Boortz's topics - tribe.net

Morrissey rides a cockhorse

2009-04-01T03:31:46Z

I searched long and hard to find another reason to hate this guy, and it looks like I found it. Enjoy! -- Ry

Morrissey: "Bush should have died, not Reagan"
Entertainment Celebrities 06/08/04

MANCHESTER music legend Morrissey sparked controversy when he announced Ronald Reagan's death live on stage during a concert - and then declared he wished it was George Bush who had died instead.

Thousands of fans at Dublin Castle, in Ireland, cheered when the ex-Smiths frontman made the announcement that the former American president, who had battled with Alzheimer's Disease, had passed away.

And an even bigger cheer followed when Morrissey - who is no stranger to controversy - then said he wished it had been the current President, George W Bush, who had died.

http://www.poe-news.com/stories.php?poeurlid=36157

posted in Boortz - 3 replies

Gone Soft?

2004-10-24T01:02:00Z

Have you people gone soft or what? Why isn't anyone posting here?

Get off your butts!

Oh, and I'm new here so don't give me any grief. :)

posted in Boortz - 3 replies

UN irrelevant

2004-07-23T20:25:45Z

Thought those of you that didn't heear this might like it.

OF1-7/23/04 6:25AM PEACEKEEPING IN IRAQ

The Osgood File. Sponsored by ________. This is Dave Ross. On the CBS Radio Network. Which comes first - the peacekeepers or the peace. More after this from Charlie.

Once upon a time Iraq had a United Nations mission - but the mission picked up and left town last year after its headquarters in Baghdad was bombed.

Now Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi wants the UN back. Indeed the UN Security Council voted six weeks ago to GO back.

But so far, not one country has stepped up to contribute troops.

And when Prime Minister Allawi asked the Egyptian government why it wouldn't participate, he got an interesting response: Egypt said it had to see Iraqi officials restore some measure of calm first.

Yes - Egypt's presidential spokesman said no troops until Iraqi officials restore "some measure of calm."

But wait - the Iraqi army CAN'T restore calm; THAT's why they're asking for help! And because it's the American presence that appears to motivate the militants; he wants help from an Arab army.

It's like calling the ambulance and they say, call us back when you're healthy!

Leading one to believe there is something else going on here - and indeed there is. The GOVERNMENTS of Egypt, and the other Arab countries may be willing to help, but their citizens are still convinced that Allawi is a US puppet. One Egyptian analyst was quoted as saying that Egypt didn't want to risk having two or three officers kidnapped, and being humiliated.

And as I was reading the excuses - it occurred to me: those who've been arguing for years that the UN be dissolved have essentially gotten their wish.

WE'RE the UN now.

Like it or not, we're the only country capable of planting a real fighting force anywhere in the world.

The UN itself is just our clean up crew. We do the nasty part, and when it's time to post a few security guards, only THEN do the dues paying members of the UN show up. Ah, be careful what you wish for.

I wonder if WE could start charging dues. The Osgood File. Dave Ross. On the CBS Radio Network.

posted in Boortz - 0 replies

Sandy Berger confesses stealing documents!!!!!!!!!

2004-07-20T22:06:02Z

Sandy Berger Stuffing Documents Down His Pants [Sloppiness?]
By Sher Zieve
July 20, 2004

As in the Wizard of Oz, the democrats are, again, saying: “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.” This time, it’s in reference to Clinton’s former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger. Mr. Berger was caught trying to “skip” with classified “missing” documents (RE: the Clinton Millennium terrorism plan of 1999) from the National Archives. These documents had been requested by the 9/11 Commission (it was told they didn’t exist). If this doesn’t smack of elements more properly suited for a spy movie, nothing does.

Former advisor to President Clinton David Gergen advises us: “He [Berger] would never do anything to compromise the security of the United States." Gergen (former Clinton Kool-Aid drinker) said this, in spite of the fact that Berger hid (apparently unflattering to Clinton) classified documents in a leather portfolio and was even caught by reporters “stuffing documents down his pants”. Berger and his lawyers attribute this to “sloppiness”. Sloppiness? Stuffing classified documents down your pants is sloppiness??? In usual “mainstream liberal press” fashion, it’s “sloppiness” if the perp is a democrat. But, had this been a Republican it would be a “highly-developed covert plan to deceive the public, government officials and life as we know it.” A Republican would have, immediately (or sooner), been escorted to jail. With great audacity, prominent democrat “leaders” are blaming the Bush Administration (specifically John Ashcroft) for “bringing this up during an election year”. As is typical of the dems, when they have nothing else, give the public the wrong target to attack.

This incident speaks even more loudly of the Democrat party demise. It has become the party of not only extreme anarchists but, of criminal behavior. When presented with this behavior, what do they do? Blame President Bush, of course! Will the “mainstream press” fully cover this story? Only the next few days will tell. However, I did check CNN.com and the Berger story is not the lead on its website. Instead, CNN shows the freed Filipino truck driver as its lead. Neither the NY Times nor the LA Times even have the story on their front page internet site. Unfortunately, I guess my question has already been answered. They’re not going to run a story, if it damages their party.

July 20, 2004
Sandy Berger Gets Sloppy
Former Clinton National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, is under investigation for removing highly classified documents from the National Archives related to the September 11 investigation.

The former national security advisor admitted to stuffing documents into his pants, jacket and even socks while reviewing material at the archives.

Berger admitted to "sloppiness" in relation to the incident and turned over some notes that he had taken. Other documents still remain missing. FBI agents searched Berger's home in office but have yet to find the stolen material.

Clinton Spook Sandy Berger is Caught Destroying Terror Evidence
Posted July 20, 2004

Berger stuffed highest-classified documents, including leather-bound after-action reports on Millennium attacks, into his clothing to get them out of the National Archives before they were reviewed by the 9/11 Commission. Berger, a top John Kerry advisor, claims stealing the documents was inadvertant. After-action documents showing the Clinton "response" to al-Queda terror plans still are missing. Read more in the Washington Times Berger Investigated For Taking Classified Reports

Within hours Clinton flack catcher and John Kerry advisor Larry Davis, claiming he had not yet talked to Berger, was on CNN denying all. Anti-Bush activist and Kerry advisor Richard Clarke also stepped forward to try to defend Berger's actions as "inadvertant," though how he would know is not clear. The Washington Post reports, FBI Probes Berger for Document Removal

Berger long has served politicians on the left, including former New York mayor John Lindsay, former Iowa senator Harold Hughes, Rep. Joseph Resnick of New York, and Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. He is author of a book on American rural politics.

Berger steps down as informal adviser to Kerry
By Ron Fournier
ASSOCIATED PRESS
2:40 p.m. July 20, 2004

WASHINGTON – Former national security adviser Sandy Berger, the subject of a criminal investigation over the disappearance of terrorism documents, stepped aside on Tuesday as an informal adviser to Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry.
"Mr. Berger does not want any issue surrounding the 9/11 commission to be used for partisan purposes. With that in mind he has decided to step aside as an informal adviser to the Kerry campaign until this matter is resolved," said Lanny Breuer, Berger's attorney.

Word of the Berger investigation comes a week before Kerry's convention and two days before the commission releases its report into the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, which could prove politically damaging for President Bush.

Kerry hopes to use the convention to persuade voters that he is ready to be commander in chief. The cornerstone of Kerry's argument against Bush is that he used faulty intelligence and poor judgment in waging war against Iraq.

In a statement issued by his campaign, Kerry said, "Sandy Berger is my friend, and he has tirelessly served this nation with honor and distinction. I respect his decision to step aside as an adviser to the campaign until this matter is resolved objectively and fairly."

Berger had been mentioned as a possible secretary of State or CIA director in a Kerry Cabinet.

Berger, former President Clinton's national security adviser, is under criminal investigation by the Justice Department after highly classified terrorism documents disappeared while he was reviewing what should be turned over to the Sept. 11 commission.

Berger's home and office were searched earlier this year by FBI agents armed with warrants after the former Clinton adviser voluntarily returned some sensitive documents to the National Archives and admitted he also removed handwritten notes he had made while reviewing the sensitive documents.

However, some drafts of a sensitive after-action report on the Clinton administration's handling of al-Qaeda terror threats during the December 1999 millennium celebration are still missing, officials and lawyers told The Associated Press.

posted in Boortz - 0 replies

... Islamic rule is back on Earth

2004-06-26T00:48:19Z

al-Zarqawi vows to assassinate Iraqi leader after beheading
By ROBERT H. REID/Associated Press Writer

A recording purportedly made by Jordanian-born terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi threatened to kill interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi and fight the Americans ''until Islamic rule is back on Earth.''

This one statement blows the left's notion that terrorism is only a reaction to the US's "brutal" foreign policy. THEY are the one's on a crusade, not us! They would behead Michael Moore just as quickly as they would Bush, for they both share one major flaw: they are NOT Muslim! Face it, they want us Muslim or dead, and preferably the latter. THIS is scary!

posted in Boortz - 2 replies

Michael Moore

2004-06-21T17:54:20Z

This is a very nice column discussing, in a much more lucid and calm manner than I am capable of, Michael Moore.

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20021119.html

posted in Boortz - 5 replies

What's going right in Iraq

2004-06-21T13:52:58Z

What's going right in Iraq
By Jeff Jacoby | June 20, 2004

TO HEAR the media tell it, virtually nothing in Iraq is going right. Suicide terrorism, Abu Ghraib, sabotaged pipelines, swelling anti-American sentiment -- the coverage has focused on almost all bad news, almost all the time.

But don't be fooled. There are plenty of good-news stories in Iraq, too. Here are half a dozen.

Moqtada al-Sadr's uprising is kaput. The firebrand cleric issued a statement on Wednesday directing his gunmen to stop fighting and go home. If they comply, the bloody rebellion he launched in April will have ended in failure.

Sadr never managed to win mass support among Iraq's Shi'ites; indeed he was taken to the woodshed by the country's senior Shi'ite leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani. Now Sadr says he supports the interim Iraqi government, and will set up a political party of his own. It wasn't long ago that Sadr was denouncing Iraqi politicians for cooperating with the United States. Now he is poised to become one of them.

For the first time, an Iraqi soccer team has qualified for the Olympics. All told, some 30 Iraqi athletes will be traveling to the games in Athens this summer.They will be able to compete without fear, knowing that even if they fail to bring home a medal, there will be no punishment at the hands of Uday Saddam Hussein. It was the practice of the dictator's late son to torture Iraqi athletes who were not successful in international competitions. Thanks to the US Army, Uday and his sadism no longer exist.

In the first quarter of 2004, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees reports, fewer than 93,000 people sought political asylum in the developed nations -- 16 percent below the previous quarter and a drop of more than 25 percent from the first quarter of 2003.

Why the decline? Because Afghans and Iraqis, who used to make up the largest groups of asylum-seekers, are now far less likely to flee their homelands. From Jan. 1 to March 31 of this year, only 2,143 Iraqis requested asylum in another country -- 81 percent less than in the same quarter last year. As one commentator has noted, that's what happens when UNHCR's "partners" include the US Marines.

