GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip — An Israeli missile strike killed Hamas leader Abdel Aziz Rantissi (search) on Saturday in a strike on his car, hospital officials said. Rantisi’s son Mohammed and a bodyguard also were killed in the attack, the officials said.
Like I said, when they got Yassin: Like, I’m supposed to feel sorry for Sheikh Ahmed Yassin? Please. Show me where this scum’s grave is so I can pee on it. Once they get done scraping his butt up off the sidewalk, that is.
Forget about making nice with these bloodthirsty idiots, or trying to appease them. This is how you make peace with them; Kill them.
No questions, no discussions, no ‘peace’ talks. No negotiations.
You kill them.
Period.
Sharon is correct in this action, because peace isn’t what’s on their minds. Never has been, never wil be.
What will bring peace to the region? The death of the Islamic terrorists.
And as for the reaction of the PLO and it’s suporters being trumpeted in the news media, how the PLO is going to respond with more killing… tell me if that’s not something they’d be doing anyway… that it’s not something they’ve been doing all along. What more can they possibly do to us? They’ve killed on the order of 500 people since 9/11/2000…
And by the way, where is the other old terrorist, Arifat?
Update:
Turns out Arifat is condemming the attack as a ‘brital assasination’.
Hey, Yasir, what is it when YOU kill people?
Tags: BitsBlog
“The body of college student Dru Sjodin has been found”
Which would seem to firm up the case againt the guy they’re holding.
Tags: BitsBlog
Aldaynet has posted an interesting quote from John F’ing Kerry, within a CNN story:
“we don’t have to beat him on it (The War on Terror), but we have to convince America of my ability to be able to manage that as effectively or more effectively, if possible. And I think we can.'”
What’s happend here is simple.
Kerry’s admitting he cannot beat President George W Bush on the biggest issue this country has ever faced… the War on Terror, and national security.
Tags: BitsBlog
Michael Moore Hates America is a site that’s been on my hot roll for months now. Today they’ve got a comparison of comments by the blob himself, and OBL. Who stole whose notes? You decide.
Tags: BitsBlog
Mudville Gazette: Spirit of America
Read this article from Mudville, and help out where you can.
Over the past year, a successful technology entrepreneur named Jim Hake has been working with the Marine Corps to help their reconstruction projects in Iraq. The Marines identify local equipment needs, and Mr. Hake’s organization, Spirit of America, after raising the money, acquires the stuff, typically for schools and medical clinics. It flies directly out of Camp Pendleton in California. Jim Hake and the Marines are a coalition of the can-do, bypassing the slow U.S. procurement bureaucracy. More on that effort in a moment. Here’s where you come in:
The First Marine Expeditionary Force and U.S. Army in Iraq want to equip and upgrade seven defunct Iraqi-owned TV stations in Al Anbar province—west of Baghdad—so that average Iraqis have better televised information than the propaganda they get from the notorious Al-Jazeera. If Jim Hake can raise $100,000, his Spirit of America will buy the equipment in the U.S., ship it to the Marines in Iraq and get Iraqi-run TV on the air before the June 30 handover.
Now we are getting somewhere. Since day one, the Coalition Provisional Authority’s weakest suit has been the war of ideas, images and public relations. Into this use-it-or-lose-it void stepped Al-Jazeera, the Qatar-based TV operation that somehow has wires running to every camcorder in the Arab terrorist world. Punch in english.aljazeera.net for a look at “news” from Iraq spun tirelessly against the coalition. Its photos of “Falluja after the siege” are preposterous, depicting nothing but “destroyed homes” and ominous GIs. The text: “As we drive through the back roads on the way to Falluja, U.S. jets are pounding the area around the tiny village of Garma.”
If this hooey is what they feed to the English-language audience, imagine the daily TV diet Al-Jazeera trowels on for Iraqis. Al-Jazeera’s Web site Wednesday said it wouldn’t air the video of an Italian hostage’s murder “in order not to upset viewers’ sensitivities.” Hours later, I heard an all-news radio in New York recite verbatim Al-Jazeera’s tender account.
If the Marines can get these moribund stations back on the air, the coverage area would include Fallujah and Ramadi. The VHF/UHF stations are owned as cooperatives by TV-competent Iraqis already vetted by the Army. Some broadcast Al-Jazeera for lack of other content. In return for the upgrades, the Iraqi operators would be asked two things: Criticism is fine, but don’t run anti-coalition propaganda; and let the Marines buy air time to broadcast public-service announcements, such as the reopening of schools or clinics—or indeed, pending military operations.
