A Few Words From Russ

Russ Vaugn sent me the following original poem. I'll let it speak for itself.

Handmaidens of Terror?

Michelle Malkin notes, I believe with some error,
The politically correct are handmaidens of terror.

But handmaiden may be a too-mild appellation
For the worms at the core of the threat to our nation,

Who are far more concerned with our socialist purity,
Than commonsense measures for our nation's security.

They'll insist we don't need anti-terrorist powers,
Till terror bombs blow down their own ivory towers.

More than mere handmaids in true servile sense,
They're concubines of correctness in Jihadist tents,

Plying socialist sweetmeats to death-dealing masters,
Naively abetting more future disasters.

Respect our dark brothers say these houris beguiling,
No need for your paranoid, racist profiling.

Forget swarthy males from the East caused our losses,
We must share their pain, understand their root causes.

These handmaids ignore their own reasoning powers,
Like no grannies flew planes into those twin towers;

Or why we're not shown after a terror event,
Any mug shots of men of Caucasian descent.

They insist we ignore facts as plain as their faces,
Like Islamo-fascists tend to be certain races.

No, Michelle, dear, I fear that handmaiden's in error,
Simply too mild a term for these true whores for terror.

--Russ Vaughn

Inspired by a Michelle Malkin column.

My One and Only Post About Natalee Holloway

Dan Riehl of Riehl World View emailed this morning about an upsetting result in a Google Search for Natalee Holloway, the teenager that has gone missing in Aruba. Dan has become the "go-to" guy in the blogosphere for information about Ms. Holloway, her disappearance, and the ongoing investigation.

You can see the offensive search results for yourself if you'd like. The title of the top-ranked post is, to put it mildly, disgusting to most people. As a result, Dan is asking people to contact Google and let it have a peace of their minds.

Personally, I don't "get" the MSM's fascination with Natalee Holloway, and chalk it up in large part to Pretty Blonde Girl Syndrome. Perhaps I'd be a bit less cynical about the media's motives if they were covering the disappearance of a girl in a far less tropical clime... say, Philadelphia.

That aside, I understand Dan's frustration, and if that post retains its top position solely as a result of a human editor's bias, Google may indeed have something to account for, as they already do for their apparent Google News bias.

I guess only time will tell. In any event, if you'd care to help Dan out, please go right on over. I'm sure he'd appreciate the support.

NY Times Editorial: 9/11 Families Are "Un-American"

Michelle Malkin, as usual, provides excellent coverage of the NY Times as it attacks 9/11 family members for not allowing liberal elitists to turn Ground Zero into a political "Blame America" museum that the left so desperately wanted.

The families merely want the site to be an apolitical memorial to the nearly 3,000 dead. That is apparently too much for the Times:

But this is not really a campaign about money or space. It is a campaign about political purity - about how people remember 9/11 and about how we choose to read its aftermath, including the Iraq war. On their Web site, www.takebackthememorial.org, critics of the cultural plan at ground zero offer a resolution called Campaign America. It says that ground zero must contain no facilities "that house controversial debate, dialogue, artistic impressions, or exhibits referring to extraneous historical events." This, to us, sounds un-American.

Ground Zero is a place of rememberance, not a place to demonstrate against those who died. Why is that so hard to understand for the Timeseditorial board?

Please go to Take Back The Memorial for their response to this cowardly unsigned Times editorial, and while you are there, please read and sign the petition.

The Advocate: "God hates Boy Scouts."

According to Karel at The Advocate, the electricution deaths of four Scout leaders at the beginning of this week, the 300 cases of heat-related illnesses mid-week, and the lightning strike that killed a scoutmaster and rendered a teenaged scout brain dead are acts of revenge by God against the Boy Scouts for discriminating against gays.

It couldn't be clearer. God hates the Scouts' policy of discrimination against gays. That's right, God is pro-gay, and he/she/it is letting that be known, beginning with some good ol' fashioned smiting of those who are blatantly going against his laws and discriminating against his creation, gay men.

Karel seems old enough to have heard the bitter viciousness of AIDS jokes back during the early 1980s. Do you remember those Karel? I do.

As bad as those were, AIDS jokes were a nervous defensive reaction against an unseen killer we didn't understand. It was a coping mechanism, as crude and crass as they come, but at least it had a purpose.

I've yet to find anything especially witty or incisive in this hatefest by Charles Karel Bouley who mocks the deaths of six people and the pain of hundreds more. Sometimes, poor sarcasm is just a thin veneer for hate. Karel simply proves that hate and biogtry isn't monopolized by one sexual orientation.

Update: You-know-who is quick to jump on the bandwagon.

Oliver Stone is NEVER WRONG

Via Bloomburg:

The U.S. economy grew at a 3.4 percent annual pace from April through June, the ninth straight quarter exceeding 3 percent, as booming sales allowed companies to pare bloated inventories.

The government's first estimate of second-quarter gross domestic product, the value of all goods and services produced in the U.S., compares with a 3.8 percent gain in the year's first three months, the Commerce Department reported today in Washington. Not since January 1983 through March 1986 has growth exceeded 3 percent in as many quarters.

Wait. Just. One. Minute.

That can't be right, because the economy is going bust. Oliver Stone said so.

And OLIVER STONE IS NEVER WRONG.

I'd like to add that his new 9/11 movie will be great—and his rumored casting choice for the eccentric, devoutly Christian, and brave Marine rescuer Dave Karnes is nothing short of inspired.

San FranGitmo

(h/t: Drudge)

"If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime - Pol Pot or others - that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case."

First Dick Durbin's Cook County, now Nancy Pelosi's own San Francisco.

Maybe Democrats really are the experts on prison abuse!

“He Hates These Cans!�

(h/t: Ace)

Via the Guardian:

A press conference organised by the city council took an unexpected twist when the chairman of Birmingham central mosque, Mohammad Naseem, who is known as a moderate voice, attacked the way the bombings investigation had been carried out. Dr Naseem said the government had given the impression Muslims were to be targeted. "Why do we not have an open mind about this?" he asked. "Terrorists can be anybody."

He had seen no evidence Muslims were responsible for the bombings and attempted attacks. He claimed the four men killed among others on July 7 could have been innocent passengers. [emphasis added]

Um… yeah.

It kind of reminds me of that bit of stupidity in The Jerk:

“He hates these cans!� (get audio clip)

I liked this load better when Larry was flinging it with both hands last week.

Google News: Oozing the Pus of Media Bias

You've got to hand it to "al-Qaedarrific" online news aggregator Google News: they are consistent.

Google News claims:

Google News gathers stories from more than 4,500 news sources in English worldwide, and automatically arranges them to present the most relevant news first. Topics are updated every 15 minutes, so you're likely to see new stories each time you check the page. You pick the item that interests you, then go directly to the site which published the account you want to read.

Google News is a highly unusual news service in that our results are compiled solely by computer algorithms, without human intervention. As a result, news sources are selected without regard to political viewpoint or ideology, enabling you to see how different news organizations are reporting the same story.

While Google News results may be gathered by a computer algorithm, who decides which article and headline get the lead story treatment on any given topic? It would seem that these pages are compiled by humans, and apparently those with strong political opinions.

Google News once again shows its bias early Thursday morning, leading its "top stories" coverage of a possible U.S. troop drawdown in Iraq with an article from an organization called the World Peace Herald, with the headline, "U.S. plans Iraq Troops cuts as revolt rages." The article is written with the decidedly "Bush Lied, People Died!" far left tone one would expect from an organization that "seeks to provide readers with access to news and views not often found in the traditional media, with a particular focus on issues that relate to building world peace" [emphasis added].

Google News, which claims it "gathers stories from more than 4,500 news sources in English worldwide, and automatically arranges them to present the most relevant news first," leads with this 17 hour-old story, even though there were 68 articles that were more recent on the same topic from much more credible news sources that are far less biased in tone. Examples of this are articles from the Chicago Tribune (one hour old*), the UK's Guardian (two hours old*), or Pravda (four hours old*).

More balanced coverage? Um, yeah.

More than 600 of Google News' cited 4,500 news sources covered this story, and yet Google News prefers to lead their coverage with an extreme position from a minor contributor.

It seems quite odd that a computer algorithm would be designed to promote a specific political agenda.

One might begin to think stories in Google News are selected for prominence from human sources, perhaps those still bitter of the results of the 2004 election.

* relative to the time this post was researched.

At Least He's Consistent

Gop and the City shows that a hater is always a hater.

Not With a Bang

Via the New York Times:

The two giant unions that quit the A.F.L.-C.I.O. say their exodus will help revive the labor movement. But Greg Devereux, one of the 800 delegates at the union convention here, was not buying it.

"A lot of people are still stunned and angry about it," Mr. Devereux, a Washington State delegate from the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, said Tuesday. "A lot of people view it as destructive and selfish."

Once upon a time, unionized labor accounted for roughly a quarter of all private sector jobs. These days, that percentage has plunged into the single digits and their political power has dwindled.

Two unions, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the Teamsters, have split from the A.F.L.-C.I.O, after having grown tired of wasting money on lobbying and supporting political candidates.

I should add, Democratic political candidates.

While few mainstream media pundits or even the unions themselves are willing to admit it directly, the A.F.L.-C.I.O. breakup can very much be attributed to the failure of the national Democratic Party to win or even hold the line in elections in recent years. These elections were supported by millions of union dollars that the SEIU, Teamsters, and others felt would have been better spent recruiting new union members.

While I think this is hardly the death knell of organized labor or the Democratic Party, it does point to a growing schism between elements of the blue collar, traditional union Democrats and a liberal leadership that seems to care more about gay marriage and than workers' rights.

A house divided against itself cannot stand, and as one wise conservative Democrat recently said, a party that loses touch with its base is a A National Party No More.

Flogging Hillary

"I guess hiring a prostitute and beating her to recover the money you just paid is OK, as long as you don't see her naughty bits."

Ouch.

Dr. StrangeRove: Or, How I Learned To Stop Worrying and Love The Nuclear Option

The Supreme Court nomination of John Roberts seems to have taken the predicted turn; Democrats have asked for all documents related to Robert's work for the government, and the White House has released almost all of it, while holding onto paperwork from Roberts' time as deputy solicitor general during George H.W. Bush's administration.

The current Bush administration currently says that documents relating to Roberts' work as deputy solicitor general will not be given to senators, citing attorney-client privilege, as stated by seven former solicitor generals in a 2002 letter.

"Any attempt to intrude into the Office's highly privileged deliberations would come at the cost of the Solicitor General's ability to defend vigorously the United States' litigation interests -- a cost that also would be borne by Congress itself," the former officials said in a copy of the letter obtained by CNN.

The letter cited was written by Seth Waxman, one of three solicitors general under the Clinton administration. The letter was sent on behalf of Waxman, Walter Dellinger, and Drew Days of the Clinton administration; Kenneth Starr from the George H.W. Bush administration; Charles Fried and Robert Bork who served under Reagan; and Archibald Cox, who worked for President John F. Kennedy.