With the help of a retired US naval officer, scouting is being revived in Iraq. Chip Beck, a former Boy Scout himself, is recruiting 80 young Iraqis for leadership training by the Arab Scout Association in Cairo. Volunteer scouting in Iraq dates back to 1921, but the movement was crippled during Saddam's reign. Now, along with Texas businessman (and former Eagle Scout) Mike Bradle, Beck hopes to raise $4 million to establish a scouting camp for boys and girls in a former secret police compound on the Tigris River near Baghdad.

"If the world is looking to combat violence and extremism," Beck says, "the Scout method of teaching universal values -- honor, integrity, and morality -- is proven."

According to veteran Middle East journalist Amir Taheri, there is good news on the economic front as well. The value of the Iraqi dinar has grown by almost 15 percent in the last three months against the US dollar. It has similarly gained on the Kuwaiti dinar and the Iranian rial, the two most-traded local currencies. Despite the recent violence, millions of Shi'ite pilgrims are visiting (and spending money in) Najaf and Karbala, where a building boom is underway. Meanwhile, Iraqi farmers have harvested a record wheat crop, raising hopes that the country might once again become, as it was before Saddam, agriculturally self-sufficient.

On June 11, US military commanders bestowed awards for valor on five Iraqis -- soldiers in the Iraqi Civil Defense Corps -- for saving the life of a US Marine during an ambush in Al Karmah. When the Marine was shot by insurgents, the Iraqi riflemen with whom he and other members of the 1st Battalion, 5th Marines were patrolling with didn't hesitate. The citation presented to Imad Abid Zeid Jassim tells the story:

"Under a hail of enemy fire that was accurately targeted on the wounded Marine, and without regard for his own safety, Private Imad Jassim moved forward . . . . He dragged the wounded Marine out of the line of fire to a covered and concealed position . . . aggressively pushed forward . . . dislodged the enemy fighters. . . . His efforts clearly saved the life of the Marine."

You might not know it from much of the press coverage, but not all Iraqis hate their American "occupiers." Many appreciate the sacrifices US troops are making to secure Iraqi freedom. Some appreciate it so much, in fact, that they are willing to put their lives on the line when an American soldier is in danger.

posted in Boortz - 0 replies

bad news for the left -- an enemy in our midst

2004-06-20T15:36:35Z

The killing of Paul Johnson is bad news for the left, even worse than Nick Berg. I recently became aware of the fact (Thanks XT) that Johnson was a sympathizer of the Islamic cause in that he was quoted as saying "I hate my country's politics. I am interested in Islam. If I convert, I will go and live with my wife in East Asia."

So how is this bad for the left? The left calls Islam a religion of peace and accuses America of "crusading" against peaceful Muslims to satisfy our own greed. They seem to think that Muslims have nothing against us other than the fact that we are aggressing against them so we can steal their oil, and that the terrorism is merely a response to our aggression. Well think again. The fact that Johnson, a Muslim sypathizer, was ruthlessly murdered defies this leftist assertion. They are not interested in negotiating peace us. And they are not merely responding to our aggression. They simply want to kill the infidels, as they were commanded to do. And whether you love them or hate them, if you are a non-Muslim, you are already dead.

The following article can be read in its entirety at the link below, but the following two paragraphs were key.

FROM JOSEPH FARAH'S G2 BULLETIN
Were Johnson murderers copycats?
Arabic message targets Christians, other non-Muslims
Posted: June 20, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern

[snipped]

Cohen cites the next part of the message as his reason for this statement: "... so that they know for certainty, that anyone who treads our land from them, will receive this same punishment, and Allah guides to the correct path."

"This is a direct call to kill anyone who is not Muslim who comes into a so-called Islamic country regardless of who or what they believe," Cohen explains. "While the justification for Paul Johnson's death was that he was a 'millitary Christian,' the call now is to kill anyone who is not Muslim who sets foot on so called Islamic land. What is vague and chilling is that the exact limits of what the author understands as Islamic land are not defined clearly. The call is to behead all non-Muslims in the same way."

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39046

So what have we learned? Sympathizers beware. You are no more safe than a US soldier or an MP at Abu Ghraib. Why do you think Michael Moore hasn't planned any book signings or movie screenings in Baghdad?

posted in Boortz - 0 replies

reasoning with madness

2004-06-20T15:00:43Z

American Beheaded: Paul Johnson and the Nature of the Enemy
June 19, 2004
Joe Mariani

How we Americans react to the horrible murder of Paul Johnson by al-Qaeda extremists will tell us a great deal about ourselves. We need to discover whether we are truly determined to stop terrorists or merely appease them, pushing the real fight down the road for another generation. The most common reaction was disbelief, but anyone who was surprised simply doesn't understand the enemy. Why is it such a shock that murderous extremists would kill one man, when they glory in committing mass murder nearly every day? Did anyone really think that prayer vigils and news footage of neighbors lighting candles would stop the terrorists from killing an "infidel"? It's about time we wake up and face the nature of this enemy. We cannot negotiate with them. We cannot bribe them. We cannot appeal to their better nature -- if they have such a thing, they already believe they're acting in accordance with it.

Terrorists firmly believe that God has instructed them to kill us all, en masse or one by one if need be. That's their grand scheme, their master plan, and everything they do works toward that end. Nothing can talk them out of that belief or weaken the resolve that springs from it. Exposing them to Western society only heightens their loathing of it, even as they partake of its freedoms. Their beliefs are rooted in a literal interpretation of the Qu'ran, which contains passages such as:

Let those fight in the cause of Allah who sell the life of this world for the hereafter. To him who fighteth in the cause of Allah - whether he is slain or gets victory - soon shall We give him a reward of great (value).
- Sura 4.74

But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
- Sura 9.5

Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in battle), smite at their necks; at length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them).
- Sura 47.4

The Saudi ruling family has turned a blind eye to the rise of the fanatical Wahhabi sect (an 18th century fundamentalist movement of the Sunni form of Islam) for far too long. Worse -- in return for the forbearance of terrorist groups, the Saudis have actively assisted and funded them. That truce cost the Saudis dearly, according to testimony by Dr. Alex Alexiev before the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism in June 2003. "Between 1975 and 1987, the Saudis admit to having spent $48 billion or $4 billion per year on "overseas development aid," a figure which by the end of 2002 grew to over $70 billion (281 billion Saudi rials)," Alexiev stated. "The Saudi money is spent according to a carefully designed plan to enhance Wahhabi influence and control at the expense of mainstream Muslims. In Muslim countries, much of the aid goes to fund religious madrassas that teach little more than hatred of the infidels, while producing barely literate Jihadi cadres. There are now tens of thousands of these madrassas run by the Wahhabis' Deobandi allies in South Asia and also throughout Southeastern Asia. In Pakistan alone, foreign funding of these madrassas, most of which comes from Saudi Arabia, is estimated at no less than $350 million per year." After 9/11, President Pervez Musharraf vowed to reform Pakistan's madrassa schools, but his efforts have had little effect so far.

So what form should our response to these terrible murders of American citizens take? Most Liberals and Democrats favor what they call a "nuanced" approach -- trying to come to an agreement with groups like al-Qaeda. Find out what they want and give it to them. Certainly the terrorists will make demands, but -- as always -- return to the attack after gaining the concessions they request. Ask Israel for examples of the futility of negotiating with terrorists. Trying to reason Islamofascist fanatics out of their beliefs is like trying to reason a mad dog out of its rabies -- it only gives the dog another chance to bite. There's no "nuance" to a knife -- it cuts you, or it doesn't. There's no "nuance" to death, either. One minute Daniel Pearl, Nick Berg and now Paul Johnson were alive, and the next they were dead, beheaded by Muslim extremists who believe they were told by God to "smite at their necks."

Killing or arresting the individuals who commit these atrocities won't be enough. We need to go to the source. One thing we can do is shut down the madrassas right here in the US, stop the funding flowing to them from so-called "charities," and pressure our allies to do the same. At one such school, the Islamic Saudi Academy in Northern Virginia, students "file into their Islamic studies class, where the textbooks tell them the Day of Judgment can't come until Jesus Christ returns to Earth, breaks the cross and converts everyone to Islam, and until Muslims start attacking Jews." At another, "[m]aps of the Middle East hang on classroom walls, but Israel is missing." Nationally, there are estimated to be 200 to 600 of these schools, with at least 30,000 students. Thousands of others attend Islamic weekend schools, according to Valerie Strauss and Emily Wax of the Washington Post. (Yes, even Washington Post stories can contain facts, buried as they are in prose overly sympathetic to the beleaguered students of jihad schools. Their story, written less than six months after 9/11, made it a point to report that "students in class also talk about the taunts they face outside the school gates -- being called 'terrorist' and 'bomber' -- and ask whether Osama bin Laden is simply the victim of such prejudice." It took less than six months to Blame America First.) We need to pressure the Saudi ruling family to stop the financing of terrorist groups from within their country. The bargain they had made with al-Qaeda is obviously over; the royal family must decide whether they want to be counted among our friends or our enemies. Saudi Arabia has been moving inexorably toward civil war since King Fahd's 1995 stroke left the government too weakened to contain the frustration among the citizens; now is the time to gain these concessions from them.

We have the ability to stop terrorism at its source, but do we have the will? The upcoming Presidential election will be a referendum on the war against terrorism more than anything else. Do we want to have a "nuanced" conversation with the kind of people who behead innocents on camera for their religion, or do we want to stop the "barbaric people" and "extremist thugs" that President Bush understands them to be? We'll find out in just a few short months.

Joe Mariani

posted in Boortz - 0 replies

forum debates on killing americans

2004-06-20T14:57:12Z

Though this is by no means scientific, but here are the thoughts of some Muslims regarding whether or not foreigners on their soil should be killed, converted, or accepted. THIS is disturbing. And THIS is why there is no reasoning with some of them. Enjoy?

Saudis debate Islamic basis for killing Westerners
The imminent threat to the life of US hostage Paul Johnson triggers a range of views on Islamic websites

CAIRO - Does the killing of foreigners in Saudi Arabia have the sanction of religion?

A debate on the issue swirled on Islamic websites this week amid pleas to the militants to spare the life of abducted American engineer Paul Johnson.

Among the arguments put forward were that Westerners working in Saudi Arabia were not invaders but had been invited and should, therefore, be protected.

Mr Johnson's kidnappers have threatened to kill him if the government does not release all imprisoned militants.

In one unusual website posting, a Saudi man who said he had worked with the kidnap victim, and had even discussed Islam with him, went so far as to try to extend a kind of religiously inspired traditional tribal form of protection known as 'ijara' that would forbid killing Mr Johnson.

'I hereby declare my protection and rescue for this man along with all his colleagues who work with us in the company, who ate with us and accepted our gifts of Islamic books which they promised to read,' wrote Mr Saad Al-Moemen.

He also described visits that Mr Johnson had made to his home and said the engineer had expressed distaste for United States foreign policy.

