In this excerpt of a speech that General Hayden, the President's new CIA director, gave back in January of this year, he points out what the NSA program acutally does and what it can't do.
Congress is aware of all of the limitations but still wants to use this non-story as a club to try and beat down the Bush administration. Will the American people fall for this line of disinformation, only time will tell.
It hurts our national security though, of this there is no doubt, but that has never stopped the Marxist Democrats from trying to destroy our government and I'm sure they will use it in the future as well to try and regain power.
Remember, to the liberal Marxist Democrats, nothing is sacred, absolutely nothing.
So let me make this clear. When you're talking to your daughter at state college, this program cannot intercept your conversations. And when she takes a semester abroad to complete her Arabic studies, this program will not intercept your communications.
Let me emphasize one more thing that this program is not and, look, I know how hard it is to write a headline that accurate and short and grabbing. But we really should shoot for all three accurate, short and grabbing. I don't think domestic spying makes it. One end of any call targeted under this program is always outside the United States.
I've flown a lot in this country, and I've taken literally hundreds of domestic flights. I have never boarded a domestic flight in the United States of America and landed in Waziristan. In the same way and I'm speaking illustratively here now, this is just an example if NSA had intercepted al Qaeda Ops Chief Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in Karachi talking to Mohamed Atta in Laurel, Maryland, in say, July of 2001 if NSA had done that, and the results had been made public, I'm convinced that the crawler on all the 7 by 24 news networks would not have been NSA domestic spying.
John B. Dwyer 5 11 06
Saturday, May 13, 2006
Friday, May 12, 2006
Snow in May?
I can't believe the evil weather that we are experiencing. We had snow last night and this morning it was thirty five degrees in southern Wisconsin. In northern Wisconsin they got four inches of snow. Come-on, whatz goin' on here?
On Tuesday of this week, I rode my bike for three hours, and on Wednesday, I was working out the field with only a tee shirt.
Hey, I'm ready for sunshine and warm breezes. Bring it on, NOW!
On Tuesday of this week, I rode my bike for three hours, and on Wednesday, I was working out the field with only a tee shirt.
Hey, I'm ready for sunshine and warm breezes. Bring it on, NOW!
Thursday, May 11, 2006
A Leopard Without Spots Is Still A - ?
I can't help but pass this along - today is a banner day for just plan great articles -
I think this will apply to many democrats in the United States as well.
Neither great nor wise
Following the election of Giorgio Napolitano – a communist – as Italian president, there is great rejoicing in the European media who have been eagerly painting a picture of a great, wise and reasonable statesman. This is what the UK Telegraph had to say:
Mr Napolitano is widely respected for his coolness and balance. A former interior minister and parliament speaker, he was one of the major reformers of the Italian Communist party, forcing it to change its name to the Left Democrats and drop the hammer and sickle.
This could not be more absurd. The man is a life-long communist and as such he can neither be great nor wise nor reasonable.
Communists believe in something that is patently false and work for things that cannot but fail. They do this in a complete contravention of common sense and in the face of overwhelming empirical evidence showing the wrongness of their course. A man who devotes his life to this cause is none of the above. At best, he is woefully confused.
Vasko Kohlmayer 5 11 06
I think this will apply to many democrats in the United States as well.
Neither great nor wise
Following the election of Giorgio Napolitano – a communist – as Italian president, there is great rejoicing in the European media who have been eagerly painting a picture of a great, wise and reasonable statesman. This is what the UK Telegraph had to say:
Mr Napolitano is widely respected for his coolness and balance. A former interior minister and parliament speaker, he was one of the major reformers of the Italian Communist party, forcing it to change its name to the Left Democrats and drop the hammer and sickle.
This could not be more absurd. The man is a life-long communist and as such he can neither be great nor wise nor reasonable.
Communists believe in something that is patently false and work for things that cannot but fail. They do this in a complete contravention of common sense and in the face of overwhelming empirical evidence showing the wrongness of their course. A man who devotes his life to this cause is none of the above. At best, he is woefully confused.
