Sunday, July 31, 2005

Oil for Food Clues

The MSM and the dem/leftists are all running around in circles over this Plame nonsense. Meantime there are other, more important issues that need to be looked into. One of these is the Oil-for-Food scandal. More information is coming to light, but you would never know that from the MSM. Of course, the MSM thinks the UN is just a wonderful place that is going to save the world. OpinionJournal has some startling revelations on the investigation into this very corrupt UN program.

'Last month we learned that U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan may have been aware that Swiss inspections company Cotecna was bidding for an Oil for Food contract it eventually won later that year. "We had brief discussions with the SG and his entourage," says a memo written by Cotecna executive and Annan family friend Michael Wilson. "Their collective advise [sic] was that we should respond as best we could to the Q&A session . . . and that we could count on their support."

Mr. Annan has denied having any prior knowledge of the Cotecna bid in testimony to Paul Volcker's committee investigating Oil for Food. But if the substance of the Cotecna memo is accurate--the company confirms its authenticity--it means the Secretary General may have misled investigators. Mr. Volcker is checking the matter out, and we now know he plans to issue at least three more reports--two more than had been originally planned--in the coming weeks. It'll be interesting to see if Mr. Annan will then be able to claim exoneration, as he did earlier this year.'

What exactly was Annan's involvement? What did he know and when did he know it? Is he trying to cover for his son? These are questions that need to be answered and questions the MSM should be asking and looking into.

'Then there is the continuing investigation of Benon Sevan, the senior U.N. bureaucrat formerly in charge of Oil for Food. Back in February, Mr. Volcker cited Mr. Sevan for "placing himself in an irreconcilable conflict of interest," after he allegedly received oil allocations from Saddam Hussein's regime worth up to $1.2 million.

It later emerged that Mr. Sevan had mysteriously inherited $160,000 from a Cypriot aunt of modest means. Mr. Sevan is now the target of a probe by Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau, although he enjoys diplomatic immunity on account of a $1 annual U.N. salary. (Mr. Annan has pledged to lift Mr. Sevan's immunity if criminal charges are filed; we'll have to see if he honors it.)'

Seems Sevan is very dirty here. I will be interested to see how Annan reacts to any indictment handed up in Manhattan. I suspect Annan will reneg on his promise to lift Sevan's diplomatic immunity. If he does, it may give Sevan a good reason to make a deal and tell all he knows. There is more in the commentary that is worth reading. - Sailor

Thursday, July 28, 2005

The War in Iraq---To Stay or to Leave?

Please welcome to the blog, my good friend Kara. Kara is an RN, living deep in the heart of Texas. Kara will be a adding her thoughts, opinions and commentary here on a semi regular basis. - Sailor

'The War in Iraq---To Stay or to Leave?

Can we actually LOSE this war?

What would losing the war mean to America?

There are those who think we should leave Iraq immediately.

There are others who do not understand why we ever went in there at all.

The primary reason Americans want the war to end, obviously,is because with each day that passes we lose more and more of America’s finest to the violence that is war. Nobody in America wants to see our men and women die.

Nobody wants war. Nobody here started it. But America cannot let bullies take from us what is most sacred, and just tuck our tails and run.

Can we lose this war? Oh yes we surely can lose this war!

Viet Nam is a case in point. One way to lose it is to leave too soon. We can lose this war by defeating ourselves. We need to stand united about winning this war. Lets all open our eyes and recognize the enemy and their purpose.

Ever hear this proclamation?

“If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. If we stay divided
there is no way we can win!” Think about the name of our country: The UNITED States of America… And “united we stand, divided we fall” or think about the Pledge of Allegiance:

When you Pledge Allegiance to the United States Flag, you take a vow to:

*Be loyal to the Flag itself.
*Be loyal to your own and the other 49 States.
*Be loyal to the Government that unites us all,
*Recognize that we are ONE Nation under God, and that we can not or should not be divided or alone
*Understand that the right to Liberty and Justice belongs to ALL of us.

So what happens if we lose this war?

1. We would no longer be the premier country in the world. Being number one isn’t just about bragging rights.

Being number one decreases America’s vulnerability. The attacks will not subside, but rather will steadily increase.

Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet. The Muslim terrorists stated goal is to “kill all infidels!” That translates into all non-Muslims - not just in the United States, but throughout the world.

We are the last bastion of defense.

2. We would have no future support from other nations, for fear of reprisals and for the reason that they would see, we are impotent and cannot help them.

3. They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. It will be increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain hostage. It doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq. Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their train and told them to withdraw the troops.

Anything else they want Spain to do, will be done. Spain is finished. The next will probably be France. Our one hope on France is that they might see the light and realize that if we don't win, they are finished too,
in that they can't resist the Muslim terrorists without us. However, it may already be too late for France. France is already 20% Muslim.

4. If we lose the war, our production, income, exports and way of life will all vanish as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal with us, if they were threatened by the terrorists?

If we can't stop the terrorists, how could anyone else? The terrorists fully know what is riding on this war, and therefore they are completely committed to winning, at any cost.

We better know it too and be likewise committed to winning at any cost. AT ANY COST!

One way is to stand united and allow “racial/religious profiling”. I was impressed by something Starr Jones said on The View this morning. She said: “If wide-hipped black women were blowing up subways”... she would EXPECT to be stopped and searched everywhere she goes and would submit to it willingly.

Why wouldn’t she if she has nothing to hide? Why wouldn’t the Muslim dry cleaner on the corner feel the same?

After all, isn’t he an American? Hmmmm….or is he? Maybe that can be judged by his willingness or unwillingness to cooperate fully. Desperate times call for desperate measures.

It is not unusual during wartime for our civil rights to be slightly impinged for the good of the nation.

Come on Americans…let’s get together and do whatever it takes to finish this war and get our men and women home. Join together and cooperate.

Whatever your race or religion, in the end we are all Americans.'

Wednesday, July 27, 2005

With deft Roberts choice, Bush plays judicial jujitsu

Looks like the dem/leftists may have painted themselves into a corner on the Roberts nomination. Or perhaps the president maneuvered them into that corner? Dick Morrris has some opinions on this.

'The key is that Bush has used the Democrats' opposition to his district and circuit-court judicial appointments against them and made it a ratification of the Roberts candidacy. Simply put, by choosing a judge whom the Democrats confirmed unanimously when he was nominated for the D.C. Circuit Court -- and whom they did not filibuster -- Bush has made the Democrats impotent.

The Democrats thought they were preparing for the Supreme Court battle when they hit on their strategy of filibustering Bush's judicial nominations. They saw these battles as spring training to get them in shape for the real fight that would come when Bush made his Supreme Court nomination.

Instead, their strategy has backfired massively. By lending such a high profile to their opposition to Bush's lower-court appointments, the Democrats have effectively denied themselves the ability to filibuster anyone of whom they have approved in the past.

When the Democrats singled out certain of Bush's appointees to the courts for filibusters and strident opposition, they, in effect, gave their seal of approval to those whom they did not filibuster. Their silence is like the classic case in Sherlock Holmes of the dog that didn't bark'

There will be those dem/leftists that will stall for time, hoping those they are so beholding to, NARAL, People for the American Way, moveon, etc., will be able to dig up or make up some dirt on Roberts. Anything those groups produce will be immediately printed in the New York Times whether factual or not. The usual suspects, especially those dem/leftists beholding to NARAL will try and make Roe v. Wade a litmus test. Especially Chuckie Cheese Schumer. He heads up the dem Senatorial fund raising committee and will kiss up to NARAL to get more monies in. All in all, as Morris has pointed out, the dem/leftists have been severely out maneuvered by someone they consider to be dumb and stupid. Go figure! - Sailor

Tuesday, July 26, 2005

The Pennsylvania funeral furor

In a despicable show of total callousness, the Lt. Governor of Pennsylvania, showed up, uninvited, to the funeral of a Marine killed in Iraq. In a further show of utter disrespect, Catherine Knoll had the audacity to hand out her cards during communion. To add insult to injury, Knoll then tells one of the grieving relatives that the government is against the war. Why is it that leftists cannot fathom that not everyone is against this war, especially those that are fighting and dying? Jay Bryant has more in his article.

'In his statement, Rendell says, "It's not the business of state government to support the war, but our state supports the men and women who are fighting this war." That's technically right, of course, and probably the only thing the Governor can say. The Constitution gives the conduct of foreign policy to the Feds, and states, per se, have no business taking sides.

But someone needs to tell these Democrats that you can't be against the war and supportive of the troops at the same time. Because if you do, you are saying something like, "Have a good fight - even though you're not fighting for anything worthwhile."

That's not an acceptable position, and particularly not in the presence of a grieving family that desperately needs reassurance their loved one's life was given in a noble cause, as Sgt. Goodrich's most certainly was.'

