Saturday, 09 February 2008
PSSSST: SOMEONE TELL REID, PELOSI, CLINTON AND OBAMA
Here is a report from the American Forces Press Service that will almost
certainly be of interest to you. The question is whether it will be
of interest to people like Reid, Pelosi, Clinton and Obama :
Al Qaeda Leader's Diary Reveals
Organization's DeclineBy Seaman
William Selby, USN
Special to American Forces Press
|WASHINGTON, Feb. 9, 2008 U.S. troops
found a diary belonging to an al Qaeda in Iraq leader that has Coalition
forces believing the terrorist organization is on its heels, a senior
military official in Baghdad said this morning.
Soldiers of the 101st Airborne Divisions
1st Brigade Combat Team on Nov. 3, 2007, captured a diary belonging to Abu
Tariq, an al Qaeda emir in control of five battalions within two sectors,
U.S. Air Force Col. Donald J. Bacon, a Multinational Force Iraq spokesman,
told online journalists and bloggers during a conference call.
The soldiers found the diary during a patrol conducted about 15
kilometers south of Balad. Bacon said the 16-page diary contains records
about man power, operations, weapons, and finances, and it shows that al
Qaeda is hurting badly in the belts of Baghdad.
There were 600
al-Qaeda members in this sector, now there (are) 20 or less, said Bacon.
In the diary, Tariq describes each battalions number decline and
goes on to describe the 4th battalion as scoundrels, sectarians and
nonbelievers. Tariq attributes his terrorist organizations decline in
large part to groups of concerned local citizens, who are also known as
the Sons of Iraq.
Many high-ranking al Qaeda members, including
Osama Bin Laden, have spoken out about the negative impact that the
concerned local citizens groups have had on their organization. As a
result, the concerned local citizens are being attacked more frequently by
the terrorists, Bacon said.
Nevertheless, Bacon said the numbers
of concerned local citizens are growing, which indicates that they are
less afraid of al-Qaeda.
Right now there (are) approximately
77,500 CLCs with 135 different initiatives, and more and more are being
hired, Bacon said.
Bacon said he believes the diary is also in
part a will of sorts, in case anything was to happen to Tariq.
wanted to keep a clear record, Bacon said.
Bacon said he believes
the diary is indicative of some other areas in Iraq but not all of Iraq.
He cautioned that al Qaeda is still a dangerous enemy.
believe they are our number one threat, said Bacon.
There is a
90 percent decline of violence in Anbar but we are still fighting them in
Diala, he added. They still have the capacity and the will but we have
Bacon noted, however, that overall levels of
violence in Iraq are down, and we are seeing positive trends.
Sadly, what you have just read is bad news to the quartet I cited above,
not good. Their political fortunes are fully invested in Iraq being
positioned as a losing quagmire, not a victory for the USA and the Iraqi
Simply stated, the better off Iraq is, the worse off they are. And, by
contrast, the better off Iraq is, the better off John McCain is.
Wouldn't it be something if Senator McCain rides to victory in November based
on his steadfast support of the war in Iraq? That possibility was
laughable a half year ago. But you can bet that Reid, Pelosi, Clinton and
Obama aren't laughing about it now. That's a
THE ARCHBOZO OF CANTBELIEVEIT
In keeping with the theme of my previous blog, here is another example of a
left wing lunatic, used to being insulated from any consequences of his lunacy,
suddenly finding out that when people know about it they don't like it.
The information comes to us from www.thisislondon.co.uk. The bold
print is mine:
Sharia law row: Archbishop is in
shock as he faces demands to quit
Under fire: Archbishop of
Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams
The Archbishop of Canterbury was facing demands to
quit last night as the row over sharia law intensified.
Leading bishops publicly contradicted Dr
Rowan Williams's call for Islamic law to be brought into the British legal
With the Church of England plunged into crisis,
senior figures were said to be discussing the archbishop's future.
One member of the church's "Cabinet", the
Archbishop's Council, was reported as saying: "There have been a lot of calls
for him to resign. I don't suppose he will take any notice, but, yes, he should
Officials at Lambeth Palace told the BBC
Dr Williams was in a "state of shock" and "completely overwhelmed" by
the scale of the row.