The job of the solicitor general is to argue cases for the government in the Supreme Court. The seven former solicitor generals feel that breaching the confidence of this office would be detrimental to the performance of the solicitor general; which seems to be an entirely reasonable position… well, reasonable except to those who might want to obstruct the confirmation of a judicial nominee.

A presumably still bitter John "Magic Hat" Kerry, who is not a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, was the first to call for the release of Roberts' written record, "in its entirety." This of course, is coming from a man who ran for the highest office in the land while refusing to release his own record.

Some newspapers are already quick to jump on the bandwagon of creating a Miguel Estrada-like battle between Democrats and the administration, where Estrada was filibustered for refusing to release his privileged solicitor general's office-related documents.

Estrada eventually withdrew his nomination due to Democratic stalling tactics, but it remains to be seen if Democrats will try the same tactic against Supreme Court nominee Roberts. In this instance, the media's prodding for an epic struggle between Democrats and Republicans is not in the best interests of their normal allies in the Democratic Party.

Reporters want copy and airtime, and Democrats ache to regain political power. If media liberals can successfully push political liberals into trying this same stalling tactic on Roberts that they did on Estrada, they will set the stage for their own disaster.

And. Then. Came. Rove.

There is every reason to believe that "Bush's Brain," conservative political strategist Karl Rove is once again deftly using the strengths and tendencies of the mainstream media and liberal politicians to practice jujitsu on the Democratic Party.

Unable to depose Rove via Nadagate, frustrated liberals might try to go after John Roberts in revenge. I'd wager the White House is counting on it. This would be a huge mistake, on par with thinking that a portly documentary filmmaker could really affect the outcome of an election.

Rove threw a head fake to the media from the word "go," floating a rumor that Edith Brown Clement, and later Edith Bunker might be the new Supreme Court nominee before he, err, Bush officially nominated the ultimate outsider that night: a white middle-aged male.

Roberts was anonymous when he was introduced, and by the time the political left was ready to begin an attack against him the next day, he was already known as the father of the adorable (and not gay) "dancing Jack." The moment that video segment came out, the Roberts family connected with every parent who'd ever had a four-year old act up in public. When Democrats were unable to mount an immediate and credible attack on John Roberts political views within the first 24 hours after the nomination, and Ann Coulter mounted an attack that painted him as not conservative enough, the ball game was effectively over.

Roberts has cute kids. He isn't the right wing extremist that liberals had shrieked that Bush would nominate. The American people said, "we'll take him."

Rove's brilliant strategy of getting Jack to take dance lessons and asking Fräulein Coulter to write her attack piece won the nomination before it began. What remains is just Another Rovian Plot™ to see just how far he can unhinge the Democrat Party.

Leahy gobbled up the bait first, quickly followed by Kerry. Others are sure to follow. If the trend continues and a complicit media keep pouring blood in the proverbial water, Liberal Democrats might work themselves up into a filibuster before they realize that it is their own hemoglobin that has them in a frenzy.

Completely oblivious to the outside world by In the Beltway madness, Democrats will not see the Nuclear Option coming down until it comes to a vote, and this time, the American people, sick to death of Democratic scheming, will be behind it 100%. The filibuster will die because of Rove's brilliance and a $39.95 dance class for a four year-old, and within a week of Roberts' confirmation, Rehnquist will step down.

Coulter's nomination to the Supreme Court will be immediate, and without the filibuster, unstoppable. The Scalia Court will be Rove's legacy to the world.

I must say that I've learned to be at peace with that.

A Devil's Choice

There seems to be a lot of second-guessing of Operation Kratos, the London Metropolitan Police policy of shooting suspected suicide bombers in an effort to save civilian lives. The policy became public knowledge this past Friday when a man wearing a heavy padded coat fled police towards a subway less than 24 hours after a series of failed suicide bombings on London subway trains and a bus. The British police fearing a suicide bombing attack, shot him eight times, killing him instantly.

Tragically, the man, Jean Charles de Menezes, turned out to be a Brazilian electrician guilty at most of having an expired visa and very bad judgment. Hindsight being 20/20, some people are now second-guessing the shoot-to-kill-to-save-lives policy of Operation Kratos.

Some question why Metro police did not try detain him earlier. Some wonder why he was not shot in an arm or leg to disable him if police thought he was a threat. Some could not understand why police would shoot him, repeatedly, once he went down. Perhaps even more people are incredulous that the police say they did nothing wrong even though an admittedly innocent man died.

In an effort to cut through some of the confusion, I thought it might be helpful to create a post explaining on a high level how suicide bombs work, and explaining the general philosophy of shoot-to-kill-to-save policies.

Jihad for Dummies: A Non-technical Primer

Leaving ideology out of the equation, the defining trait of a suicide bomber is the willingness to personally detonate an explosive device in an attempt to kill others, knowing they will die in the process. While suicide bombers can take many forms, from the WWII-era kamikaze pilots and suicide submariners, to truck and boat bombers, the most common form of suicide bomber is one wearing explosives on his person.

It's so easy, even a kid can do it.

Suicide Belts
As the picture above hints, a suicide belt is among the more popular options for would-be suicide bombers. It is easy to construct, carries a decent payload of explosives, and can be easily concealable under a medium-weight coat, providing it has sufficient padding to break up the tell-tell outline of explosive charges.

Please note that the explosives on a suicide belt can take up a large part of a bomber's torso.

A close relative of the suicide belt is the suicide vest.

Suicide Vests
Suicide vest are very similar to suicide belts in terms of explosive power, but, the construction of the vests tends to make them more concealable. If you compare the belt designs above (and below) this vest, you'll note that the belts tend to "print," or show very easily though clothing due to sharp edges and angles of parts of the device that tend to catch fabric and betray the presence of the bomb. A vest, as used here, does not print as much as most bomb belts tend to, and is harder for authorities to spot.

Again, note how much of the body that explosives tend to cover.

If you think bomber above looks vaguely familiar, it is because you've probably seen him before.

Set It Off
Suicide bombers may have a mind of their own, but the explosives do not. Bombs need detonators.

As the photo above shows, detonators don't have to be elaborate. The pipe-bomb belt in the photo above has a simple plunger-type detonator. The wire from the detonator to the bomb can easily be run down a shirt or coat sleeve to a bomber's hand, where it is easily concealed.

All a bomber has to do to end his life and the lives of dozens around him is simply clinch his fist, and bring his thumb down.

Game Over.

Applied Lessons
Now you know a little bit about how suicide bomb belts and vests are constructed and commonly detonated, you can begin to develop an appreciation of the situation Metropolitan Police must have encountered this past Friday morning.

Police staked out a group of houses because they have information that one of the failed suicide bombers from the day before may have a connection to this general location. The very next morning, an man fitting the general age range (15-35) of the average suicide bomber leaves the block of houses wearing a padded coat; quite unusual dress for a humid July morning. He is also carrying a backpack, which were known to have been used in all successful and attempted suicide attacks in London to date.

The man then boards a bus that the police know leads to a nearby subway station. At this point, police must begin to have strong suspicions that there may be a follow-up attack in the works. At the subway station, the man, for reasons as yet unclear jumps the turnstiles and begins running for a train, refusing police calls to halt. The police run after him. As he enters a subway car, he trips and falls.

Now imagine you are the police officer who has had his city attacked twice by suicide bombers in the past few weeks, including four times in the past 24 hours. Keep in mind that you know exactly what could happen if you shoot into a suicide vest. Keep in mind what exactly what could happen if the man on the ground has a detonator under his thumb. Know that if you fire one man will die. If you don't fire, dozens could die.

Oh, and you have about second to make your decision

Glance quickly at the dozens of fearful citizens around you... what do you do?

Dozens of lives versus one. A Devil's Choice, but a choice that had to be made, and in this context, it appears the decision was made correctly.

Update: This post's description of suicide vests has drawn the attention of Clinton W. Taylor of The American Spectator, in an article called Prometheus, Deterred. I'd encourage my readers to check out Mr. Taylor's article. I'd also encourage A.S. readers to visit the front page of this blog for more breaking content.

Liberals Lied, Londoners Died

Inflamatory rhetoric kills:

ON HIS last visit to relatives in Pakistan this year, one of the London bombers, Shehzad Tanweer, boasted of wanting to die in a revenge attack over the way Muslims are treated.

While his family in Leeds had no idea about his suicide mission, Tanweer confessed to his cousin his ambition to become a “holy warrior�. At his father's home village 30 miles from Faisalabad, Mohammad Saleem described yesterday how Tanweer, 22, hero-worshipped Osama bin Laden.

Mr Saleem supported his cousin's bombing at Aldgate station which killed seven people, saying: “Whatever he has done, if he has done it, then he has done right.� He recalled how Tanweer argued with family and friends about the need for violent retaliation over US abuse of Muslim prisoners in Guantanamo Bay. [emphasis added - Ed.]

No one died as the result of unethical U.S. military action in Guantanamo Bay. The body count due to unethical media and political actions continues to rise.

Jeff Goldstein of Protein Wisdom explores the impact of unethical behavior by Democrats, the media, and so-called human rights organizations in "Why Rhetoric Matters."

Go read it.

Update: Since Goldstein asked for it.

Anti-War Heros

I'd be willing to be the people responsible for this would agree with this crowd.

(h/t: Instapundit)

A Totally Different War

Via Instapundit:

"Let's support our troops. Bring them home." Please don't ever say those words again. Nothing is so disheartening to our troops who are in harm's way than to hear our own citizens say things like that.

On June 16, 2004, I willingly said goodbye to my wife and parents in a parking lot at Fort Drum, N.Y., not knowing if I would ever see them again. I don't expect any kinds of praise for this or special thanks because that is my job, and I knowingly volunteered for it. I never would have done that if I did not believe that I was defending this great country of ours and all those in it.

Read the whole thing.

Lt. David Lucas, who wrote this editorial, won a Bronze Star for his role in a dramatic hostage rescue.

Slow Police Response Jeopardized Lives

London Metropolitan Police are now saying that the south Asian man wearing a heavy coat on a muggy warm day who ran from police into the Tube the day after botched suicide attacks, tripped and was shot in the head is not related to the recent rash of Islamic terrorism.

Via BBC News:

A Scotland Yard statement read: "We believe we now know the identity of the man shot at Stockwell Underground station by police on Friday 22nd July 2005, although he is still subject to formal identification.

"We are now satisfied that he was not connected with the incidents of Thursday 21st July 2005.

"For somebody to lose their life in such circumstances is a tragedy and one that the Metropolitan Police Service regrets."

How should I respond?

You don't give children matches. You don't attempt to rewire your house without shutting off your electricity. And you certainly don't run from police when dressed suspiciously like a suicide bomber who attacked the same area the day before. Stupidity kills.