Vasko Kohlmayer 5 11 06
Iranian Hijinks
The letter from the Iranian president to President Bush is more than meets the eye - there seem to be a lot of fine print. Like why did he release the letter to the press before he sent it to Bush?
This article brings some perspective to this situation and how we should possibility respond -
http://www.americanthinker.com/comments.php?comments_id=5119
This article brings some perspective to this situation and how we should possibility respond -
http://www.americanthinker.com/comments.php?comments_id=5119
A Micro Chip for Everyone?
At first blush this doesn't seem all that bad because it would help in just about everything that we do that requires identification. But looking closer at the fine print we see there definitely is a down side to having someone else control every aspect of your life -
It's coming for sure but we need to know the entire impact of this new technology before we say it's for the betterment of all society.
We Are the Borg, Resistance Is Futile: Part II
Yesterday, Mark Nestmann compared the present-day practice of implanting microchips under people's skin to the fictional characters "the Borg" in Star Trek: Next Generation, who implanted every member of their society to create a "hive intelligence." Today, he continues to discuss this escalating trend - that could make the average consumer or citizen a somewhat "Borg-like" individual. Dear A-Letter Reader:
As more industries point out the advantages of implanting microchips under individuals' skin, you have to wonder if the day will come when resistance to this new "safer, easier" method of identification really will be futile.
Banks are already excited about the prospects of implantable microchips. Credit and debit cards can be lost or stolen, putting your money at risk. But an implanted microchip can also link you directly to your bank account and can never be lost. In addition, it eliminates the need to use cash. Why risk using cash, which can be lost or stolen, when a more secure microchip implant is available?
Banks also dislike cash, because it doesn't earn money for the bank. Governments don't like cash because cash isn't easily tracked. It doesn't take much imagination to predict that once implantable microchips are widely used for financial transactions, momentum will build for cash to be eliminated (as a security and anti-crime measure, of course).
A world with most humans living with implantable microchips could evolve into the ultimate police state. Microchips would replace all of current forms of ID such as passports, driver's licenses, social security and credit/debit cards. You might not be able to withdraw money from the bank without it, receive benefits from the government without it or buy or sell anything without it. The chip would also include data on your family history, address, occupation, criminal record, income tax information etc.
At the touch of a button, your assets could be frozen, medical treatment denied, etc. The ultimate punishment would be to have your chip deactivated. In that case, you could no longer exist, since all personal and financial interactions would require verification of identity and confirmation of sufficient assets to complete a transaction.
Yet, most people would probably go along with the system, because of its potential to reduce crime, make medical care more accessible, etc. "There are enough benefits that outweigh the concerns people have about privacy," claims ADS Chairman and CEO Richard Sullivan. It's even possible that an advanced microchip could be equipped with a satellite modem to allow you to browse the Internet anywhere you are. This ability begins to approach the "collective consciousness" achieved by the fictional Borg.
Proponents of implantable microchips deny such a nightmare scenario could come to pass, because their use is "voluntary." But "voluntary" is not an appropriate word to describe something that might one day be required to merely exist as a human being. I have the option of eating at different times of the day, but it cannot be said that for me eating is "voluntary."
An example of how "voluntary" is actually "involuntary" recently emerged from Great Britain, where the Tory party has proposed that pedophiles receive microchip implants after their release from prison that would allow them to be tracked by satellite. Release would be conditional on "voluntarily" receiving an implant. The government would know not only whether pedophiles visited locations such as schools or parks but, based on a proposal by one company, whether they are sexually excited.
What politician in Britain or anywhere else has the guts to stand up in favor of the privacy rights of pedophiles? Yet, by implanting microchips into the likes of pedophiles and other persons whose proclivities disgust most people, we begin descending a slippery slope into Borg-dom.
An industry that's built around tagging human beings against their will grow powerful as it consumes tax dollars and forges alliances with the rich and politically connected. Like all industries, it will try to expand its market, and create products and scenarios to make expansion politically expedient.