It was said that he could not believe the
fury of the reaction. The most damaging attack came from the
Pakistan-born Bishop of Rochester, the Right Reverend Michael
He said it would be "simply impossible" to bring
sharia law into British law "without fundamentally affecting its
Sharia "would be in tension with the English legal
tradition on questions like monogamy, provisions for divorce, the rights of
women, custody of children, laws of inheritance and of evidence.
"This is not to mention the relation of freedom of
belief and of expression to provisions for blasphemy and apostasy."
The church's second most senior leader, Archbishop
of York Dr John Sentamu, refused to discuss the matter. But he has said sharia
law "would never happen" in Britain.
Politicians joined the chorus of
condemnation, with Downing Street saying British law should be based on British
values. Tory and LibDem leaders also voiced strong criticism.
Even prominent Muslims were rounding on Dr
Williams. Shahid Malik, Labour MP for Dewsbury, said: "I haven't
experienced any clamour or fervent desire for sharia law in this
"If there are people who prefer sharia law
there are always countries where they could go and live."
Khalid Mahmood, Labour MP for Birmingham Perry
Bar, rejected the idea that British law forces Muslims to choose between their
religion and their society.
He said: "This will alienate people from other
communities because they will think it is what Muslims want - and it is
The Muslim Council of Britain came to Dr
Williams's aid, however, describing his comments in a lecture to lawyers and a
BBC interview as "thoughtful".
But Oxford University Islamic scholar Professor
Tariq Ramadan admitted: "These kinds of statements just feed the fears of fellow
citizens. I really think we, as Muslims, need to come up with something that we
abide by the common law and within these latitudes there are possibilities for
us to be faithful to Islamic principles."
The archbishop is likely to come under heavy fire
next week at a meeting of the Church's General Synod.
Liberal and feminist critics have been
appalled by the thought of sharia law while evangelical opponents believe Dr
Williams has failed to defend Christianity.
The archbishop was already battling intractable
difficulties within the church over gay rights, a row which began nearly five
years ago and has brought him criticism from all sides. Later this year he has
to face a conference of hundreds of bishops from around the world which
threatens further bitter division.
Dr Williams's opponents on the conservative
evangelical wing - who resent his liberal beliefs on issues such as gay rights -
were suggesting last night that the archbishop is finished.
The Reverend Paul Dawson of the Reform group of
around 500 clergy said: "We are very sad that he does not seem to be able to
articulate a clear Christian vision for Britain. It is true to say that there is
a lot of dissatisfaction."
Dr Williams defended himself in a Lambeth Palace
statement saying he had been trying to "tease out" the issue.
The archbishop had said it could help build a
better and more cohesive society if Muslims were able to choose to have marital
disputes or financial matters, for example, dealt with in a sharia court. The
adoption of some elements of sharia law "seems unavoidable".
But the statement insisted: "The archbishop made
no proposals for sharia, and certainly did not call for its introduction as some
kind of parallel jurisdiction to the civil law."
Even fellow bishops, however, think this is
precisely what Dr Williams did say.
Bishop of Southwark Tom Butler, a liberal who
would normally be expected to defend Dr Williams, said the archbishop had been
entering a minefield and added: "It will take a great deal of thought and work
before I think it is a good idea."
He was more blunt in a circular to clergy in his
diocese, saying he had yet to be convinced of the feasibility of incorporating
any non-Christian religious law into the English legal system..
Let's understand that this is far from the first time rowan williams has
pumped out his LAMB ideology. He appears to absolutely hate the USA and
absolutely hate Israel, for example, and seems to find little that palestinian
Arabs do that is objectionable.
However, none of these positions was enough to push things over the
edge. Who cares if he's telling the USA or Israel how to live?
This is the UK.
But, wait, now he's telling the UK how to live too?? An outrage!
A disgrace! Off with his head!
And how satisfying is it to find out that the hapless williams is
"shocked" and "overhwlemed" by the reaction to his comments? You can
almost hear him thinking "How can people possibly feel this way? After
all, what did I do? I only told my country that maybe it
should start adding shari'a law to the mix, what's wrong with that? Look
at how free people are in Yemen and Saudi Arabia - not to mention those happy go
lucky, fun-loving folks in Gaza. Aren't my fellow Britons ENVIOUS of their
way of life and their legal systems?"
Thank you, internet, for the exchange of information that makes this
possible. And thank you Dr. rowan williams for proving to us that becoming
the Archbishop of Canterbury does not in any way prevent you from
remaining a hopeless, idelogically driven fool.