One cleric, identified as Sheik Abu Bassir, re- issued a ruling saying that anyone who came to Saudi Arabia with a valid visa should be protected.

He wrote that whether foreigners come 'to visit, or for tourism, or for trade, or to study, or to tutor, or for therapy, or to get married, or to hear the word of God, they should be safe and should not be terrorised, should not be assaulted'.

The exceptions, he wrote, are those who come as warriors or spies or to spread corruption, vice and drugs.

The fatwa was attacked by a number of readers who said all foreigners came to the kingdom with bad intentions, acting as the vanguard for the US military.

'Whoever gives them security is an apostate,' read one posting.

Others scoffed at the idea that an official visa somehow bestowed legitimacy on visitors.

'Who gave them the visa? It is the infidel agent regime,' read one posting in part.

'So I tell the mujahideen to keep killing them until the Arabian peninsula is cleared of the filth of the crusaders.'

Others suggested that the militants try to convert Westerners to Islam rather than killing them, because that way they would be spared from going to hell, and the image of the faith around the world would not be so tainted with blood.

One religious leader, identified as Abdel Rahman bin Saleh al-Mahmoud, said Prophet Muhammad's followers had commanded that all non-believers be expelled from the Arabian peninsula.

But it has never been clear, he wrote, whether that includes just the holy city of Mecca or some larger area. In addition, foreigners visited at the time of the Prophet, he noted, it was just the idea of permanent communities that was abhorrent.

Saudi lawyer Muhsin Awaji, prominent in religious affairs, said the religious establishment was preparing to launch an extensive campaign to explain that non-Muslim visitors are permitted.

The stated aim of the militants is to undermine the ruling House of Saud by driving from the kingdom millions of expatriates who help keep the economy afloat, especially tens of thousands of Western technicians.

'We want to make clear that anyone who comes to the country to live is different from someone coming to invade,' said Mr Awaji. -- New York Times

http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/world/story/0,4386,257057,00.html

posted in Boortz - 1 reply

GOT 'EM!!!!!

2004-06-20T14:36:54Z

Al-Qaeda boss slain after hostage beheaded: Busch (the beer? typo) decries ‘barbaric people’
By Noelle Straub
Saturday, June 19, 2004

Al-Qaeda terrorists beheaded American Paul M. Johnson Jr. in Saudi Arabia yesterday, posting ghastly images of his body on the Internet but suffering a retaliatory blow hours later with the killing of the cell's leader.

U.S. and Saudi officials cheered the death of the high-profile terrorists, though it came too late to save Johnson.

President Bush [related, bio] said the nation wouldn't be intimidated by the ``barbaric people.''

``They're trying to intimidate America; they're trying shake our will; they're trying to get us to retreat from the world,'' President Bush said. ``America will not retreat.

``America will not be intimidated by these kinds of extremist thugs.''

The group calling itself al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula posted graphic photos of Johnson's decapitated body and severed head on an Islamic Internet site.

The killing came after the expiration of a 72-hour deadline the group had set for the Saudi government to release jailed militants. Saudi officials refused the demands.

Johnson, 49, worked on Apache helicopters for Lockheed Martin. His beheading was the first in Saudi Arabia and raised fears that al-Qaeda may use the new tactic again.

``To the Americans and whoever is their ally in the infidel and criminal world and their allies in the war against Islam, this action is punishment to them and a lesson for them to know that whoever steps foot in our country, this decisive action will be his fate,'' the al-Qaeda statement said, according to The Associated Press.

The al-Qaeda group has taken responsibility for fatally shooting two American military contractors outside their homes in Riyadh earlier this month.

In a swift retaliation shortly after discovering Johnson's body, Saudi police swooped down on the al-Malz neighborhood in central Riyadh and exchanged fire with al-Qaeda suspects.

Abdulaziz al-Moqrin, the reputed leader of al-Qaeda in the kingdom, was killed along with two other militants, Saudi officials said.

The killing of al-Moqrin, 31, would be a coup for the Saudi government, which has been under intense pressure to halt a wave of attacks against Westerners in the kingdom.

Johnson's family had made emotional appeals on television asking the terrorists to release him.

Lockheed Martin called Johnson's death a ``tragic and senseless death.''

``Paul was a valued and respected employee who bravely carried out his duties, and the news of his loss is a shock to everyone in the Lockheed Martin family,'' its statement said.

The U.S. Embassy in Riyadh issued a warning to Americans in Saudi Arabia that more attacks are likely, especially against private residences and residential compounds, and again urged them to leave the country.

A Saudi spokesman said his government does not agree with the call for Americans to leave the country, saying it may inadvertently play into the hands of the terrorists.

Last month, American Nicholas Berg was beheaded in Iraq, and the videotape of his death was posted on an al-Qaeda-linked Web site.

Sen. John F. Kerry [related, bio] also condemned the killing and said Americans are ``united against the terrorists who committed this abhorrent act.''

http://news.bostonherald.com/international/view.bg?articleid=32478

posted in Boortz - 3 replies

Kerry statement on Paul Johnson

2004-06-18T22:06:21Z

Senator John Kerry issued the following statement today on the murder of Paul Johnson:

"My prayers and deepest sympathies are with the family and friends of Paul Johnson. Americans are united against the terrorists who committed this abhorrent act against an American civilian in Saudi Arabia. It is essential that we have the full cooperation of the Saudi government in tracking down these terrorists and destroying al Qaeda. This must be our nation's highest priority."

And THAT is why I am voting for Bush this time! My wife put it very succinctly. If you were walking down a dark alley in a rough part of town, who would you rather have with you, Vin Diesel or Billy Crystal? Frankly, I am going with the guy who can kick some ass. And that all that Bush is. Crystal is funny and probably has more of a personality, but he'd get trounced!

At least Kerry has politicized this ... yet.

posted in Boortz - 0 replies

Feeding the Minotaur

2004-06-18T13:14:46Z

June 14, 2004, 8:11 a.m.
Feeding the Minotaur
Our strange relationship with the terrorists continues.

As long as the mythical Athenians were willing to send, every nine years, seven maidens and seven young men down to King Minos's monster in the labyrinth, Athens was left alone by the Cretan fleet. The king rightly figured that harvesting just enough Athenians would remind them of their subservience without leading to open rebellion — as long as somebody impetuous like a Theseus didn't show up to wreck the arrangement.

Ever since the storming of the Tehran embassy in November 1979 we Americans have been paying the same sort of human tribute to grotesque Islamofascists. Over the last 25 years a few hundred of our own were cut down in Lebanon, East Africa, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Yemen, and New York on a semi-annual basis, even as the rules of the tribute to be paid — never spoken, but always understood — were rigorously followed.

In exchange for our not retaliating in any meaningful way against the killers — addressing their sanctuaries in Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, or Syria, or severing their financial links in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia — Hezbollah, al Qaeda, and their various state-sanctioned kindred operatives agreed to keep the number killed to reasonable levels. They were to reap their lethal harvests abroad and confine them mostly to professional diplomats, soldiers, or bumbling tourists, whose disappearance we distracted Americans would predictably chalk up to the perils of foreign service and exotic travel.

Despite the occasional fiery rhetoric, both sides found the informal Minoan arrangement mutually beneficial. The terrorists believed that they were ever so incrementally, ever so insidiously eroding America's commitment to a pro-Western Middle East. We offered our annual tribute so that over the decades we could go from Dallas to Extreme Makeover and Madonna to Britney without too much distraction or inconvenience.

But then a greedy, over-reaching bin Laden wrecked the agreement on September 11. Or did he?

Murdering 3,000 Americans, destroying a city block in Manhattan, and setting fire to the Pentagon were all pretty tough stuff. And for a while it won fascists and their state sponsors an even tougher response in Afghanistan and Iraq that sent hundreds to caves and thousands more to paradise. And when we have gotten serious in the postbellum reconstruction, thugs like Mr. Sadr have backed down. But before we gloat and think that we've overcome our prior laxity and proclivity for appeasement, let us first make sure we are not still captives to the Minotaur's logic.

True, al Qaeda is now scattered, the Taliban and Saddam gone. But the calculus of a quarter century — threaten, hit, pause, wait; threaten, hit, pause, wait — is now entrenched in the minds of Middle Eastern murderers. Indeed, the modus operandi that cynically plays on Western hopes, liberalism, and fair play is gospel now to all sorts of bin Laden epigones — as we have seen in Madrid, Fallujah, and Najaf.

Much has been written about our problems with this postmodern war and why we find it so difficult to fully mobilize our formidable military and economic clout to crush the terrorists and their patrons. Of course, we have no identifiable conventional enemy such as Hitler's Panzers; we are not battling a fearsome nation that defiantly declared war on us, such as Tojo's Japan; and we are no longer a depression-era, disarmed, impoverished United States at risk for our very survival. But then, neither Hitler nor Mussolini nor Tojo nor Stalin ever reached Manhattan and Washington.

So al Qaeda is both worse and not worse than the German Nazis: It is hardly the identifiable threat of Hitler's Wehrmacht, but in this age of technology and weapons of mass destruction it is more able to kill more Americans inside the United States. Whereas we think our fascist enemies of old were logical and conniving, too many of us deem bin Laden's new fascists unhinged — their fatwas, their mythology about strong and weak horses, and their babble about the Reconquista and the often evoked "holy shrines" are to us dreamlike.

But I beg to differ somewhat.

I think the Islamists and their supporters do not live in an alternate universe, but instead are no more crazy in their goals than Hitler was in thinking he could hijack the hallowed country of Beethoven and Goethe and turn it over to buffoons like Goering, prancing in a medieval castle in reindeer horns and babbling about mythical Aryans with flunkies like Goebbels and Rosenberg. Nor was Hitler's fatwa — Mein Kampf — any more irrational than bin Laden's 1998 screed and his subsequent grainy infomercials. Indeed, I think Islamofascism is brilliant in its reading of the postmodern West and precisely for that reason it is dangerous beyond all description — in the manner that a blood-sucking, stealthy, and nocturnal Dracula was always spookier than a massive, clunky Frankenstein.

Like Hitler's creed, bin Ladenism trumpets contempt for bourgeois Western society. If once we were a "mongrel" race of "cowboys" who could not take casualties against the supermen of the Third Reich, now we are indolent infidels, channel surfers who eat, screw, and talk too much amid worthless gadgetry, godless skyscrapers, and, of course, once again, the conniving Jews.

Like Hitler, bin Ladenism has an agenda: the end of the liberal West. Its supposedly crackpot vision is actually a petrol-rich Middle East free of Jews, Christians, and Westerners, free to rekindle spiritual purity under Sharia. Bin Laden's al Reich is a vast pan-Arabic, Taliban-like caliphate run out of Mecca by new prophets like him, metering out oil to a greedy West in order to purchase the weapons of its destruction; there is, after all, an Israel to be nuked, a Europe to be out-peopled and cowered, and an America to be bombed and terrorized into isolation. This time we are to lose not through blood and iron, but through terror and intimidation: televised beheadings, mass murders, occasional bombings, the disruption of commerce, travel, and the oil supply.