Lobbyists will funnel campaign contributions to politicians and urge them to expand mandatory chipping, say to parolees and ex-felons. Once this is accomplished, they'll argue that society would be safer if all convicted criminals had a chip implant. Next (for safety's sake, of course) lawmakers will require workers in high-risk or high-security occupations-police, prison guards, drivers transporting hazardous materials, etc.-to be chipped. After that, potential offenders will be tagged involuntarily-e.g., gun owners, persons working with children ...ANYONE.
There should be a core principle that microchips should never be implanted in anyone, unless it's a truly voluntary act. You'll be reading a lot about implantable microchips in the future. When governments begin proposing their use to track society's undesirables, I hope that you have the courage to stand up for their rights. For by defending their rights, you defend your own, and prevent society's descent into the Borg.
MARK NESTMANN, Wealth Preservation and Tax Consultanton behalf of The Sovereign Society assetpro@nestmann.com http://www.nestmann.com/
EDITOR'S NOTE: If you missed "Part I" of Mark Nestmann's article, click here .
It's coming for sure but we need to know the entire impact of this new technology before we say it's for the betterment of all society.
We Are the Borg, Resistance Is Futile: Part II
Yesterday, Mark Nestmann compared the present-day practice of implanting microchips under people's skin to the fictional characters "the Borg" in Star Trek: Next Generation, who implanted every member of their society to create a "hive intelligence." Today, he continues to discuss this escalating trend - that could make the average consumer or citizen a somewhat "Borg-like" individual. Dear A-Letter Reader:
As more industries point out the advantages of implanting microchips under individuals' skin, you have to wonder if the day will come when resistance to this new "safer, easier" method of identification really will be futile.
Banks are already excited about the prospects of implantable microchips. Credit and debit cards can be lost or stolen, putting your money at risk. But an implanted microchip can also link you directly to your bank account and can never be lost. In addition, it eliminates the need to use cash. Why risk using cash, which can be lost or stolen, when a more secure microchip implant is available?
Banks also dislike cash, because it doesn't earn money for the bank. Governments don't like cash because cash isn't easily tracked. It doesn't take much imagination to predict that once implantable microchips are widely used for financial transactions, momentum will build for cash to be eliminated (as a security and anti-crime measure, of course).
A world with most humans living with implantable microchips could evolve into the ultimate police state. Microchips would replace all of current forms of ID such as passports, driver's licenses, social security and credit/debit cards. You might not be able to withdraw money from the bank without it, receive benefits from the government without it or buy or sell anything without it. The chip would also include data on your family history, address, occupation, criminal record, income tax information etc.
At the touch of a button, your assets could be frozen, medical treatment denied, etc. The ultimate punishment would be to have your chip deactivated. In that case, you could no longer exist, since all personal and financial interactions would require verification of identity and confirmation of sufficient assets to complete a transaction.
Yet, most people would probably go along with the system, because of its potential to reduce crime, make medical care more accessible, etc. "There are enough benefits that outweigh the concerns people have about privacy," claims ADS Chairman and CEO Richard Sullivan. It's even possible that an advanced microchip could be equipped with a satellite modem to allow you to browse the Internet anywhere you are. This ability begins to approach the "collective consciousness" achieved by the fictional Borg.
Proponents of implantable microchips deny such a nightmare scenario could come to pass, because their use is "voluntary." But "voluntary" is not an appropriate word to describe something that might one day be required to merely exist as a human being. I have the option of eating at different times of the day, but it cannot be said that for me eating is "voluntary."
An example of how "voluntary" is actually "involuntary" recently emerged from Great Britain, where the Tory party has proposed that pedophiles receive microchip implants after their release from prison that would allow them to be tracked by satellite. Release would be conditional on "voluntarily" receiving an implant. The government would know not only whether pedophiles visited locations such as schools or parks but, based on a proposal by one company, whether they are sexually excited.