Leftists learned some thing from their Vietnam experience. Back then they savaged the troops and the American people were not pleased by that. So now they make up this phony nonsense about how they support the troops, but at the same tell them that the cause they are fighting and dying for is not worth their efforts. People are seeing through this hypocrisy of the left. - Sailor

Thursday, July 21, 2005

The Supreme Court Nominee Interview Questionnaire

With the Bush nomination of Judge Roberts to fill the vacancy on SCOTUS, Doc Farmer jumps in feet first with his own questionaire. I wonder where Doc comes up with some of this! - Sailor

The Supreme Court Nominee Interview Questionnaire
Written by Doc Farmer
Thursday, July 21, 2005

Well, the cat's finally out of the bag. Dubya's gone and done it now. In a bid meant solely to annoy and upset lib/dem/soc/commies, George Walker Bush followed 218 years of Constitutional history and had the unmitigated audacity to name a nominee to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS).

The bastard!

Although I wish Mr. Roberts
'' in his nomination process, since he's a (bleep)ing lawyer I'll also have to wish him a long, slow, painful and humiliating death (note to any law enforcement officials - I wish that on ALL (bleep)ing lawyers, so the above statement does not constitute an actual threat). Rep/cons will handle the first part of my wish, and I'm certain that lib/dem/soc/commies will at least make it feel like the second part is happening.

Odd thing, though - the news media, talk radio, et al, spent an entire day examining the ''leaked'' name of a possible candidate, and then were caught totally flat-footed when Dubya named Roberts instead of the one that ''conventional wisdom'' (which appears to be neither) had tapped. If, perchance, you think I'm ragging on the left alone here, think again. El Rushbo and Hannity got it wrong as well. Perhaps they (and all other pundits and prophets) should just wait until the actual announcement. Otherwise, they all act like a bunch of
snotty brats on the week leading to Christmas, shaking packages and guessing (wrong) and then crying when the box doesn't contain what they thought it should.

Now, this whole SCOTUS scramble (can we call it SCOTUS-gate yet?) has gotten me thinking. A dangerous activity at the best of times, I grant you. How do you apply for a job as a Justice on the court? Do they advertise on What's the application form look like? And what questions do they ask in the interview?

Frankly, if the lib/dem/soc/commies had their way, the application would be very short.

  • Do you believe in God/Allah/Yahweh/Buddha/Great Maker/Supreme Being/Creator of the Universe?

    • If yes, check here and hand in your application to the shredder on your right.

    • If no, check here and hand in your application to the leftist sycophant on (appropriately enough) your left.
Since God is being marched out of public (and soon, private) life, that's really about the only thing the lib/dem/soc/commies care about. An androgycentric personality doesn't require authority from God to parse out rights to the ''little people.''

However, there are other aspects of the job, and indeed the vetting process that the Senate is supposed to perform, that a lib/dem/soc/commie application wouldn't necessarily cope with. Since I'm pretty sure that there will be another vacancy on SCOTUS by the end of Dubya's term, there should probably be a candidate questionnaire to help whittle down the list of candidates.

Oh, and if Chief Justice Rehnquist is reading this, I'm not necessarily referring to YOU as ''another vacancy'' - I remember the (well deserved!) tongue-lashing you gave some of those ghouls in the press pack. Frankly,
however, I'd like to see you retire. Not because of any policy disagreements, but just so you could get healthy. Before the long, slow, painful and humiliating death thing deserved by every (bleep)ing comes along, that is.

So, what questions (yes/no, multiple choice or essay) would I like to see on that form? Hmmm....

  • Reconcile or justify the following - maintaining a Supreme Court decision based on falsified testimony and a falsified case. For reference, please see Roe v. Wade.

  • Have you ever smoked pot?

  • Have you ever smoked haddock? And, if yes, how did you keep it lit? Mine keeps going out.

  • Have you ever had sex with anybody who was born or lived in Africa? Wait, sorry, that's a Red Cross Blood Donation question. My bad.

  • Have you ever hired a nanny, babysitter, au pair, housemaid, butler, manservant, footman, etc.? If yes, can you provide all necessary pay stubs and withholding documents to prove that you didn't cheat the IRS or the INS?

  • Do you subscribe to any of the following periodicals?

    • Guns ‘n Ammo?

    • Hustler?

    • Popular Mechanics?

    • MAD Magazine?

    • Time?

    • New York Times?

    • LA Times?

    • Washington Times?

    • ComputerWorld?

    • NetworkWorld?

    • SpiceWorld?

    • PigWorld?

  • How substantial is your epidermis?

  • Have you ever been the subject of a 60 Minutes investigation?

  • Have you ever been the subject of a Weekly World News investigation?

  • Have you ever been on Punk'd?

  • Who won the FA Cup in 1949?

  • Do you know what the definition of ''is'' is?

  • Have you ever read the US Constitution?

  • Can you even spell US Constitution?

  • Do you believe in a constitutional amendment to protect the US flag?

  • Do you believe in a constitutional amendment to protect the US ***?

  • How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

  • Can you, while in full Supreme Court regalia, pick up a maraschino cherry with your butt cheeks, walk around an obstacle course and then drop the cherry into a mug of beer? (This is important, as it is the standard initiation rite for any new members of the Supreme Court according to Seth MacFarlane (see also: Family Guy))....
Sure, some of those questions are very lame, some are stupid, and some are just downright wrong.

Then again, that's nothing compared to what the Senate Judiciary Committee will do to these folks.

About the Writer: Doc Farmer is a writer and humorist who is also a moderator on ChronWatch's Forum. He formerly lived in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, but now resides in the Midwest. Doc receives e-mail at

This Article Was First Published On ChronWatch At:

One Down, One to Go

It appears that we have a small, but important victory, in the fight to take back the 9/11 Memorial. The Drawing Center, which has displays of grotesque anti-war art at their Soho center, is considering withdrawing from the 9/11 memorial. The sooner they find a new place for their "art", the better. An editorial in the New York Post gives some details.

'For its part, the Drawing Center is doing the honorable thing: "The [Lower Manhattan Development Corp., which oversees Ground Zero] knows that we would never be able to accept censorship," said the museum's executive director, Catherine de Zegher.

Center officials have put plans for Ground Zero on hold, Crain's reports, hoping to get Pataki & Co. To backtrack.

So, all things being equal, the Drawing Center likely will find itself another home.

This leaves the International Freedom Center, whose brass apparently attaches so little value to actual freedom that they'll gladly truckle to Pataki's conditions. Or say they will, anyway — at least for as long as it takes Pataki to shuffle from the scene.

In any event, full compliance seems impossible given the aggressively litigious nature of New York City (and the fact that the executive director of the ACLU, Anthony Romero, is an IFC adviser!).

Again, for emphasis, both organizations should have every right to display whatever they want, even if we don't like it (and we don't). But not at Ground Zero.'

Now is the time to increase the pressure on the elected officials to see the IFC looks for and finds a new home for their anti-American dribble. If you have not been to the Take Back The Memorial web site, now would be a great time to visit. There is a multitude of great information there on what you can do to keep the pressure on. - Sailor

Tuesday, July 19, 2005

Bush Nominates Roberts for Supreme Court

Judge John G. Roberts is an excellent choice for SCOTUS. Now the games will begin. It should be noted here that already NARAL has announced it's opposition to Roberts. NARAL has a great deal of influence, (read that as donations), over the dem/leftists. So you can expect there will be some whining and gnashing of teeth during the confirmation hearings. Here is some more information on the nomination.

'Roberts' nomination to the appellate court attracted support from both sides of the ideological spectrum. Some 126 members of the District of Columbia Bar, including officials of the Clinton administration, signed a letter urging his confirmation. The letter said Roberts was one of the "very best and most highly respected appellate lawyers in the nation" and that his reputation as a "brilliant writer and oral advocate" was well deserved.

"He has been a judge for only two years and authored about 40 opinions, only three of which have drawn any dissent," said Wendy Long, a lawyer representing the conservative Judicial Confirmation Network, adding that his record appears to suit Bush's desire to nominate a judge who will apply the law, as written, and leave policy decisions to the elected branches of government.

Advocacy groups on the left and the right already are gearing up for a fierce lobbying campaign in advertisements on television, radio, newspapers and the Internet. The battle is expected to cost tens of millions of dollars in spending by private groups.

One would think,with the across the board support on his last nomination and the quality of his legal opinions, this would be a no brainer confirmation. However, we know better. The groups that the dem/leftists' are beholding to, have already voiced their opposition to Roberts. I think we will see just how beholding the dems are to these leftist groups. - Sailor

Monday, July 18, 2005

Left's list for high court seen as setup

So the dem/leftists have stared to float some potential nominees for SCOTUS in the media. Their claim is that they are merely trying to propose some one that is acceptable to all sides. It is more likely it is a tactical move, so they can whine about anyone that Bush nominates as being out of the "mainstream". You can bet there will be those "extraordinary" circumstances, should any nominee not be one the dem/leftists are pushing. Charles Hurt has more in his article.

'The leaked names that had been recommended by Mr. Reid of Nevada and Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, Vermont Democrat and ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, were federal appeals court Judges Sonia Sotomayor and Edward C. Prado and federal district court Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa.

Conservatives view the judges as "either too old or simply not conservative," said Mr. Miranda, a former Judiciary Committee lawyer and aide to Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee. "He's got much more qualified nominees who are conservative."'