I'm sure your namesake, Rowan Atkinson (Mr. Bean) couldn't be
prouder. Little did he know his character could get so far in the British
WHAT SHOULD O'REILLY DEMAND?
I've already blogged about the incredibly offensive and tasteless
comment MSNBC's david shuster made when he suggested that Chelsea Clinton was
"pimped out" to make political calls for her mother, Hillary.
I meant every word I wrote - including the point that
MSNBC's "talent", most especially keith olbermann, has been
far more tasteless and far more prolific in vicious personal attacks
on many other people, almost all of whom are to the political right. Bill O'Reilly
(who regularly leaves olbermann in the dust ratings-wise) is olbermann's single most frequent target
and the insults he barfs out at O'Reilly range from childish
to disgusting to borderline sick.
But, going back to the shuster incident, if there is one thing you don't do in this world it is give a Clinton the
chance to claim victimhood. Here, courtesy of www.politico.com
, is Ms. Clinton's latest statement regarding shuster's comment:
ORONO, MAINE Hillary Rodham Clinton
on Saturday morning ripped MSNBC over reporter David Shusters
suggestion that Chelsea Clinton was sort of being pimped out by the
I found the remarks incredibly offensive, Clinton told
reporters in this snowy town outside Bangor. Earlier, she sent a letter to
NBC brass that called for swift action against Shuster, who was suspended
Friday by MSNBC.
Nothing justifies the kind of debasing language
that David Shuster used and no temporary suspension or half-hearted
apology is sufficient, Clinton wrote to NBC News President Steve Capus,
who apparently had already called Clinton to personally
I would urge you to look at the pattern of
behavior on your network that seems to repeatedly lead to this sort of
degrading language, Clinton wrote. Theres a lot at stake for our
country in this election. Surely, you can do your jobs as journalists and
commentators and still keep the discourse civil and
NBC did not immediately respond to an e-mailed
request for comment.
The letter and harsh rebuke followed similar
comments made by her top advisers and came a day after Shuster issued an
on-air apology and was suspended.
The hubbub started Thursday, when Shuster
guest-hosted Tucker Carlsons MSNBC show, Tucker. In a
discussion about Chelsea Clintons role in calling superdelegates on
behalf of her mothers presidential campaign, he asked whether she
was sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way.
Clinton campaign immediately demanded an apology and floated the
possibility that Clinton would no longer participate in an MSNBC debate,
scheduled for Feb. 26. The campaign did not explain under what conditions
Clinton would participate in MSNBC's
In her comments to reporters Friday, Clinton
sounded ambivalent about participating in the debate.
accepted a lot of debates from a lot of different sponsors, and were
going to wait and see how this plays out, she said.
I am a mom
first and a candidate second, she said. You know I can take
whatever comes my way. Thats what I signed up for as a candidate and an
She cast Shusters comments as part of a troubling
pattern of comments and behavior that has to be held accountable.
MSNBC host Chris Matthews last month apologized over
remarks he made about Clinton that were widely denounced as sexist.
FULL TEXT OF LETTER:
Dear Mr. Capus,
Thank you for your call
yesterday. I wanted to send you this note to convey the depth of my
feeling about David Shuster's comments.
I know that I am a public
figure and that my daughter is playing a public role in my campaign. I am
accustomed to criticism, certainly from MSNBC. I know that it goes with
However, I became Chelsea's mother long before I ran
for any office and I will always be a mom first and a public official
Nothing justifies the kind of debasing language that David
Shuster used and no temporary suspension or half-hearted apology is
I would urge you to look at the pattern of behavior on
your network that seems to repeatedly lead to this sort of degrading
There's a lot at stake for our country in this election.
Surely, you can do your jobs as journalists and commentators and still
keep the discourse civil and appropriate.
Hillary Rodham Clinton
"...no temporary suspension is sufficient"? She wants shuster FIRED
because of his comment? She wants him to lose his job because he said
something that, while admittedly inexcusable, he then realized was
inexcusable and apologized to her and to the MSNBC audience for?
In my previous blog I made it clear that I don't like david shuster.
But did you see me demand that he be fired? Absolutely not, nor would
Is this an ultimatum? Is MSNBC supposed to get rid of david shuster or
Queen Hillary won't show up at its February 26 debate?
