Even more on the latest developments in Iraq

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

This morning, I linked up to several pieces that gave you a more insightful view of what’s happening in Iraq with the Mahdi Army and Sadr than what we’ve typically gotten out of the MSM these last couple of weeks. To add to that, Bill Roggio has some additional updates on the latest developments in Basra, Baghdad, and elsewhere in Iraq.

If you haven’t already, make sure to bookmark Long War Journal and visit often. It’s one of the best go-to sources of information related to the global war on terror anywhere on the I’net, and gives you information you won’t often find in the MSM.

More: James Gordon Meek at The Counterterrorism Blog writes about the latest happenings in Fallujah.

Revisiting the “would you date a liberal” argument

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

Over two years ago, I started a thread here asking readers whether or not they would let someone’s political affiliation stop them from dating/marrying them. There were quite a few interesting responses in the thread. My response was that it didn’t matter one way or the other as long as the guy worshipped me ;;)

I’ve written since then (not sure it was here, or at a political message board I frequent) that I’m not sure if I could date a liberal anymore, considering how polarized the left and right have become. I have dated liberal men in the past and at the time saw little difference in them and the conservative men I went out with, but the last liberal guy I went out with on a regular basis was years and years ago, and over the years I’ve become more set in my ways regarding my political views. I’m not totally anti-going out with one, but there would be some make it or break it issues for me, like the war in Iraq, the sanctity of human life, and Christianity. If we disagreed strongly on those issues, we’d have to part company. I’m not saying I’d conduct a big interview on the first date or anything like that to find out (LOL) – I mean, when you’re interested in someone, the first thing you ask them is not “are you a liberal or conservative?” – but eventually those things do come up in some way shape or form throughout the course of the relationship. If I found out we agreed in general terms on the issues I mentioned, I’d be cool with snuggling up with him, because the other issues I’d try to persuade him on a bit later in the relationship, in an effort to bring him over to the dark side :D

What brought this up was John Hawkins’ interview with several female conservative bloggers on their dating experiences with liberal and conservative men, and what the differences (if any) were/are. Most of them say that either they would not date a liberal and/or the experience they’ve had with them haven’t been good.

I only have one experience that really stands out on that front, which I may have talked about here before (I know I wrote about this at the political forum I visit, and am reposting parts here so I don’t have to re-type it). Actually two experiences, now that I think about it, that would have fit in the ‘stereotypical’ liberal man vs. conservative man definition each side holds about the other. Back in the mid 90s I went out with a nice-looking conservative guy who was divorced with two (or was it three?) kids. On our first (and only) date, he talked fondly of his ex-wife and how he wanted a stay at home mom just like her to raise his kids, mentioned how much I looked like his ex, etc. Keep in mind I was in my mid 20s at the time, and was unprepared to be the mother of someone else’s kids, not to mention I wanted to work.

On the other hand, around that same time frame, I had been talking to this cool guy I’d met at a sports bar/ club that I went to with friends sometimes. This guy was very attractive and he seemed nice enough. Anyone who’s been to a club knows it’s kind of hard to “talk” at one because it’s so loud, so one evening when I was there, he invited me out to his car so we could talk without having to yell – I went, and on the back of his car there was a “Clinton/Gore” bumper sticker. I asked him if he was still a supporter after all had been said and done (this was shortly after the 1996 election). And he said something like “hell yeah, Clinton’s a cool dude.” I liked this guy, so I didn’t engage him in any political debate – especially about Clinton. We exchanged phone numbers, and he called me a couple times and we had some nice chats. On about our third call, I decided I’d call him – and found out the number he’d given me was his work number. Hmmmm … When I asked to speak with him, the receptionist who was screening calls asked me, “Is this his wife?”

Apparently just wanted a little fling on the side … needless to say, he was history after that. I didn’t take his calls and avoided him at the club, which I didn’t go to much after that experience, anyway.

But that was an exception to the rule. The liberal men I have dated I broke up with for reasons unrelated to their political beliefs. Most of the time it was due to incompatibility on other things, loss of interest, them being overly possessive, things like that. Their manners were, for the most part, just like a conservative guys’ in that they held the door for me, gave me their coat when it was cold, etc – maybe it’s because the liberal men I’ve dated have been from the South and possessed Southern manners that I didn’t have these really negative experiences some conservative women have had with liberals males. Now, if I had gone out with a California liberal (for example) the experience might have been decidedly different ;) The bottom line is that I don’t think we should limit ourselves, when there are so many interesting people out there whose views many not mesh 100% with ours but who, nevertheless, could make a good soulmate.

Independent Liberal Kevin Sullivan understandably didn’t like the Hawkins’ piece, but I disagree with the way he choose to respond to it by attacking the conservative female bloggers personally. I can see a criticism of their comments on the general level, but the personal swipes were a bit much. I say this with some degree of experience, considering some of the things I’ve written here about radical liberal feminists which led to nasty personal attacks on me in response. Now I’m a grown woman, and can handle such attacks, but they’re really not necessary in the scheme of things, and in the end really don’t solve anything. It’s one thing to criticize another blogger’s arguments, even another blogger himself in terms of his/her debating style, but taking a personal swipe is going too far. IMO, Kevin should leave that stuff to the far left bloggers who have have cornered the market on such behavior, and save his blogspace for the more meaningful issue-oriented posts he publishes …. even if I don’t always agree with everything he writes ;)

Rev. Wright wrote the NYT a year ago to complain about their portrayal of him

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

Time’s Mark Halperin obtained a copy of a letter Obama’s “former pastor” Jeremiah Wright wrote to NYT reporter Jodi Kantor last March complaining about how she “misrepresented” in an article she wrote about him shortly after she interviewed him for a piece she was doing on Barack Obama. Some excerpts (via Scott Johnson):

Thank you for engaging in one of the biggest misrepresentations of the
truth I have ever seen in sixty-five years. You sat and shared with me
for two hours. You told me you were doing a “Spiritual Biography” of
Senator Barack Obama. For two hours, I shared with you how I thought he
was the most principled individual in public service that I have ever met.

For two hours, I talked with you about how idealistic he was. For two
hours I shared with you what a genuine human being he was. I told you
how incredible he was as a man who was an African American in public
service, and as a man who refused to announce his candidacy for
President until Carol Moseley Braun indicated one way or the other
whether or not she was going to run.

I told you what a dreamer he was. I told you how idealistic he was. We
talked about how refreshing it would be for someone who knew about Islam
to be in the Oval Office. Your own question to me was, Didn’t I think it
would be incredible to have somebody in the Oval Office who not only
knew about Muslims, but had living and breathing Muslims in his own
family? I told you how important it would be to have a man who not only
knew the difference between Shiites and Sunnis prior to 9/11/01 in the
Oval Office, but also how important it would be to have a man who knew
what Sufism was; a man who understood that there were different branches
of Judaism; a man who knew the difference between Hasidic Jews, Orthodox
Jews, Conservative Jews and Reformed Jews; and a man who was a devout
Christian, but who did not prejudge others because they believed
something other than what he believed.

I talked about how rare it was to meet a man whose Christianity was not
just “in word only.” I talked about Barack being a person who lived his
faith and did not argue his faith. I talked about Barack as a person
who did not draw doctrinal lines in the sand nor consign other people to
hell if they did not believe what he believed.

Here is the article in question. She wrote a more in depth follow-up piece here. I can tell you from experience that both of those articles have been referenced numerous times by plenty of pundits and bloggers alike, especially in the last month as more of Rev. Wright’s hateful sermons have been exposed to the American people.

The NYT’s response is here. Excerpt:

In early March 2007, Ms. Kantor interviewed Mr. Wright, then senior pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, for a story about Senator Obama’s religious evolution. During the lengthy interview, Mr. Wright told Ms. Kantor that Mr. Obama, on the night before the formal declaration of his presidential candidacy several weeks earlier, had canceled an invitation for Mr. Wright to speak at the event. Since Mr. Obama’s decision to disinvite Mr. Wright was clearly news – and because word of it was beginning to get around – we decided to publish a news story about it right away. Ms. Kantor called Mr. Wright back and spoke to him to fact check the article before it was published.

Mr. Wright wrote his letter to Ms. Kantor several days later. He did not respond to subsequent attempts by Ms. Kantor to reach him. The following month, when the reporting and editing on it was complete, we published a much longer story about Senator Obama’s faith, including a full account of Mr. Wright’s influence on him, incorporating considerable material from the interview.

[…]

Putting aside the question of why a letter that is more than a year old is suddenly getting new circulation, it is worth noting that at no time has Mr. Wright challenged the accuracy of either story written by Ms. Kantor – both of which, given the events of the last several weeks, seem remarkably prescient about the potential political peril in the Obama-Wright relationship.

The best take I’ve seen on this is from Captain Ed:

[Kantor] apparently didn’t bother to research the videos and copies of sermons easily available, and so missed the exhortations that 9/11 was America’s “chickens coming home to roost”, that black people should sing “God Damn America”, and that the US had created HIV-AIDS as a tool for genocide against people of color. One wonders why Wright bothered to complain about the minor issue at hand while all of these political land mines remained just below the surface — and why Kantor and the Times never bothered to research Wright in more depth.

The entire national media missed the Wright Stuff, so it’s not entirely fair to hold the Times and Kantor solely responsible for the failure. However, the paper had a reporter assigned to the story, and clearly Kantor had an inkling of the kind of damage Wright could do to Obama’s campaign. Did the Times deliberately pull its punches, even after getting slapped by Wright over Kantor’s early reporting? And more to the point, did the Times pull its punches because Wright complained about their early coverage?

Knowing what we know about how the NYT tends to treat liberals better than conservatives in general, I’d say it’s fair to suggest that the answer to the last question is “yes.”

Where to go to find out what’s happening in Iraq

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

Certain areas in Iraq have seen an increase in fighting and violence over the last couple of weeks, and as a result, of course our mainstream media, in concert with liberal pundits and bloggers, have jumped on board with enthusiasm, thinking the surge might just be failing.

As always, though, the story is a lot more complicated than the picture The Usual Suspects present. Bill Roggio, writing at The Long War Journal, wrote a piece yesterday about how Moqtada al-Sadr has told his followers to stop fighting, due to heavy casualties incurred on his side of the battle. Michael Yon, embedded in Iraq, recently gave a phone interview to Glenn Reynolds you should listen to regarding what’s happening in Iraq, and Yon’s latest dispatch is posted here.

Michael J. Totten has a piece posted about the liberation of Karmah, Iraq. Mohammed Fadhil from the Iraq the Model blog writes about Sadr and the Mahdi army here and here.

Last but not least, Sgt. Matthew Maupin will finally be coming home (h/t: Jules Crittenden):

After waiting nearly four years, the family of Army Staff Sgt. Matt Maupin of Batavia learned Sunday that he had died in Iraq after being captured by insurgents.

An Army general visited Keith and Carolyn Maupin on Sunday and told them their son’s remains had been found.

“Matt is coming home. He’s completed his mission,” Keith Maupin said.

Maupin was 20 years old when he was captured on April 9, 2004, after his fuel convoy was ambushed west of Baghdad. He had been driving a supply truck.

Military officials identified the remains through DNA, Keith Maupin said.

“We don’t know where, just somewhere in Iraq. They found a shirt similar to what he (Matt) was wearing,” Keith Maupin said. “They had DNA and confirmed it was Matt.”

Lt. Lee Packnett, an Army public affairs officer in Washington, confirmed the Maupins’ notification. Packnett said an official statement would be released today.

At about 9:45 p.m. Sunday, Carolyn Maupin took a call from President Bush.

More than 100 people gathered Sunday night in a drizzling rain in a large circle outside the Eastgate office of the Yellow Ribbon Support Center, the organization the Maupins founded to help other military people serving overseas.

Prayers go out to his family and friends.

RIP, Staff Sgt. Maupin.

Davidson Wildcats lose chance to go to the Final Four

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

Davidson WildcatsStephen Curry and the gang at Davidson played their behinds off tonight against #1 Kansas, proving that just because you’re ranked #10 doesn’t mean you have to play like a #10 team. In the end, though, as the last 16 seconds of the game winded down with Davidson in possession, the last second shot didn’t go through, and the Jayhawks won 59-57, and will go on to play Carolina in the Final Four.

Hats off to the Wildcats in spite of today’s heartbreaking loss. They had a phenomenal season, played a great tournament, and have nothing to be ashamed of. They’ll get a huge welcome when they make it back home.

And now, I go from saying “Go Wildcats” to saying “Go Jayhawks!” :D

84 year-old multiple war veteran smacks down teen who attempts to rob him

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

Back in early February, I blogged about 80 y/o WWII veteran James Pickett, who refused to be a robbery victim in his own home by shooting one of two teenaged thugs who broke into his house and threatened him with a knife. The feisty Pickett, in an interview with WFAA, warned the two perps not to come back.

Late last week, the Mercury News reported on another elderly war veteran who took a teen to the woodshed when he tried to hold him up as he was walking down the street (h/t: ST reader Steve Skubinna):

SANTA ROSA – A boy in his mid-teens learned Wednesday afternoon that it is not a good idea to try to rob a former U.S. Marine at knifepoint, even if the former Marine is 84 years old, police said today.

Santa Rosa police Sgt. Steve Bair said that’s what happened around 2 p.m. in the 1600 block of Fourth Street. The elderly man was walking with a grocery bag in each arm when the boy approached him with a large knife, Bair said.

The boy said, “Old man, give me your wallet or I’ll cut you,” Bair said. The man told the boy he was a former Marine who fought in three wars and had been threatened with knives and bayonets, Bair said.

The man then put his bags on the ground and told the boy that if he stepped closer he would be sorry. When the boy stepped closer, the man kicked him in the groin, knocking him to the sidewalk, Bair said. The ex-Marine picked up his grocery bags and walked home, leaving the boy doubled over, Bair said.

The man reported the attempted robbery to police 45 minutes later.

Heh. Some young punks have just have to learn the hard way ;)

National Cherry Blossom Festival in Washington, DC

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

Yes, amidst all the lying, backstabbing, under-the-table wheeling and dealing, and other trademark dirty tricks we routinely see coming out of Washington, DC, there is beauty to be seen there as well – in the form of the National Cherry Blossom Festival:

The blooms of the 3,750 cherry trees that frame the Tidal Basin are expected to bring 1 million visitors to the District during the 16-day National Cherry Blossom Festival, the District’s signature tourist event which begins today, National Park Service officials say.

“In other parts of the country, people look for robins and other signs of spring, but here in the Washington, D.C. area, it’s when we see these cherry blossoms” Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne said, standing near the Tidal Basin yesterday morning.

The festival’s executive director, Diana Mayhew, said to better handle the crowds, there’s now interest in spreading out the time people visit the blossoms and in encouraging people to explore beyond the Tidal Basin.

Ms. Mayhew said closing a 180-spot parking lot near the Tidal Basin will create a better experience for visitors and D.C. residents than in years past when the area was bottlenecked. The lot will hold a welcome tent, a first-aid station and vendors selling Japanese-inspired food.

To redirect crowds and cars, a free bus service will shuttle visitors from a nearby parking lot at Hains Point at East Potomac Park to the Tidal Basin every 20-30 minutes from 10 a.m. to 7 p.m. each day. A free bicycle valet service will also aid in traffic congestion.

[…]

At the National Arboretum in Northeast, visitors can walk and drive around the 466 acres, following pink signs to see over 2,000 ornamental cherry trees on a self-guided tour. While the Tidal Basin area is home to mostly Yoshino cherry trees, the Arboretum holds more than 50 types of flowering cherry trees.

If you live in the DC area, here’s the Cherry Blossom Festival website, which has a list of events that will take place during the official 16 day festival.

Here’s a photo taken this weekend:

DC Cherry Blossoms 2008
Photo courtesy: AP/Ron Edmonds

More here.

Starting on April the 9th, Wilmington, NC will be holding its 61st annual Azalea festival. It’s a thing of beauty, so if you’re going to be in the area at anytime between the 9th and 13th, be sure to check it out. Maybe you’ll even get to meet an Azalea Belle ;;)

Azalea Belles 2005
Seven of the one hundred 2005 Azalea Belles.

See more photos of the Azalea Festival garden tours here.

Who said it?

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

From a 2004 endorsement of John Kerry:

“The real issue is this: Who would you rather have in charge of the defense of the United States of America, a group of people who never served a day overseas in their life, or a guy who served his country honorably and has three Purple Hearts and a Silver Star on the battlefields of Vietnam?”

That was failed candidate for the Dem nomination for prez. Howard Dean, at a March 2004 rally for John Kerry, pulling out the Absolute Moral Authority card.

What’s Howard Dean, now the Chair of the DNC, saying these days? Via Jake Tapper (h/t: Gina Cobb):

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., launches a biography tour next week, which looks to tell the American people about his days as a POW in Vietnam, at least based on his new TV ad (watch HERE) introduced today in New Mexico.

In response, Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean issued a statement, saying, “John McCain can try to reintroduce himself to the country, but he can’t change the fact that he cast aside his principles to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with President Bush the last seven years. While we honor McCain’s military service, the fact is Americans want a real leader who offers real solutions, not a blatant opportunist who doesn’t understand the economy and is promising to keep our troops in Iraq for 100 years.”

Dean, of course, is no stranger to pushing forth contradictory rhetoric. In September 2005, he blasted former Education Secretary Bill Bennett along racial lines:

WASHINGTON, Sept. 29 /U.S. Newswire/ — Former Republican Secretary of Education William Bennett remarked yesterday on his radio show that, “I do know that it’s true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could — if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down.”

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean issued the following statement:

“Bill Bennett’s hateful, inflammatory remarks regarding African Americans are simply inexcusable. They are particularly unacceptable from a leader in the conservative movement and former Secretary of Education, once charged with the well being of every American school child. He should apologize immediately. This kind of statement is hardly compassionate conservatism; rather, Bennett’s comments demonstrate a reprehensible racial insensitivity and ignorance. Are these the values of the Republican Party and its conservative allies? If not, President Bush, Ken Mehlman and the Republican Leadership should denounce them immediately as hateful, divisive and worthy only of scorn.

“As Americans, we should focus on the virtues that bring us together, not hatred that tears us apart and unjustly scapegoats fellow Americans.”

For the record, here were the comments Dean found so “hateful.”

Fast forward to February 2008:

Howard Dean showed up to talk about Black History Month but the focus quickly changed to politics Tuesday night in ICC Auditorium.

The Chairman of the Democratic National Committee and former Governor of Vermont contrasted the two parties’ presidential candidates, saying that with a woman and an African-American as the two front-runners, the Democratic field “looks like America” while the all-white male Republican field “looks like the 1950s and talks like the 1850s.”

So much for “focusing on the virtues that bring us together.” That was then, this is now, and Dean and his party have a Republican presidential candidate to try and demagogue the hell out of.

Obama exaggerates family’s Kennedy connection

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

The Washington Post Fact Checker section catches BO in another example of him embellishing his and his family’s history:

Addressing civil rights activists in Selma, Ala., a year ago, Sen. Barack Obama traced his “very existence” to the generosity of the Kennedy family, which he said paid for his Kenyan father to travel to America on a student scholarship and thus meet his Kansan mother.

The Camelot connection has become part of the mythology surrounding Obama’s bid for the Democratic presidential nomination. After Caroline Kennedy endorsed his candidacy in January, Newsweek commentator Jonathan Alter reported that she had been struck by the extraordinary way in which “history replays itself” and by how “two generations of two families — separated by distance, culture and wealth — can intersect in strange and wonderful ways.”

It is a touching story — but the key details are either untrue or grossly oversimplified.

Contrary to Obama’s claims in speeches in January at American University and in Selma last year, the Kennedy family did not provide the funding for a September 1959 airlift of 81 Kenyan students to the United States that included Obama’s father. According to historical records and interviews with participants, the Kennedys were first approached for support for the program nearly a year later, in July 1960. The family responded with a $100,000 donation, most of which went to pay for a second airlift in September 1960.

Obama spokesman Bill Burton acknowledged yesterday that the senator from Illinois had erred in crediting the Kennedy family with a role in his father’s arrival in the United States. He said the Kennedy involvement in the Kenya student program apparently “started 48 years ago, not 49 years ago as Obama has mistakenly suggested in the past.”

[…]

Obama’s Selma speech offers a very confused chronology of both the Kenya student program and the civil rights movement. Relating the story of how his parents met, Obama said: “There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Alabama, because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Junior was born. So don’t tell me I don’t have a claim on Selma, Alabama.”

After bloggers pointed out that the Selma bridge protest occurred four years after Obama’s birth, a spokesman explained that the senator was referring to the civil rights movement in general, rather than any one event.

What I want to know is, where’s the outrage? Remember Romney’s statement in his “Faith in America” speech about how he supposedly saw his father, then-Governor of Michigan George Romney, march alongside MLK, a remark that liberal bloggers and their cohorts in the MSM jumped on as a “lie”? The coverage on this for days was relentless, to the point that Romney backpedaled and claimed he never literally saw his father march with MLK. Witnesses came forth and said that they saw Gov. Romney marching with MLK, but the myth that his son totally fabricated the story persists to this day.

Will we see similar blanket, wall to wall coverage of Obama’s latest faux pax, one of many he’s been caught in on the campaign trail? I won’t hold my breath. Mitt Romney didn’t enjoy the “messiah-like” status that the media bestowed long ago on Barack Obama.

Clearly, there is a concerted effort by BO to link himself and his family with the Kennedys, partly because the media and historians have painted the JFK presidential days in particular as Camelot-like, and partly because of the overrated status of not only JFK but the Kennedy name in general. To be looked upon favorably by the Kennedys, as well as to be compared to JFK and/or RFK in a positive light, has been, over the last 40+ years, an aspiration of many a liberal politician. Like, for example, in 2004 when Dem candidate for prez Senator John Kerry (D-MA) and his supporters started using his middle initial when saying his name: “John F. Kerry” – clearly in an effort to draw favorable comparisons to JFK, whom he had met a few times in the early 60s. Let’s also not forget the pictures we saw of Bubba Clinton when he was a young man, shaking hands with JFK in 1963. It was a meeting he talked fondly about on more than a couple of occasions. And while the endorsement of BO by several prominent Kennedy family members including Senator Ted didn’t help him in Massachusetts nor California, the symbolism of the metaphorical “passing of the torch” from Ted Kennedy wasn’t lost even on Obama skeptics like myself.

That said, to recap, we know now beyond a shadow of a doubt that Barack Obama has a penchant for “overstating” things (and that’s putting it charitably): His family connections to JFK, his ‘enthusiasm’ and ‘involvement’ on contentious legislation, his ‘commitment’ to Afghanistan, his claim that his campaign is responsible “only to the people,” his ‘accomplishments’ while a State Senator in Illinois, and, among other things, the ‘courage’ it took to give a speech opposing the Iraq war in October 2002, a speech he gave in front of an anti-war crowd, and one that was made three months before he declared his intentions to run for the US Senate.

A couple of things he’s understated: His close ties to indicted Chicago money man Tony Rezko, and his mentorship with the hateful Reverend Jeremiah Wright, who Obama now calls his “former pastor,” not because BO left the church in protest but instead because Rev. Wright retired last month from TUCC. That doesn’t change the fact that Obama has had a close bond with the Reverend that goes back 20 years. BO now cleverly downplays his relationship with Wright by saying that Wright was merely his “pastor” but as recently as a little over a year ago, Obama was calling Wright his spirtual mentor as well as a “friend” and a great leader.”

With all this exaggerating and downplaying, along with the misleading statements Obama gives to both the press and supporters alike on a routine basis, we’re supposed to believe he’s “different” from all the rest in what way, again?

Cross-posted to Right Wing News, where I am helping guestblog for John Hawkins on Sundays.

Update/Related: Via Stop The ACLU: Barack Obama – “”Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old” he said. “I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby. I don’t want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn’t make sense to not give them information.”

His squarely leftist view of abortion isn’t surprising, but the phraseology is interesting coming from a supposedly ‘mainstream Democrat,’ and like MM, I’m wondering how this will play with the pro-life Democrats in PA … and beyond.

What’s next? Him calling an unborn child a “parasite“?

Fitna pulled off of LiveLeak

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

Yesterday I blogged about Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders’ just-released 15 minute film Fitna, which was posted on numerous video sites, removed from some sites, and reposted at other video sites. LiveLeak was one of the few multimedia sites that kept up the anti-Islamofascism video instead of deleting it everytime a user posted it.

Tonight we learn that LiveLeak decided to take the film off its site due to serious threats:

Following threats to our staff of a very serious nature, and some ill informed reports from certain corners of the British media that could directly lead to the harm of some of our staff, Liveleak.com has been left with no other choice but to remove Fitna from our servers.

This is a sad day for freedom of speech on the net but we have to place the safety and well being of our staff above all else. We would like to thank the thousands of people, from all backgrounds and religions, who gave us their support. They realised LiveLeak.com is a vehicle for many opinions and not just for the support of one.
Perhaps there is still hope that this situation may produce a discussion that could benefit and educate all of us as to how we can accept one anothers culture.

We stood for what we believe in, the ability to be heard, but in the end the price was too high.

I rec’d this tip from Michael van der Galien, who runs the Dutch blog Poligazette. However, as of this writing, if you click on that link you will see that the site has been suspended. Jimmie at The Sundries Shack, who sometimes blogs at Poligazette, heard from Michael and both of them believe the blog was suspended because Poligazette, though not endorsing the content, supported the release of the film and was critical of the Dutch government’s reaction to it.

In the meantime, Gates of Vienna has posted the English translation of the transcript to Fitna. You can read it here.