In and of itself, our enemies' ambitions would lead to failure, given the vast economic and military advantages of the West. So to prevent an all out, terrible response to these predictable cycles of killing Westerners, there had to be some finesse to the terrorists' methods. The trick was in preventing some modern Theseus from going into the heart of the Labyrinth to slay the beast and end the nonsense for good.

It was hard for the Islamic fascists to find ideological support in the West, given their agenda of gender apartheid, homophobia, religious persecution, racial hatred, fundamentalism, polygamy, and primordial barbarism. But they sensed that there has always been a current of self-loathing among the comfortable Western elite, a perennial search for victims of racism, economic oppression, colonialism, and Christianity. Bin Laden's followers weren't white; they were sometimes poor; they inhabited of former British and French colonies; and they weren't exactly followers of the no-nonsense Pope or Jerry Falwell. If anyone doubts the nexus between right-wing Middle Eastern fascism and left-wing academic faddishness, go to booths in the Free Speech area at Berkeley or see what European elites have said and done for Hamas. Middle Eastern fascist killers enshrined as victims alongside our own oppressed? That has been gospel in our universities for the last three decades.

Like Hitler, bin Ladenism grasped the advantages of hating the Jews. It has been 60 years since the Holocaust; memories dim. Israel is not poor and invaded but strong, prosperous, and unapologetic. It is high time, in other words, to unleash the old anti-Semitic infectious bacillus. Thus Zionists caused the latest Saudi bombings, just as they have poisoned Arab-American relations, just as neo-conservatives hijacked American policy, just as Feith, Perle, and Wolfowitz cooked up this war.

Finally, bin Laden understood the importance of splitting the West, just like the sultan of old knew that a Europe trisected into Orthodoxy, Catholicism, and Protestantism would fight among itself rather than unite against a pan-Islamic foe. Hit the Spanish and bring in an anti-American government. Leave France and Germany alone for a time so they can blame the United States for mobilizing against a "nonexistent" threat, unleashing the age-old envy and jealously of the American upstart.

If after four years of careful planning, al Qaedists hit the Olympics in August, the terrorists know better than we do that most Europeans will do nothing — but quickly point to the U.S. and scream "Iraq!" And they know that the upscale crowds in Athens are far more likely to boo a democratic America than they are a fascist Syria or theocratic Iran. Just watch.

In the European mind, and that of its aping American elite, the terrorists lived, slept, and walked in the upper aether — never the streets of Kabul, the mosques of Damascus, the palaces of Baghdad, the madrassas of Saudi Arabia, or the camps of Iran. To assume that the latter were true would mean a real war, real sacrifice, and a real choice between the liberal bourgeois West and a Dark-Age Islamofascist utopia.

While all Westerners prefer the bounty of capitalism, the delights of personal freedom, and the security of modern technological progress, saying so and not apologizing for it — let alone defending it — is, well, asking a little too much from the hyper sophisticated and cynical. Such retrograde clarity could cost you, after all, a university deanship, a correspondent billet in Paris or London, a good book review, or an invitation to a Georgetown or Malibu A-list party.

Nearly three years after 9/11 we are in the strangest of all paradoxes: a war against fascists that we can easily win but are clearly not ready to fully wage. We have the best 500,000 soldiers in the history of civilization, a resolute president, and an informed citizenry that has already received a terrible preemptive blow that killed thousands.

Yet what a human comedy it has now all become.

The billionaire capitalist George Soros — who grew fabulously wealthy through cold and calculating currency speculation, helping to break many a bank and its poor depositors — now makes the moral equation between 9/11 and Abu Ghraib. For this ethicist and meticulous accountant, 3,000 murdered in a time of peace are the same as some prisoners abused by renegade soldiers in a time of war.

Recently in the New York Times I read two articles about the supposedly new irrational insensitivity toward Muslims and saw an ad for a book detailing how the West "constructed" and exaggerated the Islamic menace — even as the same paper ran a quieter story about a state-sponsored cleric in Saudi Arabia's carefully expounding on the conditions under which Muslims can desecrate the bodies of murdered infidels.

Aristocratic and very wealthy Democrats — Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean, and John Kerry — employ the language of conspiracy to assure us that we had no reason to fight Saddam Hussein. "Lies," "worst," and " betrayed" are the vocabulary of their daily attacks. A jester in stripes like Michael Moore, who cannot tell the truth, is now an artistic icon — precisely and only because of his own hatred of the president and the inconvenient idea that we are really at war. Our diplomats court the Arab League, which snores when Russians and Sudanese kill hundreds of thousands of Muslims but shrieks when we remove those who kill even more of their own. And a depopulating, entitlement-expanding Europe believes an American president, not bin Laden, is the greatest threat to world peace. Russia, the slayer of tens of thousands of Muslim Chechans and a big-time profiteer from Baathist loot, lectures the United States on its insensitivity to the new democracy in Baghdad.

Meanwhile, in Europe, Iraq, and the rest of the Middle East, we see the same old bloodcurdling threats, the horrific videos, the bombings, the obligatory pause, the faux negotiations, the lies — and then, of course, the bloodcurdling threats, the horrific videos, the bombings...

No, bin Laden is quite sane — but lately I have grown more worried that we are not.

— Victor Davis Hanson, an NRO contributor, is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and author of The Soul of Battle and Carnage and Culture, among other books. His website is www.victorhanson.com.

http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200406140811.asp

posted in Boortz - 1 reply

The Third Jihad

2004-06-15T13:05:21Z

This is a GREAT article by Larry Abraham about the rise of Islam and its anti-West setiments. Also given is an explanation of the war in Iraq so clear and consice a democrat could understand. Also, here's something to consider:

What surprised the Jihadists following the 9/11 attack was how
American sentiment mobilized around the president and a profound sense
of patriotism spread across the country. They were not expecting this
reaction, based on what had happened in the past, nor were they
expecting the determined resolve of the President himself.

Al Qaeda brought down the Spanish govt with one attack that killed a fration of the people killed here in 9/11. This was what they wanted: to dash the peoples faith in the type of govt that will NOT kowtow to the terrorists. An attack will cause the people to blame their govt for getting involved, and they will vote in politicians and leaders that will appease the terrorists and withdraw any military support against Al Qaeda. However, unlike other countries, we rallied around our leader after the attack, so the terrorists lost this fight. Doesn't it make sense to do what the terrorists DON'T want us to do? Shouldn't we continue to rally around our president, the only one who will fight them? Aren't shooting ourselves in the foot to allow Kerry the appeaser win Bush the fighter to lose? Think about it, won't you?

Subject: Another Look at The Third Jihad

THE CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS AND THE GREAT CALIPHATE

by Larry Abraham, January 29, 2004

I urge all of my readers to make copies of this report and send
them to your friends and relatives. The information is too critical to
be over looked in the madness of this election year.

Watching and listening to the Democrat Party candidates is
tantamount to enduring the Chinese water torture. The blah, blah, blah
goes on and on and nothing of value comes out except the pain of
listening to the same nothingness over and over again. I won't take
the time or space to repeat what you have heard so many mind numbing
times but what you have not heard is crucial.

President Bush and his administration spokesmen are not telling
the American people what they really need to know about this "war" If
they don't do that between now and November it may cost them the
election.

The war against terror did not begin on September 11, 2001, nor
will it end with the peaceful transition to civilian authority in
Iraq, whenever that may be. In fact, Iraq is but a footnote in the
bigger context of this encounter, but an important one none the less.

This war is what the Jihadists themselves are calling the "Third
Great Jihad." They are operating within the framework of a time line
which reaches back to the very creation of Islam in the seventh
century and are presently attempting to recreate the dynamics which
gave rise to the religion in the first two hundred years of its
existence. No religion in history grew as fast, in its infancy, and
the reasons for the initial growth of Islam are not hard to explain
when you understand what the world was like at the time of Muhammad's
death in 632 AD. Remember that the Western Roman Empire was in ruins
and the Eastern Empire, based in Constantinople, was trying
desperately to keep the power of its early grandeur while
transitioning to Christianity as a de facto state religion. The costs
to the average person were large as he was being required to meet the
constantly rising taxes levied by the state along with the tithes
coerced by the Church.

What Islam offered was the "carrot or the sword". If you became
a convert, your taxes were immediately eliminated, as was your tithe.
If you didn't, you faced death. The choice was not hard for most to
make, unless you were a very devoted martyr in the making. At the
beginning, even the theology was not too hard for most to swallow,
considering that both Jewry and Christianity were given their due by
the Prophet. There is but one God-Allah, and Muhammad is His Prophet,
as was Jesus, and the pre-Christian Jewish prophets of the Torah (Old
Testament). Both were called "children of the book"--the book being
the Koran, which replaced both the Old and New Testaments for former
Christians and Jews.

With this practical approach to spreading the "word" Islam grew
like wild-fire, reaching out from the Saudi Arabian Peninsula in all
directions. This early growth is what the Muslims call the "First"
great Jihad and it met with little resistance until Charles Martel of
France, the father of Charlemagne, stopped them in the battle of Tours
in France, after they had firmly established Islam on the Iberian
Peninsula. This first onslaught against the West continued in various
forms and at various times until Islam was finally driven out of Spain
in 1492 at the battle of Granada.

The "Second great jihad" came with the Ottoman Turks. This
empire succeeded in bringing about the downfall of Constantinople as a
Christian stronghold and an end to Roman hegemony in all of its forms.
The Ottoman Empire was Islam's most successful expansion of territory
even though the religion itself had fractured into warring sects and
bitter rivalries with each claiming the ultimate truths in "the ways
of the Prophet". By 1683 the Ottomans had suffered a series of defeats
on both land and sea and the final, unsuccessful attempt to capture
Vienna set the stage for the collapse of any further territorial
ambitions and Islam shrunk into various sheikhdoms, emir dominated
principalities, and roving tribes of nomads. However, by this time a
growing anti-western sentiment, blaming its internal failures on
anyone but themselves, was taking hold and setting the stage for a new
revival known as Wahhabism, a sect which came into full bloom under
the House of Saud on the Arabian Peninsula shortly before the onset of
WWI. It is this Wahhabi version of Islam which has infected the
religion itself, now finding adherents in almost all branches and
sects, especially the Shiites.

Wahhabism calls for the complete and total rejection or
destruction of anything and everything which is not based in the
original teachings of The Prophet and finds its most glaring practice
in the policies of the Afghani Taliban or the Shiite practices of the
late Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran. Its Ali Pasha (Field Marshall) is now
known as Osama bin Laden, the leader of the "Third Jihad", who is
Wahhabi as were his 9/11 attack teams, 18 of which were also Saudi.

The strategy for this "holy war" did not begin with the planning
of the destruction of the World Trade Center. It began with the
toppling of the Shah of Iran back in the late 1970's. With his plans
and programs to "westernize" his country, along with his close ties to
the U.S. and subdued acceptance of the State of Israel, the Shah was
the soft target. Remember "America Held Hostage"?