What politician in Britain or anywhere else has the guts to stand up in favor of the privacy rights of pedophiles? Yet, by implanting microchips into the likes of pedophiles and other persons whose proclivities disgust most people, we begin descending a slippery slope into Borg-dom.
An industry that's built around tagging human beings against their will grow powerful as it consumes tax dollars and forges alliances with the rich and politically connected. Like all industries, it will try to expand its market, and create products and scenarios to make expansion politically expedient.
Lobbyists will funnel campaign contributions to politicians and urge them to expand mandatory chipping, say to parolees and ex-felons. Once this is accomplished, they'll argue that society would be safer if all convicted criminals had a chip implant. Next (for safety's sake, of course) lawmakers will require workers in high-risk or high-security occupations-police, prison guards, drivers transporting hazardous materials, etc.-to be chipped. After that, potential offenders will be tagged involuntarily-e.g., gun owners, persons working with children ...ANYONE.
There should be a core principle that microchips should never be implanted in anyone, unless it's a truly voluntary act. You'll be reading a lot about implantable microchips in the future. When governments begin proposing their use to track society's undesirables, I hope that you have the courage to stand up for their rights. For by defending their rights, you defend your own, and prevent society's descent into the Borg.
MARK NESTMANN, Wealth Preservation and Tax Consultanton behalf of The Sovereign Society assetpro@nestmann.com http://www.nestmann.com/
EDITOR'S NOTE: If you missed "Part I" of Mark Nestmann's article, click here .
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
China's Has Big Internal Problems
We always get the stories from the Marxist media about China's unstoppable economy and military might and that it is foolish for us to challenged them on anything.
The liberal philosophy of defeat and pro-communist agenda works well to calm a jittery pseudo-elite that believes the only way to get along with a big bully is to fall on ones face and hope they take pity on you.
As I have mention on several occasions, the liberal is a moral and physical coward. They believe their isn't anything that is worth fighting for, even freedom, if it means losing power to control others.
If the liberal can convince others to die for a cause, like freedom, all the better. Nothing is lost. Power remains in the hands of the weak. Honor, Pride and integrity mean nothing to the liberal. They are only slogan's of the weak and confused. Everything and anyone is to be sacrificed to remain in power.
Liberals hate America and everything it stands for. The liberal believes that socialism is the best place to hide from the bright lights of reality. To stand up and risk their position of power is unthinkable.
In this article from the American Thinker it becomes clear to me that China's is anything but the monster that is going to take over the world.
America is still the only country now, and hopefully in the future, in the world that stands and fights for freedom, and believes that we have a manifest destiny to project freedom whenever and whereever we can.
China's bad debt mountain and other porblems.
China Challenges directs us to an article in The Australian about the alarming amount of non-performing loans being carried on the books of Chinese financial firms. The amount is thought to exceed one trillion dollars, or a staggering 40% of GDP.
Politics and corruption are to blame. The Australian comments
The revelation shows that half-hearted reforms have addressed merely the symptoms of ChinaÂ’s financial fragility.
Poor business practices are blamed for NPLs but the real source is political. As long as the communist party relies on state-controlled banks to maintain an unreformed core of a command economy, Chinese banks will make more bad loans.
Systemic economic waste, bank lending practices, political patronage and the survival of a one-party state are inseparably intertwined in China. The party can no longer secure the loyalty of its 70 million members through ideological indoctrination; instead, it uses material perks and careers in government and state-owned enterprises (SOEs). That is why, after nearly 30 years of economic reform, the state still owns 56 per cent of the fixed capital stock. The unreformed core of the economy is the base of political patronage.
Government figures show that, in 2003, 5.3 million party officials held executive positions in SOEs. The party appoints about 80 per cent of the chief executives in SOEs and 56 per cent of all senior corporate executives. Recent corporate governance reforms, Western-style on paper but not in substance, have made no difference. At 70 per cent of the large and medium-sized SOEs ostensibly restructured into Western-style companies, members of party committees were appointed to the boards. Painful restructuring appears to have spared this elite. China has shed more than 30 million industrial jobs since the late 1990s but few party officials have become jobless.
