The supporters of Natalee Holloway's family have the attention of the Dutch embassy in Washington.
AP writes:
On Wednesday, family friend Sunny Tillman said she and others were distributing e-mails asking people to write to the Dutch ambassador in Washington to urge the country's continued help in Aruba, a Dutch protectorate.
On Thursday, Ambassador Boudewijn van Eenennaam issued a statement saying, "I fully understand and appreciate the feelings of the many Americans who have expressed their legitimate concerns to my embassy. As the ambassador of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, I want to reassure the American people that everything is being done to resolve this tragic case. We are standing together in our efforts and our hopes."
A spokeswoman for the embassy said it had received about 30 phone calls and several e-mails.
...The Dutch ambassador said the Royal Netherlands Marines, the Joint Dutch-Aruban Investigation Team, the Netherlands Forensic Institute, the Netherlands Coast Guard and Dutch legal experts are assisting Aruban authorities in the investigation.
Although a letter-writing campaign keeps the pressure on the Dutch to resolve the case of Natalee's disappearance, I doubt it will help. The ambassador claims that "everything is being done" that can be done. That may be, now.
The problem is everything that should have been done was not done WHEN it should have been.
Let's be realistic. Unless by some miracle Natalee is found or some investigator stumbles on some forensic evidence, no one will be held accountable for what happened to her.
Paul van der Sloot, his son Joran, and brothers Satish and Deepak Kalpoe aren't going to talk. They aren't going to confess to anything, nor are they going to rat each other out. They decided on their strategy just a few days after Natalee was reported missing.
All they have to do is wait out the 116 days.
Aruba's attorney general Caren Janssen says she could prosecute a case without a body. OK--but what kind of case could Janssen argue if it's true that investigators have found NO evidence to suggest that Natalee is dead?
I feel so sorry for Natalee's family. How I wish this nightmare would end for them!
What angers me is someone could put an end to it. Someone has the answers.
Thursday, June 30, 2005
Hillary Hits the Bestseller Lists
One can only imagine what the sales of Ed Klein's book, The Truth About Hillary: What She Knew, When She Knew It, and How Far She'll Go to Become President, would be if the Clinton political machine hadn't managed to pressure the major networks to cancel planned interviews with the author.
The biography will hit the #2 spot on the New York Times bestseller list in its first week out. This past week it hit #1 on Amazon.
What does its success suggest?
It means a book's success is not dependent on television hype.
It means that in spite of the media blackout, the Clintonistas couldn't keep the book from getting noticed.
Its success could also indicate the remarkable power and reach of talk radio and the conservative blogosphere.
One thing is certain--The anti-Hillary crowd buys books, lots and lots of them.
Buy it here.
Mainstream Media Ignores Dems' Evaluation of Gitmo
Guantanamo Bay has been on the front pages and the lead story of telecasts for weeks. Isn't it odd that the reactions of Congressional members after a recent visit would be nearly ignored? If the trip was reported at all, the positive evaluations of the facility were buried.
It seems like the MSM can't bear to mention that Gitmo is not the gulag they want it to be.
From the Media Research Center's June 30, 2005, Cyberalert:
Tuesday night on his show, the MRC's Megan McCormack noticed, Hume did a "Grapevine" item on the media's lack of interest in how Democratic Congressmen and Senators found no evidence of abuse at Guantanamo:
"Congressional Democrats, who reported favorably on conditions at Guantanamo Bay after visiting the detention camp over the weekend, received almost no coverage in key mainstream media outlets. Oregon Senator Ron Wyden said, quote, 'I feel very good' about prisoner treatment at Guantanamo. Texas Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, also a Democrat, said, quote, 'We have made progress there,' and California Democratic Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher insisted, quote, 'The Gitmo we saw today is not the Gitmo that we heard about even a few years ago.' Wyden's quote made The New York Times today, on page nineteen; the other remarks were left out. The Washington Post, meanwhile, hasn't reported any of it."
On Wednesday night, June 29, Hume introduced Henneberg's story:
"The General who runs the terrorism detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, told a House panel today that military interrogators have gained valuable information about al-Qaeda and that the detainees should continue to be held indefinitely. As for suggestions the facility should be closed, Fox News correspondent Molly Henneberg reports there was no support for that idea."
Henneberg began, as corrected against the closed-captioning by the MRC's Brad Wilmouth: "Duncan Hunter, Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, told a hearing today that Guantanamo Bay is not a gulag and will stay open. He and 15 other lawmakers visited Gitmo on Saturday."
Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA), at hearing: "We saw a world class detention facility where detainees representing a threat to our national security are well fed, given access to top-notch medical facilities, and provided an opportunity to obtain legal representation."
Rep. Madeleiene Bordello (D-Guam), at hearing: "I was particularly impressed, and I'm one of those that I inspect every little detail, the cleanliness of the facility and the treatment of the prisoners."
Henneberg: "Still, the committee members pressed Gitmo officials about allegations that detainees were abused or that U.S. guards mishandled the Koran. Today, the General in charge there said ten service members had been punished for misconduct out of 10,000 men and women who have served at Gitmo, conducting over 28,000 interrogations. And he said this is not easy duty."
Brigadier General Jay Hood, JETTED. Guantanamo Commander, at the hearing: "It is not unusual through the course of a day or week at Guantanamo that some young American walking on a guard block will have urine or feces or spit or some other liquid thrown at him by a detainee. It's not unusual for a detainee to look at an American and tell him, 'When I get out of here, I'm going to kill you and your family. I'll find you.'"
Henneberg: "The lawmakers also asked about interrogations, specifically about reports in the New England Journal of Medicine and the New York Times that doctors at Gitmo were providing medical information to interrogators to help them get detainees to talk. The top doctor at Gitmo says that's not true."
Cary Ostergaard, JTF Guantanamo Hospital Commander: "Interrogators are not allowed into the medical facilities where we store the medical files. We do not go into the interrogation centers except for an emergency."
Henneberg, over a big picture of the terrorist on a board in the hearing room: "This man, Abdullah Massoud, drew particular attention and anger at the hearing. He was released from Gitmo last year and returned to the fight against Americans in Afghanistan."
Duncan to Hood: "Is this a gentleman we fitted with a prosthetic leg at Guantanamo?"
Hood: "Yes, sir. He came to us without one leg from about the knee down. We fitted him with a prosthetic leg there before he left."
Henneberg: "Representative Hunter then asked rhetorically if Massoud had let the U.S. know how the leg was working on the battlefield. Meanwhile, Democratic Representative Ellen Tauscher said today's hearing was not balanced. She said Democrats wanted to hear from a lawyer for some of the detainees. Republicans scheduled that lawyer to appear before the committee later in the day. In Washington, Molly Henneberg, Fox News."
Isn't it funny the way the liberals refuse to acknowledge any left-wing bias in the media?
Actually, it is so blatantly unbalanced that it's laughable.
Of course, the success of FOX News and talk radio and Internet sources has the MSM flipping out. That's understandable. It's always difficult to watch one's power slipping away and admit one's impotence.
Thanks to the New Media, the American audience has broken free from the stranglehold the liberal outlets of the Old Media have applied for decades. They no longer control the dissemination of news and information or set the agenda.
I wouldn't call it a vast left-wing conspiracy. I'd just call what they put out thinly-veiled propaganda, political commercials disguised as journalism.
It seems like the MSM can't bear to mention that Gitmo is not the gulag they want it to be.
From the Media Research Center's June 30, 2005, Cyberalert:
Tuesday night on his show, the MRC's Megan McCormack noticed, Hume did a "Grapevine" item on the media's lack of interest in how Democratic Congressmen and Senators found no evidence of abuse at Guantanamo:
"Congressional Democrats, who reported favorably on conditions at Guantanamo Bay after visiting the detention camp over the weekend, received almost no coverage in key mainstream media outlets. Oregon Senator Ron Wyden said, quote, 'I feel very good' about prisoner treatment at Guantanamo. Texas Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, also a Democrat, said, quote, 'We have made progress there,' and California Democratic Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher insisted, quote, 'The Gitmo we saw today is not the Gitmo that we heard about even a few years ago.' Wyden's quote made The New York Times today, on page nineteen; the other remarks were left out. The Washington Post, meanwhile, hasn't reported any of it."
On Wednesday night, June 29, Hume introduced Henneberg's story:
"The General who runs the terrorism detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, told a House panel today that military interrogators have gained valuable information about al-Qaeda and that the detainees should continue to be held indefinitely. As for suggestions the facility should be closed, Fox News correspondent Molly Henneberg reports there was no support for that idea."
