday came after the March visit to Libya by a team of human rights workers from Amnesty International, the organization's first to the North African nation in 15 years. The Amnesty team visited Libyan prisons and met with Gadhafi, urging him to abolish the country's exceptional laws and People's Court, which handles political and security cases, and replace them with ordinary criminal courts. Those convicted by the People's Court have no recourse to appeal and no right to obtain independent legal counsel.
Gadhafi had promised to consider Amnesty's recommendations. The regional People's Congress forums usually adopt Gadhafi's recommendations, which eventually reach the General People's Congress, Libya's version of a parliament that meets annually in March, for ratification.
He keeps this up, he could actually become a social democrat.
Posted by: Steve White ||
04/19/2004 12:35:50 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
(2004-04-18) -- Hamas, the Palestinian social services agency, announced today that its recently-appointed leader Abdel Azziz Rantisi died this weekend of natural causes.
Mr. Rantisi apparently perished from the same disease which took the life of his predecessor, Hamas founder Sheik Ahmed Yassin less than one month ago.
"The autopsy showed that Abdel Azziz Rantisi died of a virulent, contagious kind of cancer that destroys the mind, and by natural cause-and-effect, the body," said an unnamed Palestinian coroner. "Although you may have read that Rantisi and Yassin died from Israeli missile attacks, that was just the coup de grace. The condition that really killed them is like HIV. You donât die of HIV, you die from something else because you have AIDS. These men died of missile attacks, but the attacks were caused by the wasting disease that infected their minds and hearts."
Posted by: Korora ||
04/19/2004 12:03:49 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 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.