I was not expecting Reid and company to propose anyone remotely conservative. AS for old, I suppose Reid and company think that at some point in time they will regain the White House and Senate. Here is a look at one of those that the dem/leftists are proposing:

'Judge Sotomayor, for instance, has been criticized by conservatives in the past and was considered a potential Supreme Court nominee if either former Vice President Al Gore or Sen. John Kerry had become president.

In 1998, she was awarded the Court Jester Award by the Family Research Council for extending the application of the Americans With Disabilities Act to a woman who failed the New York bar exam several times because, she said, she couldn't read very well.'

Sounds more like the bar candidate had issues other then her ability to read. After all, the candidate did manage to do all the reading required to graduate from law school. Imagine the dem/leftists proposing a nominee that Gore or Kerry may have proposed. What a shock!

'"The bad news for the liberals is that they didn't win the presidential election, and they seem to be demanding not only a co-nomination but veto power before the president even makes the nomination," said Kay R. Daly, president of the conservative Coalition for a Fair Judiciary.

"The truth of the matter is that no matter who the president nominates, Harry Reid and his merry band of obstructionists will do everything in their power to delay the nomination, smear the nominee, make outrageous demands and whine every step of the way."'

I have posted this here before, no candidate nominated by the president will be acceptable to the left, unless it is one they propose. They will fall back on the filibustering. It will be interesting to see how Frist will handle this. If the dem/leftists want to make appointments to SCOTUS, they simply need to win back the White House and Senate. - Sailor

Sunday, July 17, 2005

The Rove-Is-A-Traitor Meme

On and on it goes. The leftists search to find some way to discredit this administration. Now it is the Karl Rove is the devil incarnate play. All of this over the alleged leak of the name of a CIA employee, who was not likely an undercover operative under the guidelines provided in the law that was allegedly broken. The left's hatred of Rove goes very deep, as evidenced by the posts and comments on numerous leftist sites. To bad the left has not spent the same amount of energy devise a plans and/or proposals to provide alternative solutions to those being proposed by republicans. Thomas Lifson has some commentary.

'Making him the pawn of Satan's Embodiment on Earth, Karl Rove, is even better. It gives them a logical ground on which to regard themselves as virtuous, and supplies all the motivation one could ever need for raising money, and going through the motions of contemporary activism: the endless round of parties, demonstrations, and posting of hate speech in the comment threads of Daily Kos and Democratic Underground.

The news that Karl Rove was somehow involved in revealing the identity of CIA desk jockey and Vanity Fair glam-shot model Valerie Plame really got their juices going. At last Satan's Spawn has made a fatal misstep.

But in their eagerness to denounce the man they blame for their tragic fate at the polls, they carried projection one step too far: they called him a "traitor" This is a serious blunder.'

Just another of many blunders the left has made over the last few years. Just look at the Danny Rather forged documents story, (many on the left still believe that those documents are not forgeries), and the so called "smoking gun" Downing Street Memos. Those turned out to be a popgun with a cork and string.

'When they tells us the whole world is against us, despite the evidence of a genuine coalition working together, and urge us to follow the likes of Jacques Chirac, who self-evidently wish us ill, then they raise uncomfortable questions about themselves.

The Democrat death-spiral continues. The FundieDem cult has taken the initiative, and become the public face of the Party, and Party officials, anxious to keep the donations from them rolling in, dare not confront them. By their failure to upbraid their supporters' excesses, they condemn themselves to minority status.'

As long as the dems allow the far left wing of their to be their face to the country, they will continue to lose elections. Sure, they love the money that these groups bring in, but in the end it is ideas that win elections. The dems have been lacking ideas and solutions for sometime now. - Sailor

Friday, July 15, 2005

The 9/11 Memorial

Some time ago, I posted the concerns of Debra Burlingame, her brother Chic, was one of the pilots that was murdered on 9/11, over the plans for the 9/11 Memorial at the WTC Site. Since then, there has been a great deal said about the plans of the International Freedom Center. The New York Post has an editorial on this subject.

'Sure, IFC bosses now say they'll exercise restraint. But it's hard to believe a facility headed by Tom Bernstein, whose group, Human Rights First, is suing Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld personally for imagined Gitmo offenses.

Besides, Bernstein & Co. Claim to be taking guidance from the new-agey think-tank Aspen Institute — never mind that its board of trustees includes the Saudi ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar. (Maybe Bernstein thinks Bandar has some special insight on 9/11, since 15 of the hijackers came from his country.)

The IFC and the Drawing Center may or may not have something to add to the post-9/11 debate.

But not at Ground Zero.

Pataki and Whitehead (whoever is in charge today) need to move them offsite — once and for all.'

This is not the proper venue for this type of America bashing. Another site needs to be found and right away. Thmemorialal at Ground Zero should be nothing other than remembrancece of that infamous day and dedicated to those that were murdered and those that died trying to rescue as many as possible.

Vito Fossella, Peter King and John Sweeney have weighed in with
their opinions as well.

'To date, the IFC's apparent message has ranged from a muddled hodge-podge to possibly even blaming America for the 9/11 attacks. This is not what we envisioned when we secured hundreds of millions of federal taxpayer dollars to help rebuild Ground Zero. Nor did we anticipate that the planning process would be hijacked by some to construct some long-desired pet project to showcase anti-American propaganda.

The IFC has responded recently to the mounting criticism, but it is still not enough. We believe that, if the museum is to proceed, clear criteria must be established limiting all its programming to 9/11.

We unequivocally reject the notion that America is to blame for the terrorist attacks. Indeed, we believe that the story of freedom's march over the past two centuries has happened because of the United States of America, not in spite of it!

Throughout the 20th century, America responded time and again to freedom's call. When Europe burned, it was the American GI who extinguished the flame. When Hitler's army marched through the streets of Paris, bombed Britain and slaughtered millions, it was America's sons and daughters who laid their lives down. When the Soviet Union's communist arsenal threatened individual liberties throughout the world, it was America's principled determination that forced its demise.

Today, at the dawn of the 21st century, terrorism has emerged as the latest incarnation of evil and it is America that is leading the global war to eradicate it. That war began on 9/11. The IFC must consider only that when designing its museum.'

I could not have put it any better. This leftist nonsense that some how America ito blameme for this terrorist attack as welas thehe ills of the world, is just that, nonsense. If it were not for this country, most of the world would have not be living in freedom.

Then there is the New York Times. They have been
busted by Cox & Forkum as supporters of this planned travesty.

'A New York Times editorial yesterday villainized the Take Back The Memorial campaign against the International Freedom Center as the work of a "sharply political" "handful of angry family members" out to impose "censorship" at the WTC memorial site. If you are one of the over 32,000 33,000 people who have signed the "Take Back The Memorial" petition (including over 1,600 1,700 9/11 family members), you might take exception to that charge.

The Times' criticisms are based on the false assumption that the WTC site was somehow destined to be a publicly-built venue for the arts and political discourse. Operating from that premise, the attempts by Take Back The Memorial to ensure that the WTC memorial site deals exclusively with 9/11 are characterized as "abrogating the rights of everyone else."

One particular passage reveals the Times blindness to the real issue. They write that if Governor Pataki attempts to "appease one small, vocal group of protesters," "he runs the risk of turning ground zero into a place where we bury the freedoms that define this nation."

"Bury"? The Times has the gall to use the word "bury"? There are actual Americans buried at Ground Zero, murdered because they lived in a free county, and the Times' main concern is not the victims but that Ground Zero have an art gallery able to exhibit "controversial images of 9/11 and America's role in the world," all in the name of "free speech."

The real issues are how to properly use the hallowed ground of the WTC site to memorialize 9/11 victims and to historically document the attacks, and whether or not the IFC "freedom museum" and "arts center" are distractions from (and potentially even desecrations of) that memorial. As currently planned, the WTC memorial is already buried beneath the International Freedom Center building. With left-leaning individuals deeply involved in the IFC, it's not difficult to imagine how much worse it can get.'

Of course the Times hangs on every word from a very small group of 9/11 families known as the Jersey Girls. Then again, the Jersey Girls have been known to see the world through the same glasses as the TimesDo notete the Times' uof thehe word "bury". Talk about a lack of compassion. 1700 family members of those that died on 9/11 is only a handful to the Times. Some needs to ask the Times how large of a group the Jersey Girls represent. Seems the Times has some math issues to get past.

I urge each and every one of you to visit the
Take Back the Memorial web site and sign the petition. - Sailor

Wednesday, July 13, 2005

Saddam and al Qaeda

More evidence continues to come out about the Saddam/al-Qaeda connections. Naturally, the dem/leftists, terrorist appeasers and ass kissers, along with the usual leftist suspects are and will attempt to dismiss all of this. It would not, after all, fit into their world view and it certainly would go a long way for continuing justification for going into Iraq, albeit, after the fact. As the documents captured in Iraq are analyzed, the connection may become more clear. That will take a good deal of time, as there are millions of them to go through. Even so, the usual suspects are already trying to dismiss them as irrelavent. Claudia Rosett has some opinions on this in her column.