Henneberg began, as corrected against the closed-captioning by the MRC's Brad Wilmouth: "Duncan Hunter, Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, told a hearing today that Guantanamo Bay is not a gulag and will stay open. He and 15 other lawmakers visited Gitmo on Saturday."
Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA), at hearing: "We saw a world class detention facility where detainees representing a threat to our national security are well fed, given access to top-notch medical facilities, and provided an opportunity to obtain legal representation."
Rep. Madeleiene Bordello (D-Guam), at hearing: "I was particularly impressed, and I'm one of those that I inspect every little detail, the cleanliness of the facility and the treatment of the prisoners."
Henneberg: "Still, the committee members pressed Gitmo officials about allegations that detainees were abused or that U.S. guards mishandled the Koran. Today, the General in charge there said ten service members had been punished for misconduct out of 10,000 men and women who have served at Gitmo, conducting over 28,000 interrogations. And he said this is not easy duty."
Brigadier General Jay Hood, JETTED. Guantanamo Commander, at the hearing: "It is not unusual through the course of a day or week at Guantanamo that some young American walking on a guard block will have urine or feces or spit or some other liquid thrown at him by a detainee. It's not unusual for a detainee to look at an American and tell him, 'When I get out of here, I'm going to kill you and your family. I'll find you.'"
Henneberg: "The lawmakers also asked about interrogations, specifically about reports in the New England Journal of Medicine and the New York Times that doctors at Gitmo were providing medical information to interrogators to help them get detainees to talk. The top doctor at Gitmo says that's not true."
Cary Ostergaard, JTF Guantanamo Hospital Commander: "Interrogators are not allowed into the medical facilities where we store the medical files. We do not go into the interrogation centers except for an emergency."
Henneberg, over a big picture of the terrorist on a board in the hearing room: "This man, Abdullah Massoud, drew particular attention and anger at the hearing. He was released from Gitmo last year and returned to the fight against Americans in Afghanistan."
Duncan to Hood: "Is this a gentleman we fitted with a prosthetic leg at Guantanamo?"
Hood: "Yes, sir. He came to us without one leg from about the knee down. We fitted him with a prosthetic leg there before he left."
Henneberg: "Representative Hunter then asked rhetorically if Massoud had let the U.S. know how the leg was working on the battlefield. Meanwhile, Democratic Representative Ellen Tauscher said today's hearing was not balanced. She said Democrats wanted to hear from a lawyer for some of the detainees. Republicans scheduled that lawyer to appear before the committee later in the day. In Washington, Molly Henneberg, Fox News."
Isn't it funny the way the liberals refuse to acknowledge any left-wing bias in the media?
Actually, it is so blatantly unbalanced that it's laughable.
Of course, the success of FOX News and talk radio and Internet sources has the MSM flipping out. That's understandable. It's always difficult to watch one's power slipping away and admit one's impotence.
Thanks to the New Media, the American audience has broken free from the stranglehold the liberal outlets of the Old Media have applied for decades. They no longer control the dissemination of news and information or set the agenda.
I wouldn't call it a vast left-wing conspiracy. I'd just call what they put out thinly-veiled propaganda, political commercials disguised as journalism.
Caren Janssen
ORANJESTAD, Aruba — Aruba's attorney general said Thursday she could prosecute a case in the disappearance of Natalee Holloway even if the Alabama teenager's body is not found.
Caren Janssen also said investigators have found no evidence to suggest that the 18-year-old Holloway, who disappeared May 30, was dead.
"There are no traces or facts to come to the conclusion that Natalee is no longer alive," Janssen told The Associated Press in a telephone interview.
Janssen declined to reveal Thursday what other evidence investigators might have.
Massive searches by FBI agents, Dutch Marines, Aruban police and thousands of islanders have produced no trace of Holloway, who was celebrating her graduation from high school in Mountain Brook, Ala., when she disappeared.
...Holloway's stepfather, George "Jug" Twitty, said the family was not surprised by Janssen's comments and was not losing hope the truth would be found.
"We may have no physical evidence, but there is a lot of other evidence of what may have happened in this case," Twitty told the AP.
Janssen, who has been tightlipped during the investigation, said she had decided to speak out because "there has been so much misinformation in the American press."
"I'm the lead prosecutor and I want to show that we are not a bunch of cowboys here," she said.
Janssen declined to be more specific about what she believed had been reported inaccurately.
Paul van der Sloot, an island judicial official, was arrested June 23 but released a few days later when a judge ruled there was not enough evidence to hold him.
Janssen said the elder van der Sloot gave his son and the Kalpoe brothers legal advice, telling them that "without a body there is no case."
"He confirmed to me that he told them that a few days after she disappeared," Janssen told the AP.
Janssen also alleged Paul van der Sloot, a 52-year-old judge in training in Aruba, obstructed authorities' investigation by asking one of his son's friends, who had been interrogated, what he told police.
But Janssen said Paul van der Sloot was detained for being a suspect in the disappearance, not for obstructing the investigation.
Janssen decided to give this information because she's concerned about the impression the American media are giving the rest of the world about Aruba.
I'd like to know what she thinks was reported inaccurately. She should back up her statement with some specifics, some evidence. That's asking too much I guess. They've shown that they don't know how to handle and analyze evidence on the island.
It's not misinformation that's hurting the reputation of Aruba and its legal system. It's the incompetence displayed throughout the investigation of Natalee's disappearance that proclaims them to be bumbling fools.
Janssen comes out and makes a statement about Paul van der Sloot obstructing authorities in their investigation; yet she says he was detained as a suspect in Natalee's disappearance, not for obstruction.
What?
The lead prosecutor points out that the elder van der Sloot impeded the work of authorities, but she doesn't hold him accountable for that.
It's a perfect example of why Aruban authorities are being criticized.
My heart goes out to Natalee's family. This nightmare is made even worse for them by having to deal with such bumblers.
If Natalee is dead, and that does appear to be the case, the family deserves to see justice done.
If those involved are allowed to walk free after the 116 days, I hope no American chooses to visit Aruba ever again.
Caren Janssen also said investigators have found no evidence to suggest that the 18-year-old Holloway, who disappeared May 30, was dead.
"There are no traces or facts to come to the conclusion that Natalee is no longer alive," Janssen told The Associated Press in a telephone interview.
Janssen declined to reveal Thursday what other evidence investigators might have.
Massive searches by FBI agents, Dutch Marines, Aruban police and thousands of islanders have produced no trace of Holloway, who was celebrating her graduation from high school in Mountain Brook, Ala., when she disappeared.
...Holloway's stepfather, George "Jug" Twitty, said the family was not surprised by Janssen's comments and was not losing hope the truth would be found.
"We may have no physical evidence, but there is a lot of other evidence of what may have happened in this case," Twitty told the AP.
Janssen, who has been tightlipped during the investigation, said she had decided to speak out because "there has been so much misinformation in the American press."
"I'm the lead prosecutor and I want to show that we are not a bunch of cowboys here," she said.
Janssen declined to be more specific about what she believed had been reported inaccurately.
Paul van der Sloot, an island judicial official, was arrested June 23 but released a few days later when a judge ruled there was not enough evidence to hold him.
Janssen said the elder van der Sloot gave his son and the Kalpoe brothers legal advice, telling them that "without a body there is no case."
"He confirmed to me that he told them that a few days after she disappeared," Janssen told the AP.
Janssen also alleged Paul van der Sloot, a 52-year-old judge in training in Aruba, obstructed authorities' investigation by asking one of his son's friends, who had been interrogated, what he told police.
But Janssen said Paul van der Sloot was detained for being a suspect in the disappearance, not for obstructing the investigation.
Janssen decided to give this information because she's concerned about the impression the American media are giving the rest of the world about Aruba.
I'd like to know what she thinks was reported inaccurately. She should back up her statement with some specifics, some evidence. That's asking too much I guess. They've shown that they don't know how to handle and analyze evidence on the island.
It's not misinformation that's hurting the reputation of Aruba and its legal system. It's the incompetence displayed throughout the investigation of Natalee's disappearance that proclaims them to be bumbling fools.
Janssen comes out and makes a statement about Paul van der Sloot obstructing authorities in their investigation; yet she says he was detained as a suspect in Natalee's disappearance, not for obstruction.
What?
The lead prosecutor points out that the elder van der Sloot impeded the work of authorities, but she doesn't hold him accountable for that.
It's a perfect example of why Aruban authorities are being criticized.
My heart goes out to Natalee's family. This nightmare is made even worse for them by having to deal with such bumblers.