So does the unwillingness to follow established doctrine.

Operation Kratos, the operational plan and training of Metropolitan Police officers by the world's foremost experts on suicide bombers, failed yesterday. It did not fail because the man shot turned out to be an idiot rather than a suicide bomber. It failed because the man penetrated the perimeter and made it to the train before being shot. He never should have made it that far.

Commuter Mark Whitby captured the attention of the media yesterday with his dramatic recreation of events:

“As the man leapt on the train I looked at his face. He looked just like a cornered rat ... like a cornered fox, absolutely petrified.

“Then he tripped. One of the police officers was holding a black automatic pistol in his left hand. They held it down to him and unloaded five shots into him — bang, bang, bang, bang, bang.

“Five shots and he's dead. It was no further than five yards from me. It was like a nightmare — a very distressing sight.�

Some are sure to vilify the police and their commanders for the decision to employ shoot-to-kill/head shot tactics, just as they would assuredly blame the authorities for not firing fast enough if the dead man had been a terrorist and had been able to detonate a bomb as he was falling. Mrs. Whitby would have found the situation far more distressing if she was spending today waiting for a call from the corner's office that they'd been able to locate the majority of Mr. Whitby.

Terrorism is a dirty business, and unfortunately, fighting terrorism can be bloody as well. It takes courage, dedication, and quick reactions. The Metropolitan Police failed yesterday, not because they lacked courage or dedication or because they shot the wrong man, but because they did not shoot him fast enough.

Operation Kratos, the shoot-to-kill policy designed to save London commuters from suicide bombers is a sound, intelligent policy, but it cannot work if the police are going to second-guess themselves.

Real suicide bombers are likely to take advantage of yesterday's justifiable shooting and the hesitation that might creep into the mind of the next Metropolitan police officer that is faced with a similar situation.

Everyone knows that the police are deadly serious now. The next suspect to run toward a bus or subway will likely be a terrorist intent on finishing his mission as he dies.

I have a bit of advice for the London Metro police offices on call that day: squeeze, don't jerk the trigger. You may kill indeed kill someone who isn't a terrorist... but if you're wrong and don't fire on a real terrorist, hundreds could pay for your hesitation.

Sight. Squeeze. Save lives.

This Sounds Familiar

So, the Transportation Safety Administration is illegally compiling passenger profile information?

This isn't the first time the government has been caught illegally collecting information on certain demographic groups. And certainly not the first time they've abused that information.

What was that bit about "absolute power" again?

But hey, we can trust the government...

Right?

The Consequences of Harboring Hate

Sooner or later all societies are going to realize that feeding hatred is an unsustainable idea, for hatred is unpredictable, disloyal, irrational, and it will always find a way to turn back on you.

This attack was targeted against westerners, but the attack happened in Egypt. Next time it could be Egyptian mothers, Jordanian daughters, or Saudi sons, who weren't faithful enough, pious enough, or were simply in the wrong spot at the wrong time.

That's the funny thing about cancer. Even if it wins, it dies, and the question is whether you will allow yourself to die with it.

That's Why I Say Hey Man, Nice Shot

Next? A British counterterrorist trains.

An article one week ago today in the Scotsman revealed that London Metro Police could be given orders to fire at the heads of suspected suicide bombers in an effort to save lives in a plan called Operation Kratos:

Normal firearms rules mean officers fire at the chests of targets, with the intention of stopping and incapacitating, but not directly aiming to kill.

But the Met has been advised by Israeli security officials that this is not adequate, since even after several shots they can still be capable of triggering an explosive device.

Shooting at the chest also runs the risk of triggering explosives strapped to a terrorist's body.

Shots to the head, by contrast, kill immediately, almost instantly causing the nervous system to shut down, preventing any detonation.

Today saw dramatic evidence that that policy was indeed in effect.

The Muslim Council of Britain was not thrilled with the idea of police officers having a green light to shoot suspected suicide bombers. They are apparently worried that trigger-happy police may kill innocent Muslims by mistake. Perhaps they should think about persuading their fellow Muslims not to turn themselves into "personal demolition experts," and turn upon the radicals jeopardizing their culture instead of letting them rant unopposed.

In the meantime, the new rules of engagement outlined in Operation Kratos may be the last line of defense for British mass transit. One can only assume similar plans are in effect on this side of the Atlantic.

We'll know for certain once the ACLU sues to stop them.

Update: No wonder Muslims are upset!
According to al-Jazeera, the man British police shot was killed for merely trying to board a train.
(H/T: Bluto at The Jawa Report)

Further Update: The man who ran turns out to be a Brazilian electrician. The family of this man is, of course, threatening to sue. The British Police have not backed down from the right response.

Good.

Sometimes, Even Byrd Is Right

I came across the following Drudge headline this morning:

U.S. Senator calls American urban centers "jungles" that are more dangerous than 'the jungles of deepest Africa!'…

If you take the time to follow the link (which is worthwhile for other reasons than the one Drudge cites), you'll see that the Senator in question is Robert Byrd.

Urban centers are “jungles?� Robert Byrd, America's longest serving senatorial Klansman* is involved? I'm sure Democrats cringed, and some Republicans clacked with glee—but there isn't anything to the story.

The article reads:

Mr. Byrd embraced the same judicial philosophy as the president in his memoir, "Child of the Appalachian Coalfields," released earlier this summer. In the book, he repeatedly blamed "liberal judges" and "activist judges" for many of the nation's problems.

"One's life is probably in no greater danger in the jungles of deepest Africa than in the jungles of America's large cities," he writes. "In my judgment, much of the problem has been brought about by the mollycoddling of criminals by some of the liberal judges who have been placed on the nation's courts in recent years."

He's wrong... where?

"The jungles of deepest Africa" are not a nice place for an outsider. Ebola and Marburg are just some of the small things that can kill you there, but you don't have to worry about being eaten by lions or trampled by elephants, which are part of the circle of life in the plains, not in jungles. Your biggest danger in African jungles, other than your own ignorance, occurs on the microscopic level.

In the jungles of Africa, as in our urban cities, the greatest predatory threat to man, is man.

Sometimes, even a blind hog can find the acorn, and sometimes, even the Robert Byrd's of this world can be right.

* That is a fact, I think. Sorta.

His Dad was Gay, Too...

With all the focus on four year-old Jack Roberts being a homosexual Nazi clone, nobody ever thought to ask about dear old dad.

You gotta love the pants.

Other things I don't Consent To

Via Drudge:

I do/don't have a problem with whiny NY immigrant rights activist Tony Lu's t-shirts bearing the text, "I do not consent to being searched."

Ace said it quite well when he made the observation that while police look out for our lives, The Reality-Based Community Opts For Fantasy:

It's very simple. There are some on the left that don't like the real world. They'd prefer a different world, one in which terrorism wasn't occurring, and if it were perpetrated, then perpetrated by White Male Corporate Pigs rather than Oppressed Heroic Multicultural Victims that they're supposed to feel solidarity with.

So liberals choose denial. They "don't consent to being searched."

I Choose Something Else.

Update: Here's a visual link...

It never ends: Jack Roberts... Nazi!

I've got to give it to the Kossacks and DUers of the world. They're determined.

Unable to prove that a four year-old boy is gay?

Insinuate instead that he and his sister are reconstituted Nazis!

Hey, at least this time they're just joking when they compared Jack Roberts to Hitler.

"Abdul, my gun is too hot!"

Somehow, I just can see this being a valid complaint.

London Transportation PSA

According to Fox News, the explosives found today in London's four terrorist bombs were made of TATP, or triacetone triperoxide, a mix of hydrogen peroxide, paint thinner, and sulphuric or hydrochloric acid. The formula has been around for 110 years, and is popular with terrorists, but has been known to be very unstable. According to Wikipedia, TATP has killed at least 40 Palestinian terrorists over the years as they tried to handle it. TATP is very shock sensitive.

With that knowledge in hand, Londoners are better armed with the knowledge that they, too, can help prevent terrorism.

Should you be in London, and happen to see a swarthy looking fellow carrying a backpack and looking somewhat nervous, push him in front of a bus.

If he detonates on contact with the bus, he is—was indeed a terrorist. Of course, this advice is hardly foolproof. Terrorists are highly sophisticated, and are therefore known to change their tactics to confuse authorities.

That in mind, if you should happen to be in London, and happen to see a swarthy-looking fellow (or a Jamaican, or someone from Asia, or a scummy-looking white guy, or a Hispanic with a Chicago accent, or George Galloway) carrying a backpack (or a briefcase, or a pizza box, or a copy of the Guardian) and looking relaxed (or content, or annoyed, or French), push him in front of a bus. If he detonates on contact with the bus, he is—was indeed a terrorist.

This advice is not always applicable.

If you "like to take the Tube" (a phrase that means something completely different in San Francisco), a bus may not always be available. Adapt. If you see a man—or maybe a woman, or a particuarly obnoxious child—carrying something, or looking like he might plan on carrying something, push him or her in front of the train. If he detonates on contact with the train, he or she is—was indeed a terrorist.

Strike a blow for jolly old England... and watch your back when standing near the curb.

Hot Air Along the Border

Via WaPo:

The top U.S. border enforcement official said Wednesday that his agency is exploring ways to involve citizen volunteers in creating "something akin to a Border Patrol auxiliary" -- a significant shift after a high-profile civilian campaign this spring along the Arizona-Mexico border.

Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Robert C. Bonner told The Associated Press that his agency began looking into citizen involvement after noting how eager volunteers were to stop illegal immigration.

"We value having eyes and ears of citizens, and I think that would be one of the things we are looking at is how you better organize, let's say, a citizen effort," Bonner said.

He said that could involve training of volunteers organized "in a way that would be something akin to a Border Patrol auxiliary."

My gut reaction is that this is a ploy to placate those that are becoming aware of just how porous and unprotected our borders are. We should not fall for it.

If Commissioner Bonner's boss Michael Chertoff were serious about stopping illegal immigration and protecting our borders from terrorist infiltration, he would press the President and Congress for funding to hire, train and equip full-time, professional border patrol agents, and he'd actually let them arrest suspected illegals.

Chertoff and Bush have no apparent interest in protecting our borders.

I hope all of us live to regret it.

Not Hephaistion's Thighs

Colin Farrell is suing to stop the release of a homemade sex tape he made with Playboy playmate Nicole Narain. I can't understand why.

It was sure to be better than than Alexander.

Fat Man and Fatwa Boy

I'd been intent on steering clear of Congressman Tom Tancredo's recent comments about possible responses to an Islamic terrorist attack on multiple American cities involving multiple nuclear weapons. The comments were made while a guest on Pat Campbell's AM radio show:

"Well, what if you said something like — if this happens in the United States, and we determine that it is the result of extremist, fundamentalist Muslims, you know, you could take out their holy sites," Tancredo answered.

"You're talking about bombing Mecca," Campbell said.