I can hear the chorus of lamentations about “independence” and “objectivity.” Get real. We’re in Iraq, not Kansas, Toto. These Iraqis, aided by American soldiers, are manifestly engaged in a death-struggle for their nation. Anyone who has the courage to produce daily television at odds with the goals of the homicidal “insurgents” doesn’t need tutorials on journalistic piety from us.
Tags: BitsBlog
InstaGlenn links a Spectator article called “Jamie’s Gotta Go”, today. It says in part:
IF THERE ARE APOLOGIES TO BE made, they should be emanating from one member of the increasingly partisan and decreasingly credible 9/11 Commission. No, it’s not Richard Ben-Venomous, who at least has the good grace to be openly and sneeringly partisan. The bigger problem is former Clintonoid Deputy Attorney General and — before that — Defense Department General Counsel Jamie Gorelick. The Commission lost a lot of credibility on Tuesday when the Bush cabinet member the left most loves to hate, Attorney General John Ashcroft, went on the attack and hit Gorelick right between the eyes.
This column has for years — and long before 9/11 — bemoaned the utter fecklessness of the over-lawyered Clinton administration’s approach to everything having to do with national security. I’m sure, Dear Reader, you remember the incident when Sandy Berger — Clinton’s national security advisor — shunned the Sudanese offer of bin Laden on a silver platter because we didn’t have enough evidence to indict UBL. And Loose Canons has often complained that the Clintons’ approach went farther than the law required in the interest of political correctness. After 9/11, it’s been obvious that the intel community was emasculated by laws dating back to the 1970s that made cooperation between the FBI, CIA, NSA and DIA impossible. And the Clintons made it worse.
Ms. Gorelick, as Deputy AG, wrote a memo in 1995 that added several layers of bricks to the top of the wall separating the FBI’s criminal investigators and intelligence gatherers. It says, in part, “We believe that it is prudent to establish a set of instructions that will clearly separate the counterintelligence investigation from the more limited, but continued, criminal investigations. These procedures, which do beyond what is legally required, will prevent any risk of creating an unwarranted appearance that [the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] is being used to avoid procedural safeguards which would apply in a criminal investigation.” Appearances mattered more than allowing the investigators to put the pieces together before 9/11.
And Glenn, for his part, comes up with the astonishingly STUPID line:
“I don’t think that Gorelick has done anything wrong. “
At least he mitigates this with:
“But it does appear that she should be a witness, not a Commissioner, on a number of important issues.”
Stilll…..Um, Glenn? Nothing wrong? The context of THAT statement can be found on any stable floor in lesser amounts.
The bottom line here is that the 9/11 commission is supposedly looking for policy holes, which led to the 9/11 attacks being successful. It’s clear based on the testimony before the 9/11 commission so far, that the biggest policy problem we faced was the way the Clinton mis-administration treated the Intel community, vis-Ã -vis the law enforcement community. And Gorelick was the person behind strengthening that misbegotten policy.
Do you think for a minute, my well-spoken friend, that were any Republicans so connected to these events that the Democrats wouldn’t be screaming for Republican blood? The press and the Democrats (A redundancy, granted) since day one of this commission have been looking for a way to pin this on President George W. Bush. But what has come out of these hearings is that it was not Mr. Bush and HIS policy, but holdover Democrat policy, issued by Ms. Gorelick.
Critics will claim, of course that Mr. Bush was in the hot seat at the time of the attacks. But as I pointed out in last week’s BIT, the security holeswhichh allowed the attacks were not due to a lack in the Bush administration, but rather are directly connected to the Democrats, who held up confirmations of key members of the new administration until less than two months before the 9/11 attacks… To the point where most of the security positions at the highest levels, were still staffed by Clinton Mis-administration appointees…. such as Richard Clarke. As a result of this Democrat stonewalling, for example, Mr. Bush’s appointee for the top NSC special assistant for intelligence programs, Mary Sturtevant, had only been on the job for several weeks on 9/11. Do you suppose this would have any effect on how responsive the White House was to various threats? Can Mr. Bush be blamed for faulty policy making, when he is unable to replace the people who put that faulty policy into place?
If there is any fault to be found in our government over the 9/11 attacks, it lies with the Democrats, and their policies. Specifically, in my view, Gorelick is guilty of at least criminal negligence. In her zeal to keep things super legal, and getting all tied up with the legalities of the situation, she neglected the primary charge of her posiiton: National Security. Watching the hole, and not the doughnut, if you will. The Democrats ought to be ashamed of themselves both for their own faults, and trying to blame President Bush for them. Further, they ought to be reminded of this sin of theirs come 200 days from now.
That the commission has not asked Gorelick to step aside lends itself to the commission having lost any credibility it may have had. They were supposed to be fact finding. The facts are clear, and now the commission is trying to sweep them under the rug.
Why?
Occam-like thinking would suggest that it’s because they are unable to pin the blame on their intended target.
Perhaps the public should be asking the question now: Just whose interests is this commission serving, anyway?
Update:
This story keeps getting hotter. Jack Cashill over at World Net Daily makes the case that:
“Evidence strongly suggests it was Gorelick – not the ineffectual Freeh – who not only misdirected the FBI’s investigation into Oklahoma City, but also the FBI investigation into TWA Flight 800. The parallels between the two cases are shocking. And in each case, the Clinton administration constrained the FBI for the same reason: to advance the re-election chances of its standard bearer. “
But wait.. it gets even better.
Let’s go back to 1994; In Cashill’s words,
“After days of anger and self-pity, Bill Clinton began to focus again on the one organizing principle that had directed his life to date. “All that mattered was his survival,” Clinton aide George Stephanopoulos would write of his former boss. “
Clearly, here’s someone who needs a target for his political survival. And along comes the OKC bombing.
Cashill continues:
“On April 19, 1995, I was co-hosting a point-counter point radio show on Kansas City’s leading AM station, KMBZ. The show aired just before Rush Limbaugh, who once worked at the station. The Oklahoma bomb detonated just as we were going on the air.
My partner and I followed developments closely. Early police reports and intelligence briefings led us all to believe that the bomb was the work of Islamic terrorists. When, however, the police identified McVeigh as a suspect a day later, my partner was absolutely gleeful. A wily and well-connected Democrat strategist, he went on the air and issued an All Points Bulletin for McVeigh’s “co-conspirators – Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich.” He claimed their hate speech and talk of revolution had inflamed the allegedly right-wing McVeigh.
My partner was simply following the Democratic National Committee’s talking points. Democrats, the president included, were spreading this same message all across America. Clinton, more subtle than his supporters, assigned responsibility for the bombing to the “purveyors of hate and division.” His supporters filled in the blanks. A master of strategic grief counseling, Clinton descended on Oklahoma City with an approval rating in the low 40s and left town with a rating well above 50. Late in the 1996 campaign, he would confide to reporters that his road back to the White House began in Oklahoma City.
The president, however, was more interested in the points he could score off Oklahoma City than in the truth. In her stunning book, Jayna Davis documents beyond all doubt what that truth was: McVeigh and Nichols had help from Islamic terrorists – not only in the Philippines, but also in Oklahoma City. In her role as a reporter for KFOR-TV in Oklahoma City, Davis interviewed more than 20 reliable eyewitnesses who identified the crew of Iraqi nationals who had helped McVeigh assemble and deliver the bomb, among them, John Doe #2, Hussain Al-Hussaini.”
Democrat rank and file have been seeking some reason why President Bush would go after Iraq… the answer would seem to be in this report. He knew what was up wiht Iraq, regarding terrorism here in the US. Says Cashill:
“Much as with TWA 800, however, the FBI lost all interest in the eyewitnesses as soon as the White House had established its talking points.”
I strongly advise you read the Cashill article.
The Democrats are into covering up terrorism for their own gains, up to their eyeballs, people… Are these questions ever going to be looked at by the 9/11 commission? We’re not just talking policy changes, or apologies now… we’re talking serious jailtime, for Gorelick and company! People, let’s get on this one.
Tags: BitsBlog
Drowning at 2 feet sea level posts an interesting read on the latest Disney Bomb called “The Alamo”:
“‘The movie reads more like a Disney fairy tale and promotes a politically correct revisionist agenda aimed at destroying a traditional American hero,’ said B. Forrest Clayton of Freedom Alliance, who reviewed the script.
Clayton says he found it to be ‘full of inaccuracies.’ He says Davy Crockett is portrayed as a ‘frightened wanderer’ who wanted to escape ‘over the wall’ in the dark of night during the historic battle, but felt paralyzed and trapped by his own underserved heroic reputation.
Clayton says the film has Crockett captured, bound and executed on his knees after the battle was over, ‘even though the historical evidence shows that he was killed fighting, in the thick of combat, during the battle.’
Disney also is criticized for portraying Gen. Sam Houston as a ‘venereal-diseased drunkard’ and Col. William Barret Travis, commander of Texan forces at the Alamo, as a ‘deadbeat dad and serial adulterer.'”
One wonders if this bout with PC will end Eisner at Disney. Do the stockholders know what’s going on, here?
Tags: BitsBlog
The Weekly Standard gopes into some detail in the background of David Ben-Veniste, currently infesting the 9/11 commission, in an article called Lawyer, Heal Thyself:
“Ben-Veniste and his client thus find themselves at the red-hot center–the point where the Whitewater investigation of independent counsel Kenneth Starr and the unfolding Democratic fund-raising scandal are converging.
Ben-Veniste’s causes from Watergate onward have been overwhelmingly liberal and Democratic. Indeed, he folded his own private practice to join Weil, Gotshal in 1990 because he was frustrated that the small size of his operation had kept him from taking on a client he really wanted to represent: Jim Wright, the Texas Democrat whose pocket-lining corruption in office cost him his House speakership and political career.”
You’ll begin to understand why I think the man the scum of the earth, and you’ll come away with the same idea, yourself.
I ask again, why is this man on the cmmission, instead of behind bars?
Hat tip: Power Line
Tags: BitsBlog
A really great site, that explodes the myth that vets support Kerry. The headline hets you started:
Here’s a sample of the reading, posted just recently
March 6, 2004
(Part 2 of 3)
The campus war protestors of the 60’s lied to America. We laid out that lying in our last article by quoting directly
from the literature the protestors handed out at their marches and demonstrations. And there is no question that in
his ’71 testimony to Congress, Kerry shared those arguments.
Dr. Jamie Glazov- noted historian and Managing Editor of FrontpageMagazine wrote recently:
In the March-April edition of International Socialist Review, H. Bruce Franklin, a professor at Rutgers University, wrote an article glorifying the memory of the anti-war movement in America during the Vietnam War. He emphasizes that remembering the anti-war movement is crucial, “since it triumphed in bringing about an American defeat and a Communist victory in Southeast Asia.”
There you have it, the victory of the Big Lie, which as you saw in the first article ran throughout the entire literature of the “peace” movement. The lie that the U.S. was somehow fighting the “indigenous freedom fighters” of South Vietnam, when in fact it was fighting the Communists of North Vietnam and their allies in the South, the Viet Cong.
The entire anti-war movement rested on the lie that North Vietnam was never involved in aggression. This was done to take the issue out of the arena of Cold War containment policy. Faculty knew that if they told students the truth— that North Vietnam was aggressing against the South, there could have been no antiwar movement. With the Big Lie, however, it was easy for students to get all self-righteous and indignant, as well as, how convenient, resist serving.
Who wanted to fight “indigenous freedom fighters.” This is how, in their minds, the U.S. became the “aggressor” in an “immoral” war.
On the lie by the anti-war movement that the Viet Cong was an independent South Vietnamese political movement, Bui Tin, the North Vietnamese colonel who accepted the surrender of South Vietnam, said in The Wall Street Journal recently, “It was set up by our Communist Party to implement a decision of the Third Party Congress of September 1960.”
This one statement utterly destroys the arguments of the anti-war movement. It was further verified in a report in
l987 by Hanoi’s Military History Institute.
Said Stephen B. Young in an article commenting on celebrations of the thirtieth anniversary of the Vietnam War, “A generation congratulates itself once again for doing what the North Vietnamese never could have done—defeat the United States. It is no wonder, then, that our national recollection of the war matches that of the New Left.” It is this recollection, rising to the surface in this debate over Kerry’s ’71 testimony, that is really at stake, with media and campus desperately trying to keep it down. For thirty years the media and the university have institutionalized a lie, and gotten away with it. But now that the Kerry candidacy has raised the issue, the veterans of that war want the truth told once and for all. Few have forgotten the suffering many went through when they returned because of those lies.
Listen to what Chuck Lawrence, a Vietnam combat veteran, said about groups like Kerry’s Vietnam Veterans Against the War in a recent article:
“Returning veterans from Vietnam met with an interesting sight. People carrying signs and posters declaring the war
and those who served in it criminals. Some were spit on at airports. Others had trash thrown at them. Others weathered a hail of name calling. All this from the very antiwar protestors who claimed to be acting on behalf of our service men and women in Vietnam. Where was the outpouring of care and compassion for those that returned from the war?
Decisions had to be made fast by each individual returning from Vietnam on how to handle this assult. Join in and
become a protestor and disavow your own honorable service? Some did this. Or, fight back with pride and dignity.
[I * dared* them to spit on me. Nobody did.]
Then the vets discovered that there were no jobs for them. Who would hire a demented, baby-killing, village burner.
Once again, thank Mr. Kerry for planting that image on all of us.”
The Kerry statement to Congress was more than what he now claims, just an anguished cry from those who had seen horror and wanted it ended. There was an agenda involved, an ideology, very similar to the one argued by people like Jane Fonda. Kerry told Congress the whole war rested on “atrocities,” that South Vietnam was a “nothing,” that the idea of Communist involvement was “mystical,” that it was a “civil war” between freedom fighters and an oppressive government being helped by imperialist America. He fed the falsehood that those who fought the war were the young and poor, with minorities being disproportionately represented, that the Vietnam veteran is ashamed of his service, and that the government had used them. Kerry said the U.S. was “the criminal element” in Vietnam, not the Communist North.
Craig Gordon of Newsday’s Washington Bureau wrote in an article on Kerry on Feb. 21, 2004, “Kerry’s speech is
considered by many to be one of the peace movement’s defining moments. It helped galvanize the protests and turn
popular opinion against the war.”
(Note: A comprehensive 1980 survey found that 91% of those who had seen combat in Vietnam were “glad they had served their country,” and 80% disagreed with the statement,”the U.S. took advantage of me.”)
And now others are beginning to comment on the media cover-up. Shawn Macomber in John Kerry’s Free Media Pass,
said, “Most Americans would likely find John Kerry’s past Vietnam behavior important to their decision as to whether
he should be president. Right now they have not been given this information.” In the section “This Week” in The
National Review, they wrote: “The media have brushed off the issue as irrelevant or a pointless ‘re-fighting’ of the
Vietnam War. But Kerry has an obligation to explain whether he still believes his allegations, and if not, to apologize
for them. Instead, his campaign seems determined to misrepresent his testimony. Syndicated talk-show host Hugh
Hewitt wrote, “The conventional wisdom floating downstream from Washington is that Senator Kerry’s anti-war radicalism following his return from service in Vietnam shouldn’t—and won’t—be an issue in November.”
The media, deciding what’s best for us. Well—they may be in for a surprise.
One of the largest bloc of voters in this country, millions of Vietnam veterans, those who know the most about war, in a huge underground controversy on the Internet, are already voting overwhelmingly that they don’t want Kerry to be Commander-in-Chief. In the Wintersoldier.com poll, it is running 96% against Kerry. In The Wall Street Journal letters section, 66%. In a San Diego newspaper an editor reports “100 to 1” against. Hewitt himself reports of his callers, “the vast majority hold Kerry in contempt because of his actions,” and view his antiwar activities as “profoundly wrong and disqualifiying for the presidency.”
end excerpt
So much for the ‘Vets Support Kerry’ Myth.
And all the above aside, may I remind you it was the Democrat party who tried to keep those in then current military service from voting?
If I’m not mistaken, the phrase is “Choke on it”
Tags: BitsBlog
FOXNews is reporting:
” Key European nations, including Iraq war opponents Germany and France, vigorously rejected a truce offer purportedly from Usama bin Laden (search) on Thursday, saying there could be no negotiating with his Al Qaeda terrorist network.”
It’s about time they grew a spine.
BinLaden is dealing from a busted flush, and apparently the EU can see that much, at least.
Tags: BitsBlog
The Greatest Jeneration points out that the Italians are sticking with their leaders about Iraq.
“Politicians and citizens closed ranks Thursday behind Premier Silvio Berlusconi’s vow to stay the course in Iraq after the slaying of an Italian hostage there, and the government worked frantically to save three other Italian captives. “
John Kerry should be so honorable. RTWT
Tags: BitsBlog
So after all the yelling by the Kerrys about making the tax returns of all his rivals public, we find those rules don’t apply to the “Kerry Kabal”tm?
Hat Tip to Matt at the:DRUDGE REPORT
Tags: BitsBlog
Captain’s Quarterspoints up a CNN report that unlike President Bush, John Kerry has no minority voices in his inner circle:
“Unlike Al Gore whose campaign manager, political director and finance director were African-American, the Kerry campaign, as of yet, has no one of color in the innermost circle, including Kerry’s campaign manager, campaign chairperson, media adviser, policy director, foreign policy adviser, general election manager, convention planner, national finance chairman, and head of VP search team.”
Dodd, priasing the Grand Kleegle and now this. It leads us as a matter of logic, to a question:
Why do Blacks vote Democrat, anymore?
Tags: BitsBlog
… And wasn’t that Ashleigh Banfield, sitting at donor table at the fundraiser for John Kerry at the Sheriton yesterday?
Tags: BitsBlog
The Washington Times says it’s getting louder:
“Pressure is growing for Jamie S. Gorelick to resign from the September 11 commission for what the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee has called ‘an inherent conflict of interest.’ “
This is going to happen; Gorelick is hobbling the commission. It’s a matter of time before the commission chair himself has to take a hand.
Tags: BitsBlog