Thanks, in large part to the hypocritical and disastrous
policies of the Jimmy Carter State Department, the revolution was set
into motion, the Shah was deposed, his armed forces scattered or
murdered and stage one was complete. The Third Jihad now had a base of
operations and the oil wealth to support its grand design or what they
call the "Great Caliphate".

What this design calls for is the replacement of all secular
leadership in any country with Muslim majorities. This would include,
Egypt, Turkey, Pakistan, Indonesia, all the Emirates, Sudan, Tunisia,
Libya, Algeria, Morocco, Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Malaysia,
Indonesia and finally what they call the "occupied territory" Israel.

As a part of this strategy, forces of the jihad will infiltrate
governments and the military as a prelude to taking control, once the
secular leadership is ousted or assassinated. Such was the case in
Lebanon leading to the Syrian occupation and in Egypt with the murder
of Anwar Sadat, along with the multiple attempts on the lives of
Hussein in Jordan, Mubarak of Egypt and Musharraf in Pakistan.
Pakistan is a particular prize because of its nuclear weapons. (Please
note al Qaeda call for the Islamic-militant overthrow of Musharraf in
Pakistan on March 25, just yesterday.)

The long-range strategy of the Third Jihad counts on three
strategic goals. First, the U.S. withdrawing from the region just as
it did in Southeast Asia, following Vietnam. Second, taking control of
the oil wealth in the Muslim countries, which would be upwards to 75%
of known reserves; third, using nuclear weapons or other WMDs to
annihilate Israel. A further outcome of successfully achieving these
objectives would be to place the United Nations as the sole arbiter in
East/West negotiations and paralyze western resistance, leading to
total withdrawal from all Islamic dominated countries.

Evidence of the Bush Administration awareness of this plan is
found in the events immediately following the 9/11 attack. The
administration's first move was to shore up Pakistan and Egypt,
believing that these two would be the next targets for al Qaeda, while
Americans focused on the disaster in New York. The administration also
knew that the most important objective was to send a loud and clear
message that the U.S. was in the region to stay, not only to shore up
our allies but to send a message to the Jihadists.

The attack on Afghanistan was necessary to break-up a secure al
Qaeda base of operations and put their leadership on the run or in
prison. The war in Iraq also met a very strategic necessity in that no
one knew how much collaboration existed between Saddam Hussein and the
master planners of the Third Jihad or Hussein's willingness to hand
off WMDs to terrorist groups including the PLO in Israel. What was
known were serious indications of on-going collaboration as Saddam
funneled money to families of suicide bombers attacking the Israelis
and others in Kuwait.

What the U.S. needed to establish was a significant base of
operations smack dab in the middle of the Islamic world, in a location
which effectively cut it in half. Iraq was the ideal target for this
and a host of other strategic reasons. Leadership of various
anti-American groups both here and abroad understood the vital nature
of the Bush initiative and thus launched their demonstrations,
world-wide, to "Stop The War". Failing this, they also laid plans to
build a political campaign inside the country, with the War in Iraq as
a plebiscite, using a little known politician as the thrust
point--Howard Dean. This helps to explain how quickly the Radical Left
moved into the Dean campaign with both people and money, creating what
the clueless media called the "Dean Phenomenon".

By building on the left-wing base in the Democrat party and the
"Hate Bush" crowd, the campaign has already resulted in a consensus
among the aspirants, minus Joe Lieberman, to withdraw the U.S. from
Iraq and turn the operation over to the U.N. And, if past is prologue,
i.e., Vietnam, once the U.S. leaves it will not go back under any
circumstances, possibly even the destruction of Israel. Should George
W. Bush be defeated in November we could expect to see the dominoes
start to fall in the secular Islamic countries and The Clash of
Civilizations, predicted several years ago by Samuel Huntington, would
then become a life changing event in all of our lives.

What surprised the Jihadists following the 9/11 attack was how
American sentiment mobilized around the president and a profound sense
of patriotism spread across the country. They were not expecting this
reaction, based on what had happened in the past, nor were they
expecting the determined resolve of the President himself. I also
believe this is one of the reasons we have not had any further attacks
within our borders. They are content to wait, just as one of their
tactical mentors; V.I. Lenin admonished..."two steps forward, one step
back".

A couple additional events serve as valuable footnotes to the
current circumstances we face: the destruction of the human assets
factor of the CIA during the Carter presidency, presided over by the
late Senator Frank Church. This fact has plagued our intelligence
agencies right up to this very day with consequences which are now
obvious. And, Jimmy Carter himself, the one man who must bear the bulk
of the responsibility for setting the stage of the Third Jihad.
Americans should find little comfort in how the Democrat contenders
constantly seek the "advice and counsel" of this despicable hypocrite.

Lastly, we should not expect to see any meaningful cooperation
from Western Europe, especially the French. Since failing to protect
their own interests in Algeria (by turning the country over to the
first of the Arab terrorists, Ammad Ben Bella), the country itself is
now occupied by Islamic immigrants totaling twenty percent of the
population.

We are in the battle of our lives, a battle which will go on for
many years possibly even generations. If we fail to understand what we
are facing or falter in the challenge of "knowing our enemy" the
results will be catastrophic. Imagine a world where al Qaeda regimes
control 75% of the world's oil, have at their disposal nuclear
weapons, legions of willing suicide soldiers, and our national
survival is dependent on the good graces of Kofi Annan and the United
Nations.

There is one final footnote which may be the scariest of all.
Either none of the Democrats currently leading the drive to their
party's nomination are aware of the facts of the Great Caliphate and
Third Jihad or they do know and they don't care so long as their power
lust is satisfied. But, I can guarantee you one thing for sure: some
of their most ardent supporters are aware of this and will do anything
they can to bring it about.

posted in Boortz - 0 replies

day after tomorrow

2004-06-13T15:26:16Z

Anyone seen this yet? Just got back from it. Curious of everyone's thoughts ...

posted in Boortz - 7 replies

Good news from Iraq - couldn't resist

2004-06-11T21:58:01Z

Good news from Iraq - bet you didn't know there was any?
(Update: A very warm thank you to Andrew Sullivan and Glenn Reynolds for their support and publicity (and by the looks of it, many many others))

(Update II: You can now find the second installment of "Good news from Iraq" here)

Prisoner abuse, Shia uprising, prisoner abuse, Fallujah, prisoner abuse, lost heart and minds, prisoner abuse... Oh, did I mention prisoner abuse?

The news from Iraq has been consistently bad for two month now, with one "quagmire" after another cheering up the media, the left and the "Arab street", and depressing the hell out of most conservatives.

So, for a change, here's some good news from Iraq that you might have missed (I don't know how that could have happened):

DEMOCRACY TAKES ROOT: Democracy is spreading - from the ground up, as it should: "In the province of Dhi Qar, about 230 miles southeast of Baghdad and a backwater even by Iraq's standards, residents voting as families will have elected city councils in 16 of the 20 biggest cities by next month."

And in Baghdad, "American authorities created nine district councils... with representatives sent by 88 neighborhood advisory councils. The district councils, in turn, sent representatives to the Baghdad City Advisory Council to work with the American administration." "Every day the evidence is a little stronger that the council members understand the benefits of this system, and we even see signs out in the community of it catching on."

Meanwhile, a Western PR firm, with Arab partners, tackles the world's toughest ad campaign - selling democracy to Iraqis accustomed to life under a dictatorship.

HEALTHIER, WEALTHIER AND WISER: "[M]y salary was about 17 US$ before the war. Shortly after the war it was raised to 120 US$. Three months after that, they made it 150 US$. Two months later it became 200$... [and] from the next month... [it] will be around 300 US$" - read the whole extensive piece on salaries, unemployment, and the standard of living. It makes a fascinating living.

And there's also good news for retired government employees, who are finally getting decent pensions. And the 80,000 needy families, who are being taken care of by the Iraqi Minister of Labour and Public Affairs (with 300,000 more by the year's end). According to the Minister, Sami Azara Al Majoon: "We have rehabilitated the orphanages, the centres for the handicapped and special needs institutions in Iraq, as well as the institutions for the deaf and blind. Work is on to accommodate all the homeless and orphaned children and ensure the needs of the handicapped. In addition, we have opened 28 offices for the ministry in different parts of the country to accept applications of Iraqi citizens in search of employment and job training."

Meanwhile, on the education front, "more than five million Iraqi students are back in school and more than 51 million new Ba'ath-free textbooks are in circulation." And Iraqi universities are experiencing a brain drain in reverse, as many of the thousands of academics forced into exile under Saddam are coming back to teach the next generation of students.

And in health, "some 100,000 healthcare professionals working in 240 re-opened hospitals and 1,200 clinics." The health system has to be rebuilt almost from scratch: "[it] was 'already badly run down' due to previous wars, sanctions, drastically reduced spending - some estimates suggest the Iraqi health budget was cut by 90 per cent during the 1990s - as well as an inequitable health treatment policy."

SPIRITS REVIVE: "In a stunning upset victory, the Iraq national football team defeated Saudi Arabia tonight 3 to 1 to earn a trip to the 2004 Olympic Summer games in Athens." It's the first time in Iraq's history that Iraqi football team will compete in the Olympics. Better still, the soccer stadium in Baghdad won't be used by Saddam anymore as an outdoor torture chamber, and Iraqi soccer player know that if they fail in the future they won't be tortured by Uday Hussein.

Other areas of life previously suppressed are experiencing cultural revival - like traditional Kurdish music. "Before, Arab music was the most popular, but now even the latest albums aren't selling... Many more people are buying Kurdish music," says Niyaz Zangana, who runs the popular Zang record store in Arbil.

Not just Kurds, but also Marsh Arabs, whose homeland was destroyed by Saddam as collective punishment for rebellion, are reviving. With the marshes being reflooded and ecosystem restored, the ancient culture is returning to the mouths of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers.

THE RECONSTRUCTION: "Iraqi crude oil sales since last year's U.S.-led invasion hit more than $9 billion... The Coalition Provisional Authority had deposited a total of $9.28 billion in its Development Fund for Iraq."

"Some 20,000 contractors are doing business in the country with relatively few security problems... Most are sharing in the $18.4 billion that has been allocated by the U.S. government to rebuild roads, public utilities, schools, housing and other parts of the Iraq economy."

John Roberts, a contracting officer with the Army Corps of Engineers, says: "Saddam Hussein used power as a reward and punishment... Power's important to us (Americans) because we see power as relating to the people." While the Army Corps of Engineers has been mostly restoring oil infrastructure, it is also "creating and improving ports, airports, roads, bridges, schools and health clinics. The corps has replaced more than 700 electrical towers throughout Iraq, Roberts said. The goal is to restore 6,000 megawatts to the national grid by June 1. About 4,500 megawatts are currently on the national grid."

In fact, overall "about 2,200 different [reconstruction] projects worth around US$2.5 billion were under way, with 18,000 already completed. Targets had been met with oil production, which was back to 2.3 million barrels a day, clean drinking water and power."