'If anything, Mr. Bush in recent times has not stressed Saddam's ties to al Qaeda nearly enough. More than ever, as we now discuss the bombings in London, or, to name a few others, Madrid, Casablanca, Bali, Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, or the many bombings in Israel--as well as the attacks on the World Trade Center in both 1993 and 2001--it is important to understand that terrorist connections can be real, and lethal, and portend yet more murder, even when they are shadowy, shifting and complex. And it is vital to send the message to regimes in such places as Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iran that in matters of terrorist ties, the Free World is not interested in epistemological debates over what constitutes a connection. We are not engaged in a court case, or a classroom debate. We are fighting a war.

But in the debates over Iraq, that part of the communication has become far too muddied. Documents found in Iraq are doubted; confessions by detainees are received as universally suspect; reports of meetings between officials of the former Iraqi regime and al Qaeda operatives are discounted as having been nothing more than empty formalities, with such characters shuttling between places like Iraq, Afghanistan and Sudan, perhaps to share tea and cookies. Any conclusions or even inferences about contacts between Saddam's regime and al Qaeda are subjected these days to the kind of metaphysical test in which existence itself becomes a highly dubious philosophical problem, mired in the difficulty of ever really being certain about anything at all.'

Nation/States need to know without any doubt, that supporting terrorists will not be tolerated. It matters not what their relationship with the Free World is, or how much oil they may have. It is high time we send that message. No matter how much the leftists wish it, the evidence of the connection mounts. They can dismiss it all they want, but it will not change the facts. Stephen Hayes put together an excellent analysis in his Weekly Standard article, which I posted some excerpts from here.

'The difficulty lies in piecing together the picture, which is indeed murky (that being part of the aim in covert dealings between tyrants and terrorist groups)--but rich enough in depth and documented detail so that the basic shape is clear. By the time Mr. Hayes is done tabulating the cross-connections, meetings, Iraqi Intelligence memos unearthed after the fall of Saddam, and information obtained from detained terrorist suspects, you have to believe there was significant collaboration between Iraq and al Qaeda. Or you have to inhabit a universe in which there will never be a demonstrable connection between any of the terrorist attacks the world has suffered over the past dozen years, or any tyrant and any aspiring terrorist. In that fantasyland, all such phenomena are independent events.

Mr. Bush, in calling attention to the Iraq-al Qaeda connection in the first place, did the right thing. For the U.S. president to confirm that clearly and directly at this stage, with some of the abundant supporting evidence now available, might seem highly controversial. But reviving that controversy would help settle it more squarely in line with the truth.'

The leftists have been in fantasyland for years concerning terrorism. Of course they like to think they can rationalize with them, appease them and it will all be good again. The more Bush speaks to this, the more the left will get all in a tizzy, but that will be a good thing. The MSM cannot ignore it as long as the president speaks to it. As more becomes available on this connection, the more the American people will know just how much the left is out of touch. - Sailor

Tuesday, July 12, 2005

Eminent domain and the elitist bent

The recent SCOTUS decision in Kelo vs. The City of New London was an ominous sign that the end of private property is close at hand. Eminent domain was intended to take private property for the public good at a fair market value. Increasing tax revenues, by seizing private property, and handing over to private developers at a lower price than the developer could acquire the same property at, is not what is considered for the public good. At least it was not until this decision. It was interesting to see that the Court's liberal wing was in favor, as they claim to be for the common citizen, yet is is that citizen that will be most negatively impacted by this decision. The properties in question were not blighted. They are the homes of middle class Americans. Clearly the City of New London craves the increased tax revenues over the civil rights of the residents. There is an Op-Ed piece in the Washington Times that delves into why this decision will impact the selection of the next SCOTUS nominees.

' In the recent Supreme Court case of Kelo et al. v. City of New London et al., the elaborate 20 page majority opinion of the Supreme Court is one of the most eloquent, articulate, intellectual efforts to ever rationalize or try to cerebrally legitimize the forced transfer from the legal, legitimate owner of non-blighted property to someone who is in greater favor with the ruler of the area. It is something that our high court can point to with pride that they almost make it sound "fair" that private property can be taken from one legitimate owner and forcibly transferred to one who offers greater financial rewards to the ruler.

What a great day for the intellectual superiority of our highest court as it gets a "10" rating in the field of mental gymnastics, even from the Russian judge, but what a very sad day for truth, justice and what used to be the American way!

Though the Supreme Court has previously and improperly cited evolving international opinion as a basis for their rewriting U.S. constitutional law, the Kelo case is a "devolution" of precedent. This court obviously has a bent toward rationale that may be overheard at international cocktail parties or receptions from foreign elitists who believe that they know better than the Neanderthals in American and wish to substitute their neo-intellectual notions for the will of the American people. However, their Napoleonic ideas have no business replacing the ingenious provisions that succinctly comprise our Constitution.'

Increasingly the Court has been citing laws of foreign lands in their decision making process. That is not their constitutional mandate. The Court has no business incorporating international elitist law or opinion into their decisions. Their mandate is to adhere to the Constitution.

' Our tripartite government was designed with checks and balances on each branch. The president can veto acts of Congress and the Congress can also override the president. However, with an activist Supreme Court as we now have, the high court trumps all else including constitutional amendments since they can interpret those by inserting language that is not there.

Once again, it is made abundantly clear that judges appointed to the Supreme Court must not only be intelligent, but they must understand that the greatness of this nation's past lies in common sense, not in an elitist oligarchy that holds itself unaccountable to anyone.'

This is all the more reason that strict constructionists need to be appointed to the Court. - Sailor

Monday, July 11, 2005

Chronological History of "Terrorists" Up to 9/11

I received this from my BlogMom, Indigo at Indigo Insights, a few days ago. Since the terrorist attack on London on 7/7/05, there seems to be a good deal of chatter that would make one think that terrorism only began on 9/11 and that it became more prevalent after the US invasion of Iraq. If we would only leave Iraq, some would have you believe, the terrorist attacks would go away. Poppycock (A nicer way of saying bullshit.)! Terrorism has been rearing it's ugly head for almost 40 years now. Here is a list of those terrorist attacks:

A Marxist group called the People's Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) begins the first in a series of hijackings of Israeli El Al airliners. For this mission, the group exchanges 48 Israeli hostages for 16 Arab prisoners in Israeli jails.

PFLP terrorists blow up a Swissair 330 in midair shortly after leaving Geneva, killing 47.

Agents of the Palestine Liberation Organization murder U.S. Embassy attach頁Army Major Robert P. Perry at home in Amman, Jordan.

PFLP terrorists seize four airliners at the beginning of what would become known as "Black September." The hijackers demand the release of Palestinian prisoners in Germany, Switzerland, and Israel. They fly two planes to Dawson's Field in the Jordanian desert and blow up one in Cairo after releasing passengers and crew. On the fourth plane, the terrorists are overpowered and the plane returns to London. British authorities take Leila Khaled, who commanded the terrorist operation, into custody. The PFLP then demands Ms. Khaled's release and hijacks another plane bound for Beirut, landing a third plane at Dawson's Field. PFLP releases 255 hostages (retaining 56) and blow up the three planes. At the end of Black September, Great Britain releases Ms. Khaled and six other Palestinian guerrillas in exchange for the remaining hostages.

At the Olympics in Munich, Germany, eight Black September terrorists take nine Israeli athletes hostage and kill two others. They demand the release of 200 Palestinians in Israeli jails, as well as freedom for terrorists of the Japanese Red Army and the Red Army Faction. A Black September grenade kills the athletes during an unsuccessful rescue attempt. Five terrorists die in a shootout and three are captured.

Black September hijackers seize a Lufthansa flight from Beirut to Ankara, and gain the freedom of the three remaining Munich assailants.

Black September terrorists take 10 hostages at the Saudi embassy in Khartoum, Sudan. The terrorists murder the U.S. ambassador and charge d'affaires, as well as a Belgian diplomat. They later surrender to authorities.

The days of coffee talk come to an end after four terrorists -two from the Palestinian terrorist group PFLP and two from the Red Army Faction- hijack an Air France flight from Tel Aviv to Paris, capturing 240. After refueling in Libya, they fly to Entebbe, Uganda, where dictator Idi Amin welcomes them and allows them to land. The terrorists demand the release of 54 colleagues who are jailed in six countries around the world and a $5 million ransom for the PFLP. They release all passengers with non-Israeli passports, reducing the number of hostages to 103. On July 1, Israeli commandos raid the terminal building, killing all four terrorists and rescuing all but two hostages who die in the crossfire. The raid at Entebbe becomes a rallying point for the fight against terrorism.

A dozen Hanafi Muslim terrorists armed with long knives, pistols, and sawed-off shotguns seize 134 hostages in three buildings only blocks from the White House. One man is killed and 12 are wounded in the takeover of the Islamic Center, the international headquarters of B'nai Brith, and the District building, Washington's city hall. They surrender two days later after negotiations with ambassadors of Egypt, Iran, and Pakistan.

The U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan dies in a hail of gunfire from Afghan troops as others plot to rescue him from four kidnappers in a Kabul hotel room. Just as U.S. officials believed they had persuaded Afghan Interior Ministry officials not to storm the room, a gunshot was heard, spurring the spray of bullets.

