Category — Bin Laden

Since beating Clinton, Obama has received many key endorsements which will come in handy during his race for office. Many of the endorsers are powerful personages in their own right who look to bestow a cloak mantle of legitimacy preeminence to his run for president.

I’m sure you recognize many of them.

A bit more levity for this season.

I consider this very correct!

Paraphrasing Kingsley Amis, inoffensive art is worthless.

The Boston Globe endorsement of John McCain should scare most conservative voters off his candidacy. But even if you didn’t have the damning evidence in the form of this endorsement, McCain is on the wrong side of too many big issues. He’s an enemy of free speech with his unwavering support of campaign finance reform laws. He’s pro-amnesty and will revive those disastrous proposals the second he’s elected. And he wouldn’t harm a hair on bin Laden’s to get valuable intelligence information out of him.

You can make electability arguments for McCain all you like, but like the 2 Bush’s before him, he’ll harm the conservative agenda far more than he’ll advance it.

Just One Government School Success Story Among Many - Mos Def

“Artist/Activist”? Maybe in the same way that Bovine Spongiform Encephalitis helps you to dance The Charleston.

Mr. Def: “George Washington and all them dudes was terrorists as far as the queen was concerned”.

Mr. Def: “..the Catholic Church’s stance about child molestation is a form of terrorism in and of itself”.

Mr. Def, asked whether Bin Laden had anything to do with the attacks on The World Trade Center replied “absolutely not” and continued that “highly educated people in all areas of science have spoken on the fishiness around the whole 911 theory”.

I know. It’s old news, but worth getting ticked about at least one more time. The only fishiness in this episode is the gray opacity of this idiot’s eyes, and the rhetorical stink emanating from his mouth. What can you say about a sub-culture that can produce a drooling moron like this, stick a ball cap on his head and PAY HIM to be stupid on television? I wonder if he’s a liberal?

….He’s back on 8-Track

Islamist dirtbag, Osama Bin Laden, issued a plea recently for Europeans to abandon their mission in Afghanistan - one which most European militaries have pursued with only desultory interest anyway.

Two reports, here and here.

To me, capturing or killing this scrawny punk has been secondary to the goal of rendering him ridiculous. The cruelest, most exquisite punishment for a figure like Bin Laden - from a shame-culture, depicted on calendars and posters in garish pastels and reflective foils - is to imprison him on video and audio instruments, leaving him nothing but a pale image and reedy voice with which to issue ludicrous threats to his tormentors, like some midget emperor in a land of giants.

Crush his corporeality, strip him of the flesh and ceremonial gaud of the Islamist conqueror. As he dissolves to unreality, the deeper his ignominy. Nothing is too harsh for this cowardly, despicable bastard. This IS a clash of cultures. Only a corrupt and dissolute culture can take him seriously.

From the American Bashing Channel, a big joke on us!

al-Qaeda gets protection

Will their be a full scale hunt for the leaker? Or will Bush give a pass to the press and the source in the spirit of non-partisanship.

Qaeda Goes Dark After a U.S. Slip

Enemy Vanishes From Its Web Sites

WASHINGTON — Al Qaeda’s Internet communications system has suddenly gone dark to American intelligence after the leak of Osama bin Laden’s September 11 speech inadvertently disclosed the fact that we had penetrated the enemy’s system.

The intelligence blunder started with what appeared at the time as an American intelligence victory, namely that the federal government had intercepted, a full four days before it was to be aired, a video of Osama bin Laden’s first appearance in three years in a video address marking the sixth anniversary of the attacks of September 11, 2001. On the morning of September 7, the Web site of ABC News posted excerpts from the speech.

But the disclosure from ABC and later other news organizations tipped off Qaeda’s internal security division that the organization’s Internet communications system, known among American intelligence analysts as Obelisk, was compromised. [snip]

One intelligence officer who requested anonymity said in an interview last week that the intelligence community watched in real time the shutdown of the Obelisk system. America’s Obelisk watchers even saw the order to shut down the system delivered from Qaeda’s internal security to a team of technical workers in Malaysia. That was the last internal message America’s intelligence community saw. “We saw the whole thing shut down because of this leak,” the official said. “We lost an important keyhole into the enemy.” [snip]

See also: Nick Grace, Rita Katz, National Counterterrorism Center, Michael Leiter, Roger Cressey

Does this sound different from North Vietnam and Victor Charley?

Iran fighting ‘proxy war in Iraq’

Washington - Iran is fighting a “proxy war” through Shi’a militias against the Iraqi state and United States-led forces in the war-torn nation, US war commander General David Petraeus said on Monday.