Meanwhile, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce welcomes the establishment of an American Chamber of Commerce in Iraq -- "AmCham for short."

And while the big guys work on the big stuff, a lot of private charity work is going on under the radar, be it donations of toys for Iraqi children, helping with supplies and equipment for Iraqi schools, or this latest appeal: "In response to a request from the U.S. 1st Marine Division, Spirit of America donated 10,000 school supply kits, 3 tons of medical supplies and 2 tons of Frisbees printed with 'Friendship' in English and Arabic. These items will be given to Iraqis by the Marines as gifts of friendship from the American people."

THE SECURITY SITUATION: Fallujah is revolting and al-Sadr is stirring trouble in the Shia south, but the Kurd-controlled areas are going so well that you never hear anything about them: "American soldiers based here don't have to call in air strikes against foreign fighters or exchange gunfire with Baathist loyalists. Nor do they live in mortal fear of deadly IEDs, or improvised explosive devices, along the roadsides. In fact, says one soldier who travels in this area, 'I always see the thumbs up, and little kids offer us candies'."

Speaking of Fallujah, the US-appointed retired major-general, Mohammed Abdul-Latif, seems to be having a calming effect on the locals: "We can make [the US] use their rifles against us or we can make them build our country, it's your choice," he has told "a gathering of more than 40 sheikhs, city council members and imams in an eastern Fallujah suburb... As he spoke, many sheikhs nodded in approval and listened with reverence. Later, they clasped his hands and patted him on the back."

Elsewhere, "Accused of being collaborators with American occupation forces, Iraqi policemen, guards, and soldiers have endured ridicule, threats, and targeted violence that have left hundreds dead over the past year. But there are signs that hard-nosed attitudes toward the country's embattled, US-trained security forces are beginning to soften."

THE REAL PRISONER ABUSE: The story of nine Iraqis sent to Abu Ghraib prison on flimsy charges, tortured, mutilated and filmed for amusement. By Saddam Hussein. The nine men in question had their hands chopped off; now Americans are giving them new ones.

THE MIDDLE EASTERN DOMINOES: "We went to the Arab countries and said, 'Look, you need to come together with a blueprint for Arab reform. If you do not articulate such a blueprint, one may be forced upon you.' We in Jordan are in the clear: We have our plans and are not using regional problems as an excuse. We are moving forward, as are some of the other moderate countries. But the rest of you, 'Wake up!' The Middle East is changing. If you don't get that process going, one will be forced on you." - King Abdullah of Jordan in an interview with "Washington Post".

Had enough? Now back to prisoner abuse, al-Sadr, terrorism, prisoner abuse...

posted in Boortz - 0 replies

"Good News" Stories About Iraq?

2004-06-11T21:44:41Z

This came from the Baltimore Chronicle (http://www.baltimorechronicle.com/). Not necessarily objective reporting.

Sinclair TV: "Good News" Stories About Iraq?
by William Hughes

Sinclair Broadcast Group, an owner of 62 television stations (including Baltimore's Fox 45) in 39 markets around the country, is sick and tired of all that supposedly "bad news" coming out of Iraq. It has decided to do something about it, too. Beginning this month, it plans to broadcast programs from that ill-fated Arab country that will emphasize "the positive" about Iraq, according to an article by David Folkenflik in the Baltimore Sun (02/18/04), entitled, "In Iraq, Going for the Upbeat."

The two media geniuses who have taken on this fact-defying mission, are Sinclair's Jon Leiberman, its Washington, DC bureau chief, and Mark Hyman. Hyman is Sinclair's vice-president for corporate relations and its chief propagandist. Most recently, he has been boring audiences to tears with his right wing commentaries. He's big on ranting, a la Rush Limbaugh, about "government regulations." Some of Hyman's predictable spiels have come directly from US-British-Occupied Iraq. I'm sure the White House crowd just loves hearing them.

The dynamic duo contend that the liberal media outlets have failed "to balance the bad news with the good" with respect to the Neocon-inspired invasion and occupation of Iraq.

"On the team of 'good news' commentators about Iraq, I would recommend to Sinclair three of the biggest warmongering members of the U.S. Congress: Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-CT), Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA) and Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX). All of them pushed, like mad dogs, for a U.S. war with Iraq. These three are typical of a revolting clique of political pygmies that have come to infest the Congress of our once-proud Republic."

Leiberman, however, did concede that it takes "a little bit of digging to find good news" about Iraq.

Hyman insists the reporters for the major media stay almost exclusively in the "safe Baghdad zone behind U.S. tanks and Iraqi security posts." He believes that the programs that he is preparing will show "more of a sense of what's happening beyond, 'There was a car-bombing today.'" Oh, really?

Question: Instead of trying to sell us the "good news" about Iraq, why doesn't Sinclair just tell the American people the TRUTH? The notion of wanting to broadcast so-called "good news" sounds like it intends to shill for the Bush-Cheney Gang, a proposition I'm sure it would deny.

The Baltimore Sun's" article on Sinclair's intention to puff up the "good news" on Iraq couldn't have come at a worse time. On page 1 of that same Baltimore newspaper, it was reported that Nicholas Spry, a 19-year old paratrooper from Kent County, MD, had been killed on Feb. 17 outside Baghdad. He was assigned to the 82nd Airborne. Spry was only a few months past his high school graduation. He was the eighth Marylander to die in that bloody conflict. Five hundred and forty-four of America's finest sons and daughters have also died in that war, and 3,087 have been wounded (lunaville.org). The cost of the Iraqi War, to date, is around $102 billion (costofwar.com), with billions more from our fading treasury slated to be wasted in the arrogant name of "exporting democracy" to a land that had fostered one of world's most ancient civilizations.

Hyman and Leiberman probably won't be mentioning Spry's tragic death, the rising U.S. fatality figures, the climbing wounded numbers, or the increasing cost to the American taxpayers in any of their "good news" stories about the Iraqi War. Heck, that wouldn't make any sense. It surely wouldn't be "good news" if they did.

Instead, I have a suggestion for Sinclair. Why don't they invite, to Iraq, the people responsible for getting the U.S. into that unnecessary war to serve as "guest commentators" on their programs? The ones I have in mind are masters at spinning little or no facts to suit their hawkish policy objectives. If anybody can find something "good" to say about the devastation created by the Iraq War, it will be these characters. They are the same guys who wrongly insisted Iraq's Saddam Hussein had WMD, ties to the al-Qaeda terrorist network, and that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the security of the U.S.

On my "A" Team of "commentators" would be the ultra-hawk, V.P. Dick Cheney; followed closely by "Dr. Strangelove," the deputy Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz; and then, by the Secretary of Defense, himself, Donald Rumsfeld, the finest lackey the Miltiary-Industrial Complex every had.

On the "B" Team, there is that slippery "Mother of All Neocons," Richard Perle; along with his fellow Chicken Hawks and cronies, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser. They all urged a pre-emptive U.S. strike against Iraq, just like the Zionist ranter, Israel's Ariel "Bloody" Sharon had.

On the "C" Team of "good news" commentators about Iraq, I would recommend to Sinclair three of the biggest warmongering members of the U.S. Congress: Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-CT), Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA) and Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX). All of them pushed, like mad dogs, for a U.S. war with Iraq. These three are typical of a revolting clique of political pygmies that have come to infest the Congress of our once-proud Republic. They are a sorry lot, indeed. The increase of that particular ilk in our public councils presages the continuing decline of our nation.

In any event, Sinclair's one-two punch of Leiberman and Hyman would deserve credit for warning the American public in advance of their plan to stage "good news" programs about Iraq. If Sinclair decides to take my generous advice and bring on board the pro-war "guest commentators," it could make for some really provocative (not necessarily truthful or honest or accurate) TV programming.

Oh, just one more thing, the Sinclair telecasters might not want to let the Iraqi people know that their "guest commentators," are the same disgusting bloodthirsty creeps who were responsible for advocating the destruction of their country. Things could get ugly if that got out! And, that, for sure, wouldn't make for "good news."

© William Hughes 2004. William Hughes is the author of Saying 'No' to the War Party (Iuniverse, Inc.) available online. He can be reached at: liamhughes@mindspring.com.

posted in Boortz - 0 replies

good bush article in arab news

2004-06-11T21:31:50Z

Good News for Bush, but Situation Remains Fluid
Dr. James J. Zogby, Arab News

WASHINGTON, 9 June 2004 — After enduring a number of setbacks during a difficult spring, President Bush appears to be in the midst of a rebound. The economic news is good, the news from Iraq shows some improvement, and the president’s schedule has provided him several opportunities to focus public attention on his campaign theme of “providing strong leadership for America”.

As a result, the president’s poll numbers have risen slightly and one prominent pundit, who has developed a scientific model that has correctly predicted the outcome of every election since 1984, now says that Bush appears to be a likely winner in November.

Just one month ago, Bush was in the midst of a string of setbacks. A series of books had been published revealing embarrassing information about his presidency.

The Sept. 11 commission provided a number of damaging challenges to the administration. And the Abu Ghraib scandal, coupled with an insurgent-driven unraveling of the military situation in Iraq - all combined to deliver serious blows to Bush’s leadership image.

But the news has improved. The US economy continues to grow. The administration was boosted by news last week that the US added almost one million news jobs in the past four months.

News from Iraq has also been somewhat more comforting. More flexible American tactics have provided at least short-term solutions to the Fallujah insurrection and the possibility of a settlement to the Sadr rebellion.

Although the plan for the selection of Iraq’s interim government didn’t unfold as anticipated, the US’ new flexibility put the administration in the position of being able to embrace the outcome and call it a victory. Evidence of this was on display last week as a confident President Bush appeared in the White House Rose Garden delivering an upbeat message of Iraq now on a track for democracy.

That address, coupled with Bush’s appearance at the official commemoration of Washington’s new World War II memorial, other Memorial Day activities, and his stirring commencement address to an obviously supportive Air Force Academy graduating class, provided the president with a number of very positive media opportunities that he used with great effectiveness.

Now in the midst of a European tour, with visits to the Vatican, Rome, Paris, and culminating at a Normandy 60th D-Day anniversary commemoration, the White House is assured of several more days of positive news stories dominating the US media.

All of this has had an obvious effect on the presidential race. Bush’s events have drowned out challenger John Kerry’s weeklong efforts to challenge the Bush administration’s national security policy.

A series of Kerry press events and policy speeches focusing on a range of initiatives have all been reduced to secondary stories in the face of the White House’s blitz. With this has come an uptick in public opinion polls.

A few weeks ago, Bush was trailing behind Kerry in most major polls. He now holds a slight lead in many. The country is too politically divided for any major swing to occur, but the change in the White House’s fortunes has nevertheless produced measurable results.

Late last week I hosted American University professor Allan Lichtman on my Abu Dhabi TV “Viewpoint” program. Lichtman is the analyst who has developed a scientific model for predicting the outcome of presidential elections.