Serb nationalists hijack an American Airlines flight from New York to Chicago, seeking the release of a priest involved in a bombing of a Yugoslavian consular official's home in Chicago four years earlier. The hijackers fail and are taken into custody.

In response to the Shah of Iran's admission to the United States for medical treatment and American refusals to extradite him, about 500 Iranians take over the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. They hold 52 Americans as hostages. President Jimmy Carter applies economic pressure on Iran by halting Iranian oil imports and freezing Iranian assets in the United States. On April 24,1980, the Carter administration attempts a rescue mission that fails when three of the mission's eight helicopters are damaged in a sandstorm. After Ronald Reagan's election in November, successful negotiations begin and Iran releases the hostages shortly after President Reagan is inaugurated on January 20, 1981.

Daoud Salahuddin (formerly David Belfield), an American Khomeini supporter, kills Ali Akbar Tabatabai, a press aide for Iran during the reign of Shah Reza Pahlavi and a strong critic of Ayatollah Khomeini's revolution, at his home in Bethesda, Md.

Armenian terrorists claim responsibility for two bombings of Turkish interests in the United States, injuring one person near the Turkish consulate in Los Angeles.

Turkish-born terrorist Mehmet Ali Agca shoots Pope John Paul II as he greets a crowd of thousands in St. Peter's Square. The pope survives and later visits with Mr. Agca for 20 minutes in a Rome prison to forgive him.

Terrorists jump off a parade vehicle during an Egyptian parade, firing weapons and throwing grenades at the reviewing stand. They kill Egyptian President Anwar Sadat along with eight others and injure 20, including four American diplomats.

David Dodge, the acting president of American University of Beirut, is kidnapped and held in Lebanon and then Iran. He is released a year later, and the Reagan administration gives credit to Syrian leader Hafez Assad, who told the Iranians that Mr. Dodge, as AUB president, had contributed to the culture of the Middle East.

A bomb planted by Lebanese Marxists beneath the car of an American embassy employee in France explodes as technicians attempt to disarm it, killing one technician and injuring two.

A man drives a van carrying 2,000 pounds of explosives into the front portion of the seven-story U.S. Embassy in Beirut, killing 63 (including 17 Americans) and injuring 120. Islamic Jihad claims responsibility.

In the early morning at the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, a truck loaded with compressed gas-enhanced explosives crashes through chain-link fences and barbed-wire entanglements. While guards open fire, the truck smashes through the doors of the four-story barracks and explodes, killing 241 U.S. servicemen as they sleep. Islamic Jihad claims responsibility. At almost the same time, a nearly identical suicide bombing attack kills 56 soldiers at the eight-story French military barracks in Beirut.

A bomb explodes around 11 p.m. near the Senate chamber in the U.S. Capitol, blowing out the windows of the Republican cloakroom and throwing large chunks of plaster through the air. A group called the Armed Resistance Unit claims responsibility, saying it is protesting the invasion of Grenada and American involvement in Lebanon.

Suicide terrorists ram a truckload of explosives into the American and French embassies in Kuwait. Five people, but no Americans, are killed at the U.S. embassy, since the driver hits a small administrative annex rather than the crowded chancellery building. The explosion at the French embassy blows a 30-foot hole in the wall around the compound, but kills no one. Analysts later blame the attacks on the banned Al-Dawa party, a radical Shiite group with ties to Iran.

Malcolm H. Kerr, president of the American University of Beirut, is slain by two gunmen as he steps off an elevator near his office. Islamic Jihad claims responsibility.

Lebanese gunmen hijack TWA flight 847 bound from Athens to Rome with 104 Americans and 49 other passengers and force it to fly to Beirut, where they pick up more gunmen, and then to Algiers. The hijackers release passengers until the number is down to 39. They demand the release of 766 Lebanese prisoners being held in Israel. On the second day of the standoff, the plane returns to Beirut, and the hijackers kill U.S. Navy diver Robert Stethem and throw his body out on the runway. Israel releases 31 Lebanese prisoners, but insists the release is not related to the standoff. After 17 days in captivity, the hostages are transported to Damascus, Syria, and released.

Four heavily armed Palestinian terrorists from the Popular Liberation Front hijack the Italian cruise ship Achille Lauro, carrying more than 400 passengers and crew, off Egypt. The terrorists demand that Israel release 50 Palestinian prisoners. They murder 69-year-old disabled American tourist Leon Klinghoffer and throw his body overboard with his wheelchair. After two days of tension, the hijackers surrender in exchange for a promise of safe passage. But when an Egyptian jet tries to fly them to freedom, U.S. Navy F-14 fighters intercept it and force it to land in Sicily, where Italian authorities take the terrorists into custody.

An explosion rips through La Belle Disco in West Berlin, killing two American soldiers (and one other person) and injuring almost 230, including dozens of off-duty U.S. servicemen. President Reagan orders air strikes against Libya 10 days later as a "swift and effective retribution" for its role in the disco bombing.

Japanese suicide bomber Junzo Okudaira drives a car bomb into a USO club in Naples, Italy, killing a U.S. Navy enlisted woman and four others. A Japanese Red Army front group claims responsibility. Two days earlier, JRA member Yu Kikumura was arrested at a New Jersey Turnpike rest area with three powerful bombs and other explosives. Both attacks were planned in retaliation on the second anniversary of the U.S. bombing of Libya.

Pan Am Flight 103 from London to New York explodes over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing all 259 people on board (including 189 Americans) and 11 villagers on the ground. Crashing parts of the jet destroy 21 homes. In 1991 the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency charges two Libyan terrorists with the crime. On January 31, 2001, a former Libyan Arab Airlines official and suspected Libyan spy, Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, is convicted of mass murder for his role in the bombing. The other defendant, Lamen Khalifa Fhimah, is found not guilty and receives a hero's welcome upon his return to Libya.

Two Berkeley, Calif., bookstores are firebombed during the night to protest the sale of Iranian author Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses. Iranian authorities had issued a fatwa calling for Rushdie to be killed for disparaging Islam.

A bomb explodes in a van driven by the wife of U. S. Navy Captain Will C. Rogers. She is unhurt. The attack is believed to be in retaliation for the July 1988 downing of an Iranian civil airliner by the USS Vincennes, commanded by Capt. Rogers.

Mir Amal Kansi, a Pakistani living in the United States since 1991, shoots two CIA employees, Lansing Bennet and Frank Darling, and wounds three others near the gate of the CIA's 258-acre headquarters in Langley, Va.

A minibus containing 1,100 pounds of explosives blows up in the garage beneath the World Trade Center complex. The blast kills six people, injures 1,000, and causes $300 million worth of damage. The towers are cleaned, repaired, and reopened in less than a month. Courts later convict six Middle Eastern men, including mastermind Ramzi Yousef. They claim to be retaliating against U.S. support for the Israeli government.

A gunman kills two employees of the U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan-CIA communications technician Gary Durell and consulate secretary Jackie Van Landingham. No one claims responsibility, but analysts suggest it could be meant to cripple warming relations between the U.S. and Benazir Bhutto's government in Pakistan.

A masked assailant fires a rocket-propelled grenade across a busy street during rush hour at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow, destroying a copier and causing minor damage in a 6th-floor office in protest against American air strikes in Bosnia.

Terrorists drive a tanker truck loaded with at least 5,000 pounds of plastic explosives into the parking lot of Khobar Towers in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, a housing facility for U.S. and allied forces enforcing a no-fly zone over the southern portion of Iraq. Nineteen Americans are killed and almost 500 wounded as the explosion drills a crater 35 feet deep and rips the front off an apartment building. The Justice Department announces indictments of 13 members of Hezbollah on June 12, 2001.

In Karachi, Pakistan, two gunmen murder four American auditors for Union Texas Petroleum Company just 36 hours after a jury in Fairfax, Va., found Pakistani Mir Amil Kansi guilty of the two CIA headquarters murders. Kansi was captured a few months before, on June 17, in Pakistan.

More than 300 people are killed and more than 5,000 injured in simultaneous car bombings of the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. The explosion rips apart the back of the Kenyan embassy, which was located at an intersection and had no security fence in front, although it had an eight-foot-high steel fence on the other three sides. The Tanzanian blast occurred within the embassy walls, meaning the car had passed through a security check. Authorities suspect Osama bin Laden's network is responsible.

Authorities arrest Algerian Ahmed Ressam as he tries to enter the United States from Canada at Port Angeles, Wash. They find more than 100 pounds of explosives in his car, foiling a plot to detonate a bomb at Los Angeles International Airport in the days before millennium celebrations on 1/1/2000. Three Algerians-Mr. Ressam, Abdel Ghani Meskini, and Mokhtar Haouari-are convicted in New York. Mr. Ressam testifies that he was trained at a camp in Afghanistan that American officials say is run by Osama bin Laden.