“It is increasingly apparent to both coalition and Iraqi leaders that Iran, through the use of the Quds force, seeks to turn the Iraqi special groups into a Hezbollah-like force to serve its interests and fight a proxy war against the Iraqi state and coalition forces in Iraq,” Petraeus said.

Petraeus was testifying at a crucial hearing of the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs and Armed Services committees seen as a key moment for US strategy on Iraq.

Samo-samo stuff! Another proxy war, we give sanctuary to opponents where they take R&R. Once more, we’re battling another states cat’s paw. Syria and Iran deserve some serious pain. Any state offering client services and hospitality needs to get an intro course in “War, our way-101” with section 102 available for imbeciles.

Petraeus hearing starts with Democratic criticism

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Iraq commander Gen. David Petraeus appeared before the U.S. Congress on Monday to give testimony in which he was expected to argue against withdrawing the bulk of U.S. forces from Iraq for now.

Appearing with U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker, Petraeus listened to deep skepticism from the Democrats who seized control of Congress last year largely because of the profound discontent with the war among American voters.

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton, a Missouri Democrat, began the hearing by telling Petraeus the Iraq war had left the United States unable to confront other challenges.

“The troops in Iraq are not available for other missions; to go into Afghanistan to pursue Osama bin Laden” whose al Qaeda militant group attacked the United States six years ago on Tuesday, Skelton said. [snip]

I never knew we had so many Congressmen of Flag Grade capable of running a war. Rep. Lynn Woolsey, Donk-CA is now on the tube expounding upon what the country needs to do, to wit: CUT & RUN. She must be a real terror in the card game “War.”
All the antiwar bloviators know is get out. Nothing of the consequences that follow makes any difference. The dhimmi position appeals to them; groveling is their natural state.

MoveOn.org Ad Takes Aim at Petraeus

[snip] In addition to liberal activist groups such as MoveOn.org, Democrats in both the House and Senate have impugned Petraeus’ testimony today…[snip]

Per usual, the moonbats try theater. Since large puppet heads don’t reach enough people, they fall back to the NY Rag, which cheerfully took their money! Killing the messenger does not alter the message.

The unintentionally funny and nearly defunct LA Times reported on July 15th that about “45% of all foreign militants in Iraq……are from Saudi Arabia”.  15% are from Syria and Lebanon, with 10% from North Africa.  The stats came from “US military figures, and were made available to the Times by the senior officer”.   Nearly half of the 135 detainees in US military custody are Saudis. 

What can we deduce from a sample of 135 cage-hangers?  Thousands of troublemakers are in Iraqi custody, many of whom might even lie about their names and country of origin. So the LA Times report is based on a sample of 135 guys, half of whom have Riyadh Planet Hollywood ID cards.  I have information from a reliable participant in the war that Chechens even fall out for morning terrorist formation, and stray Pakistanis, Westerners and lots of others.   Iranians, too, are a small but vocal minority shouting  “HERE!”.

The same enigmatic “US military figure” said that 50% of all  Saudi fighters in Iraq go there as suicide bombers.  An interesting statistic, to say the least. To derive it, one needs to poll all of the free-range “Saudi fighters” about their life plans, and whether they have round-trip tickets.   It’s fair to say they don’t show up for interviews.

But the Times  raised two worthy questions, probably intentionally.  We are “allied” with the Saudis in the inaptly-named War on Terror, and Bush Herbert Walker and Bush George Dubya are unashamedly friendly with figures in the disgusting monarchical House of Saud.  Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the royal’s “national security advisor” is a pal of the House of Bush, as is King Abdullah.   

Then there’s The Carlyle Group, in which Bush Herbert Walker is a  prospering partner.  Those interested can investigate it on their own.  It’s the most powerful ethical missile in the left’s arsenal of accusations about the Bush family’s relationship with the Saudis.   The Carlyle Group has wide access to Saud investment funds.  There’s also Herbie’s lecture tours in Arab lands, paid for by the Saudis, and generous gits to his Presidential Library for scholarships to Andover, Dubya’s prep school.

It is, at this point, obligatory to mention that 15 of 19 hijackers on 911 were Saudis. Bin Laden is a Saudi.  Saudi Arabia has lots of sand and oil (although the oil power might be shaky).  Saudi Arabia is profligate with walking-around money, and has a national strategy of buying off enemies and buying up friends.  There’s a lot more, none of which is particularly damning for the Bush family, but appearances are everything.   The Saudis are low, self-seeking, and devious; relationships are contaminated by their presence in them, and our leaders should know it.