"Yeah," Tancredo responded.

The congressman later said he was "just throwing out some ideas" and that an "ultimate threat" might have to be met with an "ultimate response."

Hugh Hewitt, though made the following challenge:

I want to be very clear on this. No responsible American can endorse the idea that the U.S. is in a war with Islam. That is repugnant and wrong, and bloggers and writers and would-be bloggers and writers have to chose sides on this, especially if you are a center-right blogger. The idea that all of Islam is the problem is a fringe opinion. It cannot be welcomed into mainstream thought because it is factually wrong. If Tancredo's blunder does not offend you, then you do not understand the GWOT…

…We are not in a war with devout Muslims. We are in a war with Muslims who think that their faith compels them to kill non-believers and the nations that support those extremists.

A SCOTUS nomination will sweep Congressman Tancredo's remarks from the headlines, but I hope center-right bloggers will stand up and be counted on this issue.

Hugh, the last time I checked, every "responsible American" is still entitled to his own opinion, yet you present your opinion on this matter as fact, and everyone else's opinion that may differ is presented as wrong.

As experts studying Islamic jihad are far better versed in the subject, and some feel that Islam and violent jihad are so entwined as to be inseparable, I'd suggest that your decree that we are categorically not at war with Islam is wishful thinking unsupported by fact. At this moment, we simply do not know if we are in a war with Islam.

So-called Islamic moderates seem unwilling to choose sides, and extremists seem to have the greatest voice in setting policies and shaping public opinion in predominately Islamic communities. I'd like to think that we are only opposing extremists, but the fact remains that we simply do not know. Mr. Hewitt, you are wrong when you say, "The idea that all of Islam is the problem is a fringe opinion. It cannot be welcomed into mainstream thought because it is factually wrong."

Just hoping something to be true does not make it so, Hugh. We do not know it for a fact any more than heliocentrists "knew" that the universe revolved around the Earth. The historical evidence, it seems, indicates just the opposite.

Islam had a history almost a millennia-and-a-half long of near-constant warfare with its neighbors. Even charitable biographies of the prophet Mohamed acknowledge that he led his followers into combat more than 20 times and ordered captured prisoners executed, including women and children. Islam is decidedly not a "religion of peace." It never has been. Any attempt to say otherwise is historically ignorant revisionism.

The near universal Muslim desire to eradicate Israel from the face of the earth shows us that Muslims are willing to wipe out entire nations and commit genocide if they can. Why is it inconceivable to you, Hugh, that if we show ourselves to be weak, that they won't try to utterly destroy us well?

Congressman Tancredo was talking about a hypothetical situation where Muslim terrorists attack multiple major U.S. cities with thermonuclear weapons, rendering hundreds of thousands or even millions of Americans dead, and tens of millions wounded. To think that the American people would not demand a proportional response is unrealistic.

Saudi Arabia is the spiritual and financial heart of Islamic extremism. It is the most logical target for a proportional response. If Mecca is not your preferred target Mr. Hewitt, please offer an alternative target. Riyadh? Medina? Perhaps Jeddah, just to let them know we'll get that close to their holiest of holies?

If a military response to the nuclear murder of millions of Americans is not acceptable to you, do you care to offer another appropriate response? Offer up a solution of your own and I'll gladly discuss its merits with you. So far, Mr. Tancredo's off-the-cuff response is as appropriate as any other option I've seen placed upon the table.

The destruction of the holy center of Islam may not endear us to mainstream Islam, but then, neither has the billions of dollars we've invested in their culture. If we let it be known as a matter of policy that we will respond to nuclear attacks on our heartland with nuclear attacks in their heartland, perhaps then it might inspire a bit more vigorous pursuit of terrorists within Islamic cultures. Call it inspiration. Call it fear. In any event, it is motivation that Islamic culture currently seems to lack.

I'm quite willing to consider other options, and readily admit that Congressman Tancredo's option is probably not the best solution, but don't just tell me I'm wrong, give me a more valid option.

No Enemy Too Small

Perhaps one of the more pathetic early attempts to attack new Supreme Court nominee John Roberts was this gutless attack against Judge Roberts' family by Daily Kos poster mayan:

Did You Catch His Wife

When Roberts thanked his family, he mentioned his son, Jack...Roberts' wife's face fell. It was like a poker tell. I think we should research Jack.

This was quickly followed by bottomdweller Geotpf:

He's probably gay

Of course, this is how ridiculous rumors get started, but extreme conservatives seem to have a lot of homosexual children...

Judge Roberts has been an official Supreme Court nominee for less than three hours, and progressives are already employing two of their more repugnant tactics:

1. Attacking a conservative through their family.


2. Attacking a conservative though sexuality.

In this instance, they combined the two, much as John Kerry and John Edwards did in making an issue out of Mary Cheney's sexuality in their failed 2004 political campaign.

The difference here is that Mary Cheney is an adult.

Jack Roberts is four years old.

Update: And the moonbat party never ends.

It's Official: Bush Nominates John Roberts

I think Mark Levin might summed up the choice of Roberts before word got out the best:

"In the short period he has been on the court, John Roberts has shown he does not bring a personal agenda to his work. He follows the Constitution, and he is excellent."

Roberts says it is an honor to be nominated...has a deep regard for the Constitution...acknowledged his family (nice touch)...seems like a warm, caring guy, for what it is worth on face value.

And now, the battle begins...

Update:

Senator Leahy responds: "no one is entitled to a free pass" ... is disappointed over a non-moderate being nominated, almost choked over the word "fair" when saying he was entitled to a fair hearing.

Senator Shumer: Attacking his limited record and unknown views, setting up the liberal Inquisition...nominee must prove he is worthy, the Senate doesn't have to prove he is unworthy.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but since when does a nominee have to prove his worth? I'm not a lawyer, but understand the Senate's role as "advise and consent," not "judge."

Of course, I could be wrong.

BOB Roberts for SCOTUS?!?!

Oh, JOHN Roberts...

Had me worried there for a second...

SCOTUS Nomination Tonight

Trying to keep up with the Supreme Court nomination guessing game? We'll find out for sure at 9:00 PM Eastern, until then, it is a guessing game.

(Fox News is calling it John Roberts, a former Rehnquist Clerk, as of 7:45 PM Eastern)

Be sure to visit these sites that are sure to have insightful commentary once the nominee is disclosed:

Confirm Them
NRO's Bench Memos
Instapundit
Michelle Malkin
Powerline
Southern Appeal

Also sure to be fun--and for completely different reasons--the message boards at the Democratic Underground. I'm guessing the nominee will be referred to as:

• an "extremist" by the second poster (was actually 5th with "jackbooted goose-stepping blackshirt thug")


• a fascist by the fourth poster (was actually 3rd)


• a Klansman (or woman) by the tenth post (actually made it to #85 before they brought up slavery)


• a Bible-beater (or equivalent) by the twelfth post (was actually 8th with theocracy comment)

And while I didn't predict it, we have a poster looking to move to Canada by post #32. DU tends to combine posts or otherwise randomly change URLs, so these links may not last, but that's how we stand for now. Gotta love the moonbats.

In any event, the evening promises to be great blog food. Stay tuned.

About the Authors

Bob Owens

I have been a day laborer, atv rider, sports writer, web designer, technical writer, and blogger. I've moved back south since starting this blog in New York, and currently live and work near Raleigh, North Carolina, where I am a web developer for a Fortune 1000 company.

I am writer for Pajamas Media and Shooting Illustrated.

Occasionally, I post articles at The Tatler, Big Government, and Big Journalism.

I also maintain a shooting blog, Bob's Gun Counter.

I've also been discussed in the book Blog Wars: The New Political Battleground by University of Kansas journalism professor David Perlmutter, who has also featured some of my work in his teaching and in media conferences as an example of bloggers as investigative journalists.

Email Bob

Book an Interview with Bob

Mike McDaniel

Like Bob, I have connections to the North and the South. My father was a genuine Kentucky hillbilly, and all of his side of the family has lived in the deep south. How deep? Mobile, Alabama and New Orleans, where I spent substantial time on summer vacations over the years. Yet, until I got to Texas as soon as I could about a decade ago, I always lived in South Dakota or Wyoming. I miss winter, and in many ways, I’m a Confederate Yankee too.

My background is pretty eclectic. I’m a classically trained musician--a first tenor--but am also skilled on the guitar and bass, compose and arrange music, and have also been a director at various times. These days, I’m a professional singer, performing with a well known chorale, where I serve as a board member and the tenor and bass section leader, and with a fine symphony orchestra. I also sing regularly with a metropolitan church choir, for which I am actually paid! As a sidebar, I was fortunate to have the opportunity in college to build a double manual harpsichord from a kit. Being a musician and carpenter helped a great deal, and I got college credit for the project. The instrument will outlive me by centuries, and no doubt, look better too!

I am a veteran of the Air Force, having served in SAC during the Cold War as a Security Policeman. I am also a veteran of a bit less than two decades of experience as a civilian police officer where I served as a patrolman, juvenile officer, detective, field training officer, taught at a state law enforcement academy, served as a shift supervisor, division commander, firearm trainer and SWAT operator. I’m also a firearm instructor certified by the NRA and the American Small Arms Academy.

I’ve been an athlete all of my life, and have run several marathons, but these days, I mostly bicycle and lift weights for exercise and fun and ride the occasional century. I was the co-founder and first vice president of the Wyoming Division of the United States Fencing Association (essentially European fencing), and study Kendo (ken-dough, Japanese fencing) and Iaido (ee-eye-dough, Japanese sword drawing). As you might guess, I’m a real history buff as well.

My day job is teaching high school English. I love it, and my students, with a passion. I’ve been married 32 years to a magnificent woman who deserves far better than me, and have a cat, Mushi, which is short for “mushin,” or “empty mind” in Japanese. I’ve always been a writer, and have written two plays that have been produced several times. I’m also published, from time to time, at Pajamas Media.

I consider myself fortunate indeed to blog at Confederate Yankee with Bob and the wonderful, awe-inspiring, yet mysterious Brigid, she who must be read and obeyed.

Email Mike

Book an Interview with Mike

Brigid Durham

Brigid Durham is the birth and pen name of a writer and adventurer, author of the popular blog Home on The Range. She makes her home in the Midwest while traveling far and wide in her role as "Secret Squirrel", her name for a investigative position in the law enforcement field. A Ph.D. in Criminal Justice with related studies in Forensic Anthropology, she was raised and educated in the West and is the daughter of a Deputy Sheriff (Mom) and Military Police Officer (Dad). A licensed Airline Transport Pilot and flight instructor in heavy aircraft, she's flown airplanes ranging from Boeings to her favorite, the T-39, hanging up her wings in 2001 to do what she also loves - "solving the puzzle". She lists her hobbies as history, photography, antique weaponry, really bad gunsmithing, hunting and gourmet cooking and freely admits to owning more firearms than shoes. She'll write of firearms and family, flying and forensics.