In the port of Aden, Yemen, a pair of suicide bombers in a small boat pull alongside the U.S.S. Cole, an advanced Arleigh Burke-class destroyer carrying Aegis anti-missile weaponry. After taking a mooring line to a buoy to defuse suspicion, the bombers stand at attention as their small boat blows up, blasting a 40-foot-by-40-foot hole in the ship's hull, killing 17 American military personnel and injuring 39. U.S. officials suspect al-Qaeda, the network of Osama bin Laden, who speaks of the ship as having sailed "to its doom" along a course of "false arrogance, self-conceit, and strength."

Hijackers take over two large jetliners, both en route from Boston to Los Angeles, and fly them into the north and south towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, collapsing both towers and killing 3,000 people in the buildings and on the ground. Minutes later another hijacked jet smashes into the west side of the Pentagon. A fourth hijacked plane crashes in a field near Shanksville, Pa. Bin Laden's network is implicated. President George W. Bush, in a speech to Congress, says his administration will make no distinction between terrorists like bin Laden and the states that support them. Four weeks later, the bombing of Afghanistan begins."

There had been an almost 40 year history of terrorism and terrorist attacks up to and including 9/11. Americans have been targets in many of these attacks. The popular leftist notion that appeasing terrorists will end these attacks is simply wrong. Appeasement will serve to embolden these thugs not make them go away, they need to be hunted down. - Sailor

Saddam, Iraq and al-Qaida

Much has been investigated and reported on the Saddam, Iraq and al-Qaida links. The left claims there was no linkage, especially concerning 9/11. Much of their claim is based on the fact that Saddam's regime was very secular and al-Qaida religious extremist. They also site the 9/11 Commission's Report as further evidence. The left ends up in a contradiction here. They say if we leave Iraq, the terrorists will leave us alone. Well if there was no connection between Saddam and al-Qaida, why would they? There is mounting evidence of the Saddam, al-Qaida link. These are from several investigations and the reports generated by them. Stephen F. Hayes and Thomas Joscelyn have compiled a group of these reports pointing to the pertinent evidence they provide. It is a very lengthy article, but well worth the time to read. I will post some excerpts here and keep my comments to a minimum.

"Lehman's caution was prescient. A year later, we still cannot begin to offer a "definitive" picture of the relationships entered into by Saddam Hussein's operatives, but much more has already been learned from documents uncovered after the Iraq war. The evidence we present below, compiled from revelations in recent months, suggests an acute case of denial on the part of those who dismiss the Iraq-al Qaida relationship.

There could hardly be a clearer case--of the ongoing revelations and the ongoing denial--than in the 13 points below, reproduced verbatim from a "Summary of Evidence" prepared by the U.S. government in November 2004. This unclassified document was released by the Pentagon in late March 2005. It details the case for designating an Iraqi member of al Qaida, currently detained in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as an "enemy combatant."

1. From 1987 to 1989, the detainee served as an infantryman in the Iraqi Army and received training on the mortar and rocket propelled grenades.
2. A Taliban recruiter in Baghdad convinced the detainee to travel to Afghanistan to join the Taliban in 1994.
3. The detainee admitted he was a member of the Taliban.
4. The detainee pledged allegiance to the supreme leader of the Taliban to help them take over all of Afghanistan.
5. The Taliban issued the detainee a Kalishnikov rifle in November 2000.
6. The detainee worked in a Taliban ammo and arms storage arsenal in Mazar-Es-Sharif organizing weapons and ammunition.
7. The detainee willingly associated with al Qaida members.
8. The detainee was a member of al Qaida.
9. An assistant to Usama Bin Ladin paid the detainee on three separate occasions between 1995 and 1997.
10. The detainee stayed at the al Farouq camp in Darwanta, Afghanistan, where he received 1,000 Rupees to continue his travels.
11. From 1997 to 1998, the detainee acted as a trusted agent for Usama Bin Ladin, executing three separate reconnaissance missions for the al Qaida leader in Oman, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
12. In August 1998, the detainee traveled to Pakistan with a member of Iraqi Intelligence for the purpose of blowing up the Pakistan, United States and British embassies with chemical mortars.
13. Detainee was arrested by Pakistani authorities in Khudzar, Pakistan, in July 2002."

Do take note of items 1 and 12. AP reluctantly reported this, since it was in response to their FOIA request. Though they did there best to down play item 12. As a result none of the old media picked up the story.

""Cooperation between the two organizations should be allowed to develop freely through discussion and agreement."

Internal Iraqi Intelligence memo on Iraq-al Qaida cooperation, June 25, 2004, New York Times

THE RELATIONSHIP CONTINUED with high-level meetings throughout 1994 and 1995. The 9/11 Commission staff report that made headlines last year by declaring that such meetings between Iraq and al Qaida "do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship" also reported that the Sudanese government arranged for "contacts between Iraq and al Qaida." The staff report continued: "A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting bin Laden in 1994. Bin Laden is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded."

That senior Iraqi intelligence officer was Faruq Hijazi, former deputy director of Iraqi Intelligence and longtime regime liaison to al Qaida. According to several Bush administration officials with access to his debriefings, as well as a top secret Pentagon summary of intelligence on Iraq and al Qaida known as the Feith Memo, Hijazi described a face-to-face meeting with bin Laden that took place in 1994. The language in the Feith Memo corresponds closely to that in the 9/11 Commission staff report. "During a May 2003 custodial interview with Faruq Hijazi, he said in a 1994 meeting with bin Laden in the Sudan, bin Laden requested that Iraq assist al Qaida with the procurement of an unspecified number of Chinese-manufactured antiship limpet mines. Bin Laden thought that Iraq should be able to procure the mines through third-country intermediaries for ultimate delivery to al Qaida. Hijazi said he was under orders from Saddam only to listen to bin Laden's requests and then report back to him. Bin Laden also requested the establishment of al Qaida training camps inside Iraq."

An internal Iraqi Intelligence document obtained by the New York Times provides a window into the state of the relationship during the mid-1990s. A team of Pentagon analysts concluded that the document "appears authentic." The memo reports that a Sudanese government official met with Uday Hussein and the director of the Iraqi Intelligence Service in 1994 and reported that Bin Laden was willing to meet in Sudan. As a consequence, according to the Iraqi document, bin Laden was "approached by our side" after "presidential approval" for the liaison was given. The former head of Iraqi Intelligence Directorate 4 met with bin Laden on February 19, 1995. The document further states that bin Laden "had some reservations about being labeled an Iraqi operative."

But the absence of a formal relationship hardly precludes cooperation, as the document makes clear. Bin Laden requested that Iraq's state-run television network broadcast anti-Saudi propaganda; the document indicates that the Iraqis agreed to do this. The al Qaida leader also proposed "joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia. There is no response provided in the documents. When bin Laden leaves Sudan for Afghanistan in May 1996, the Iraqis seek "other channels through which to handle the relationship, in light of his current location." The IIS memo directs that "cooperation between the two organizations should be allowed to develop freely through discussion and agreement.""

More evidence of the link. There are many more reports to be read there, too many for me to take excerpts from. The bottom line here that much to the chagrin of the left, there is more and more evidence coming forth on the Saddam, Iraq and al-Qaida linkage. This article is well worth the time it takes to read. - Sailor

Sunday, July 10, 2005

Wake Up, America

Once again, we have been reminded of just how vicious the enemy we face is. We sometimes become complacent, lose our vigilance and forget that we are at war. A war the likes we have never fought before. The closest to this war was the war with the Barbary Pirates back in the early 1800's. They were the last stateless enemy we fought and defeated. We will also defeat this enemy provided we do not lose our will and determination as well as not giving in to the notion that these miscreants can be appeased. An editorial in Investor's Business Daily hits on some of this.

"This is World War III, yet it's unlike any war we've ever fought. But adversaries and naysayers should make no mistake: It's a war on terror, and we will win it.

This new type of war flies under the subterfuge of God and religion. Yet our enemy's goal is to cold-bloodedly murder as many innocent people as possible, even its own people, and reassert total control and enslavement of women.

If al-Qaida and other gangster groups that have worked together against their perceived common enemies get their hands on gas, germ or nuclear weapons that work, is there any doubt they'd use them on New York, Washington, Chicago or Los Angeles?

This is the real threat — and why we, as the world's lonesuperpowerr, must fight anywhere, anytime to preserve our freedom and that of others.

You can be sure that if these terrorist thugs ever get their hands on a WMD, they will not hesitate to use it. Their goal is to kill as many of us as possible, men, women and children.They must be hunted down like the scum they are and eliminated. This is not a criminal justice issue. That has been tried and with very poor results. Those that think that it is a simple matter of addressing the perceived grievancess these thugs have presented as their reasons for their wanton killing, are only fooling themselves.Attempts to negotiate some sort of settlement with them, will only be seen as weakness and will further embolden them.

"The cowardly car bombers that our enemies employ cannot hope to overcome our military, the mightiest the world has ever seen. But they do hope their horrific acts can discourage the American people and their elected representatives back home.

They are aided in this endeavor by certain political leaders bent on appeasement and a national press corps focused mainly on body counts.

This is exactly what our enemies want. They hope we'll lose our backbone and quit, so that enslavement, intimidation and blackmail can prevail over freedom, equality and democracy.