If Natalee is dead, and that does appear to be the case, the family deserves to see justice done.
If those involved are allowed to walk free after the 116 days, I hope no American chooses to visit Aruba ever again.
Dr. Dean with Chris Matthews on Beanball
Like the vast majority of Americans, I don't watch MSNBC.
However, after learning that Dr. Dean was on Hardball, I did read the transcript of his Bush bashing session with Chris Matthews.
I wish that MSNBC had a larger audience. I wish every American witnessed what the chairman of the DNC had to say.
The interview revealed how demented Dr. Dean is. His drivel proved to offer more reasons why Americans should continue to keep the Dems out of power.
Some highlights:
DEAN: You know, I think that the president made a mistake last night. It was a well-delivered speech, but the idea of doing what he did in the presidential campaign, which is to attach 9/11 to Iraq, was a mistake, because it raises the specter of really is happening in Iraq, which is the president has caused a situation that is a danger to — dangerous to America where one did not exist before.
I supported the Afghan war, and I think most Democrats did, and we probably need more troops in Afghanistan and probably shouldn't be in Iraq at all.
Most Dems supported the Iraq war as well!
As far as attaching 9/11 and Iraq, President Bush has NEVER said that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Dean and the Dems keep lying about that. They should cut it out. They're draining off the final drops of their credibility each time they try to reconstruct reality. They reveal themselves to be clueless.
Moreover, if Dean thinks that Iraq was no danger to the U.S. before the war, he's a complete idiot. He should read Stephen Hayes' book, The Connection: How al Qaeda's Cooperation with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America, and learn about the extent of the danger Saddam's regime presented.
MATTHEWS: Last night [Bush] said the war in Iraq is part of the war on terrorism. What did you make of that, Governor?
DEAN: I certainly agree with the last sentence: he wanted to seek the terrorists abroad before we attacked them at home. The rest of it was only partly true. There are terrible foreign terrorists over there. They have been drawn to Iraq where they were not there before because we put our troops there. So if you could debate the wisdom of that.
The other people that are creating the mayhem in the streets of Baghdad are people who are fighting for their country. They are local people who disagree with the occupation.
What is he talking about?
The insurgency are people "fighting for their country". He sounds like Michael Moore, characterizing terrorists as akin to the "minutemen" of the American Revolution.
Occupation? He considers our troops to be "occupiers" rather than "liberators"?
Gee, Dr. Dean is painting what our troops are doing in a very negative way; yet he claims to support them. It sounds like he supports the "local people" as much, if not more, than our troops.
In Dean's world, members of the U.S. military in Iraq are occupiers and the terrorists blowing up innocents are the locals fighting for their country.
He's sick.
MATTHEWS: Governor, back in build up to the war in Iraq, a lot of Americans got the wrong information. They were telling us in polling they thought it was Iraq that attacked us on 9/11 and did so much harm to this country, in Pennsylvania as well as in New York and in the Pentagon.
And more recently, I want to ask you this. Do you believe the president is still trying to perpetrate the — the notion that it was Iraq that attacked us on 9/11?
DEAN: Sure. I think the president made a terrible, terrible mistake in getting us into Iraq. And now we really have a big problem on our hands. We have a security problem that we didn't have before.
Now the president's trying to make this into a war on terrorism. It is a war on terrorism in the sense that there's certainly international terrorists in Iraq. The point is, there weren't any to speak of before we got there. The president made a big error in judgment, and he's now trying to combine what's going on in Iraq with the war on terrorism.
Again, Dr. Dean is either lying for political gain, or he's ignorant.
There weren't any terrorists in Iraq before we got there?
How can the guy say that with a straight face? How can Matthews let him get away with that?
DEAN: I thought the president looked foolish on the aircraft carrier. That was obviously a big mistake on his part, and they know that.
In recent American history, no one has looked more foolish than Dr. Dean did during his concession speech in Iowa. The SCREAM was so indelible and left such a lasting impression on the public that it will probably be mentioned in his obituary before it's noted that he was a doctor, governor, or DNC chairman.
These are just a few snippets of the inanity. I could go on, but I'm getting a headache.
However, after learning that Dr. Dean was on Hardball, I did read the transcript of his Bush bashing session with Chris Matthews.
I wish that MSNBC had a larger audience. I wish every American witnessed what the chairman of the DNC had to say.
The interview revealed how demented Dr. Dean is. His drivel proved to offer more reasons why Americans should continue to keep the Dems out of power.
Some highlights:
DEAN: You know, I think that the president made a mistake last night. It was a well-delivered speech, but the idea of doing what he did in the presidential campaign, which is to attach 9/11 to Iraq, was a mistake, because it raises the specter of really is happening in Iraq, which is the president has caused a situation that is a danger to — dangerous to America where one did not exist before.
I supported the Afghan war, and I think most Democrats did, and we probably need more troops in Afghanistan and probably shouldn't be in Iraq at all.
Most Dems supported the Iraq war as well!
As far as attaching 9/11 and Iraq, President Bush has NEVER said that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Dean and the Dems keep lying about that. They should cut it out. They're draining off the final drops of their credibility each time they try to reconstruct reality. They reveal themselves to be clueless.
Moreover, if Dean thinks that Iraq was no danger to the U.S. before the war, he's a complete idiot. He should read Stephen Hayes' book, The Connection: How al Qaeda's Cooperation with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America, and learn about the extent of the danger Saddam's regime presented.
MATTHEWS: Last night [Bush] said the war in Iraq is part of the war on terrorism. What did you make of that, Governor?
DEAN: I certainly agree with the last sentence: he wanted to seek the terrorists abroad before we attacked them at home. The rest of it was only partly true. There are terrible foreign terrorists over there. They have been drawn to Iraq where they were not there before because we put our troops there. So if you could debate the wisdom of that.
The other people that are creating the mayhem in the streets of Baghdad are people who are fighting for their country. They are local people who disagree with the occupation.
What is he talking about?
The insurgency are people "fighting for their country". He sounds like Michael Moore, characterizing terrorists as akin to the "minutemen" of the American Revolution.
Occupation? He considers our troops to be "occupiers" rather than "liberators"?
Gee, Dr. Dean is painting what our troops are doing in a very negative way; yet he claims to support them. It sounds like he supports the "local people" as much, if not more, than our troops.
In Dean's world, members of the U.S. military in Iraq are occupiers and the terrorists blowing up innocents are the locals fighting for their country.
He's sick.
MATTHEWS: Governor, back in build up to the war in Iraq, a lot of Americans got the wrong information. They were telling us in polling they thought it was Iraq that attacked us on 9/11 and did so much harm to this country, in Pennsylvania as well as in New York and in the Pentagon.
And more recently, I want to ask you this. Do you believe the president is still trying to perpetrate the — the notion that it was Iraq that attacked us on 9/11?
DEAN: Sure. I think the president made a terrible, terrible mistake in getting us into Iraq. And now we really have a big problem on our hands. We have a security problem that we didn't have before.
Now the president's trying to make this into a war on terrorism. It is a war on terrorism in the sense that there's certainly international terrorists in Iraq. The point is, there weren't any to speak of before we got there. The president made a big error in judgment, and he's now trying to combine what's going on in Iraq with the war on terrorism.
Again, Dr. Dean is either lying for political gain, or he's ignorant.
There weren't any terrorists in Iraq before we got there?
How can the guy say that with a straight face? How can Matthews let him get away with that?
DEAN: I thought the president looked foolish on the aircraft carrier. That was obviously a big mistake on his part, and they know that.
In recent American history, no one has looked more foolish than Dr. Dean did during his concession speech in Iowa. The SCREAM was so indelible and left such a lasting impression on the public that it will probably be mentioned in his obituary before it's noted that he was a doctor, governor, or DNC chairman.
These are just a few snippets of the inanity. I could go on, but I'm getting a headache.
Iran's New President - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
"We did not have a revolution in order to have democracy."
--Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
(United International Press, May 24, 2005)
Tehran,Iran (AHN) - An Associated Press photo has been uncovered by Big News Network news agency "Iran Focus" showing newly elected Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the 1979 hostage taking of Americans in Iran.
President Ahmadinejad can be clearly seen holding the arm of an American hostage outside of the Tehran University of Science.
Ahmadinejad was a member of the the central council of the Office for Strengthening of Unity Between Universities and Theological Seminaries, a major pro-Khomeini student union.
OSU sources say Ahmadinejad headed the security force for the hostage takers during the crisis.
(All Headline News)
Apparently, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran's newly elected president, has a questionable past. Is he a terrorist?
AP reports that the White House is checking into the charges that the new Iranian president was one of the captors of U.S. hostages twenty-five years ago.
Al Bawaba writes:
Iranian veterans of the 1979 seizure of hostages at the American embassy in Tehran on Thursday denied claims that President-elect Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had part in the siege.
This came after at least five US hostages, who were held for over a year by student followers of revolutionary leader Ayatullah Khomeini said they were sure Ahmadinejad was a key player in the abduction.
"Mr Ahmadinejad was never one of students following the path of the imam that took the spy den. He was never there," said Mohsen Mirdamadi, a former hostage-taker who went on to become a member of parliament.
"Those who say he was one of the students are making a mistake. Even last night I was shown a picture but the person in the picture had little resemblance to him"
Abbas Abdi, who like Mirdamadi is regarded as one of the instigators of the embassy seizure, also denied that Ahmadinejad had anything to do with the operation, AFP reported.
Oak Creek, Wisconsin native Kevin Hermening has a different opinion. He was the youngest of the 52 hostages who were held for 444 days. At the time, he was a 20-year old Marine assigned to guard the Tehran embassy. Since his release in 1981, Hermening became politically active in Wisconsin, serving on a school board and twice running unsuccessfully for U.S. Congress as a Republican.
During a 620 WTMJ radio interview this morning, he weighed in on Iran's new president.
He said, "I believe that he was one of three or four folks who was intimately involved with interrogations during the first days" of the seige.
Hermening described the frightening Russian Roulette interrogation methods that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad participated in to torture the hostages. He said it was one of a few times when he truly feared for his life while he was held captive.
He also relayed how Chuck Scott had three teeth broken off during those first days of interrogations in 1979. He received no medical or dental care until after his release in 1981.
Hermening was asked if he believed he received better treatment in captivity and was held under better conditions than the detainees at Guantanamo. His response was an adamant, "NO!"
He was held in a 5 X 10 room. It had no mattress. He didn't dine on rice pilaf and glazed chicken. The Gitmo detainees are living at a country club compared to what Hermening endured. The only thing he had was a Bible. Hermening said American citizens sent them to the hostages in mass quantities, and the Iranian captors did pass them out. Hermening noted that his treatment was much better than that received by some other hostages.
What does Hermening think of President Bush's reaction to the new Iranian president?
He fully supports Bush's response of taking a "wait and see" attitude. Hermening said that "President Bush is very insightful, and he's talking about how time will tell whether the United States and its allies are going to be able to work with this fellow."
When asked his opinion of the President's speech on Tuesday, he called Bush "such a visionary." Hermening said, "It is clear to me the President is in his position in this day and age because he needs to be there."
Hermening said there's a reason Bush included Iran as part of the "Axis of Evil."
He should know better than anyone.
A Gift from Heaven
Oh, Dr. Dean.
You are the gift that keeps on giving.
AP reports that DNC Chairman Howard Dean had scheduled an appearance in Columbia, South Carolina, another stop on his Red State Tour. Due to weather problems, the good doctor couldn't make the trip.
From AP:
"Unfortunately, rain and travel delays have prevented me from attending tonight's fund-raiser with the South Carolina Democratic Party, but nothing has dampened my enthusiasm for building the party so that we can elect Democrats in South Carolina," Dean said in a statement released after he canceled his trip.
Dean has been stirring interest at the state level and has reinvigorated efforts to reach people who give small donations to political causes and candidates. Dean can keep those people engaged and interested as the 2006 contests looming, said Furman University political science professor Jim Guth.
"Our commitment to the South Carolina party is clear, which is why the DNC has included it in our most recent round of investments in state parties," Dean said
Dean's visit had already generated $5000 in Internet donations according to Lachlan McIntosh, the party's executive director. With 300 expected to attend the event and paying a minimum of $50-per-person, at least $15,000 more was going to be raised.
When it became clear that Dean wouldn't be able to attend the fund-raiser, the party informed donors that it would be refunding their money instead of collecting it.
No doubt, some will not accept a refund and make their contributions to the Dem party anyway.
Still, it appears that the Republicans may actually make more money from Dean's non-appearance than the Dems.
While Democrats waited for the former presidential candidate, the state GOP held a Dean scream contest in anticipation of Dean's arrival. A week ago, the party sent out a flier inviting people to a "No-show send Howard home rally" and garnered $22,000 in contributions, said Scott Malyerck, the state GOP executive director.
"We hope Howard Dean comes back every month," Malyerck said.
The state GOP's scream-off was intended to poke fun at Dean, whose attempt at a troop-rallying "yeah" after the 2004 Iowa caucus became the most laughed about moment of the campaign. Dean lost the next 16 contests, including a next-to-last showing in South Carolina a couple of weeks later.
The scream-off drew a handful of high school and college Republicans who were judged on "lack of poise in appearance" and "extent of angry, insane ranting."
Contestants had to repeat Dean's cry that his campaign was "going to South Carolina and Arizona and North Dakota and New Mexico. We're going to California and Texas and New York, and we're going to South Dakota and Oregon and Washington and Michigan. And then we're going to Washington, D.C. to take back the White House - yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!"
Richard Hahn, a Dreher High School student, won the contest - embellishing Dean's itinerary by adding Canada and Puerto Rico as campaign trail stops.
McIntosh wasn't impressed with the scream-off. He said that Republicans need to "stop screaming and start trying to lead again."
(Note to McIntosh: The Republicans are leading and the Dems are obstructing.)
Although McIntosh stands firmly behind Dean, some Dems in South Carolina have not been happy with Dean's recent comments. Saying that the Republican Party is "pretty much a white, Christian party" and that many Republicans "never made an honest living" doesn't play well in SC. State Democratic Chairman Joe Erwin wrote to Dr.Dean, complaining about his counterproductive rhetoric.
Erwin said, "I'm trying to recruit white Christians for the Democrat Party, and we are recruiting - white Christians and African-American Christians and people of all faiths and races. We don't need to ostracize anybody."
Furman University political science professor Jim Guth sees it this way. For South Carolina Republicans, "Dean is a gift from heaven."
I love you, Dr. Dean!
Hagel Disconnected from MoveOn
Earlier, Chuck Hagel declared that we're losing in Iraq.
Now, Hagel has had a change of heart. He's decided he doesn't want to be used by the loons at MoveOn PAC to criticize the Bush administration and the military.
The television ad highlights comments by Republican Senator Chuck Hagel who has been sharply critical of the Bush Administration's handling of the Iraq war: "The White House is completely disconnected from reality...its like they're just making it up as they go along." Those were the words that launched MoveOn's campaign.
Transcript of the ad:
MoveOn PAC
TV :30
"Hagel"
MOP-05-601
VIDEO
dissolve across a series of images of war in Iraq.
AUDIO
ANNOUNCER (VO): The war in Iraq. Day 825. 1,725 Americans dead. It's a quagmire.
VIDEO
Slow dissolve from war images to a photo of President Bush. The text of Bush's quote begins to appear as the Bush photo comes into full view: "I believe we're making really good progress in Iraq" -- George Bush, April 28, 2005. The image is now rose- tinted as we start to move in tight on Bush's thumb.
AUDIO
ANNOUNCER (VO): But George Bush says he's pleased with the progress.
VIDEO
We are now on a close-up of Bush's thumb.
AUDIO
ANNOUNCER (VO): Pleased? Now even a REPUBLICAN Senator, Chuck Hagel, is saying:
VIDEO
Split screen with rose-tinted photo of white house on left and images of war in Iraq on right. The text of Hagel's quote is supered across both images: "The white house is completely disconnected from reality" -- Republican Sen. chuck hagel.
AUDIO
ANNOUNCER (VO): The White House is completely disconnected from reality.
VIDEO
Split screen imagery remains as the text of Hagel's quote continues: "It's like they're just making it up as they go along."
AUDIO
ANNOUNCER (VO): It's like they're just making it up as they go along.
VIDEO
Cut to image of a soldier's helmet filled with unopened letters from back home in the USA. Super text: It's time to come home.
AUDIO
ANNOUNCER (VO): Iraq. We got in the wrong way. Let's get out the right way.
VIDEO
At screen bottom, super "Paid for by MoveOn PAC, www.moveonpac.org. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. MoveOn PAC is responsible for the content of this advertisement".
AUDIO
ANNOUNCER (VO): MoveOn PAC is responsible for the content of this advertisement.
Hagel asked that MoveOn pull the ad. On second thought, he didn't want to be associated with the far left loons. His press release:
June 28th, 2005 - Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) issued the following statement today in response to an advertisement run by MoveOn PAC which uses statements Hagel made regarding the war in Iraq and then calls for the U.S. to withdraw from Iraq:
“This ad is dishonest. I have never supported immediate removal of American troops from Iraq. I have said that to withdraw from Iraq now would have catastrophic consequences that would ripple across a generation of Americans, Iraqis, and the entire Middle East. I have said I believe we can succeed in Iraq. MoveOn neglects to mention that in their ad.
I have differences with the Administration over the execution of our war policy. As a United States Senator, I have a responsibility to ask tough questions, put forth alternatives and suggestions and do all I can to ensure that our policy is worthy of the sacrifices being made by our service men and women. I will not ignore this obligation.
War is deadly serious and the debate over our policy should match the seriousness of the situation. Americans are entitled to an honest public debate about our policy in Iraq. Cheap, misleading 30-second partisan political attack ads debase our debate. War is not a partisan issue. The ad needs to be pulled down....now!”
Poor Chuck! MoveOn won't cooperate.
Executive Director of MoveOn PAC, Eli Pariser, responded:
"We agree with Sen. Hagel when he observes that the Bush Administration's policy in Iraq is 'completely disconnected from reality. He is a hero for speaking up when few others in either party have. Unfortunately, he is mistaken when he says our TV ad calls for 'immediate withdrawal.' We have never held this position. What we want is a date to begin a responsible, phased exit of our troops from Iraq."
Watch the ad.
Another ad also highlights Hagel's criticism of the Bush administration.
“Things aren't getting better; they're getting worse. The White House is completely disconnected from reality. It's like they're just making it up as they go along. The reality is that we're losing in Iraq.”
– Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel, Nebraska
MoveOn really loves Hagel; but Hagel is pretending the feeling is not mutual. I don't buy his act.
Hagel's press release, distancing himself from MoveOn, is a lame CYA move. I don't see why he'd care about the ads when he's already gone on the record again and again bashing Bush. It's silly for him to deny his own words.
Did he think that no one would notice?
Now, Hagel has had a change of heart. He's decided he doesn't want to be used by the loons at MoveOn PAC to criticize the Bush administration and the military.
The television ad highlights comments by Republican Senator Chuck Hagel who has been sharply critical of the Bush Administration's handling of the Iraq war: "The White House is completely disconnected from reality...its like they're just making it up as they go along." Those were the words that launched MoveOn's campaign.
Transcript of the ad:
MoveOn PAC
TV :30
"Hagel"
MOP-05-601
VIDEO
dissolve across a series of images of war in Iraq.
AUDIO
ANNOUNCER (VO): The war in Iraq. Day 825. 1,725 Americans dead. It's a quagmire.
VIDEO
Slow dissolve from war images to a photo of President Bush. The text of Bush's quote begins to appear as the Bush photo comes into full view: "I believe we're making really good progress in Iraq" -- George Bush, April 28, 2005. The image is now rose- tinted as we start to move in tight on Bush's thumb.
AUDIO
ANNOUNCER (VO): But George Bush says he's pleased with the progress.
VIDEO
We are now on a close-up of Bush's thumb.
AUDIO
ANNOUNCER (VO): Pleased? Now even a REPUBLICAN Senator, Chuck Hagel, is saying:
VIDEO
Split screen with rose-tinted photo of white house on left and images of war in Iraq on right. The text of Hagel's quote is supered across both images: "The white house is completely disconnected from reality" -- Republican Sen. chuck hagel.
AUDIO
ANNOUNCER (VO): The White House is completely disconnected from reality.
VIDEO
Split screen imagery remains as the text of Hagel's quote continues: "It's like they're just making it up as they go along."
AUDIO
ANNOUNCER (VO): It's like they're just making it up as they go along.
VIDEO
Cut to image of a soldier's helmet filled with unopened letters from back home in the USA. Super text: It's time to come home.
AUDIO
ANNOUNCER (VO): Iraq. We got in the wrong way. Let's get out the right way.
VIDEO
At screen bottom, super "Paid for by MoveOn PAC, www.moveonpac.org. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. MoveOn PAC is responsible for the content of this advertisement".
AUDIO
ANNOUNCER (VO): MoveOn PAC is responsible for the content of this advertisement.
Hagel asked that MoveOn pull the ad. On second thought, he didn't want to be associated with the far left loons. His press release:
June 28th, 2005 - Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) issued the following statement today in response to an advertisement run by MoveOn PAC which uses statements Hagel made regarding the war in Iraq and then calls for the U.S. to withdraw from Iraq:
“This ad is dishonest. I have never supported immediate removal of American troops from Iraq. I have said that to withdraw from Iraq now would have catastrophic consequences that would ripple across a generation of Americans, Iraqis, and the entire Middle East. I have said I believe we can succeed in Iraq. MoveOn neglects to mention that in their ad.
I have differences with the Administration over the execution of our war policy. As a United States Senator, I have a responsibility to ask tough questions, put forth alternatives and suggestions and do all I can to ensure that our policy is worthy of the sacrifices being made by our service men and women. I will not ignore this obligation.
War is deadly serious and the debate over our policy should match the seriousness of the situation. Americans are entitled to an honest public debate about our policy in Iraq. Cheap, misleading 30-second partisan political attack ads debase our debate. War is not a partisan issue. The ad needs to be pulled down....now!”
Poor Chuck! MoveOn won't cooperate.
Executive Director of MoveOn PAC, Eli Pariser, responded:
"We agree with Sen. Hagel when he observes that the Bush Administration's policy in Iraq is 'completely disconnected from reality. He is a hero for speaking up when few others in either party have. Unfortunately, he is mistaken when he says our TV ad calls for 'immediate withdrawal.' We have never held this position. What we want is a date to begin a responsible, phased exit of our troops from Iraq."
Watch the ad.
Another ad also highlights Hagel's criticism of the Bush administration.
“Things aren't getting better; they're getting worse. The White House is completely disconnected from reality. It's like they're just making it up as they go along. The reality is that we're losing in Iraq.”
– Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel, Nebraska
MoveOn really loves Hagel; but Hagel is pretending the feeling is not mutual. I don't buy his act.
Hagel's press release, distancing himself from MoveOn, is a lame CYA move. I don't see why he'd care about the ads when he's already gone on the record again and again bashing Bush. It's silly for him to deny his own words.
Did he think that no one would notice?
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
IN BED WITH AL JAZEERA
James J. Zogby, brother of pollster John Zogby, wrote a piece defending Dick Durbin.
Of course, his opinion was greeted warmly by its publishers--Al Jazeera.
It is a blistering attack on what he calls the "right-wing attack machine" and, of course, the Bush administration.
He writes:
Watching the right wing's attack machine go into motion is really quite a spectacle. It targets its victim, strikes, and then launches into a multimedia, multi-day assault. Every medium is used: the White House comments, Senators and Congressmen issue releases. And then Fox News, radio talk shows, the Washington Times, web logs and websites-all carry the "story" and add to it. The initial attack is then echoed and magnified. The goal is to bury the target and silence critics with overwhelming force.
Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL) is their most recent target. Last week, on the Senate floor, Durbin, who, in the past, has successfully led the effort to pass anti-torture legislation, read aloud a statement by an FBI agent describing the torture of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. He said that the techniques described by the agent called to mind those used by repressive regimes, including the Nazis and Soviets.
The response was quick and harsh, utilizing all the media noted above. Prominent among the attackers were former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist. Gingrich said that Durbin's comments appeared on Al-Jazeera, and that, "You cannot have a public official quoted throughout the world by our enemies describing the U.S. in these terms -- it puts every young American in uniform at risk."
Frist went further, mischaracterizing Durbin's remarks, alleging that his statement was "anti-American and only fuels the animus of our enemies. . . .It is this type of language that they use to recruit others to be car bombers; suicide attackers; hostage takers; and full-fledged jihadists." The assault went on for a week, frightening many from coming to Durbin's defense.
...What damages the U.S. image and endangers us are not comments by Durbin and other critics of Guantanamo Bay. It is the Bush administration's detention and interrogation policies. Defense Secretary Rumsfeld explicitly authorized the use of abusive interrogation techniques at Guantanamo Bay. FBI agents and the Red Cross both concluded that the use of these techniques at Guantanamo constituted "torture." In the past, the United States has always condemned the use of such techniques. Now, we apparently approve of them.
...Comments by Durbin and other critics of torture help, not hurt, the U.S. image in the Middle East. People there are already outraged about Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. The fact that Durbin and others have demonstrated the courage to speak out and challenge these shameful and abusive practices demonstrates to the Arab world that not all Americans support what the world knows we have done. As their criticism makes clear, there are still Americans who hold high the values we call on others to emulate. At a time when we're trying to spread democracy, Durbin and other critics show people in the Arab world how a democracy works. The good new is that not only has Durbin not been silenced, but the controversy about Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib and the treatment of detainees, in general, is growing and will not be stopped until changes are made.
James Zogby is a propagandist playing into the hands of an anti-American propaganda outlet.
Way to defend America's values, James!
Of course, his opinion was greeted warmly by its publishers--Al Jazeera.
It is a blistering attack on what he calls the "right-wing attack machine" and, of course, the Bush administration.
He writes:
Watching the right wing's attack machine go into motion is really quite a spectacle. It targets its victim, strikes, and then launches into a multimedia, multi-day assault. Every medium is used: the White House comments, Senators and Congressmen issue releases. And then Fox News, radio talk shows, the Washington Times, web logs and websites-all carry the "story" and add to it. The initial attack is then echoed and magnified. The goal is to bury the target and silence critics with overwhelming force.
Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL) is their most recent target. Last week, on the Senate floor, Durbin, who, in the past, has successfully led the effort to pass anti-torture legislation, read aloud a statement by an FBI agent describing the torture of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. He said that the techniques described by the agent called to mind those used by repressive regimes, including the Nazis and Soviets.
The response was quick and harsh, utilizing all the media noted above. Prominent among the attackers were former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist. Gingrich said that Durbin's comments appeared on Al-Jazeera, and that, "You cannot have a public official quoted throughout the world by our enemies describing the U.S. in these terms -- it puts every young American in uniform at risk."
Frist went further, mischaracterizing Durbin's remarks, alleging that his statement was "anti-American and only fuels the animus of our enemies. . . .It is this type of language that they use to recruit others to be car bombers; suicide attackers; hostage takers; and full-fledged jihadists." The assault went on for a week, frightening many from coming to Durbin's defense.
...What damages the U.S. image and endangers us are not comments by Durbin and other critics of Guantanamo Bay. It is the Bush administration's detention and interrogation policies. Defense Secretary Rumsfeld explicitly authorized the use of abusive interrogation techniques at Guantanamo Bay. FBI agents and the Red Cross both concluded that the use of these techniques at Guantanamo constituted "torture." In the past, the United States has always condemned the use of such techniques. Now, we apparently approve of them.
...Comments by Durbin and other critics of torture help, not hurt, the U.S. image in the Middle East. People there are already outraged about Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. The fact that Durbin and others have demonstrated the courage to speak out and challenge these shameful and abusive practices demonstrates to the Arab world that not all Americans support what the world knows we have done. As their criticism makes clear, there are still Americans who hold high the values we call on others to emulate. At a time when we're trying to spread democracy, Durbin and other critics show people in the Arab world how a democracy works. The good new is that not only has Durbin not been silenced, but the controversy about Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib and the treatment of detainees, in general, is growing and will not be stopped until changes are made.
James Zogby is a propagandist playing into the hands of an anti-American propaganda outlet.
Way to defend America's values, James!
Undies in a Bundle
From The Guardian:
A leading London media lawyer is to advise on Saddam Hussein's prospects of success in a high court human rights claim over photographs of him in his underpants which appeared on the front page of the Sun.
David Price has been approached by Saddam's family about a possible claim against the paper in the high court over the publication last month of intrusive photographs of the former Iraqi dictator in jail, the Guardian has learned.
Mr Price declined to comment yesterday, but other lawyers said Saddam would have a good chance of winning a claim for misuse of private information, a new form of action which has developed as a result of the Human Rights Act. However, the damages are likely to be small.
Hugh Tomlinson QC of Matrix chambers said: "It seems to me that he's got a cast-iron case. What's the defence - public interest? Is there a public interest in showing Saddam in his underpants?"
Jennifer McDermott, a media partner at the law firm Addleshaw Goddard, said: "The Sun's public interest defence was that they were showing that he was fit and healthy and wasn't being treated the way a mass murderer should. However, he has the same human rights as any other person."
Mark Stephens, a media solicitor at Finer Stephens Innocent, also predicted that Saddam would win his case if he went ahead, although he said the damages would probably be "tiny".
The Sun's front page showed Saddam wearing a pair of white Y-fronts.
...Saddam's Iraqi lawyers threatened to sue the Sun for $1m (£550,000) last month after the photograph appeared on the front page.
Judging by the Sun's cover, the paper is not afraid of Saddam or his lawyers. Rather than cowering in fear, the Sun taunts him and slaps the beefcake shot on the front page again.
Misuse of private information under the Human Rights Act? Huh?
Before one can argue that Saddam has the same human rights as any other person, one must first make the case that he's human. A quick glance at Iraq's recent history would make that a tough sell.
No Body, No Case
ORANJESTAD, Aruba (AP)- The father of a Dutch teenager arrested in the disappearance of a young U.S. woman told his son and his two friends that "when there is no body you don't have a case," Aruba's attorney general said Wednesday.
Paul van der Sloot, a judge in training in Aruba, gave his 17-year-old son Joran van der Sloot and two Surinamese brothers legal advice the day after 18-year-old Natalee Holloway disappeared, District Attorney Caren Janssen told MSNBC in an interview.
"They spoke about the situation that when there is no body you don't have a case, and that was already in the first day after the disappearance," Janssen said.
Janssen said that the elder van der Sloot had obstructed the investigation by asking a friend of Joran, who had been interrogated by police, what he had told them.
Paul van der Sloot, 52, was arrested last Thursday in the disappearance but released Sunday when a judge ruled there wasn't enough evidence to hold him.
Janssen told MSNBC that he was arrested because investigators believed he was also a suspect in the disappearance.
Janssen also said that a month after Holloway's May 30 disappearance, investigators had found nothing concrete to suggest she was dead.
...Also Wednesday, Steve Croes, a disc jockey who was arrested and held 10 days before being released Monday, told The Associated Press that his detention was based on a lie he told police.
Croes, 26, said he told police he had seen Joran van der Sloot and the Kalpoe brothers drop Holloway off at the Holiday Inn the night she disappeared, as the three originally told police.
"That was a lie," Croes told the AP during an interview Wednesday night. "I didn't even know those guys and they didn't know me."
Croes said that while he was at an Internet cafe a few days after Holloway's disappearance, he heard Deepak Kalpoe talking on a cell phone about how the young men had dropped Holloway off. Croes said the story seemed plausible and he went around repeating it, adding that he had seen them drop her off. Police questioned and then arrested him, Croes said.
"I learned that if you don't know something, keep your mouth shut," said Croes. He said he has been fired from his disc jockey job on the Tattoo party boat.
This Croes guy sounds like a real piece of work. Now all of a sudden, Croes doesn't know the Kalpoes or van der Sloot. When he was arrested, it was reported that Croes was a friend.
This case is almost impossible to follow. There are so many lies, far out numbering the facts.
Much more disturbing though is the revelation that not only did Paul van der Sloot tell his son and the Kalpoe brothers not to talk, they had a discussion related to the body.
One day after Natalee's disappearance these four conscienceless, lowlife slimeballs were analyzing the situation, determining whether they could get away with murder.
District Attorney Caren Janssen says the elder van der Sloot gave the three young men legal advice, telling them to keep quiet since there would be no case as long as there's no body.
At the very least, Paul van der Sloot obstructed justice; yet Aruban authorities released him! He's not innocent in any of this. What kind of man, a would-be judge, could advise these suspects to stay quiet. He should be encouraging them to cooperate with investigators, not impede their efforts. He should be urging them to tell the truth and confess. A good father would hold his son accountable, not cover up for him.
Beth Holloway Twitty was right about Paul van der Sloot. She correctly believed he knew more than he was saying. I don't understand how he could face Natalee's mother and talk to her for over an hour, knowing what he knows about her missing daughter.
Sadly, Janssen's comments confirm that the investigation into Natalee's disappearance revolves around her death. Although Natalee's parents were still clinging to the hope that by some miracle she would be found alive, that seems unrealistic now.
No body.
No case.
No conscience.
Paul van der Sloot, a judge in training in Aruba, gave his 17-year-old son Joran van der Sloot and two Surinamese brothers legal advice the day after 18-year-old Natalee Holloway disappeared, District Attorney Caren Janssen told MSNBC in an interview.
"They spoke about the situation that when there is no body you don't have a case, and that was already in the first day after the disappearance," Janssen said.
