Where’s the outrage?

Kofi, EU? Anyone?

Here’s the photo and caption, in case that link changes soon:

Pali terrorists gun down suspected Israeli informant

Palestinian gunmen, who identified themselves as members of the Islamic Jihad group, shoot a man in a public square in the West Bank town of Jenin Sunday Aug. 13, 2006. The man, who was executed in front of hundreds of people, was accused by the gunmen of giving information to Israeli authorities, helping them to kill two militants last week in a targeted attack, said witnesses and Islamic Jihad members. The victim was identified as Bassem Malah, 22, who worked in the Israeli Arab town of Umm al Fahm. (AP Photo/Mohammed Ballas)

Mon PM Update: Dan Riehl has more photos of this incident. Note the crowd’s reaction to the after-death beatings this man rec’d.

Charlie Rangel: Moral relativist extraordinaire

I see Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY 15th) continues to prove why he is one of the most embarassing representatives in the United States Congress. Extreme Mortman has the details on Rep. Rangel’s latest dance with moral relativism – here’s one of them:

CAVUTO: Well, are you saying you’re for Castro?

RANGEL: No. I want a democratic change. But I don’t believe dancing in the street and spreading out money in Havana and in Miami is the a way to do it.

CAVUTO: Charlie, this guy killed a lot of people.

RANGEL: Well, I wonder how many people we killed at Guantanamo. I mean, we don’t have the human rights record.

CAVUTO: Well, wait — wait a minute. Are you equating Fidel Castro with what’s happening at Guantanamo?

RANGEL: You bet your life, if we’re — if we are talking about human rights.

CAVUTO: So, President Bush is just like Fidel Castro?

RANGEL: No. But what I’m saying is, if you want to talk about the inhuman human rights that Castro has, in arresting people and not presenting them with why they were arrested, not giving them lawyers, and having a secret trial, hey, we’re doing the same thing…

“We’re doing the same thing.”? The moral relativism doesn’t get any better (or is it worse?) than that, folks.

From Rangel’s own website:

The sad fact is that most of those dancing in the streets in Miami have never lived in Cuba themselves and are celebrating based on the stories of an angry and aging generation who left Cuba after the Cuban revolution and are the strongest proponents of the U.S. embargo. The likelihood is that any leader who takes over in Cuba will be less than inclined to welcome back those people whose mission in life has been to keep the boot of the embargo on Cuba’s neck.

As much as I am offended by the celebrations, I feel for those Cuban Americans who have relatives remaining in Cuba whom they may visit only once every three years because of the recent tightening of the Bush embargo.

The policy that, in fact, is dividing Cuban families was not devised by the Cuban government. It is the American government’s misguided policies that have erected walls between Cuban Americans and their families on the island.

It’s OUR fault! We’re worse! Seems to be the theme of the day …

Read the other example of Rangel moral relativism Extreme Mortman has posted, and check out the photo he has there of Rangel and a prominent member of the Nutrootian community. Warning: Don’t view it if you’ve either just eaten, or are about to.


Mid-air suicide mission was to have included infant?

This is beyond sick, if true.

I was about to ask “what kind of heartless b-stards would sacrifice their child like that?” and then I remembered that Palestinian terrorists do it all the time.

Hat tip: LGF

See also at LGF: Photos of terrorist supporters marching this weekend in Washington, DC. Ian at Hot Air has more, and links up to Age of Hooper for even more. See San Fran terrorist supporters here. Toronto terrorist supporters can be seen here (scroll – the first few pix are from an anti-terror rally). Click here to see German supporters of terrorism.

Hat tip: Gateway Pundit

Update: More examples of Islamofascist depravity, this time it’s Hezbollah – they apparently placed disabled children in the building in Qana that Israel targeted, and then placed a rocket launcher on top of the building to provoke Israel. That they would deliberately put civilians in harms way is disgusting enough, but to put disabled children in the line of fire …? What I have to say in response isn’t suitable for print.

Read more via YNET News.

52% of Lamont voters feel Prez should be impeached

Other interesting stats from the latest Rasmussen poll on the CT Senate race:

Senator Joe Lieberman’s decision to run as an Independent sets up a lively campaign season for Connecticut voters. In the first General Election poll since Ned Lamont defeated Lieberman in Tuesday’s primary, the incumbent is hanging on to a five percentage point lead. Lieberman earns support from 46% of Connecticut voters while Lamont is the choice of 41% (see crosstabs).

A month ago, the candidates were tied at 40% each.

Republican Alan Schlesinger earns just 6% of the vote, down from 13% a month ago.

57% of the state’s voters view Lieberman as politically moderate while 51% see Lamont as liberal.

Half (52%) of Lamont voters believe Bush should be impeached and removed from office. Just 15% of Lieberman voters share that view.

Overall, 55% of Connecticut voters trust Lieberman more than Lamont when it comes to the War on Terror. Thirty-one percent (31%) trust Lamont.

Thirty-one percent (31%) have a Very Favorable opinion of Lieberman, 18% Very Unfavorable.

For Lamont, the numbers are 19% Very Favorable, 23% Very Unfavorable.

Lieberman still attracts 35% of votes from Democrats. Lamont will have to find a way to trim that number without alienating unaffiliated voters. Lieberman is viewed at least somewhat favorably by 65% of unaffiliated voters compared to 49% for Lamont.

What I’d like to know is: What’s Lamont’s position on the issue of impeachment? Perhaps he should consult his proxies first, you know, the ones he doesn’t know about.

Hat tip: AJ Strata

More: Nothing on impeachment, but he did note here in an interview today with FoxNews’ Chris Wallace that the President ought to be “censured.”

US and British foreign policy is to blame for Islamofascism

This three page article, quoting several British Muslims, says so.

If only we’d ‘give’ them more economic opportunities (which, in fact, already exist), didn’t “isolate” them (we don’t – and the UK has been particularly welcoming, as the article notes) and if only we weren’t so jaded by the fact that most terrorist attacks in the world today are carried out by Islamic extremists! It’s not radical Islam that is to blame here.

It’s US!

Sound somewhat familiar?

Hat tip: USS Neverdock

Update: Let’s hear it for today’s voice of reason.


Allah is on top of a developing story about a photojournalist who has accused (scroll down on that link) Lebanese wire service photographers of digging up bodies of dead children in Lebanon and staging them for photographs.

As Drudge would say, developing …

More: ST reader Severian makes a great point:

Information warfare at it’s finest, control the media and the tone of the images used. Up until now, they were able to do this without anyone noticing due to complacency and worse from the MSM. Now, thanks to the New Media, this is starting to get some attention, but not as much as it should.

Make no mistake, the IslamoFascists have accurately determined our vunerablilty to infowar of this type, and are damned good at exploiting it. The fact they have support from a lazy at best, supportive at worst, news media just makes it that much easier.

I wrote in this post how Islamofascists manipulate the media and consequently the people reading the news stories they publish about how ‘destructive’ and ‘indiscriminate’ western forces supposedly are as it relates to carrying out the war on terror.

I wrote this last month that the war on terror is not the only war we’re waging as it relates to Islamofascism:

We fight battles on two fronts now: on the actual battlefield itself, and the battle over public opinion both home and abroad. FDR and war presidents prior to him, while indeed facing criticism from the media over certain aspects of their respective wars, didn’t have to deal with 24 hour news networks where war stories saturate the airwaves, and insta-analysis both on the news nets, in print, and online in the way that today’s Western leaders do.


Think about how the media coverage – which was a lot more confined back in the Vietnam war era than it is today – and how the slanted, one-sided coverage affected our ability to effectively wage a war. Magnify that 100-fold, and you see what leaders in Western countries (specifically the US) have to take into consideration today when deciding whether or not to wage war.

Some would say “to hell with public opinion – let’s do the job, and worry about the repercussions later.” While I understand the sentiment behind that, I don’t think it’s questionable that Western leaders today have to find that balance between how to effectively wage war and keep the public supportive of the war efforts. Because when the public becomes unhappy and lets their leaders know it, the result is a Vietnam-style pull out – which, I don’t have to remind anyone, only emboldens our enemies.