The U.S. cannot be bought off like Saddam Hussein bought off France, Germany and Russia. Only by domestic dissent can we be defeated.

It's time to pull together as a people and give full support to our soldiers as they go about defeating a merciless enemy."

These terrorist leaders are very media savvy. They are not the poor oppressed people some would have us believe. They use and manipulate the media quite well, as evidenced by the statements of the usual leftist suspects, who whine and gnash their teeth over these thugs. Politicians such as Dick Durbin play right into their hands when that make statements such as he made. Let us not forget Amnesty International and their self admitted unsubstantiated allegations. Add Newsweek's false story to the mix as well. We must not lose our resolve, that will only serve to further embolden those we fight. Remember, their goal is to kill as many as they possibly can,no matterr who they are. If we keep the steel in our backbones, these forces of pure evil will be defeated. Only we can defeat ourselves. - Sailor

Saturday, July 09, 2005

The Real Extremists

With all of the praise the left is heaping on retiring SCOTUS Justice Sandra Day O'Conner, you would think she was one of their own. Indeed on some issues she did side with the left,most notably abortion. They have taken to calling her a "mainstream" conservative. Of course, the left believes that they are mainstream. Is this all just a setup for the looming fight on the nominee the president will present to replace O'Conner? David Limbaugh has some thoughts on this in his column.

"Their recent, unified celebration of O'Connor is part of their cynical calculation to position themselves as mainstream and Republicans as extremists. They see this as an essential foundation in their quest to garner the requisite public support to condone their imminent filibuster of the person President Bush nominates to replace O'Connor. This is one of the many reasons we can dismiss as disingenuous their denials that public interest groups and public opinion will matter in this process.

But do not dismiss the magnitude of the deception they are orchestrating here. They are hoping to convince the people that any nominee who is reputed to be an originalist is an extremist -- "outside the broad mainstream." Because they view the Court as a co-equal policy-making branch of government, they are treating the confirmation process as another national election.

Their bogus praise for O'Connor is simply the first step in their ruse. By lauding her as a "mainstream conservative," they lay the groundwork for labeling anyone less activist than her an extremist."

The left as always sought to portray conservative as extremist. The fact of the matter is that it is the left that is far outside of the mainstream. This is evidenced by the need of the left to have activist judges to enact their agenda, since they cannot get it legislated. They cannot do so, simply because they cannot get enough candidates elected that support their world view and agenda. So they will press to have more and more activist judges appointed to the Federal bench, including SCOTUS. Any nominee that the president presents, that does not tow the leftist line, will be called an extremist by the left.

"The dirty little secret is that the liberals are the extremists in this whole process. They are the ones who deny popular sovereignty by using the unelected courts to thwart the will of the people. They refuse to allow state legislatures to set policy when it is not consistent with their superior enlightened vision and they refuse to allow the Senate majority to perform its advice and consent role by their unprecedented partisan filibustering of judicial nominees. They won't even admit their liberalism, which is quite curious if they truly believe their ideas are mainstream.

They are afraid to leave the battles of the Culture War to be waged at the level of the culture and by the duly elected political branches. They insist on using the courts to cram social change down the people's throats -- because they know what's better for them. They are the ones who want the Court -- without any constitutional authority -- to foist customs and laws of foreign countries onto our jurisprudence.

So the next time these lockstep liberals tell us they are in the mainstream, remember that they not only aren't mainstream, they have contempt for those who are and for the expressed will of the people. And, they'll use any means necessary -- including propaganda -- to subvert the will of the people they pretend to honor."

You can bet your last dollar, that any nominee the president proposes will be filibustered as the dem/leftists will claim "extraordinary" circumstances. Read that to mean that the nominee does not tow the leftist line. The dem/leftists need an activist justice to foist their agenda upon the people. The very same agenda they cannot achieve through the legislative process. I for one, expect SCOTUS to adhere to the Constitution and not the laws of foreign powers. I also do not want judges creating laws that are the purview of the legislative branch. We have a bi-cameral legislature, not a tri-cameral one. You will see in the coming days and weeks, tons of propaganda generated by the left and duly reported as fact by their media allies. One also has to wonder just how much influence Harry Reid actually has. He is on the record as stating that the Attorney General is qualified, yet it is being reported that Gonzales would be filibustered. It is time that Frist employ the Constitutional option. - Sailor

Thursday, July 07, 2005

Cool Britannia

Today, we are all Britons. The attacks in London touch us all. Fortunately, the British are made of hardier stock than the Spanish. The British will not cut and run. Tim Worstall gives some insight into what he believes will be the British reaction.

"You will, no doubt, by now heard of the terrorist bombings in London. The BBC's site gives a general overview and Nosemonkey at Europhobia has been blogging the different sources and rumors far better than my attempt. There is also a pool of photos at Flickr and Wikipedia is up and running on the subject.

As I write the general outline is that there were six bombs set off on the Tube (London's version of the subway) during the morning rush hour, just before 9 am (yes, it's a late starting city by American standards) and then sometime later, after that system was closed and the buses jammed instead, a suicide bomber blows up a double decker. The latest reports are of 40 to 45 dead, the hospitals claim to be treating 300 injured and there are slightly more dismal rumors of 60 dead and a thousand injured.

Tony Blair has made a speech from the G8 summit:

"It is important, however, that the terrorists realize our determination to defend our values and our way of life is greater than their determination to cause the death and destruction of innocent people and impose their extremism on the world. It is our determination that they will never succeed in destroying what we have here in this country and in other civilized countries around the world."

The details of what is happening are obviously still changing, as we learn more, from blogs, the mainstream outlets and so on. So I'd just like to add a little personal experience, a few notes from the past, to give you an idea of what the British reaction is and is going to be.

A jihadi group has already claimed
responsibility on the internet:

Jamaat al-Tandheem Al-Sierri (secret organization group) Organization of Qaeda't al-Jihad in Europe In the name of God the most merciful... Rejoice the nation of Islam, rejoice nation of Arabs, the time of revenge has come for the crusaders' Zionist British government. As retaliation for the massacres which the British commit in Iraq and Afghanistan, the mujahideen have successfully done it this time in London. And this is Britain now burning from fear and panic from the north to the south, from the east to the west.

The claim posted on the Internet has been withdrawn. This attack has all the hallmarks of al Qaeda, multiple strikes designed for maximum casualties, using mass transit as the target. The new name used, could be an attempt to have people believe that there is another groupout there, that is an offshoot of al Qaeda.

"Yes, we do believe a better world can be built. The third song is always thought to be a little too jingoistic for this modern age, it being Rule Britannia. It does indeed grate in some of its verses but the second line of the chorus is:

Britons never will be slaves.

And I think that's true. I don't think we ever will be slaves. I have no doubt that we can be killed, that we could even be conquered or beaten, but not that we would cower like slaves, give in to threats of further violence. Far from the "fear and panic from the north to the south" there is something very different going on. Yes, of course, there will be the usual idiots making asinine political points (just read the comments sections of the various blogs for that) before the blood of the murdered has even cooled, I have no doubt that fools will blame all Muslims, or those wearing turbans (given the state of the education system it is difficult to blame those who do not realize that Sikhs are not Muslims...a few years back a crowd was so enraged over a child molester that they tried to burn down the house of a paediatrician), when the responsibility belongs to those who carried out the murders, that extreme minority that have twisted Islam so grievously. But my fellow Britons? Give in, give up? No, I don't think so. We'll bury the dead, comfort the bereaved and carry on in the way we know best. The police will chase the terrorists, the military will continue in the War on Terror and us? The last word to Nosemonkey:

God, us Brits are great. Hardly any panic -- more just getting pissed off that it's going to be a bugger getting home. I love this country sometimes.

There will be the usual blame America rhetoric to be sure. No doubt the terrorist loving and ass kissing Geroge Galloway will get on his soapbox. In the end, though, the Brits will do as they always do, refuse to surrender. - Sailor

Bomb Blasts Rock London Mass Transit System

The following excerpt is from the AP.

"LONDON (AP) - Terror struck in the heart of London on Thursday as explosions ripped through three subway trains and blasted the roof off a crowded red double-decker bus. At least 37 people were killed and more than 700 wounded in the deadliest attack on the city since the blitz in World War II.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair blamed Islamic extremists and said the bombings were designed to coincide with the opening in Scotland of a G-8 summit of the world's most powerful leaders. Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said the bombings - which came the day after London won the bid to host the 2012 Olympics - have the "hallmarks of an al-Qaida-related attack."

Police said there had been no warning and that the blasts at three subway stations went off within 26 minutes, starting at 8:51 a.m. in an Underground train just outside the financial district. Authorities initially blamed a power surge but realized it was a terror attack after the bus bombing near the British Museum at 9:47 a.m. - less than an hour after the first explosion.

Trapped passengers in the Underground railway threw themselves on the floor, some sobbing. As subway cars quickly filled with smoke, people used their umbrellas to try to break the windows so that they could get air. Passengers emerged from the Underground covered with blood and soot. On the street, in a light rain, buses ferried the wounded, and medics used a hotel as a hospital."