I don't know for 100% sure, but if I were a betting man I would be betting that the Clinton camp feels
david shuster's reporting is more congenial to Mr. Obama than it is to Ms.
Clinton -- which, in the end, might be what Ms. Clinton's outburst
is really all about.
But my question, raised in the title of this blog,
If this is what Hillary Cliinton demands when Chelsea is personally
insulted one time, what should Bill O'Reilly - or maybe his wife - demand?
That keith olbermann be fired, boiled in oil then burned with his ashes spread
over moveon.org's incorporation filing?
MORE SICK HATRED FROM THE LEFT
Remember this report the next time you hear the hard left demand that a
conservative talk radio host be taken off the air for his or her opinions.
Remember how accepting they are of depraved leftwing hatred - as examplified by
what you will now see, courtesy of Noel Sheppard of www.newsbusters.org:
Maher: Why Didnt Rush Die From
Drugs Instead of Heath Ledger?
The hatred from
supposedly compassionate and open-minded Hollywoodans is something to behold,
After all, just imagine despising a radio talk
show host so much that you would suggest, on national television, that he should
die of a drug overdose.
Alas, such was the case Friday evening when HBO's
Bill Maher actually asked guest P.J. O'Rourke, who was talking about Rush
Limbaugh's use of the prescription drug OxyContin. (video available here courtesy our
friend Ms Underestimated):
Why couldn't have he croaked from it instead
of Heath Ledger?
Honestly, can you imagine?
MSNBC's David Shuster was suspended on Friday
for making insensitive remarks
about Chelsea Clinton being "pimped out."
Will Maher even get a slap on the wrist from HBO
Yes, that's a rhetorical question.
Of course, what's really interesting is how just
before Maher made this despicable remark, he was actually condemning Republicans
for their antipathy towards John McCain:
BILL MAHER, HOST: Why is it, I was asking Amy
this, why is it that the Republican establishment, I guess it is, have so much
disdain, not just for McCain, but for the other guy who's still in
it...Huckabee? They don't like either one of them.
P.J. O'ROURKE, WRITER: Well, I think a couple of
things are going on. It's the it's the twilight of the radio loud-mouth, you
know? I knew it from the moment the fat guy
MAHER: You mean Rush Limbaugh and
O'ROURKE: from the moment the fat guy
refused to share his drugs (audience laughter). I was, you knowhe never
called, he never wrote. I'm ready to party, you know, come on! No, I think
it's kind of over for those people. So
MAHER: Right, you mean the OxyContin that he was
O'ROURKE: Yeah, exactly. I mean, that
MAHER: Why couldn't, uh, why couldn't
have he croaked from it instead of Heath Ledger? (small audience
Amazing, wouldn't you agree?
First, Maher chastises Republicans for not liking
their presidential candidates. Then, he wishes ill of the leading conservative
voice in the media.
Physician, heal thyself!
*****Update: Late night slip of the keyboard
alert: OxyContin is certainly not an over-the-counter drug. Correction made, and
thanks to all who brought it to my attention.
Noel Sheppard is an economist, business owner,
and Associate Editor of NewsBusters..
The truth is, maher can say things like this all he wants - and does.
No problem. He is a member of the Lunatic-left And Mega-moonbat
Brigade. LAMBs usually get a free media pass on hatred.
And if you think this is an isolated incident, think again. It isn't.
Illustratively, just a few days ago randi rhodes of (what's left of) Air America
put on a "parody" about Mitt Romney dropping out of the presidential race in
which he advocates killing people right and left, even children. So help
me, she really did. Here is the report on it, complete with youtube video,
from Brian Maloney at www.radioequalizer.blogspot.com:
ANNOUNCER: The following is
a paid advertisement from Republicans for Mitt Romney, or mass suicide. If John
McCain is the Republican Presidential nominee, it will destroy the Republican
Party. Were Romney supporters and we know. Cause, if you vote for John McCain,
were going to go on a killing rampage. Hey, better dead then
CHARACTER VOICE: "Look, I for one dont want to die in a hail of gun fire
from crazed Mitt Romney supporters, but its better then nominating a man who
opposed the Bush tax cuts. Hell, John McCain spent years in a North Vietnamese
prison. A prison? That doesnt make him a hero. That makes him an
ANNOUNCER: Exactly, and um,
you know what men do in prison. You see if John McCain is President, hell make
sodomy mandatory. Now, Mitt Romney, well, he believes all sex should be outlawed.