She hopes to retire in 10 years, coming out of the shadows with a book that might actually have her face on the back cover.

Assaulting the Dead

An American hero died today.

William Westmoreland died in Charleston, SC, at the age of 91. His life was extraordinary by any measure. He was an Eagle Scout who graduated at the top of his class from West Point in 1936, and earned the respect of his soldiers fighting legendary German Filed Marshall Erwin Rommel in North Africa during World War II. He was a colonel by 30, and became a general during the Korean War.

He had the distinct honor of being the superintendent of the United States Military Academy at West Point from 1960-64, where he will soon be laid to rest.

After West Point, General Westmoreland commanded troops in Vietnam during the controversial years of 1964-1968, became Army Chief of Staff in 1968, and retired in 1972.

He became active in veterans' advocacy, and he visited veterans' groups in all 50 states. He led thousands of his comrades-in-arms in a veterans' march in 1982 to dedicate the Vietnam Veteran's Memorial in Washington, DC, calling it, "one of the most emotional and proudest experiences of my life."

This is how he should be remembered, as a soldier who dedicated his life to his country and to his men.

This is how the Washington Post would remember him:

One comment, lifted out of context, spoken out of passion, to tear down an entire career and reduce a man's dedication to his country to partisan politics.

I'd try to explain to the Post that this is not the way to honor someone who dedicated his life to preserving their freedom to say what they want, but that would involve explaining the concepts of duty, honor and loyalty, which would only cause confusion in the newsroom.

Update: The L.A. Times, perhaps predictably, proclaims an equally hate-filled view of General Westmoreland's life with the headline,"A Commander Caught in the Mire of Vietnam" and a lead paragraph that reads:

Gen. William C. Westmoreland, the World War II hero who was later vilified for his leadership of the United States' failed war in Vietnam, died Monday night in Charleston, S.C. He was 91.

Classy.

That's One Old Fish

Fellow blogger, designer of this site, and real-life younger brother phin of phin's blog is 30 today.

Be sure to drop in and harrass him.

Cooper's Double Super Secret Source

Matthew Cooper's "double super secret" source revealed!

From CNN:

In an e-mail to his boss at Time, Cooper wrote that his talk with Rove had been on "double super-secret background," a phrase that Cooper said Sunday had been intended to be a joke, inspired by the film "Animal House," in which a fraternity is placed on "double secret probation."

The longer this story goes, the more Nadagate appears to be a another brilliant Rovian plot to discredit the mainstream media.

Oddly enough, Rove has felt no need to attack the Democratic Party.

Wright, Wrong, and Rove

About the only thing I can say with any certainty regarding Plamegate is that any lies told by Republicans on the topic have been met and possibly exceeded by the media and their allies in the Democratic Party.

No finer demonstration of that fact can be found than former Democratic Speaker of the House Jim Wright's claim in his Forth Worth Star-Telegram editorial (registration or BugMeNot required) today that Karl Rove "initiated a call to Time magazine" to start an assault against Plame and Wilson.

It is established that Matthew Cooper of Time called Karl Rove. This is recorded extensively by Editor & Publisher, National Review, CNN and other news organizations.

But Jim Wright takes the dishonest step of changing the circumstances of the call in an attempt to establish a sinister motive for Rove. Cooper called Rove ostensibly to talk about welfare reform, and then after discussing that subject briefly, Cooper changed the subject to discuss Joe Wilson.

But that bit of documented history fails to firmly establish Rove as a villain, and so former Speaker Wright turns to fiction, and attempts to present it as fact.

This is irresponsible of course, but not more so than the Star-Telegram's decision to run a Sunday-edition editorial with such a major fact error in the second paragraph. Jim Wright (who knows something about ethics violations) and the Star-Telegram seem to have made the conscious decision to run an editorial based at least in part upon fabricated evidence.

The New York Times just ran a major correction for fabricating parts of an editorial. It remains to be seen if the Star-Telegram will have that kind of class.

Of course, you can ask them that yourself.

Update: Cooper further discredits Wright with the very first sentence in this article in Time.

Old Fish Never Die...

...they just smell that way.

Phin is turning 30 this weekend (well close, enough, the 18th). Be sure to drop by his site and harrass him.

The Blunder Rolls

Alphecca takes the gun-grabbing Violence Policy Center to task for shoddy policy-driven "research." Five youth gun suicides in an entire state from 2000-2002?

It's an epidemic!

Remember: Guns don't kill people, Garth Brooks kills people.

"Illegal War" Myth Debunked by Court?

I just finished reading the decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (thank you, Michelle Malkin), along with Paul Mirengoff's review at Powerline. As “legalese� sometimes appears a bit murky, I felt a bit better that Paul seemed to take away many of the same the same things that I did (though I must admit I missed a few things on my first reading that only became apparent after reading his comments).

One thing I did find interesting in the opinion that I don't think anyone has mentioned was the importance the court placed on the joint resolution passed by Congress in the wake of Sept. 11, 2001, which authorized the President:

"to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, of persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided� the attacks and recognized the President's “authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States."

The Court then goes on to state:

…the joint resolution "went as far toward a declaration of war as it might, and as far or further than Congress went in the Civil War, the Philippine Insurrection, the Boxer Rebellion, the Punitive Expedition against Pancho Villa, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the invasion of Panama, the Gulf War, and numerous other conflicts."

The Court mentioned the resolution is the context that Hamdan claimed that Bush violated the separation of powers, which the court rejected. But at the same time the Court rejected Hamdan's appeal, wasn't it also rejecting the "illegal war" myth of the far left?

By citing in their decision that the post 9/11 joint resolution "went as far toward a declaration of war as it might, and as far or further than" many other wars in our nations past, the Court validated the legal standing of the Global War on Terror. In so do, doesn't it therefore invalidate the myth perpetrated by the far left that President Bush was fighting an "illegal war?"

Seems like it to me, but I'm open to other interpretations.

Rove On the Grassy Knoll!

From the NY Times:

Karl Rove, the White House senior adviser, spoke with the columnist Robert D. Novak as he was preparing an article in July 2003 that identified a C.I.A. officer who was undercover, someone who has been officially briefed on the matter said.

Mr. Rove has told investigators that he learned from the columnist the name of the C.I.A. officer, who was referred to by her maiden name, Valerie Plame, and the circumstances in which her husband, former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, traveled to Africa to investigate possible uranium sales to Iraq, the person said.

After hearing Mr. Novak's account, the person who has been briefed on the matter said, Mr. Rove told the columnist: "I heard that, too."

Why bother with facts when you can run a story based on hearsay? According to this article, all Rove essentially said to Robert Novak was, "Oh, you know about it."

That is a leak?

I'm pretty sure Rove heard about the Kennedy Assassination as well. Does that make him a suspect?

Supply & Demand

It's funny how every time that liberals get louder and more shrill over their outrage -of-the-day, the better this sells.

I wonder what that is?

Bad Choice

You would think think Eminem would be smart enough not to hire Stan as a bus driver with his track record, wouldn't you?

If you Commit Treason in a Forest ...

...and the major news media doesn't deem to report it, does the importance of the conviction still matter?

Ali Al-Timimi was given a life sentence for treason-related charges yesterday, but you probably won't find that on the front page of your favorite news web site. We've just had a major terrorist attack on one of our allies.

We have growing concerns about terrorist sleeper cells that may be operating in this country. You might think that the conviction of a man calling for holy war against the United States from just outside our nation's capitol might merit some discussion. If you think that, you'd be wrong, judging by leading U.S. news web sites.

Here is a simple table showing a quick survey of major U.S. news Web sites and how they handled the story of Al-Timimi's conviction on their front pages:

Web News Source Home Page Coverage

Web News Source	Home Page Coverage
ABC News	nothing
Fox News	nothing
Google News	nothing
NY Post	nothing
Washington Times	nothing
Drudge	nothing
Washington Post	in the Metro section
New York Times	main page, below the fold
CBS News	main page, below the fold

Of course, I'm sure that there is a logical explanation for the major news media either not reporting or under-reporting one of the few (less than 40) treason-related cases in our nations history, especially in a time of war. My guess is that it might mess up Oliver Stone's narrative, but I could be wrong.

Two Minutes

As Britons are urged to give two minutes of silence at noon today to mark the one week anniversay of suicide bombings in London, one can only assume that the folks at the International Freedom Center will be hard at work planning an exhibit showcasing exactly why Londoners deserved to die for British Imperialism. *

Report Discredits F.B.I. Claims of Abuse at Guantánamo Bay

What Chimpy McHalliburton wingnut Freepers would write such a headline?

The New York Times.

Senator Durbin, how do you like your crow?

What Does the NEA Stand For?

Not Educating Anyone.

Follow the Jawa

Ever since The Jawa Report went group blog and I got a day job that discourages 9-5 blogging, Rusty & Co. have occasionally written the articles I wanted to before I got a chance. The Jawas did it not once, but twice today.

The first discusses the shock of Leeds-area Muslims in discovering that the terrorists came from their midst. Presumably, they were expecting to find that the suicide bombers were Episcopals.

The second discusses the horrible, if somewhat predictable backlash against Muslims within Britain following last week's homicide bombing, focusing on the beating death of Kamal Raza Butt at the hands of English teens. There have also been at least two mosques firebombed and thousands of threats issued against British Muslims.

I feel sympathy for the vast majority of innocent Muslims, but by allowing radical Islam to flourish with little or no internal opposition, they've brought this hatred upon themselves. I'm sure that the vast majority of Germans alive in the 1940s were wonderful people, but we firebombed the civilians of Dresden just the same. If moderate Islam does not eradicate the terrorists within its midst, we will assuredly be forced to end Islam at large.

Update:

Dresden, 1945 or Riyadh, 2010?
Islamic moderates will ultimately decide.

What is Classified Information?

Looking at the media feeding frenzy, you'd have to think that George Bush was crazy to stand behind Karl Rove amid allegations in the affair dubbed "Plamegate."

Liberal bloggers and professional journalists alike are giddy with the thought that Karl Rove may be forced out the White House door. Via to the Hotline's Blogometer, we see that Armando at Daily Kos dug up a 2003 press conference in which Scott McClellan states:

"If someone in this administration leaked classified information, they will no longer be a part of this administration, because that's not the way this White House operates."

Armando then goes on to make the claim:

It can not be disputed now that Karl Rove did indeed "leak classified information."

But there is a problem Armando, because actually, it can be disputed. As a matter of fact, it might be rather easy to prove that Rove did not leak classified information.

Valerie Plame was a lot of things--a CIA employee, an Ambassador's wife, a socialite in the pages of Vanity Fair--but she was far from a secret agent who had her cover blown.

In fact not one source that I've seen has ever been able to conclusively establish that she had a secret identity to blow.