You will note that under Old Glory flies the Union Jack. I urge all of you to add the Union Jack to your blog page. - Sailor

Four and possibly as many as six explosions have rocked London'd mass transit system. Two fatalities have been reported thus far and will likely increase as the chaos subsides. It is reported that two double decker buses were destroyed. Here are some excerpts of the reporting on this developing story.

"Whatever they do, it is our determination that they will never succeed in destroying what we hold dear in this country and in other civilized nations throughout the world," said Blair.

A group calling itself "The Secret Organization of al-Qaida in Europe" posted a claim of responsibility for the blasts, saying they were in retaliation for Britain's involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Web statement, republished on the site of the German magazine Der Spiegel, could not be immediately confirmed."

While this have not been comfirmed, it would appear that al-Qaeda has become active once again in Europe.

"Sir Ian Blair, London's police chief, said he was concerned the explosions were a coordinated attack but said he wouldn't speculate on who was responsible. He said officials had found indications of explosives at one of the sites.

Police reported "a number of fatalities" at one London subway station. "Things are still relatively confused," Superintendent John Morgan said.

Denying an earlier report, Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom said that Israel was not warned by Scotland Yard in advance of the blasts.

"We have been at a very high state of alert. Of course if there had been any kind of specific warnings we would have dealt with it," Blair said.

One witness, Darren Hall, said some passengers emerging from an evacuated subway station had soot and blood on their faces. He told BBC TV that he was evacuated along with others near the major King's Cross station and only afterward heard a blast.

Police confirmed an explosion destroyed a double-decker bus at Russell Square in central London.

Paul Woodrow, an official with the ambulance service, told reporters that rescue operations were ongoing and that "there are large numbers of casualties." Officials at the Royal London Hospital told BBC that 95 injured had been brought into that hospital alone."

This appears to be an co-ordinated attack, much like Madrid. Mass transit systems are very soft and vunerable targets. Having grown up in New York City, there has always been the fear that the NYC subway system would be an easy target for terrorists. It was only a few years ago that a plot to explode shrapnel laden bombs there was foiled. This is a developing story, as soon as more details become available I will provide updates. - Sailor


Wednesday, July 06, 2005

Blood Donation – A Sexual Minefield

Poor Doc! He went to give blood and got the third degree about his sexual life. If the Red Cross is going torely on people being truthful about their sexual escapdes, try very hard not need blood, ever! Pssst, Doc, watch out for the Bouncing Betties, they can ruin your whole day! - Sailor

Blood Donation – A Sexual Minefield
Written by Doc Farmer
Wednesday, July 06, 2005

Author's Note: This article deals with actual questions asked by the American Red Cross to blood donors. If you think you're embarrassed reading these questions, just think about how you'd feel actually answering them....

I know I lived outside the US for a while, but things have changed a lot more than I ever expected them to. The media's more left-leaning,
the Congress is redundant (thanks to SCOTUS), the taxes are higher and McDonalds still doesn't make enough McRib sandwiches. I've found that corporations are so anal-retentive, so afraid of offending anybody that you really can't say, do, or even think anything without the threat of unemployment and/or lawsuits. I've found that you can get food that is sugar free, fat free, carb free, protein free, wheat free, gluten free, etc., but never actually free (as my grocery bill will attest).

Some things are still the same. Most of the people in Congress are the same jerks who were there when I left America all those years ago. Teddy the Hutt is still fat, drunk, irrelevant, and disgustingly lib/dem/soc/commie-fied. Republican leaders are still spineless. Washington, D.C. is still a sinkhole for everybody's money. And Ted Koppel still has that hairdo that looks like a cross between Big Boy and a
Chernobyl survivor.

When I first came back, I was almost overwhelmed by all the changes. Hablamos Español is almost the preferred language these days. When I left America, we spoke American. Burger joints used to sell burgers, fries, shakes and Cokes. Now they sell salads, tofu, and bottled water, screwing up my artery-hardening program something awful. Tellers at banks used to handle money. Now, they can barely add and subtract, leaving the tedium of money-handling to machines. Beer didn't have warning labels.

However, the one thing that is still the same is those Red Cross blood drives. About once a month, the local radio station will say that they're running ''dangerously low'' on blood supplies, and they ask for folks to come on down and open up a vein. On the plus side, after dropping off a pint of red, you do get a cookie. Since I'm trying to diet, I skip the cookie myself, but I do dip into the orange juice (Mea Culpa, Mea
Culpa, Mea Calorie Culpa).

Well, there was a blood drive here in town at a local grocery store. I had just gotten off work, and really had no pressing plans, so I figured, ''Hey, why not have somebody jab me in the arm and dig around for a vein for 5 minutes''? It sorta breaks up the day.

Have you given blood lately? In the last few years, I mean? Heck, even since the first of the year? Well, if you go now, you're in for one hell of a surprise.

They took my pulse, blood pressure, and stuck my finger with what appeared to be a samurai sword to check out my iron content. They asked my name, social security number, address, any known aliases, shoe size, etc. That was fine. Annoying, but fine. I understand the need to accurately identify who is donating (if for no other reason than to ensure folks don't donate too often, and screw up their health).

Nevertheless, when the lady at the bloodmobile started asking me the long list of questions on her
form, I was totally flummoxed. It read less like a medical statement and more like an application for a job in a porno movie! Sure, they asked the ''Are you feeling healthy and well today'' and the ''Are you taking any medications'' questions, and I'm fine with that. I think, however, that our paranoia as regards the blood supply is getting to be a bit much.

What follows are ACTUAL QUESTIONS that I was asked by a lady I didn't know. The answers in italic are the ones I thought, but didn't necessarily say....

In the past 12 months, have you had sexual contact with anyone who has HIV/AIDS or has had a positive test for the HIV/AIDS virus? To simplify things, the answer is no to any question with the first 12 words of that sentence. Damn it!

In the past 12 months, have you had sexual contact with a
prostitute or anyone else who takes money or drugs or other payment for sex? Not being married anymore, the answer to that one is no (''other payment'' usually involved having to mow the lawn).

In the past 12 months, have you had sexual contact with anyone who has ever used needles to take drugs or steroids, or anything not prescribed by their doctor? Well, unless I was unconscious and boned one night by the Governator, I'd say that's a no.

In the past 12 months, have you had sexual contact with anyone who has hemophilia or has used clotting factor concentrates? No, but I had a glass of orange juice made from concentrates. Does that count?

In the past 12 months, have you had sexual contact with a person who has hepatitis? What, you mean she [i]wasn't a performance
artist imitating an egg yolk?[/i]

In the past 12 months, have you had or been treated for syphilis or gonorrhea? Are you kidding? I haven't even had the CHANCE to catch it, let alone be treated for it!

In the past 12 months, have you been in juvenile detention, lockup, jail, or prison for more than 72 hours? No, but you've just given me a very good reason to never be arrested. After 3 days, you apparently become infected with a deadly disease? Yipes!

From 1977 to the present, have you received money, drugs or other payment for sex? Why? How much are you willing to pay?

From 1977 to the present, if you are male, have you ever had sexual contact with another male, even once? Does the fact that I'm barfing on my shoes right now
answer your question?

Have you EVER (their emphasis, not mine) had a positive test for the HIV/AIDS virus? No. And by the way, aren't they two separate diseases? Shouldn't you ask one question for HIV and another for AIDS? Just to fill up the page more, I mean.

Have you EVER had sexual contact with anyone who was born in or lived in Africa. Geez, that sure must cut down the donation list, doesn't it?

Have you EVER been to Africa? No, but I'm sure the Nairobi Tourist Board must just LOOOOVE you for asking.

There were other questions that were totally understandable (Have you EVER had hepatitis? Have you EVER had malaria?) and some that were totally incomprehensible (Have you EVER had babesiosis? For that matter, what the $^#% is babesoisis? Is that some kind of Baywatch disease or something?).

I was actually deferred from donating blood, not because I answered any of the questions wrong, but because my pulse rate was too high by about 6 beats per minute. Probably from having to answer all those embarrassing and personal questions. Either that, or the cup of REAL coffee I had this morning instead of decaf (sorry, my bad). The folks in the bloodmobile said I could come back any other day and donate, so long as my pulse rate was down to an acceptable level.

After running a gauntlet of questions like that, though, I am coming to understand more and more why the Red Cross is running into blood shortages. After their financial sleight of hand following 9/11, I definitely don't give money to the Red Cross anymore. However, I figured that giving blood was still a way to help out in my
community. Now, I'm not so sure that it's worth it.

Nobody wants to be embarrassed like that while trying to perform an act of charity. Since I've got a somewhat rare blood type (and no, to all my fellow Star Trek fans, it's NOT green!), I suppose I'll have to put up with it. Nevertheless, it would seem more sensible for the Red Cross to do the biochemical screening of the blood itself, instead of asking questions that people could, quite frankly, lie about.

About the Writer: Doc Farmer is a writer and humorist who is also a moderator on ChronWatch's Forum. He formerly lived in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, but now resides in the Midwest. Doc receives e-mail at

This Article Was First Published In ChronWatch At: