And We’re Supposed To Believe This?

CNN.com – Bomb suspect: ‘Noal Qaeda links’ – Jul 31, 2005

Hussain Osman, who is also known as Hamdi Issac, said the four men who partially detonated backpack bombs before running from their targets on July 21 were not working with the July 7 bombers who killed themselves and 52 travelers on three London Underground trains and a bus, the source said.

Osman also claimed the July 21 group was not working for al Qaeda, the Islamic terrorist organization behind the September 11, 2001, terror attacks on the United States, last year’s Madrid train bombings and numerous atrocities worldwide.

Further, the source said, Osman told authorities the bombs were meant to draw attention to anger over the war in Iraq and not to kill anyone.

Lemme see if I got this straight. These bombers were not connected with the 7/7 bombers but just happened to have the identical type of bomb as them but never meant to kill or hurt anyone. Right?

He also says that the attempted bombing, which were not meant to harm anyone, were to draw attention to the war in Iraq. I’m sure there are those out there that will buy this and think it justified.

It’s not. Not even close.

If you accept this reasoning, you must also accept that the Oklahoma City bombing was justified in order to draw attention to Waco, that a gangbanger is justified in shooting someone for “dissing” him, or that you would be justified in shooting your neighbor because his dog crapped on your lawn.

Sounds like self-serving BS to me. But I’m sure there are many fools that will lap it up because it fits their preconceptions.

Isn’t There Some Other Way She’d Agree To Do It?

On DRUDGE

REPORTER VOWS TO ‘KILL SELF’ IF CHENEY RUNS FOR PRESIDENT
Thu Jul 28 2005 15:32:13 ET

Veteran wire reporter Helen Thomas is vowing to ‘kill herself’ if Dick Cheney announces he is running for president.

The newspaper HILL first reported the startling claim on Thursday.

“The day Dick Cheney is going to run for president, I’ll kill myself,” she told the HILL. “All we need is one more liar.”

Thomas added, “I think he’d like to run, but it would be a sad day for the country if he does.”

Cheney has repeatedly said that he is not running. Do you suppose she would consent to kill herself if say…John McCain ran?

“Do More In Darfur?” And That Would Be…?

I don’t keep up on the Washington D.C. party circuit so I have no idea who Steve Roberts is, but Cokie I recognize.

She is the liberal daughter of Democrat politicians that has used her connections to get into the news business in D.C.

They have written a column calling for America to “do more” in Darfur.

And that would be…what?

They suggest that people buy green plastic bracelets or put up a banner. I suppose that hanging banners and buying bracelets might do something for Darfur, but I’m unclear on exactly what. Is the government in Khartoum going to be affected more if 10 thousand people are wearing plastic bracelets than if there are only 9 thousand? Do they have a Ministry of Bracelets keeping track of how many bracelets are sold? Is the number of banners a subject of discussion in Sudanese government meetings? Is it really affecting their decison making? How many people are saved per bracelet or banner? Two? Ten? None?

Mostly it seems like a way for people to show that they “care” without actually having to get their hands dirty. In other words it is an exercise in self-congratulation.

If people want to help in Darfur, they should take their asses to Darfur. Sitting on your butt in an affluent American neighborhood wearing a plastic bracelet made in China and a banner that you had some local high school kids make is not “doing something.”

Incredibly, a great many of the people who are complaining that we’re not doing enough in Darfur are the same people who are complaining that we’re doing anything in Iraq. How do they square their desires on one hand with their protests on the other? They don’t even try.

We are helping logistically in Darfur and unlike Iraq, we are not trying to impose “democracy.” The militias that are killing people in Darfur are made up of practitioners or the religion of peace, surely they wouldn’t want us to single them out. That would be “profiling.” What we’re doing in Darfur is exactly what they want us to be doing in Iraq.

Most of the impetus over Darfur has nothing to do with sympathy for the refugees or concern about violence. It is something that George W. Bush can be blamed for. Most likely, if Bush had put troops in Darfur, the same people would be whining as loudly about that as they are about Iraq.

Another Opportunity Squandered By Bureaucrats

As 3 Nations Consulted, Terror Suspect Eluded Arrest – New York Times

Several weeks before the July 7 bombings in London, British officials were reluctant to approve a plan by United States authorities to seize an Indian-born British citizen who is now wanted for questioning in the attacks, law enforcement officials said yesterday.

At the time, the man, Haroon Rashid Aswat, 31, had been under surveillance in South Africa by the authorities there, said the American officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the case. But during discussions between the three nations about how to proceed against Mr. Aswat, who was wanted on sealed terrorism charges filed in New York City, he eluded investigators and disappeared, the officials said.

It would appear that we have learned nothing. Recall the famous or infamous, case where the Sudan offered Osama to the Clinton administration and he refused. Not that the current administration has been blameless in this area. In 2001 a CIA predator, armed with missiles, got a location on Mullah Omar, the head of the Taliban. But when they asked for permission to fire, the lawyers all the way back at Centcom headquarters in Florida turned them down.

It’s nothing new, but it has got to change.

“Over There” Overhyped

The reviews of Stephen Boccho’s Iraq war series “Over There” are in and it is universally panned. Not by TV critics, or war critics, but by those who are supposedly being portrayed.

The comments in Blackfive’s posting BLACKFIVE: Over There are uniformly dismissive.

Argghh’s “Over There” report provides more reactions.

It’s pretty bad. Has just about all the old war movie cliches and ALL the lefty anti-war chliches(everyone’s there because they’re screw ups or poor, or the one guy who is dumb and actually wants to be there).

From “The Middle Ground:

The characters were flat and stereotypes. The first soldier we see is a black man smoking a joint. On duty. Uh-huh. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t have the illusion that all over our men and women in uniform are perfect, but I am quite certain that that image is hardly typical so I suppose that first image was far too typical of post Vietnam concepts of soldiers. Then there was the last part of the episode where the soldiers are on the way to get some home made hooch and end up rolling up over an IED and wounding one. Again, so stuck in the post Vietnam genre of Platoon, Full Metal Jacket and a few other stereo type shows that attempts to portray soldiers as druggies, drunks and just guys searching for a good time while occasionally blowing off some ammo. Oh, and let’s not forget the anal, glory seeking officer that is willing to sacrifice his men for a few points and the sargent who suggests that other soldiers would be really happy if he was ‘fragged’.

Oiye! Somebody should tell Bochco and the writers that this isn’t 1971 and the desert isn’t any where near Khe Sahn.

All these comments from those who have actually been there will be ignored by the media critics and the war opponents on the news media staffs. It hits every cliche’ that the left is wedded to and does what was intended, it shows the war, the military and especially the soldiers in the worst possible light.

Boccho has made some pretty good stuff, but isn’t among them.

So What?

Army General Advised Using Dogs at Abu Ghraib, Officer Testifies

Army Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller told top officers during an advisory visit to Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison that they needed to get military working dogs for use in interrogations, and he advocated procedures then in use at the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, according to court testimony yesterday.

Maj. David DiNenna, the top military police operations officer at Abu Ghraib in 2003, said that when Miller and a team of Guantanamo Bay officials visited in early September 2003, Miller advocated mirroring the Cuba operation.

It sounds like an effective interrogation technique to me. The dogs are not allowed to harm the terrorists, and if they are sufficiently frightened to give information it should be used.

I would hope the critics take a few minutes to explain to their children or grandchildren why daddy or grandpa would rather see them die or be horribly mutilated in a terrorist attack than have these terrorist piss their pants.

Of course they don’t really. But it’s a chance to use Abu Ghraib in a news story and make political points against George W. Bush. And that’s what counts.