Our contributor Rosslyn Smith adds:
That sounds akin to the way American managers of public companies in the 1990s used a ton of accounting tricks to prop up quarterly earnings in order to keep their stock market prices high. As we know, they pulled off for a while, but eventually reality (i.e. cash flow) caught up. The article does not speculate on what may happen when a similar reality catches up to China.
5 09 06
The liberal philosophy of defeat and pro-communist agenda works well to calm a jittery pseudo-elite that believes the only way to get along with a big bully is to fall on ones face and hope they take pity on you.
As I have mention on several occasions, the liberal is a moral and physical coward. They believe their isn't anything that is worth fighting for, even freedom, if it means losing power to control others.
If the liberal can convince others to die for a cause, like freedom, all the better. Nothing is lost. Power remains in the hands of the weak. Honor, Pride and integrity mean nothing to the liberal. They are only slogan's of the weak and confused. Everything and anyone is to be sacrificed to remain in power.
Liberals hate America and everything it stands for. The liberal believes that socialism is the best place to hide from the bright lights of reality. To stand up and risk their position of power is unthinkable.
In this article from the American Thinker it becomes clear to me that China's is anything but the monster that is going to take over the world.
America is still the only country now, and hopefully in the future, in the world that stands and fights for freedom, and believes that we have a manifest destiny to project freedom whenever and whereever we can.
China's bad debt mountain and other porblems.
China Challenges directs us to an article in The Australian about the alarming amount of non-performing loans being carried on the books of Chinese financial firms. The amount is thought to exceed one trillion dollars, or a staggering 40% of GDP.
Politics and corruption are to blame. The Australian comments
The revelation shows that half-hearted reforms have addressed merely the symptoms of ChinaÂ’s financial fragility.
Poor business practices are blamed for NPLs but the real source is political. As long as the communist party relies on state-controlled banks to maintain an unreformed core of a command economy, Chinese banks will make more bad loans.
Systemic economic waste, bank lending practices, political patronage and the survival of a one-party state are inseparably intertwined in China. The party can no longer secure the loyalty of its 70 million members through ideological indoctrination; instead, it uses material perks and careers in government and state-owned enterprises (SOEs). That is why, after nearly 30 years of economic reform, the state still owns 56 per cent of the fixed capital stock. The unreformed core of the economy is the base of political patronage.
Government figures show that, in 2003, 5.3 million party officials held executive positions in SOEs. The party appoints about 80 per cent of the chief executives in SOEs and 56 per cent of all senior corporate executives. Recent corporate governance reforms, Western-style on paper but not in substance, have made no difference. At 70 per cent of the large and medium-sized SOEs ostensibly restructured into Western-style companies, members of party committees were appointed to the boards. Painful restructuring appears to have spared this elite. China has shed more than 30 million industrial jobs since the late 1990s but few party officials have become jobless.
Our contributor Rosslyn Smith adds:
That sounds akin to the way American managers of public companies in the 1990s used a ton of accounting tricks to prop up quarterly earnings in order to keep their stock market prices high. As we know, they pulled off for a while, but eventually reality (i.e. cash flow) caught up. The article does not speculate on what may happen when a similar reality catches up to China.
5 09 06
Tuesday, May 09, 2006
The American Bar Joins the Left
I know that the ACLU is Marxist, but now the ABA is on the down slide as well? Who next! (This from the American Thinker)
American Bar Association shenanigans
The ABA is treading on dangerous ground by allowing its rating of judicial nominees become openly politicized. Charles Hurt writes in the Washington Times:
A 14-member ABA committee changed Brett M. Kavanaugh’s rating last month in part because six members downgraded their rating from the last time the White House aide was reviewed, panel Chairman Steven Tober said.
Washington divorce lawyer Marna S. Tucker, a registered Democrat, conducted the most recent interview of Mr. Kavanaugh and delivered testimony on behalf of the ABA over the telephone yesterday for the Judiciary Committee hearing today.