True, the Saudis have been fighting Al Qaeda, but for reasons of personal survival.   The ethical issues associated with advancing Wahabbism by subversion and Madrassa remain.  True, also, that the Saudis are troubled by Dubya’s strategies, worred about their extensive Iraq border and Persian ambitions.  This is a convergence of interests, ours and theirs.   They are not our friends. 

The reality is this:  We are allied with a vicious, reactionary, repressive Arab regime in our pursuit of liberalization of the Middle East.  We should be troubled by the first proposition in that last sentence, because they Saudis are troubled by the second.  The two can’t come together, and Dubya appears not to know it.

The Congressional Budget Office says the current amnesty bill will only slow illegal immigration by 25%. I believe that’s wildly optimistic since rewarding illegal behavior rarely (never) deters it. If this bill passes, there’s going to be a rush for our border as people attempt to get “legalized” or eagerly await yet another round of amnesty. Which brings me to a really interesting quote by John McCain:

“The choice is between doing something, imperfect but effective and achievable, and doing nothing.”

A 25% decrease doesn’t seem particularly “effective” to me. That leaves us with “achievable”, which encapsulates the entire argument for this bill. President Bush makes this point, if you can call it one, all the time. Politicians define success as bill passage and could care less about the ultimate results. This is why President Bush repeatedly says he’ll sign anything they put on his desk. But take a moment and think about how reckless a statement that is. If the bill gave a Z-Visa to bin Laden, our president basically said he’d sign it. This whole thing just boggles the mind.

I don’t agree with Rudolph Giuliani’s views on abortion, but you have to give him some credit for facing it head-on. Most candidates would have ducked the issue hoping it’d go away. Although I appreciate his honesty, his reasoning is convoluted and raises more concerns for me than his actual position:

“One, I believe abortion is wrong,” he said, adding he would counsel a pregnant woman to keep the child and put him or her up for adoption rather than abort.

And secondly, he said abortion supporters, especially women, are “equally moral, equally decent, and equally religious” and fervent in their beliefs as abortion foes, yet have come to a different conclusion.

“So therefore,” Giuliani said, “I would grant to women the right to make that choice.”

But how can that be if you believe that abortion is wrong? This is analogous to saying I believe the Nazis were wrong when they killed millions of Jewish people, but they fervently believed they were right so we’ll give them a pass this time. Bin Laden believed he was right when he killed 3,000 Americans on 9/11, but we know he was wrong.

This just isn’t an issue where you can say everyone is equally good and right. Your a Yankees fan or a Red Sox fan, not both. The idea that Giuliani is a subjective moralist bothers me a lot more than his support for pro-choice policies.

A wave of the chuck’s tail to Overlawyered.com

That’s the title of my “Rule of Law” column in today’s Wall Street Journal.

The trial lawyers have now enlisted themselves in the war against terror. One can imagine a parody — a team of wing-tipped attorneys parachuting into the wilds of Afghanistan, armed with subpoenas forcing Osama bin Laden to produce all relevant documents and secure his attendance at a 20-day videotaped deposition (damn the Geneva Conventions against torture). The legal and photocopying bills alone crush al Qaeda.

The reality is more prosaic, and less amusing. For just as Willie Sutton legendarily said he robbed banks “because that’s where the money is,” plaintiffs’ attorneys are weaving creative legal theories to hold legitimate third parties liable for the intentional acts of terrorists. This friendly fire could end up doing almost as much financial damage as the terrorists themselves, with the lawyers getting rich in the process.

Must be there’s no more money in suing tobacco , gun manufacturers or the fast food business on behalf of the chubbies.

A wave of the chuck’s tail to The Sun Co. UK, posted on Drudge

BRITAIN is such a soft touch that even AMERICANS are coming here to claim asylum and sponge off the state.
The incredible revelation comes from immigration whistleblower Rory Clarke. And yesterday the Government was forced to admit figures that backed him up.

Disgusted Rory, 34, contacted The Sun to expose the true depth of the asylum shambles. He said: Britain is seen as such a soft touch that poor people from countries such as America are even coming here now.

A couple of years ago I met two black guys from the States who were over here because they thought they could get a better standard of living. One was from Ohio and the other from Kansas. They claimed asylum because they said they were racially discriminated against at home. But they freely admitted they were here for the free healthcare and accommodation. It is an absolute joke. They could have been here for up to five years before their application was processed. Last night the Home Office admitted five American nationals have claimed asylum this year alone.
[snip]

But the dad of one quit the Government’s National Asylum Support Service (NASS) in disgust at what he encountered. When he started the job he calculates 50 per cent of asylum seekers were genuine. But now he reckons that figure is FIVE per cent. Those waiting for applications to be processed get immediate free healthcare, free accommodation and £35 a week in benefits.
[snip]

Rory said: “Working for NASS was like banging your head against a wall. For example, I helped evict 30,000 illegals from their homes. But they weren’t taken to detention centres. “Instead of them being kicked out of the country, we were told to let them go. “We once rounded up 56 illegals and were told to send them to the detention centre at Oakington in Cambridgeshire. “The Immigration Service said they didn’t have the staff to take them there so they would have to make their own way. “ Unsurprisingly, only five ever turned up.”
[snip]

But Rory said: “The Government figures are just the tip of the iceberg. I reckon there are at least a million and that number is growing every day. “What really scares me is that we have no idea who is coming into the country. Less than a third of those here illegally have official papers or any identification. “We let people in and take their word for who they are and what they are doing in Britain. Nobody knows if they are murderers, rapists or even terrorists. “If Osama Bin Laden got off a boat today and gave a false name and age he could be on benefits for three years without anyone being any the wiser. In the end I just became so angry I just couldn’t hack it any longer.”
[snip]

Maybe we can ship our illegals to Britain along with a generous helping of our welfare recipients. It does sound like they’ll get a better deal on the dole. Anyway, five isn’t anywhere enough.

Afghanistan President Karzai in response to a press question to President Bush about Iraq increasing the number of terrorists:

They came to America on September 11th, but they were attacking you before September 11th in other parts of the world. We are a witness in Afghanistan to what they are and how they can hurt. You are a witness in New York. Do you forget people jumping off the 80th floor or 70th floor when the planes hit them? Can you imagine what it will be for a man or a woman to jump off that high? Who did that? And where are they now? And how do we fight them, how do we get rid of them, other than going after them? Should we wait for them to come and kill us again? That’s why we need more action around the world, in Afghanistan and elsewhere, to get them defeated — extremism, their allies, terrorists and the like.

President Bush also had a good answer:

Some people have guessed what’s in the report and have concluded that going into Iraq was a mistake. I strongly disagree. I think it’s naive. I think it’s a mistake for people to believe that going on the offense against people that want to do harm to the American people makes us less safe. The terrorists fight us in Iraq for a reason: They want to try to stop a young democracy from developing, just like they’re trying to fight another young democracy in Afghanistan. And they use it as a recruitment tool, because they understand the stakes. They understand what will happen to them when we defeat them in Iraq.

You know, to suggest that if we weren’t in Iraq, we would see a rosier scenario with fewer extremists joining the radical movement requires us to ignore 20 years of experience. We weren’t in Iraq when we got attacked on September the 11th. We weren’t in Iraq, and thousands of fighters were trained in terror camps inside your country, Mr. President. We weren’t in Iraq when they first attacked the World Trade Center in 1993. We weren’t in Iraq when they bombed the Cole. We weren’t in Iraq when they blew up our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. My judgment is, if we weren’t in Iraq, they’d find some other excuse, because they have ambitions. They kill in order to achieve their objectives.

You know, in the past, Osama bin Laden used Somalia as an excuse for people to join his jihadist movement. In the past, they used the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It was a convenient way to try to recruit people to their jihadist movement. They’ve used all kinds of excuses.

This government is going to do whatever it takes to protect this homeland. We’re not going to let their excuses stop us from staying on the offense. The best way to protect America is defeat these killers overseas so we do not have to face them here at home. We’re not going to let lies and propaganda by the enemy dictate how we win this war.

The full transcript is available here and Power Line has the video.

So, Lincoln Chaffee (R?-RI) would not put UBL to death? Is this guy a Republican or what?? If you won’t support a death sentence for UBL, who would you suport it for?

Disclosure: I am not a huge fan of the Death Penalty. But Bin Laden? I would flip the switch myself!!

Bin Laden released another tape yesterday and urged his fighters to stay and fight in Iraq:

Al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden urged Iraqi militants in an Internet message Saturday to continue fighting the U.S.-led coalition in Baghdad, or else “all the capitals in the region will fall to the crusaders.” …

The message urged militants in Iraq to continue their fight.

“Stay steadfast and don’t leave Baghdad, otherwise all the capitals in the region will fall to the crusaders,” said the message.

“Your Muslim nation is looking for you and praying for your victory. You are their hope after God. You are God’s trusted soldiers who will liberate the ummah (the nation) from the serfdom of the crusaders in our countries,” bin Laden said in the posting.

Democrats have been telling us for a couple of years now that the War in Iraq has nothing to do with the War on Terror. Apparently Osama disagrees. As can be seen in his message above, he believes if Iraq succeeds in establishing a democracy, other countries in the area will fall like dominoes. Of course that has been George Bush’s strategy all along.

So if Bin Laden understands the strategy and thinks it will work, why can’t Democrats understand it?