SECOND REPUBLICAN CHARACTER
VOICE: As a true Republican, Im prepared to poison my own children if
John McCain is the nominee, but I do
wish there was another way.
ANNOUNCER: There is. If Mitt Romney is the nominee, hell give
everyone a free new car, made by people in Michigan, with company-paid health
care and pensions just like 1955. If John McCain is the nominee, well, we are
going to kill everybody, then turn the guns on ourselves. So choose wisely this
election day. This has been a paid ad for Republicans for Mitt Romney, or (gun
cocking sound effect) mass suicide.
is the YouTube clip with the
.Have you heard even one word about this in the media? Has
mediamatters.org or moveon.org demanded rhodes' removal from the air for hate
Have you heard one word from the mainstream media about rhodes or
maher? These are the same mainstream media which give Limbaugh's and
Hannity's "offenses" (real or imagined, it doesn't seem to matter) major
But listen to them squeal like stuck pigs if you call them
THE INTERNET AND BERKELEY
There are a lot of very good things and very bad things
about the internet. One of the very best is that it enables people like you
and me to get information that, pre-internet, either was
entirely unavailable to us or only available through media which could put their
spin on it.
This brings us straight to Berkeley.
For years and years Berkeley, California has been a happy resting place for
LAMBs (members of the Lunatic-left And Mega-moonbat Brigade), who have done
things that would curl your nose hair if you knew about them.
One example was in 2002 when The Daily Californian, an independent
newspaper published by students at UC - Berkeley, endorsed the opponewnt of
incumbent mayor, tom bates. Not surprisingly, the mayor didn't like what the
paper had done. So he decided to make it go away.
Specifically, bates physically stole over 1,000 copies of the Daily Californian
from Berkeley, so people could not read its endorsement.
Mayor bates was charged with theft, forced to
admit he was a thief, and
had to pay a fine, as well as restitution for the stolen copies.
The cost of the fine was $250. The cost of the restitution was $500.
The cost to the city of Berkeley's freedom of speech? Priceless.
I was tempted to add in the cost to Berkeley's reputation just now. But
I didn't, even though Berkeley touts itself as the home of the "free speech
movement". Why? for two reasons:
-One is that I'm betting you didn't even know about the incident I just
described. Most of the mainstream media bury stories like this on
behalf of the left. So, outside of the Bay Area and maybe a few other
parts of California, it probably was barely known - if it was known at
-The other is that Berkeley itself apparently was ok with the mayor's
self-aggrandizing censorship. The reason for this conclusion is very
simple. They have RE-ELECTED tom bates and he remains the mayor of
Berkeley to this day!
How can you tarnish the reputation of people who accept political
censorship which steals their own freedom, and who then reward the
guy who did it? What reputation is there to tarnish?
Now, as the firestorm over Berkeley's war against the US Marines gets more
and more intense. I can't help thinking that bates has acted in the
disgusting, mindless, fascistic way he did because - as with the newspaper theft
in 2002 - he assumed he could get away with it.
Hey, maybe the people would give him an even bigger landslide
next time. If they liked their loss of freedom of speech in 2002, it
stands to reason they'd love it in 2008, right?
But in those intervening 5-6 years, the internet has genuinely
blossomed. Media no longer have the capability of burying this fascist's
actions anymore. Now, only because of the ease with which people like
you and me can get such information - usually through the blogosphere rather
than the dinosaur elitists in media - outrages in places like Berkeley are no
longer buried and forgotten.
It is only because the word spread this way that we know about
Berkeley. And only for this reason are lawmakers (like Senator Jim DeMint,
who proposes cutting off significant federal funding to Berkeley) prompted to
And because of the firestorm that has erupted
over their actions, the cowards on Berkeley's city council fear losing federal MONEY ($$$$$$$). So their idea is to backtrack, and
rescind as little of their marine hatred as they think they have
to for the dollars to keep rolling in. That, self-evidently, is the one
and only reason they're doing it.
Personally, I hope it doesn't work. I hope
Senator DeMint persists, and prevails. If they hate our government
and our military so much, don't take the cash. Screw off.
If Berkeley wants funding, let them get it from code pink bake