Ms. Tucker has donated more than $10,000 to Democratic candidates and causes, according to Federal Election Commission records [here], a Web site that tracks campaign contributions. She has never given to Republicans, according to the site.
The Washington Post described her as a ‘prominent liberal’ in 1991 and the following year noted her friendship with Hillary Rodham Clinton, now a Democratic senator from New York.
Ms. Tucker also is a founding member and board director of the National Women’s Law Center, an organization committed to abortion rights and other liberal causes.”
Hat tip: Todd Christian
American Bar Association shenanigans
The ABA is treading on dangerous ground by allowing its rating of judicial nominees become openly politicized. Charles Hurt writes in the Washington Times:
A 14-member ABA committee changed Brett M. Kavanaugh’s rating last month in part because six members downgraded their rating from the last time the White House aide was reviewed, panel Chairman Steven Tober said.
Washington divorce lawyer Marna S. Tucker, a registered Democrat, conducted the most recent interview of Mr. Kavanaugh and delivered testimony on behalf of the ABA over the telephone yesterday for the Judiciary Committee hearing today.
Ms. Tucker has donated more than $10,000 to Democratic candidates and causes, according to Federal Election Commission records [here], a Web site that tracks campaign contributions. She has never given to Republicans, according to the site.
The Washington Post described her as a ‘prominent liberal’ in 1991 and the following year noted her friendship with Hillary Rodham Clinton, now a Democratic senator from New York.
Ms. Tucker also is a founding member and board director of the National Women’s Law Center, an organization committed to abortion rights and other liberal causes.”
Hat tip: Todd Christian
The Ten Commandments for Life
Most everyone has heard of Ten Commandments and know what some of them stand for.
If you are a liberal they are like the morning sun to a vampire that stayed out too late. When a liberal comes in contact with the Ten Commandments, the liberal is totally consumed in fiery rage. Everything that Ten Commandments embodies is hated by the liberal.
The liberal demands that they must be hidden from the public eye, and with good reason on their part.
The Commandments are a guide for the common person. The commandments have be so for thousands of years. It is the very glue that holds our civilization together.
America was founded on these very principals. They represent everything that makes us Americans. The civilized world would disintegrate without them.
Is it any wonder why the Marxist liberal Democrats want them removed from all public display?
I know this has been going around for awhile, but it still has a good laugh for those that haven't read it or have forgotten it: ( It has to be a conservative joke though as it puts a smile on your face. As we all know, liberals don't smile or laugh.)
The real reason that we can't have the Ten Commandments in a courthouse is that you can't post something that says "Thou Shalt not Steal or Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery or Thou Shall Not Lie" in a building full of lawyers, judges and politicians - - it creates a hostile work environment.
I love that one - heh
If you are a liberal they are like the morning sun to a vampire that stayed out too late. When a liberal comes in contact with the Ten Commandments, the liberal is totally consumed in fiery rage. Everything that Ten Commandments embodies is hated by the liberal.
The liberal demands that they must be hidden from the public eye, and with good reason on their part.
The Commandments are a guide for the common person. The commandments have be so for thousands of years. It is the very glue that holds our civilization together.
America was founded on these very principals. They represent everything that makes us Americans. The civilized world would disintegrate without them.
Is it any wonder why the Marxist liberal Democrats want them removed from all public display?
I know this has been going around for awhile, but it still has a good laugh for those that haven't read it or have forgotten it: ( It has to be a conservative joke though as it puts a smile on your face. As we all know, liberals don't smile or laugh.)
The real reason that we can't have the Ten Commandments in a courthouse is that you can't post something that says "Thou Shalt not Steal or Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery or Thou Shall Not Lie" in a building full of lawyers, judges and politicians - - it creates a hostile work environment.
I love that one - heh
Monday, May 08, 2006
Jimmy Carter Begs for Sanity
Jimmy Carter, as I have noted before, is the absolutely worst president we have ever had and possible the single worst public figure currently making a fool out himself. The man is insane.