Janssen said that the elder van der Sloot had obstructed the investigation by asking a friend of Joran, who had been interrogated by police, what he had told them.
Paul van der Sloot, 52, was arrested last Thursday in the disappearance but released Sunday when a judge ruled there wasn't enough evidence to hold him.
Janssen told MSNBC that he was arrested because investigators believed he was also a suspect in the disappearance.
Janssen also said that a month after Holloway's May 30 disappearance, investigators had found nothing concrete to suggest she was dead.
...Also Wednesday, Steve Croes, a disc jockey who was arrested and held 10 days before being released Monday, told The Associated Press that his detention was based on a lie he told police.
Croes, 26, said he told police he had seen Joran van der Sloot and the Kalpoe brothers drop Holloway off at the Holiday Inn the night she disappeared, as the three originally told police.
"That was a lie," Croes told the AP during an interview Wednesday night. "I didn't even know those guys and they didn't know me."
Croes said that while he was at an Internet cafe a few days after Holloway's disappearance, he heard Deepak Kalpoe talking on a cell phone about how the young men had dropped Holloway off. Croes said the story seemed plausible and he went around repeating it, adding that he had seen them drop her off. Police questioned and then arrested him, Croes said.
"I learned that if you don't know something, keep your mouth shut," said Croes. He said he has been fired from his disc jockey job on the Tattoo party boat.
This Croes guy sounds like a real piece of work. Now all of a sudden, Croes doesn't know the Kalpoes or van der Sloot. When he was arrested, it was reported that Croes was a friend.
This case is almost impossible to follow. There are so many lies, far out numbering the facts.
Much more disturbing though is the revelation that not only did Paul van der Sloot tell his son and the Kalpoe brothers not to talk, they had a discussion related to the body.
One day after Natalee's disappearance these four conscienceless, lowlife slimeballs were analyzing the situation, determining whether they could get away with murder.
District Attorney Caren Janssen says the elder van der Sloot gave the three young men legal advice, telling them to keep quiet since there would be no case as long as there's no body.
At the very least, Paul van der Sloot obstructed justice; yet Aruban authorities released him! He's not innocent in any of this. What kind of man, a would-be judge, could advise these suspects to stay quiet. He should be encouraging them to cooperate with investigators, not impede their efforts. He should be urging them to tell the truth and confess. A good father would hold his son accountable, not cover up for him.
Beth Holloway Twitty was right about Paul van der Sloot. She correctly believed he knew more than he was saying. I don't understand how he could face Natalee's mother and talk to her for over an hour, knowing what he knows about her missing daughter.
Sadly, Janssen's comments confirm that the investigation into Natalee's disappearance revolves around her death. Although Natalee's parents were still clinging to the hope that by some miracle she would be found alive, that seems unrealistic now.
No body.
No case.
No conscience.
THE AL QAEDA-IRAQ CONNECTION
The major criticism coming from the left about President Bush's speech last night has been the connection between al Qaeda and Iraq.
The Dems, the liberal media, and assorted anti-Bush types can say Iraq and the terrorists responsible for killing nearly 3000 innocents on American soil have nothing to do with each other until the end of time. That won't change the FACT that there were, without a doubt, al Qaeda/Iraq connections.
Was Saddam Hussein directly linked to carrying out the 9/11 plot? No.
Did the Iraqi regime support and harbor and communicate with al Qaeda terrorists before and after 9/11? Yes.
Andrew McCarthy details the facts in "It's All About 9/11".
He writes:
President George W. Bush forcefully explained last night — some of us would say finally forcefully explained last night after too long a lull — why our military operations in Iraq are crucial to success in the war on terror.
It was good to hear the commander-in-chief remind people that this is still the war against terror. Specifically, against Islamo-fascists who slaughtered 3000 Americans on September 11, 2001. Who spent the eight years before those atrocities murdering and promising to murder Americans — as their leader put it in 1998, all Americans, including civilians, anywhere in the world where they could be found.
It is not the war for democratization. It is not the war for stability. Democratization and stability are not unimportant. They are among a host of developments that could help defeat the enemy.
But they are not the primary goal of this war, which is to destroy the network of Islamic militants who declared war against the United States when they bombed the World Trade Center on February 26, 1993, and finally jarred us into an appropriate response when they demolished that complex, struck the Pentagon, and killed 3000 of us on September 11, 2001.
That is why we are in Iraq.
On September 12, 2001, no one in America cared about whether there would be enough Sunni participation in a fledgling Iraqi democracy if Saddam were ever toppled. No one in lower Manhattan cared whether the electricity would work in Baghdad, or whether Muqtada al-Sadr’s Shiite militia could be coaxed into a political process. They cared about smashing terrorists and the states that supported them for the purpose of promoting American national security.
Saddam Hussein’s regime was a crucial part of that response because it was a safety net for al Qaeda. A place where terror attacks against the United States and the West were planned. A place where Saddam’s intelligence service aided and abetted al Qaeda terrorists planning operations. A place where terrorists could hide safely between attacks. A place where terrorists could lick their wounds. A place where committed terrorists could receive vital training in weapons construction and paramilitary tactics. In short, a platform of precisely the type without which an international terror network cannot succeed.
McCarthy explains how important it is for Americans and the world to understand that the Saddam regime and al Qaeda are not strangers. He says, "It is absolutely appropriate, it is vital, for [Bush] to stress that connection. This is still the war on terror, and Iraq, where the terrorists are still arrayed against us, remains a big part of that equation."
Countering the Dem claim that Bush has turned Iraq into a recruiting ground for terrorist wannabes, McCarthy says that the connection isn't "because every jihadist with an AK-47 and a prayer rug has made his way there since we invaded. No, it’s because Saddam made Iraq their cozy place to land long before that. They are fighting effectively there because they’ve been invited to dig in for years."
According to McCarthy, the Iraq war is about "making our enemies know we are coming for them if they abet and harbor and promote and plan with the people who are trying to kill us."
For all the whiners and liars, such as the New York Times, Harry Reid, and David Gergen, McCarthy lists some questions.
What does the “nothing whatsoever” crowd have to say about:
Ahmed Hikmat Shakir — the Iraqi Intelligence operative who facilitated a 9/11 hijacker into Malaysia and was in attendance at the Kuala Lampur meeting with two of the hijackers, and other conspirators, at what is roundly acknowledged to be the initial 9/11 planning session in January 2000? Who was arrested after the 9/11 attacks in possession of contact information for several known terrorists? Who managed to make his way out of Jordanian custody over our objections after the 9/11 attacks because of special pleading by Saddam’s regime?
Saddam's intelligence agency's efforts to recruit jihadists to bomb Radio Free Europe in Prague in the late 1990's?
Mohammed Atta's unexplained visits to Prague in 2000, and his alleged visit there in April 2001 which — notwithstanding the 9/11 Commission's dismissal of it (based on interviewing exactly zero relevant witnesses) — the Czechs have not retracted?
The Clinton Justice Department's allegation in a 1998 indictment (two months before the embassy bombings) against bin Laden, to wit: In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.
Seized Iraq Intelligence Service records indicating that Saddam's henchmen regarded bin Laden as an asset as early as 1992?
Saddam's hosting of al Qaeda No. 2, Ayman Zawahiri beginning in the early 1990’s, and reports of a large payment of money to Zawahiri in 1998?
Saddam’s ten years of harboring of 1993 World Trade Center bomber Abdul Rahman Yasin?
Iraqi Intelligence Service operatives being dispatched to meet with bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1998 (the year of bin Laden’s fatwa demanding the killing of all Americans, as well as the embassy bombings)?
Saddam’s official press lionizing bin Laden as “an Arab and Islamic hero” following the 1998 embassy bombing attacks?
The continued insistence of high-ranking Clinton administration officials to the 9/11 Commission that the 1998 retaliatory strikes (after the embassy bombings) against a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory were justified because the factory was a chemical weapons hub tied to Iraq and bin Laden?
Top Clinton administration counterterrorism official Richard Clarke’s assertions, based on intelligence reports in 1999, that Saddam had offered bin Laden asylum after the embassy bombings, and Clarke’s memo to then-National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, advising him not to fly U-2 missions against bin Laden in Afghanistan because he might be tipped off by Pakistani Intelligence, and “[a]rmed with that knowledge, old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad”? (See 9/11 Commission Final Report, p. 134 & n.135.)
Terror master Abu Musab Zarqawi's choice to boogie to Baghdad of all places when he needed surgery after fighting American forces in Afghanistan in 2001?
Saddam's Intelligence Service running a training camp at Salman Pak, were terrorists were instructed in tactics for assassination, kidnapping and hijacking?