Kind of hard to do, when they’ve (western leaders) got the MSM acting as unquestionable arbiters of ‘the real truth’ regarding all aspects of how we wage the war (whether at home or abroad) (via their ‘on the scene’ interviews, reports, and photographs, not to mention the various domestic leaks in the last few years which have harmed our ability to track and find terrorists) working against all we are trying to accomplish in the global WOT.

Stories like these are spurred on, of course, by those ‘seekers of truth’ on the far left, who don’t care that leaks harm our national security and assert that we ‘have a right’ to see ‘what we’re [the US] is really doing over there to poor innocent Muslims.’ I used to think they were ignorant as to what things like this do in terms of influencing opinions here at home as well as globally, but over time I’ve learned to believe they understand exactly the negative influence leaks and saturation of bad news (as well as news that very well may be staged or faked) have on people. That’s why they continue to seek their version of ‘the truth.’ It’s an invention of an alternative reality on their part, aided and abetted by an all too willing anti-war/anti-military/anti-Bush press, in a twisted attempt to turn people against ‘cowboy diplomacy’ – as personified by President Bush, Prime Minister Tony Blair, and Israel. Prove that their tactics ‘kill more good guys than bad guys’, prove that their domestic terrorist monitoring programs ‘target more innocents than guilty’ and you strike a blow to the very heart the WOT.

It’s all about bringing down Bush – and to a lesser extent Blair and Israel, by any means necessary.


“Bbbbbbut it wasn’t imminent!!!!”

Predictability, thy name is Nutroots.

Via NBC News today, we learn that the Brits and the US had a ‘significant’ disagreement as to when to move on the suspected terrorists who were planning the terror attacks that would have blown up several planes en route to the US from the UK:

LONDON – NBC News has learned that U.S. and British authorities had a significant disagreement over when to move in on the suspects in the alleged plot to bring down trans-Atlantic airliners bound for the United States.

A senior British official knowledgeable about the case said British police were planning to continue to run surveillance for at least another week to try to obtain more evidence, while American officials pressured them to arrest the suspects sooner. The official spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the case.

In contrast to previous reports, the official suggested an attack was not imminent, saying the suspects had not yet purchased any airline tickets. In fact, some did not even have passports.

Hmmm. So it supposedly wasn’t “imminent”, according to this one official, but the British officials were planning on moving in on the suspects within a week, if you read between the lines of what’s reported. That sounds “imminent” enough for me.

Of course, this is all the nutroots needed to claim that the announcement of the foiling of this wave of terrorist attacks was nothing more than a political stunt by BushCo. in an attempt to paint Lamont’s win as a symbol of the Democrats weakness on fighting terror. Check out the comments to this post at Talk Left if you want to see just what I’m talking about. There are a few voices of sanity in the comments, but overall the comments seem to indicate that we should have waited to move on this case because the threat “wasn’t imminent”. What you read in the comments there is the standard for what you’ll see on other lefty blogs today in response to this article. Unbelievable.

When you read on down into the article, you’ll see the likely reason why the US wanted to act now rather than wait even a few days:

Analysts say that in recent years, American security officials have become edgier than the British in such cases because of missed opportunities leading up to 9/11.

Brains not allowed in the city of NutrootsGasp! Isn’t this exactly what the far left complained about just months after 9-11? That “Bush KNEW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!” but didn’t act quickly enough? And now that “Bush KNEW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!” and our intelligence agencies acted swiftly, it’s “politics”? LOL! I swear you cannot make this stuff up. Welcome to the city of Nutroots, where brains and common sense are strictly prohibited. The lights are on, but nobody’s home.

Toldjah So.

Oh, and I’m surprised THIS part didn’t get the nutroots riled up, too:

[The anonymous official] acknowledged that authorities had conducted electronic and e-mail surveillance as well as physical surveillance of the suspects.

Uh oh. They musta missed that one.