While Lichtman has been using his model to correctly call the results of every race since 1984, he has based his approach on an analysis of the past 35 presidential contests going back to 1860. Instead of utilizing polling data, Lichtman analyzes macro trends in the economy and the society. He has identified 13 such indicators and calls them his “13 Keys”.

According to Lichtman for the incumbent to win reelection, he needs to hold at least eight of these “13 Keys”. The “13 Keys” are:

1. The Incumbent party holds more seats in the US House of Representatives after the mid-term election;

2. There is no real contest for the incumbent nomination;

3. The incumbent-party is the current president;

4. There is no real third-party;

5. The economy is not in recession;

6. Per capita economic growth is improving;

7. The administration effected major policy changes;

8. There is no major social unrest;

9. The incumbent is untainted by major scandal;

10. There have been no major military or foreign policy failures;

11. There was a major military or foreign policy success;

12. The incumbent is charismatic or a national hero; and

13. The challenger is not charismatic and not a national hero.

According to Lichtman’s assessment, Bush currently can claim the eight keys necessary to win. (Bush has “Keys” 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 11 and 13.) The four “Keys” Bush loses are 6, 7, 10 and 12. “Key” nine is still unclear.

Since most of the “Keys” are macro, or long-term indicators, Lichtman sees little change possible with most of them. The two, however, that could change are numbers 9 and 11.

If, for example, any of the currently outstanding investigations (9/11, Abu Ghraib, pre-Iraq war intelligence and the leak of a CIA agent’s identity) expand and lead directly to the White House, then Bush will lose “Key” 9. And if Iraq takes a turn for the worse and Afghanistan, the one domestically perceived foreign policy success, unravels dramatically enough to change public perception, then Bush would lose “Key” 11 and could, therefore, according to Lichtman, be in trouble.

The situation is still somewhat fluid. But, as it stands today, if Bush’s good fortune holds, his edge in the polls may remain and he could continue to hold enough “Keys” to be reelected in November.

— Dr. James J. Zogby is the president of Arab American Institute. For comments or information, contact jzogby@aaiusa.org or http://www.aaiusa.org.

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7&section=0&article=46483&d=9&m=6&y=2004

posted in Boortz - 0 replies

Bush in the "polls"

2004-06-11T21:15:31Z

Some good thoughts from Neal here.

MEDIA REJOICES AS POLL SHOWS BUSH BEHIND

You really do have to wonder about the media sometimes. It must be awfully difficult to sit there and constantly dream up new ways to bash the President. Somehow, they always seem to get it done. Their latest obsession is a single poll in a single newspaper that shows The Poodle ahead of President Bush by six or seven points. BFD. But judging by their reporting, you would think the election was five minutes away instead of over five months.

"Kerry surges ahead of Bush" scream the headlines...but you have to ask yourself...what if the situation were reversed? Would they report that "Bush surges ahead of Kerry?" Of course not...if Bush led Kerry by six or seven points, it would be reported as a "thin margin," and the president would be "barely leading" in the polls. They would tell us that it was within the margin of error, and it was inconclusive.

Let's try to keep this in perspective, Bush's father was 17 points behind Michael Dukakis in the summer of 1988, and he was elected with relative ease. Who they polled...what questions were asked...how many were polled...these all figure into the polling result.

Enough with the polls. nobody cares. Why, after all, do newspapers take polls? To create news and to give them something to cover, that's why. Isn't there something just a little bit curious about newspapers going out there to create news to cover?

posted in Boortz - 3 replies

Boortz Iraq war justification

2004-06-10T22:33:01Z

Ironically, I found this here: http://www.freedom2008.com/bootboortz/archives/002579.html. This seems to be reasonable IMHO, but I suppose the Boot Boortz people thought that it was incriminating? I dunno. Look's good to me though.

http://boortz.com/includes/archive/

May 7, 2003

WHY DO WE HAVE TO GO OVER THIS TIME AND TIME AGAIN?

Well, the answer to that question is clear. We have to go over this time after time because there are certain people out there, we'll call them "liberals," who are still in a state of despair and shock over President Bush's successful removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and the liberation of the Iraqi people.

Day after day we read news stories, columns and various opinion pieces from the Molly Ivins brigade trumpeting Bush's failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. This presumably means that the entire Iraqi effort was illegitimate and, perhaps, that Bush ought to be defeated in 2004, at best, or impeached, at worst for his failure.

OK, folks. One more time .. by the numbers ...

1.Both the UN and the United States had knowledge of Saddam's WMDs.

2.The UN ordered Saddam to destroy his WMDs.

3.Saddam agreed to destroy his WMDs.

4.Saddam agreed to provide evidence of the destruction of his WMDs

5.Before destroying his WMDs Saddam kicked the UN inspectors out of Iraq.

6.After Saddam kicked out the inspectors there was evidence that he began a program to hide his WMDs

7.Saddam now claims that he destroyed his WMDs, after he kicked out the weapons inspectors.

8.Saddam has never failed any evidence that he destroyed the WMDs.

9.Three UN resolutions, Numbers 678, 687 and 1441 authorize either the UN or any member state to use force against Saddam Hussein if he fails to abide by his agreements to destroy his WMDs, and to document that destruction.

10.The United States, Great Britain, Australia, Spain and about 38 other nations banded together to act against Saddam in compliance with those three UN resolutions.

It's just that easy. Any questions?

posted in Boortz - 0 replies

hypocritical Kerry quotes

2004-06-09T04:14:58Z

Though Kerry often uses Bush Sr.’s Desert Storm as an example of how to do it right in 2004, here is what he said in 1991 during that effort. “I voted in favor of a resolution that would have insisted that economic sanctions be given more time to work and against a resolution giving the president the immediate authority to go to war” January 22, 1991. Nine days later on January 31, 1991, he said this, “From the outset of the invasion, I have strongly and unequivocally supported President Bush's response to the crisis and the policy goals he has established with our military deployment in the Persian Gulf”. (Oddly enough, he said these two opposite things to the same person in response to two separate letters).

In this example, Kerry also chooses not to mention the fact that France, (the single vote that blocked UN support for Operation Iraqi Freedom, was also the single vote that blocked UN support for Operation Desert Storm in 1991. France agreed only after Hussein invaded Kuwait and was amassing troops on the Saudi border, and even then, only to ejecting Hussein from Kuwait leaving the brutal dictator in power which led to the starvation of thousands of innocent Iraqi children while Kerry’s UN friends illegally profited from the oil for food program.

On November 12, 1997, Kerry said “where's the backbone of Russia, where's the backbone of France?” concerning their blatant disregard for Hussein’s illegal actions.

On February 23, 1998 Kerry said, “It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis” concerning “Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs” which he spoke about again on October 9, 1998.

On September 6, 2002 Kerry said, “If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community's already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement, even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act”.

On October 9, 2002 Kerry said “I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security”.

Kerry went on to say, “The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real”, that “He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons” and that “The Iraqi regime's record over the decade leaves little doubt that Saddam Hussein wants to retain his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and to expand it to include nuclear weapons. We cannot allow him to prevail in that quest”.

On January 23, 2003 Kerry said, “Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein” because “the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real”.

On September 14, 2003 Kerry said, “I don’t think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops” as he prepared to vote against the $87 Billion needed to equip our troops with the very materials he would later complain that they lacked and desperately needed.

On December 15, 2003 Kerry changed his story to “Iraq may not be the war on terror itself, but it is critical to the outcome of the war on terror, and therefore any advance in Iraq is an advance forward in that”.

By January 30, 2004, now candidate John Kerry shifted his story to “I think there has been an exaggeration” (meaning by the Bush administration) going on to say “They are misleading all Americans in a profound way”.

On April 27, 2004, Kerry said “George Bush sold us on going to war with Iraq based on the threat of weapons of mass destruction” ignoring his own statements on the topic.

At last, candidate Kerry has come full circle, aligning himself and his story with that of the anti-Bush, anti-war, and yes, anti American left whose support he desperately needs in order to be elected President of these United States.

On May 13, 2004 Kerry said “I will fight a more effective war on terror because I would never have thrown out of the door or window the obligations of the Geneva Conventions”, but April of 1971 he said “I committed the same kinds of atrocities as thousands of others in that I shot in free fire zones, used harassment and interdiction fire, joined in search and destroy missions, and burned villages”.

On February 18, 1970 Kerry said “I’m an internationalist. “I’d like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations” and on March 8, 2004 candidate Kerry said his foreign friends (France) privately told him “'You've got to win this, you've got to beat this guy, we need a new policy”, clearly more concerned with world opinion than American sovereignty.

http://www.americandaily.com/article/383

posted in Boortz - 0 replies

doesn't get much funnier than this ...

2004-06-09T03:52:40Z

Union Protests Disrupt Democrats' Plans
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: June 8, 2004
Filed at 8:24 p.m. ET

BOSTON (AP) -- Hundreds of union pickets sympathetic to a police labor dispute on Tuesday surrounded the site of the Democratic National Convention, delaying the start of preparations for the political gathering in July.

Union firefighters, electricians and other trade workers joined police officers protesting their lack of a contract and a long-simmering dispute with Mayor Thomas Menino. The 1,400-member police union has been without a contract for two years. Talks broke down Monday, with each side blaming the other for the impasse.

The picketing, scheduled to continue around the clock, coincided with the start of a $14 million construction project to prepare the FleetCenter, a sports arena, for the Democratic National Convention on July 26-29. Telecommunications workers already have said they won't cross police pickets to install thousands of miles of telephone and data lines.

Pickets gathered at the city's North Station commuter site, which shares a building with the FleetCenter, to hand out leaflets critical of Menino. Some held signs reading, ``Friends Don't Let Friends Cross Picket Lines.''

``The message is being sent that we're serious,'' said Thomas Nee, president of the Boston Police Patrolmen's Association. ``Solidarity is alive and well in Boston.''

Menino, who worked to bring the convention to his city, showed no sign of relenting. He said his legal team was exploring whether the protest violated an agreement between FleetCenter management and the police union to limit the number of picketers who will be on the property through July 23, the Friday before the convention begins.

``We're looking at crunch time, but I have an obligation to the citizens of Boston as well,'' the mayor said. ``I'm not going to mortgage my city's future.''

Menino said he had not been in recent contact with the Democratic National Committee about the union troubles, nor had he spoken with Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, the party's presumptive presidential nominee.

Kerry said Tuesday that he was ``sure everything will work itself out.''

Massachusetts Sen. Edward Kennedy issued a statement calling for ``an all-out effort to reach an agreement that's fair for the workers and fair for the city.''

The Democratic National Convention Committee, which is organizing the event, declined comment Tuesday.

Faced with crossing the picket line Tuesday, many subcontractors reporting for work turned back instead, including a fleet of 18 moving trucks driven by Teamsters.

``We've been Teamsters for 43 years,'' said Ed Owens, president of Owens Movers. ``We don't cross picket lines. Our guys were excited. It's the biggest move in Boston. It was disappointing.''