I believe he is actually worse than Al Gore or Bill Clinton, and that's going a long way, in wanting to destroy our way of life in America.
I believe Jimmy Carter is a neo-communist - that is, he is a socialist without a cause -
When you read this article, your senses can't grasp the reality of a man so deranged to think he is imbued with some special authority to decide right from wrong when he can't even remember where he was born or how he grew up.
Jimmy Carter thinks he is still president. In reality, he never was president, he just happened to be in the White House for four years while the rest of the world went to hell -
http://www.americanthinker.com/comments.php?comments_id=5084
I believe he is actually worse than Al Gore or Bill Clinton, and that's going a long way, in wanting to destroy our way of life in America.
I believe Jimmy Carter is a neo-communist - that is, he is a socialist without a cause -
When you read this article, your senses can't grasp the reality of a man so deranged to think he is imbued with some special authority to decide right from wrong when he can't even remember where he was born or how he grew up.
Jimmy Carter thinks he is still president. In reality, he never was president, he just happened to be in the White House for four years while the rest of the world went to hell -
http://www.americanthinker.com/comments.php?comments_id=5084
Sunday, May 07, 2006
New York Times Invested in Defeat
If you ever thought that the New York Times was anything other than a terrorist organization, this article from that paper will change your mind for ever. ( Power Line )
I believe thay have invested the reputation of that organization in the defeat of America in the war on terror, and to change America into a socialist state that more reflects the agenda of the Marxist liberal left that now dominates the National Democratic Party.
Joe Malchow drew our attention to this astonishing article in today's New York Times, in which the Times sticks up for Zarqawi, defending him against what the Times regards as unfair criticism of his weapons-handling technique in the video released by the U.S. military last week:
The weapon in question is complicated to master, and American soldiers and marines undergo many days of training to achieve the most basic competence with it. Moreover, the weapon in Mr. Zarqawi's hands was an older variant, which makes its malfunctioning unsurprising. The veterans said Mr. Zarqawi, who had spent his years as a terrorist surrounded by simpler weapons of Soviet design, could hardly have been expected to know how to handle it.
Unbelievable. I suppose they could have defended Zarqawi further by noting that his weapon of choice is the knife.
The Times also said they think that releasing the video footage wasn't effective propaganda because Zarqawi looks "clean and plump."
(Really, I'm not making this up.) Okay, here's an idea: how about if we haul Khalid Shaikh Mohammed out of whatever cell he's being kept in and release a video of him? I doubt that he's looking too "clean and plump" these days. Do you think the Times would like that propaganda effort better? No, I don't either. Other than waving a white flag, it's hard to think of anything the military could do of which the Times would approve.
I believe thay have invested the reputation of that organization in the defeat of America in the war on terror, and to change America into a socialist state that more reflects the agenda of the Marxist liberal left that now dominates the National Democratic Party.
Joe Malchow drew our attention to this astonishing article in today's New York Times, in which the Times sticks up for Zarqawi, defending him against what the Times regards as unfair criticism of his weapons-handling technique in the video released by the U.S. military last week:
The weapon in question is complicated to master, and American soldiers and marines undergo many days of training to achieve the most basic competence with it. Moreover, the weapon in Mr. Zarqawi's hands was an older variant, which makes its malfunctioning unsurprising. The veterans said Mr. Zarqawi, who had spent his years as a terrorist surrounded by simpler weapons of Soviet design, could hardly have been expected to know how to handle it.
Unbelievable. I suppose they could have defended Zarqawi further by noting that his weapon of choice is the knife.
The Times also said they think that releasing the video footage wasn't effective propaganda because Zarqawi looks "clean and plump."
(Really, I'm not making this up.) Okay, here's an idea: how about if we haul Khalid Shaikh Mohammed out of whatever cell he's being kept in and release a video of him? I doubt that he's looking too "clean and plump" these days. Do you think the Times would like that propaganda effort better? No, I don't either. Other than waving a white flag, it's hard to think of anything the military could do of which the Times would approve.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