Valerie Plame was a WMD analyst who drove from her cushy estate in Georgetown through the gates of CIA headquarters at least twice a day, five days a week. "Secret agent?" I think not. Johnny English could have found her.

Karl Rove may have told a journalist that "Joe Wilson's wife" was an analyst in the CIA, but that was hardly a breach of national security. She wasn't undercover. Period.

I wondered why Rove so easily let Matt Cooper reveal his identity, and why Bush has made no effort to distance himself from what promises be a political hot potato. I'm starting to wonder if once again Karl Rove has outsmarted his political adversaries. It wouldn't be the first time, and unless there is more to this story than the media has been able to uncover so far, it may not be the last.

UPDATE: I just caught a bit of Michael Medved on Larry King Live, and he seemed to agree with my contention that Rove may not have done anything wrong. If I'm off on this, at least I'm in good company.

UPDATE2 :The beginnings of a counterattack?

What the NC ACLU should know about Taqiyya

From WRAL:

Legislators may be asked to decide if the Quran and other religious texts can be used for courtroom oaths, said a spokesman for the agency that manages state courts, as the ACLU pressed for a response on the texts' use.

The legal foundation of the ACLU of North Carolina has called on the state Administrative Office of the Courts to adopt a policy allowing the Quran and other religious texts for oath-taking in North Carolina courtrooms.

The request came after Guilford County's two top judges decided that Muslims could not legally take an oath on the Quran.

"We think they are dragging their feet," said Jennifer Rudinger, the state ACLU's executive director.

In addition, a Washington-based Islamic civil rights organization and Greensboro-area religious leaders have called on the AOC to act. The ACLU wrote a formal letter to the state agency June 28 but has not received a response.

Would you really like a response, Ms. Rudinger? I can provide a one-word response as to why the courts and legislature should prevent using the Quran for courtroom oaths.

Taqiyya.

Taqiyya, as defined by the Islamic scholars at the digital Islamic Library Project al-Islam.org, shows that:

The word "al-Taqiyya" literally means: "Concealing or disguising one's beliefs, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions, and/or strategies at a time of eminent danger, whether now or later in time, to save oneself from physical and/or mental injury." A one-word translation would be "Dissimulation."

The above definition must be elaborated upon before any undertaking of this topic is to ensue. Although correct, the definition suffers from an apparent generalization, and lacks some fundamental details that should be construed:

First, the CONCEALMENT of one's beliefs does NOT necessitate an ABANDONMENT of these beliefs. The distinction between "concealment" and "abandonment" MUST be noted here.

Second, there are numerous exceptions to the above definition, and they MUST be judged according to the situation that one is placed in. As such, one should NOT make a narrow-minded generalization that encompasses all situations, thereby failing to fully absorb the spirit of the definition.

Third, the word "beliefs" and/or "convictions" does NOT necessarily mean "religious" beliefs and/or convictions.

This Muslim scholars at al-Islam.org then go on to reference 14 Islamic sources proving that Islamic holy texts allow Muslims to lie under an oath on the Quran, and that the lie does not have to be religious in nature. As a matter of specific fact, in the second reference, the single most noted Islamic scholar in history, Abdullah Ibn Abbas said:

"al-Taqiyya is the uttering of the tongue, while the heart is comfortable with faith."

al-Islam notes that this means that a Muslim can lie about anything in a time of need, so long that he feels he is being truth in his heart to his faith.

An oath made on a religious text is symbolic of a person's desire to tell the truth while in a court of law. As the single most eminent of Muslims scholars hold that the Quran has no requirement to tell the truth while under oath, an oath sworn upon it is a meaningless exercise.

Someone should contact the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts to inform them of these facts.

NC AOCContact Page or call (919) 733-7107.

Revenge for Srebrenica?

As police sources within the London terrorist bombing investigation indicated yesterday that the bombs were constructed with military grade explosives thought to come from the Balkans, U.S. and European leaders attended a ceremony marking the tenth anniversary of the execution of nearly 8,000 Muslim men and boys in Srebrenica during the Bosnian War in 1995.

In July of 1995, Bosnian Serbs overwhelmed the unprepared Dutch peacekeepers and massacred every Muslim man or boy they found.

The British foreign secretary, Jack Straw, made the most direct statement, saying it was "a shame on the international community that this evil took place under our noses."

"I particularly regret this," Straw said. "And I am deeply sorry for it."

It could be that the London bombings using explosives traced to the region ten years to the month of the anniversary of the massacre was just a coincidence. It could just as well point to international collusion between various Islamic terrorist groups.

Time will tell, as the investigation continues…

UPDATE: According to the Guardian, experts are now saying the Balkan bomb thery is a dud:

A senior anti-terrorist official also denied claims that the explosives originated from the Balkans, and said it was far from clear that they were of military grade - claims made by French anti-terrorist officials earlier this week.

British anti-terrorist officials have consistently said that the explosives were of "high grade", but could be acquired on the commercial market in the UK if the bombers knew where to look.

Balkan Explosives in London Blast?

The London Times is reporting that the explosives used in the London terrorist attacks were possibly imported military-grade high explosives:

Similar components from the explosive devices have been found at all four murder sites, leading detectives to believe that each of the 10lb rucksack bombs was the work of one man. They also believe that the materials used were not home made but sophisticated military explosives, possibly smuggled into Britain from the Balkans.

“The nature of the explosives appears to be military, which is very worrying,� said Superintendent Christophe Chaboud, the chief of the French anti-terrorist police, who was in London to help Scotland Yard.

I guess I might have been wrong when I said: "There also seems to be a relatively low number of fatalities considering the density of humanity in the areas targeted, and I am forced to think that these were low-grade explosive devices, quite possibly something like blackpowder pipe bombs like those used by American anti-abortion fanatic Eric Robert Rudolph. As horrible and tragic as the deaths and injuries are, the number and severity of wounds doesn't seem to indicate that military grade explosives were used. If Semtex or C4 or other military grade explosives had been used, I would think that the casualties would have been far, far worse."

I'd be glad to be wrong on this, but it still doesn't explain how forty pounds of military explosives managed to cause so few casualties in such a densely-packed environment. It could have been far worse. It should have been far worse. London was very lucky.

Or perhaps, just perhaps, someone was looking out for London.

Cowboys and Muslims

At some point I'm sure most of you have seen this circulating in your email:

At a small terminal in the Texas Panhandle, three strangers are awaiting their shuttle flight. One is a Native American passing through from Oklahoma. Another, a local ranch hand on his way to Ft. Worth for a stock show. The third passenger is an Arab student, newly arrived at the Texas oil patch from the Middle East.

To pass the time they strike up a conversation on recent events, and the discussion drifts to their diverse cultures. Soon the Westerners learn that the Arab is a devout Muslim. The conversation falls into an uneasy lull.

The cowpoke leans back in his chair, crosses his boots on a magazine table, tips his big sweat-stained hat forward over his face. The wind outside blows tumbleweeds and the old windsock flaps, but no plane comes.

Finally, the Native American clears his throat and softly, he speaks: 'Once my people were many, Now we are few.'

The Muslim raises an eyebrow and leans forward, 'Once my people were few,' he sneers, 'and now we are many. Why do you suppose that is?'

The Texan shifts the toothpick to one side of his mouth and from the darkness beneath his stetson says, 'That's 'cause we ain't played Cowboys and Muslims yet.'

That is the joke, but like many, it has a strong base in reality.

I read Lee Harris' excellent article "War in Pieces: The Blood Feud" this past Friday at Tech Central Station, and the case he presented regarding the apparent tribal nature of terrorist warfare made perfect sense.

But how can an enemy hoping to wage a blood feud hope to compete against a foe willing to respond with a conventional war? As Afghanistan and Iraq's rouge terrorist-supporting regimes have found out, “not too good.�

What's more, American's have been fighting—and winning—these kinds of wars for our entire history, as Arnold Kling correctly notes in his TCS article today, “Terrorism Lessons from 1870.� Kling only tracks our success in conventional warfare against feudal warfare back to 1870, but in reality, we have been fighting this kind of warfare successfully for our entire history, dating back to before the French and Indian War of the 1750s.

Americans need to know that despite the attempts of the American left to lose the War on Terror (and make no mistake, insisting on a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq is just that), this asymmetrical versus conventional warfare is the kind of combat at which Americans have consistently excelled for hundreds of years.

We can play very well at “Cowboys and Muslims,� should it come to that.

I just hope Muslim culture can reform itself before we get to the point that that would become necessary.

UK Terror Arrests

Breaking on Fox News is the arrest of three suspects under anti-terrorism laws at Heathrow Airport in London. Obviously, it is too early to officially say this is related to the bombings in London earlier this week, but I somewhat doubt they're targeting anyone else.

CNN has more.

Repost: Trying to Reason With Hurricane Season

As Hurricane Dennis bears down on the Gulf Coast and various television news weather girls are getting pounded by high winds, it seems like the perfect time to republish this post.

Confederate Yankee's Guide to Dealing with Hurricane Season

Days Before the Storm Arrives

1. Move. Seriously, people in Idaho never have to deal with this crap.

2. Get milk and bread. Nobody seems to know exactly why, but I'm pretty sure it's the law.

3. Send Mama and the kids away to her folks for a few days.

4. Go to the beach and grab a seat in the dunes. Huge waves are cool to watch crashing on the beach, and if you're lucky, you can see some idiot from Quebec get swept out to sea. Screaming is funny in French.

5. Go home.

6. Throw all the crap you don't want any more in the yard. If the storm surge comes you can avoid a dumping fee, and if it doesn't, you can use all the debris to convince the guys from FEMA that it did and they'll cut you a big, fat check.

The Day before the Storm

1. Get more beer. Lots of it. If you're living in hurricane country, you might as well make the best of it.

2. Get ice. That way your beer stays cold even if you lose power for a couple of days.

3. Get one of those huge 490-quart Igloo coolers that looks like chest freezer, but bigger. It'll keep your iced beer cold, and can be used as a raft. Put it in the bass boat tied to your back porch.

4. Board up the windows of your trailer. You already have all the boards numbered from last year, so it should be a snap. Put all the crap you really need (rifles, radio, lawn chairs, cans of vienna sausages, etc.) in a big waterproof bag and tie it tightly well off the ground in a nearby tree.

5. Invite your best buddy over. Remind him to bring his cooler.

6. Wait.

Landfall

1. Sit inside and drink beer. Watch that 90-pound girl reporter from the local television news crew get battered by the wind and sideways rain while doing a live report. Take bets on whether or not the cameraman will warn her about that dumpster bearing down behind her. Wonder why he hates her so much. Giggle until you loose power.

2. Put on your lawn ‘n leaf bag and step outside for a smoke. Wow, those 100 MPH lighters really do work.

3. Go out back, get in the boat, and tie a rope around your cooler. Mount up. When the storm surge comes, you can ride that bucking 490-quart beast like a bull.

4. Yee-haw!

5. Float serenely along, drinking more beer. At this point you should have enough beer in you to “contribute to the storm surge,� if you know what I mean.

6. Empty your bladder up-current from that still-screaming guy from Quebec.

7. Thow your empty cans at, err, to him. Empty beer cans are nature's unsung floatation devices. Don't let him get too close though—he smells like piss.

8. Enjoy the ride while it lasts. Likes the French, storm surge always retreats eventually, and you'll be back on land soon enough.

Afterward

1. Climb off your cooler, hop out of the boat, and immediately start picking up full cans and bottles of beer left over from that convenience store down the street that washed away.

2. If he hasn't stopped screaming yet, an ice-cold beer should encourage “Frenchy� to settle down—especially if you catch him in the temple.

3. When he comes too, have him help pick up beers. If he refuses to work—which you should expect of socialists—simply hum a few bars of “Dueling Banjos.�

4. Deliverance needs no translation.

5. Have “Frenchy� drag your cooler back to your freshly scoured lot and then send him on his way.

6. Retrieve your rifle, radio, lawn chairs, and viennas from that waterproof bag you tied in a tree.

7. Pose for the CNN news crews that come by. They LOVE filming guys guarding nothing from lawn chairs. When Mama sees you on CNN, she and the kids will know you're “ah-ight.�

8. Have a can of viennas and a beer.

9. Wait for FEMA to come by.

10. Listen to the radio. According to the National Weather Service, you'll get to do it all again next week.

Durbin Just Can't Stay Quiet

Tom Elia at The New Editor catches Durbin stepping in it again.

Hey, at least he didn't call Mayor Daley a Nazi.

Yet.

Iraqi Army Progress

I missed this roundup of progress from the Iraqi army earlier in the week, but Mustang 23 didn't.

Mustang 23 is one of our milbloggers "over there," so I tend to trust his judgement.

Baghdad Progress?

Via MSNBC:

"...violent incidents in the Iraqi capital are declining since Iraq's U.S.-backed forces launched an operation against insurgents in the city six weeks ago.

The commander of U.S. forces in Baghdad, Maj. Gen. William G. Webster Jr., said car bombings had dropped from 14 to 21 a week in May to about seven or eight a week now. But he said it was “very difficult to know� whether the insurgency has been broken."

I'll offer the guess that the insurgency is far from broken, but it may well be possible that the Baghdad insurgents have reduced bombings for a number of reasons.

• They may be low logistically, either in detonators, munitions, or transport options. I view this option as unlikely, but possible.
• They may be low on bomb-builders. As arrests have increased it is possible that the insurgency in Baghdad is facing a manpower shortage. This is more likely than a shortage in munitions, but is still probably not the root cause of decreased bombings.
• The most disturbing option is that the insurgency has cut down on minor operations to focus on a major attack. While I doubt that this is the case, it is not inconceivable.
• The most hopeful option is that the native Iraqi insurgents have started to realize that the random murder of Iraqi citizens is not breaking their resolve, and instead, it is hardening them against the insurgency. If this is the reason for declining attacks, it could mean that at least the native insurgents may be considering other options, including a political solution.

I think it premature to declare Baghdad insurgency "broken," but these are certainly developments worth watching.

Keystone al Qaeda

Via My Way News:

The bombs that destroyed three London Underground cars and a double-decker bus each weighed less than 10 pounds and could be carried in a backpack, police said Friday. Police said the bodies of 49 people had been recovered, but warned that the number of deaths would rise.

An explosives expert said they were likely crude homemade devices set off with a simple timer. Experts say Thursday's attacks had all the hallmarks of an al-Qaida strike, and authorities were gathering evidence on the ground and investigating a purported claim of responsibility.

Sir Ian Blair, commissioner of London's Metropolitan Police, said no arrests had been made but officials have "lots and lots" of leads.

Home Secretary Charles Clarke, the Cabinet minister responsible for law and order, said it was a "strong possibility" that al-Qaida or a sympathetic group had carried out the attack.

I've maintained since the first details of the London terrorists attacks started coming to light that these bombing appeared to be the work of amateur terrorists. The crude construction of the bombs was apparent yesterday. Failed detonations, the erratic timing of the detonations, the relatively low number of fatalities and a potential accidental detonation by one bomber are not indicative of professional terrorists.

London's bombers can hate with the best of radical Islamists, but fortunately, they lack technical expertise. They are not al Qaeda (I'll let other argue "al Qaeda" vs. "al Qaida"). They are inept. They are cowards. If it weren't for the fact that they still managed to kill with their bumbling attempts, they would even be clownish.

UPDATE: Cliff May at The Corner isn't very impressed with the wannabes, either.

Terrorist(s) Killed in the London Bombings?

The more details come out about the four bombs that went of in London yesterday (and the two that didn't), the more it sounds like we are dealing with terrorists with a minimum of training. 1/3 of the known bombs failed to detonate, of those 40%, or 3 of 5, failed to detonate in the Underground (subway) attacks. One may have even killed one or more terrorists in a premature detonation.

The attacks were not nearly simultaneous as many claimed in the confusion of yesterday's horrific events, with an ABC News article saying the Underground attacks were spaced out over 18 minutes. This seems an excessively long period of time if the intention of the attacks was to kill and maim as many as possible. Perhaps they were confident that even with the delay between explosions that people would not have been able to evacuate the subways in time, but I find it more plausible, due to the fact that two bombs failed to detonate at all, that their timing devices were crude and imprecise.

The crudeness of the timers seems more likely if this story reported by the New York Times is true, that the fourth device, the one that blew up the bus, apparently blew up prematurely while in route to its primary target.

If this story of a premature detonation turns out to be true—and we're talking about a New York Times story instead of a blog entry, so there is room for doubt—then there is a strong possibility that the bomber and any accomplices traveling with him may have been among those killed in the blast.

If one or more bombers were on the bus when it exploded, DNA and forensic evidence recovered from the crime scene may be well on the way to identifying the bombers, and by association, the cell which carried out the attack. I do not know how fast DNA matching and forensic science takes to work, but I'd be willing to bet that once Scotland Yard has a lead, that it will take very little time to make arrests for these attacks.

Justice will be served.

UPDATE: According to CNN a potential bomber may have indeed been killed in the blast:

A passenger who survived the bus blast said he saw an "extremely agitated" man rummaging in a bag just seconds before the explosion, the UK's Press Association reported.

The bus blast occurred about 30 minutes after the last train explosion. Investigators found fragments of timing devices that may have been used in the three train blasts, but no such fragments have been found in the bus explosion, U.S. law enforcement sources told CNN.

"The cause of the bus explosion right now is problematic. We don't know yet what we're dealing with as the cause there," one law enforcement official told CNN.

This new eyewitness information does not seem to confirm this was a suicide bombing, nor does it rule out the possibility of an accidental detonation. It does, however, seem to show the probability that a terrorist was among the fatalities.

UPDATE: It seems that the terrorists involved in this attack are most likely not Methodists.

Who knew?

Enter the Asylum

I had hoped not to discuss domestic politics today in the wake of today's terrorist attacks in London. Sadly, paranoia and delusional behavior from some corners has poured forth, showing that they are not capable of leadership in times of crisis, nor of basic humanity.

The sickening "reality-based" community of the Democratic Underground thinks President George W. Bush is behind the attacks:

...I'm praying for those hurt and injured just as hard as I prayed here on 9/11/01. They are truly innocent and undeserving of this.

But I believe Bush and his PNAC pack were involved in 9/11 and I can't help thinking they're in on this as well. [emphasis added -- ed.] Another Pearl Harbor to help the cause.

Michelle Malkin has far more than you will probably be able to stand of this kind of behavior, as does John Hawkins.

This is a day to lend support to those were were injured and killed, and rally around their families. This is a day to rally around a nation, a longtime ally, that was attacked out of hate.

This is not a day for the usual comments from the chronically unserious and unreliable members of the conspiracy brigade. They unmask themselves as sad examples of humanity.

Again.

Amateur Terrorists?

Bloomberg news quotes one London fireman as saying that they've discovered five explosive devices in the London subway network. If this is true, and there were in fact seven bombs that went off, it would indicate than nearly half of the devices planted failed to detonate.

There also seems to be a relatively low number of fatalities considering the density of humanity in the areas targeted, and I am forced to think that these were low-grade explosive devices, quite possibly something like blackpowder pipe bombs like those used by American anti-abortion fanatic Eric Robert Rudolph. As horrible and tragic as the deaths and injuries are, the number and severity of wounds doesn't seem to indicate that military grade explosives were used. If Semtex or C4 or other military grade explosives had been used, I would think that the casualties would have been far, far worse.

This has all the earmarks of an unsophisticated homegrown attack. The low-grade materials apparently used, and the fact that so many of the devices failed to work, would seem to indicate a zealous but unsophisticated terrorist plot carried out by a small group with limited access and capability.

I doubt this attack was carried out by al Qaeda infiltrators as were the attacks of September 11. I'd be very surprised if these amateur bomb-builders, when captured, come from anywhere other than England's own “loyal� Muslim immigrant community.

UPDATE: Some are considering this a "typical al-Qaeda" attack. I think al Qaeda has more competent bomb builders than this group, where almost half the bombs reported failed to explode. I certainly think the group behind this attack sympathizes with al Qaeda, but that does not mean they are nearly as technically proficient.

ANOTHER UPDATE: A group calling itself "Secret Group of Al Qaeda's Jihad in Europe" is taking responsibilty for the attacks. Sounds like "wannabes" to me, though murderous wannabes, as the death toll has now surpassed 40 and 300 are reported injured.

A top British terrorism expert says that this looks like an attempt to recreate the Madrid bombings. I'd say that was rather obvious.

Michael Clarke, director of the Centre for Defence Studies at King's College London, says that for the six bombs he thought there were at the time, that there would have to be 24 suspects to carry out the attacks. So using that ratio of four attacker per bomb, was there a cell of 48 terrorists operating here if there were indeed 12 bombs (seven detonated, five non-detonated)?

I'm sorry Mr Clarke, but I'm not buying your numbers. I see no reason why it would take 24 men to plant six bombs (and yes, that includes support roles)

YET ANOTHER UPDATE: Wretchard and a few others have said that they feel that this attack is quite sophisticated due to the near-simultaneous nature of the attacks. Again, like Michael Clarke's “large cell� theory of a large number of bombers, I simply don't buy it.

It is far too easy to rig time-type detonators to go of simultaneously or nearly so, and for cell phone type detonators commonly used in Iraq and I believe in the Madrid bombing, one terrorist merely has to run through a speed dial to set off a series of explosions.

I am not a terror expert, nor do I play one on television, but those that do play expert seem to be prone towards giving complex explanations rather than simple ones. If you listen to the “experts� today, you will probably here that a composite view that this was a very sophisticated attack carried out by a well-trained and well-armed terrorist cell with excellent counter security to avoid detection.

Once all is said and done, however, I would find it far more likely that the attack will be traced back to no more than a dozen legal Muslim immigrants operating out of a fundamentalist London mosque.

They will simply know from living there when the morning rush hour was (that takes brilliant surveillance? Hardly), and we'll probably find that they were able to find pipe-bomb building instructions on the Internet. The only difficult part of this plan was obtaining explosives, and I'll be willing to bet that they explosives used were purchased legally or cooked up by the terrorists themselves.

Time may very well prove that these were indeed complex operations. It is undoubtedly good for the psyche to believe these kinds of attacks are difficult to pull off. But they don't have to be.

Terrorism need not be sophisticated, and it rarely is.

FURTHER UPDATE: The number of blasts has been revised down to three subway attacks and one bus attack. Trains were hit between stations, and as passengers exited from stations on either side it made it look like there were attacks than there actually were.

ABC News has confirmed that two unexploded bombs and parts of the timing devices from the bombs that detonated have been recovered.

This is down from the original claim carried by Bloomberg that five bombs had been recovered, and shows that at least 1/3 of the bombs used failed to work.

Does this prove my earlier contention that this was the work of al Qaeda "wannabes" and not experienced terrorists? Perhaps not, but the fact that bombs were recovered quickly and intact should help British authorities to narrow down a list of suspects rather quickly. Once they make arrests--and I have every confidence that they will--we'll see for certain who is behind these attacks.

Until then, my prayers and support are firmly with the British people.

London Attacked

From various news and wire reports this morning there seems to have been a series of near-simultaneous terrorist attacks on public transportation targets in London, England. While early reports are still coming in, there seems to have been a minimum of seven attacks, all have targeted subways and buses.

I'll attempt to sort things out as information becomes available, but so far, these seem to be the targets hit so far:

• Russell Square subway station


• Aldgate subway station


• Liverpool Street subway station


• Edgware Road subway station


• A double-decker bus near Russell Square


• Some sort of event on Old Street (not yet specified or confirmed)


• An incident near the British Museum (not yet specified or confirmed)


• And incident near Tavistock Place (not yet specified or confirmed)

I must stress this list may not be accurate, I'm simply cobbling together what I can from various online news agencies. Attacks on a double-decker bus at Russell Square have been confirmed. Attacks on the subway lines (the British call it the “tube�) at Edgware Road and Aldgate seem to be confirmed via pictures from AP.

MSNBC.com is running a flash headline saying a �violent Islamic group�—can they not even say “terrorist� anymore?—is claiming responsibility.

Early reports say that at least eight civilians are dead and close to 100 are injured. I'll be following this story throughout the day, and saying a prayer for our oldest allies.

"You sure got a purty mouth, boy…"

( h/t Michelle Malkin)

Okay, so he isn't pretty by the standards of those of us who reside on this side of the triple barbed-wire fences, but the slightly-built, pouty-lipped Jeremy Hammond will probably be quite popular inside the cell block after lights-out.

I hope he doesn't bruise easy.

If convicted for his role in masterminding the break-in and theft of 5,000 credit card numbers from the server of ProtestWarrior.com, Hammond could potentially face up to 30 years in prison according to the FreeJeremy.com web site.

Interestingly enough, Hammond's supporters seem to wrap their defense around the fact that Hammond was arrested before he was able to commit millions of dollars in credit card fraud. Their claim seems to be that if the cards weren't yet used, then there wasn't a crime. According to their logic, someone could break into their homes and steal their television, but a crime would not actually occur until the thief started actually watching television. I can only hope that Hammond's lawyers are more competent in the basics of criminal law than his supporters.

FreeJeremy.com has a petition section where you can contribute your thoughts on the case. Please feel free to express your thoughts on what you feel might be an appropriate punishment for someone who would steal your identity and abuse your credit because he doesn't like your politics or respect your freedom to voice your beliefs.

In addtion, FreeJeremy.com has a support page that I encourage people to visit. It has a Paypal donations button, but considering Jeremy's apparent penchant for personal identity theft, I'd advise skipping it for now.

But I would suggest a donation of either Soap on a Rope or Preparation H to the address listed for their super secret safe house at:

1271 Pleasant Avenue Apt #D
Glendale Heights, IL 60139

I have a feeling he'll be needing copious amounts of both.

Platoon of Potential Terrorists Penetrate Stateside Airbase

That could be the title of this WRAL television news report out of Raleigh, as between 50-60 illegal immigrants were arrested at Seymour Johnston Air Force Base in North Carolina. According to the report, the illegals have some sort of connection to Parsons Evergreen, LLC, a company that has contracts at 19 U.S. Air Force bases. Wasn't this the premise behind Red Dawn?

Someone please get Michael Chertoff on the phone with James Gilchrist, pronto.

Whack-A-Judge

It hasn't been a week has it?

Sandra Day O'Connor announced plans to retire from the Supreme Court, and advocates on the right and left are already lining up to bash prospective candidates for the vacancy.

Ted Kennedy, who's liver also plans to retire this summer, wants President Bush to nominate a candidate he considers “mainstream.� The last time Kennedy found the mainstream was in an upside-down Oldsmobile, and it is fairly safe to assume his idea of middle of the road would be unacceptable to not only Triple A and Republicans, but also the traditional conservative Democrats that dominate middle America.

On the other end of the spectrum, some conservatives are pushing for an extremely conservative judge, sensing that with dominance in the White House, House of Representatives and Senate, that this might now be the best chance they have of making a significant change to the basic makeup of the court.

All of this is compounded by the fact that Chief Justice William Rehnquist, suffering from thyroid cancer, may yet retire this summer, opening a dual vacancies on the court for the first time since 1971 when Rehnquist and Lewis Powell were selected to replace Hugo Black and John Marshall Harlan.

I do not follow the courts closely enough to be able to tell you which potential candidates are the “best,� and even those sites that claim to do so are merely speculating. I can however, make the following observations:

• President Bush's long-standing pledge not to use specific-issue “litmus testsâ€� in selecting a potential justice is a good thing for all Americans, regardless of ideology. Whether a potential justice is for or against a specific case is not nearly as important as how they arrived at their decision. We need reasoned jurists, not ideologues.
• Bush's desire to appoint strict Constitutionalists means that it will be harder for un-elected judges to legislate from the bench. This will ensure a long-term, even application of the law, not subject to the whims of current events.
• Advocates on both extremes are going to blow the apparent ideology of any nominee far out of proportion, and spend far too little time based upon their actual suitability as judges. Again, we need reasoned jurists, not ideologues.
• Democrats—the “Party of Noâ€�—are almost certain to attempt to filibuster any nominee Bush sends for confirmation.
• An attempted filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee would likely be the death of the filibuster itself in judicial nominations. The improper use of a filibuster by Democrats would be seen as breaking the deal made earlier this year, resulting in the so-called “nuclear option,â€� where Republicans can exercise the option of simply voting to do away with the filibuster. Filibustering judicial nominees, it should be noted, was an exceedingly rare practice until racist southern Democrats tried to use them to stop nominees they felt might fight segregation.

Almost There...

1 leasing signing, 11 flea bombs, five days, two flights, and 650 miles behind the wheel of a GMC 6500 later, and we're here, and starting to get semi-unpacked.

Time-Warner Cable was only 7-11 hours late to install my cable TV/internet/digital phone yesterday, but at least they finally showed up and everything seems to work.

Regular blogging resumes this evening, so stay tuned!

The unanimous Declaration

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

I've wondered at times if our forefathers knew the greatness we would achieve and trials and tribulations our nation would undergo in the years since they signed our Declaration of Independence. In our brief history our country has defended itself from all attackers emerging as a stronger more united nation.

There are and always have been those who feel the country should be in heading in a different direction. Only through healthy debate are we able to learn and grow and see all sides of the issues at hand. These different perspectives have allowed our great nation to grow and prosper as the world changes around us and as we change the world. However there are times when it is necessary for us to put our differences aside and take care of the task at hand.

By putting our differences aside we have liberated countries.
By putting our differences aside we have delivered entire continents from the grasp of evil.
By putting our differences aside we have become and shall remain a super power for the world to respect and rely on.

This Fourth of July as you spend time with your friends and family please take a couple of minutes to reflect and say thanks to the sacrifices others have made for our way of life. Take the time to thank someone in our armed forces for protecting our way of life and for helping to spread democracy world wide. Take the time to reflect on what it truly means to be an American.

May all of you have a happy and safe Fourth of July.

Cross posted at phin's blog

A Record of Journalistic Fraud?

As my last article about Beth Quinn's editorial "Proof is in the Memo: Soldiers Died for a Lie" shows, what constitutes unethical journalism for one person does not necessarily constitute unethical journalism for another. To me, Quinn clearly crossed the line. Her Executive Editor Mike Levine, feels Quinn was within her rights

So what constitutes Journalistic Fraud?

According to Wikipedia:

Journalistic fraud includes practices such as plagiarism, fabrication of quotes, facts, or other report details, staging or altering the event being putatively recorded, or anything else that may call the integrity and truthfulness of a piece of journalism into question.

So what is this?

What has become known as the Downing Street Memo is a report on a meeting between Rycroft and the White House in July 2002 - a good seven months before Bush invaded Iraq. The memo says Bush had already decided to attack. It also says Bush knew there were no WMDs in Iraq, but that "the facts were being fixed around the policy."

Quinn states that the Memo was "a report on a meeting between Rycroft and the White House in July 2002." This is factually wrong. As a matter of record, this document was an internal document of the British government; no element of the U.S. government was ever involved at all. Quinn fabricated this statement, presumably to bolster her editorial's premise.

Quinn further alters history:

"The memo says Bush had already decided to attack."

This also is not what the document states, and is another fact misrepresentation by Quinn in the justification of her narrative. The document cites the opinion of a character called "C", who says:

There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD.

Beth Quinn would present the opinion of a foreign intelligence officer, based upon hearsay, as incontrovertible fact. This seems like a clear case of the "fabrication of quotes, facts, or other report details" mentioned in Wiki's definition of journalistic fraud.

As the Wiki definition also indicates, "staging or altering events or report details" also constitutes fraud. Does willfully leaving out material that directly contradicts your story's main premise fall under this part of Wiki's definition?

Some of the other Downing Street documents, the Iraqi Options paper and the David Manning Memo in particular, show other options were indeed on the table other than military force. So does this Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report, which concluded that the Bush Administration did not influence the intelligence findings. In particular, the committee noted that it "found no evidence that the IC's mischaracterization or exaggeration of the intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) capabilities was the result of political pressure." In other words, the Senate found that that Administration didn't try to interfere with or "fix" intelligence. But Quinn refuses to mention these documents that dismantle her premise.

For all these reasons, Quinn's polemic seems to quite clearly cross the line into journalistic fraud.

I can only hope that the officers at Ottaway Newspapers also find this a serious offense.