The Greater Boston Labor Council, which represents 90,000 workers in 93 unions in the area, on Monday rejected a project labor agreement that promised no union strikes if convention organizers used only unionized labor on construction projects at the FleetCenter. Unless the trade unions agree to cross the picket line, convention planners could be forced to hire nonunion workers, an unthinkable prospect for a Democratic Party built on a foundation of organized labor.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Democratic-Convention.html?ex=1087358400&en=cac8ff79812834e9&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

posted in Boortz - 0 replies

Badnarik and the war on terror

2004-06-08T14:21:09Z

Found this in an interview. Reference the thread under the "Boortz for pres?" topic.

TLE: What would you have done if you had been the President when the World Trade Center was attacked?

BADNARIK: A policy of strict non-intervention should not be construed to be an indication of weakness or pacifism. The Libertarian philosophy says that you cannot INITIATE the use of force. Most Libertarians strongly support the use of lethal force to protect life and property. The same rule applies to international relations. We cannot justify sending our troops around the world because it makes some people feel better, however we have every right to retaliate against an unprovoked attack. Had I been President on September 11th, I would have gathered all of the evidence available to our intelligence agencies, and I would have shared that information with the American people. Then I would have insisted on a declaration of war from Congress before I deployed any of our troops. More important still would have been a well defined mission statement that would clearly identify what conditions constitute an end to the war. The current administration has declared a "war on terrorism" which is a broad, abstract concept. Since there are no clear boundaries as to what constitutes terrorism, this war is one that could presumably last even longer than the ill-fated War in Vietnam.

TLE: Would you please comment on this government's invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, and, more generally, the "War on Terror"?

BADNARIK: I think I've covered these topics in my previous answer.

http://www.webleyweb.com/tle/tle265-20040404-02.html

My feeling here is that the idea of taking the intelligence to the people a notoriously bad idea. I certainly hope he wouldn't expect the general populace to make some sort of mob-rule democratic decision about whether or not the country should go to war, because that again could be disasterous. Going to war is not a decision for the public to make. Also, I believe that the sharing of "intelligence," particulalry sharing sentitive "intelligence" with the public is a bad idea, as it could make the wrong individuals privy to it as well. Besides, if so much of our intelligence was as bad as it was said to be regarding Iraq, then what good would it have done to share the intelligence with us anyway? (I do realize that is a hindsight argument; it was only meant rhetorically.)

The government is the nightwatchman, there to defend the people; they are the experts here! They are the ones with all the intelligence and the people trained to understand it. If I am going to have to defend myself, or make decisions about defending myself, I don't need the government. We can just return to Hobbes' state of nature and be done with it.

I for one believe that terrorism is VERY well defined; terrorism is the use of terror in the form of fear or violence to achieve a particular aim or goal (in this case, the destruction of the West). And the war on terrorism is VERY well defined; stop through use of force if necessary the people who are directly or indirectly contributing to terroism. Though it is not politically correct to say so, I believe we all know EXACTLY what we are looking for if we are warned by federal authorities to be watchful for suicide bombers. And I am interested in my own life and the lives of my fellow Americans and my fellow inhabitants of this planet that I am willing to go along with the idea of our government taking the lives of a few fanatic terrorists to possibly save the lives of billions more. Though I did not support this war at all at first, I am glad we liberated Iraq, whether it was a "collateral victory" or not, and I hope that we are able to free others in the same way from the tyranny of other despotic terrorist governments.

Anyway, enough of my ranting. I hope this gives you something to go on regarding our former discussion. Thanks everyone! -- Ryan

posted in Boortz - 2 replies

Boortz for pres?

2004-06-07T17:27:08Z

I'd enjoy seeing Boortz create a new third-party, maybe call it the common sense party - and use his soapbox to run for president...I think I would even help start his fund-raising efforts a few years in advance...he doubt he would have a snow balls chance in hell to win, but I think he could help reshape the issues and become much more visible in the process...and bring the issue of what freedom really is into focus..

posted in Boortz - 6 replies

new to tribe!

2004-06-07T13:33:36Z

Hello everyone! I am a BIG Boortz fan, and I never suspected a tribe like this would exist! This is great! He is not very popular among mainstream libertarians as you all know, because of his views on WW4, so I kind of keep it quiet in mixed company. ;-) Anyway, glad this is here! I will visit often! -- Ryan

posted in Boortz - 5 replies

Want a Different Abu Ghraib Story?

2004-06-07T13:27:55Z

Want a Different
Abu Ghraib Story?
Try This One

Saddam had their hands cut off. America gave them new ones.

BY DANIEL HENNINGER

By now, some Americans may feel the need for respite from the images of Abu Ghraib and the five hooded barbarians standing behind Nick Berg. This week's column will try to provide some measure of respite. It is the story of Americans, in and out of the U.S. government, who moved mountains to help seven horribly maimed Iraqi men. It is not always pleasant reading, but there are rewards to staying with it, especially now.

Quite obviously it has been decided, as the handling of the Abu Ghraib story makes plain, that when America stumbles, we are going to have our faces rubbed in it. And rubbed in it and rubbed in it. As far as I can make out, the purpose of this two weeks of media humiliation is that we--the president, all of us--are being asked to morally prostrate ourselves before the rest of the world. Some may choose to do so, but this story should make a few Americans want to simply stand up straight again.

As perfect justice, the story in fact begins in Abu Ghraib prison, in 1995. With Iraq's economy in a tailspin, Saddam arrested nine Iraqi businessmen to scapegoat them as dollar traders. They got a 30-minute "trial," and were sentenced, after a year's imprisonment, to have their right hands surgically cut off at Abu Ghraib prison.

The amputations were performed, over two days, by a Baghdad anesthesiologist, a surgeon and medical staff. We know this because Saddam had a videotape made of each procedure. He had the hands brought to him in formalin and then returned to Abu Ghraib. Oh, one more thing: The surgeon carved an X of shame into the forehead of each man. And the authorities charged the men $50.

Last year, after we liberated Iraq, a veteran TV news producer named Don North--who has worked for major U.S. broadcasters--was in Baghdad with the U.S. to restore TV service. Iraqi contacts there brought him a tape of the men's amputations. Mr. North says dismemberment was common in Saddam's Iraq and that if one walks down a crowded Baghdad street one may see a half-dozen people missing an ear, eye, limb or tongue. He decided to seek out the men whose stubbed arms represented the civilized world's lowest act--the perversion of medicine. He found seven. Mr. North determined to make a documentary of their story and get medical help for them. How he found that help, if one may still use this phrase, is an all-American story.

An oil engineer from Houston, named Roger Brown, overheard Mr. North's tale in a Baghdad café. He suggested Don North get in touch with a famed Houston TV newsman named Marvin Zindler. Mr. Zindler put him in touch with Dr. Joe Agris, a Houston reconstructive surgeon, who has worked in postwar Vietnam and Nicaragua repairing children.

Mr. North sent Dr. Agris a copy of the videotape of the surgical atrocities, and Dr. Agris said: Send me the men; I will fix them.

But flying seven Iraqi men out of Baghdad is easier said than done. In this case, prodded by Don North and government friends, the famous U.S. bureaucracy gave itself a day off. Paul Bremer wrote a memo authorizing their departure. Paul Wolfowitz told the Air Force it could fly them to Frankfurt. Homeland Security waived visa requirements.

Continental Airlines donated passage to Houston. There, Dr. Agris enlisted a fellow surgeon, Fred Kestler, to assist. The Methodist Hospital donated facilities, and the men arrived in Houston in early April.

Dr. Agris saw that the Abu Ghraib "surgeries" were a botch. They'd cut through the joining of the wrist's carpal bones, "like carving a Turkey leg." Saddam's doctors did nothing to repair the nerve endings, which left the men with constant real and "phantom" pain. Drs. Agris and Kestler had two preliminary tasks: Repair the nerves, and, alas, take another inch off the men's lower arms, to leave a smooth surface for attaching their new prosthetic "hands." They worked for two days operating on the seven men, who then took a week to recover before receiving their new hands.

Those devices were donated by the German-American prosthetic company Otto Bock, at a cost of $50,000 each. They are state-of-the-art electronic hands, with fingers, which respond to trained muscular movements. The rehabilitation and training is being donated by two other Houston companies, TIRR and Dynamic Orthotics. The Iraqi men are in Houston now, spending five hours a day learning to use their new right hands. And oh yes, the brands on their heads were removed.

Don North completed his documentary on what happened to these men in Iraq. I watched "Remembering Saddam" this week. Several of the men insisted on seeing Saddam's home video of the atrocity, and so it's in the film--a bizarre, almost dainty image of forceps, scalpel, surgical gloves and green operating-room garments. Nothing like it since Dr. Mengele. Watching his hand come off, Baasim Al Fadhly says: "Look at this doctor, who considers his career noble and swears to God to be a noble person. Let everyone see this film."

This crime deserves condemnation from international medical societies, such as the U.N.'s World Health Organization, or the Red Cross. And Don North's film indeed should be seen--but may not be. After two months of trying, no U.S. broadcast or cable network will take it. This is incredible. TV can run Abu Ghraib photos 24/7 but can't find 55 minutes for Saddam's crimes against humanity? On May 23, the American Foreign Policy Council will bring the restored men to Washington. They will visit maimed GIs at Walter Reed Army Hospital. It wouldn't be surprising if they said something positive about the U.S. soldiers who have not been on television the past two weeks.

Then Don North and Joe Agris will fly with the men back to Iraq, to survey the rest of Saddam's dismembered population. "The practice of prosthetics is very archaic," Mr. North says,"for a country where this is such an affliction." Dr. Agris hopes to survey the hospitals and bring in some modern equipment and supplies. "If they let me, I'll do some of the kids," he says. "Let's show the good side of what we can do."

Sure. Why not?
Mr. Henninger is deputy editor of The Wall Street Journal's editorial page. His column appears Fridays in the Journal and on OpinionJournal.com.

posted in Boortz - 1 reply

How did you discover Boortz?

2004-06-04T17:52:35Z

I heard a lot about Neal Boortz from my friends in Atlanta growing up but didn't actually start listening to him until college. I've only recently had a chance to listen to him regularly, as I've been working normal office hours at a desk with internet access and have subjected everyone in my lab to his show. I'd say Boortz comes closest to expressing my political views of anyone I'm aware of. I don't agree with him all of the time but he's always entertaining.

posted in Boortz - 3 replies

hated boortz fans

2004-06-04T12:48:52Z

Hey! Question. Does anyone here catch hell for being a Bootrz fan, or does anyone you know even know who he is?

I have found among my age group, the vast majority have NO interest in politics and couldn't even tell you who our current Sec of Defense is. (It IS Arnold Swartzeneggar, right?) My closest friends I have actually turned on to him, and you typically tend to keep closest company with those that share your views all the way around. But, I just wonder if anyone here has ever faced hostility from anyone for listening to the HP of the CPT. Thanks!

posted in Boortz - 1 reply

great!

2004-05-21T20:34:35Z

I love Neal tell it like it is...

His only rival is Savage in terms of enjoyment, though I am more in line with Boortz's solutions to our problems..

posted in Boortz - 0 replies