Former CIA Director George Tenet’s October 7, 2002 letter to Congress, which asserted:
Our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda is evolving and is based on sources of varying reliability. Some of the information we have received comes from detainees, including some of high rank.
We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade.
Credible information indicates that Iraq and Al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression.
Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of Al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad.
We have credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs.
Iraq's increasing support to extremist Palestinians coupled with growing indications of relationship with Al Qaeda suggest that Baghdad's links to terrorists will increase, even absent U.S. military action.
McCarthy condemns what he refers to as the "'nothing whatsoever' crowd" for lacking curiousity about all these questions and for not caring to find out the answers.
He asks, "Do you have any good answer to what Ahmed Hikmat Shakir was doing with the 9/11 hijackers in Kuala Lampur? Can you explain it?"
Until they can offer explanations and not just expressions of their uncomfortable, offended conditions because Bush said "Iraq" and "al Qaeda" in the same sentence, the Dems and anti-Bush talking heads would be wise to quit the bloviating. They are showing themselves to be utter fools.
Thank God they aren't in power. Thank God the American people rejected them and voted to keep them in the minority.
The Dems, the liberal media, and assorted anti-Bush types can say Iraq and the terrorists responsible for killing nearly 3000 innocents on American soil have nothing to do with each other until the end of time. That won't change the FACT that there were, without a doubt, al Qaeda/Iraq connections.
Was Saddam Hussein directly linked to carrying out the 9/11 plot? No.
Did the Iraqi regime support and harbor and communicate with al Qaeda terrorists before and after 9/11? Yes.
Andrew McCarthy details the facts in "It's All About 9/11".
He writes:
President George W. Bush forcefully explained last night — some of us would say finally forcefully explained last night after too long a lull — why our military operations in Iraq are crucial to success in the war on terror.
It was good to hear the commander-in-chief remind people that this is still the war against terror. Specifically, against Islamo-fascists who slaughtered 3000 Americans on September 11, 2001. Who spent the eight years before those atrocities murdering and promising to murder Americans — as their leader put it in 1998, all Americans, including civilians, anywhere in the world where they could be found.
It is not the war for democratization. It is not the war for stability. Democratization and stability are not unimportant. They are among a host of developments that could help defeat the enemy.
But they are not the primary goal of this war, which is to destroy the network of Islamic militants who declared war against the United States when they bombed the World Trade Center on February 26, 1993, and finally jarred us into an appropriate response when they demolished that complex, struck the Pentagon, and killed 3000 of us on September 11, 2001.
That is why we are in Iraq.
On September 12, 2001, no one in America cared about whether there would be enough Sunni participation in a fledgling Iraqi democracy if Saddam were ever toppled. No one in lower Manhattan cared whether the electricity would work in Baghdad, or whether Muqtada al-Sadr’s Shiite militia could be coaxed into a political process. They cared about smashing terrorists and the states that supported them for the purpose of promoting American national security.
Saddam Hussein’s regime was a crucial part of that response because it was a safety net for al Qaeda. A place where terror attacks against the United States and the West were planned. A place where Saddam’s intelligence service aided and abetted al Qaeda terrorists planning operations. A place where terrorists could hide safely between attacks. A place where terrorists could lick their wounds. A place where committed terrorists could receive vital training in weapons construction and paramilitary tactics. In short, a platform of precisely the type without which an international terror network cannot succeed.
McCarthy explains how important it is for Americans and the world to understand that the Saddam regime and al Qaeda are not strangers. He says, "It is absolutely appropriate, it is vital, for [Bush] to stress that connection. This is still the war on terror, and Iraq, where the terrorists are still arrayed against us, remains a big part of that equation."
Countering the Dem claim that Bush has turned Iraq into a recruiting ground for terrorist wannabes, McCarthy says that the connection isn't "because every jihadist with an AK-47 and a prayer rug has made his way there since we invaded. No, it’s because Saddam made Iraq their cozy place to land long before that. They are fighting effectively there because they’ve been invited to dig in for years."
According to McCarthy, the Iraq war is about "making our enemies know we are coming for them if they abet and harbor and promote and plan with the people who are trying to kill us."
For all the whiners and liars, such as the New York Times, Harry Reid, and David Gergen, McCarthy lists some questions.
What does the “nothing whatsoever” crowd have to say about:
Ahmed Hikmat Shakir — the Iraqi Intelligence operative who facilitated a 9/11 hijacker into Malaysia and was in attendance at the Kuala Lampur meeting with two of the hijackers, and other conspirators, at what is roundly acknowledged to be the initial 9/11 planning session in January 2000? Who was arrested after the 9/11 attacks in possession of contact information for several known terrorists? Who managed to make his way out of Jordanian custody over our objections after the 9/11 attacks because of special pleading by Saddam’s regime?
Saddam's intelligence agency's efforts to recruit jihadists to bomb Radio Free Europe in Prague in the late 1990's?
Mohammed Atta's unexplained visits to Prague in 2000, and his alleged visit there in April 2001 which — notwithstanding the 9/11 Commission's dismissal of it (based on interviewing exactly zero relevant witnesses) — the Czechs have not retracted?
The Clinton Justice Department's allegation in a 1998 indictment (two months before the embassy bombings) against bin Laden, to wit: In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.
Seized Iraq Intelligence Service records indicating that Saddam's henchmen regarded bin Laden as an asset as early as 1992?
Saddam's hosting of al Qaeda No. 2, Ayman Zawahiri beginning in the early 1990’s, and reports of a large payment of money to Zawahiri in 1998?
Saddam’s ten years of harboring of 1993 World Trade Center bomber Abdul Rahman Yasin?
Iraqi Intelligence Service operatives being dispatched to meet with bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1998 (the year of bin Laden’s fatwa demanding the killing of all Americans, as well as the embassy bombings)?
Saddam’s official press lionizing bin Laden as “an Arab and Islamic hero” following the 1998 embassy bombing attacks?
The continued insistence of high-ranking Clinton administration officials to the 9/11 Commission that the 1998 retaliatory strikes (after the embassy bombings) against a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory were justified because the factory was a chemical weapons hub tied to Iraq and bin Laden?
Top Clinton administration counterterrorism official Richard Clarke’s assertions, based on intelligence reports in 1999, that Saddam had offered bin Laden asylum after the embassy bombings, and Clarke’s memo to then-National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, advising him not to fly U-2 missions against bin Laden in Afghanistan because he might be tipped off by Pakistani Intelligence, and “[a]rmed with that knowledge, old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad”? (See 9/11 Commission Final Report, p. 134 & n.135.)
Terror master Abu Musab Zarqawi's choice to boogie to Baghdad of all places when he needed surgery after fighting American forces in Afghanistan in 2001?
Saddam's Intelligence Service running a training camp at Salman Pak, were terrorists were instructed in tactics for assassination, kidnapping and hijacking?
Former CIA Director George Tenet’s October 7, 2002 letter to Congress, which asserted:
Our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda is evolving and is based on sources of varying reliability. Some of the information we have received comes from detainees, including some of high rank.
We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade.
Credible information indicates that Iraq and Al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression.
Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of Al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad.
We have credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs.
Iraq's increasing support to extremist Palestinians coupled with growing indications of relationship with Al Qaeda suggest that Baghdad's links to terrorists will increase, even absent U.S. military action.
McCarthy condemns what he refers to as the "'nothing whatsoever' crowd" for lacking curiousity about all these questions and for not caring to find out the answers.
He asks, "Do you have any good answer to what Ahmed Hikmat Shakir was doing with the 9/11 hijackers in Kuala Lampur? Can you explain it?"
Until they can offer explanations and not just expressions of their uncomfortable, offended conditions because Bush said "Iraq" and "al Qaeda" in the same sentence, the Dems and anti-Bush talking heads would be wise to quit the bloviating. They are showing themselves to be utter fools.
Thank God they aren't in power. Thank God the American people rejected them and voted to keep them in the minority.
Hey, Nancy! The War is NOT over!
"The war in Afghanistan is over."
--Nancy Pelosi, June 21, 2005
AP reports:
KABUL, Afghanistan — A U.S. Chinook helicopter that crashed in eastern Afghanistan was likely shot down by hostile fire, and the fate of 17 Americans aboard — including special forces troops — was unclear, the U.S. military said Wednesday. The Taliban claimed it attacked the aircraft.
The troops were on a mission against Al Qaeda fighters when the helicopter went down Tuesday in a mountainous region near Asadabad, in Kunar province.
"Initial reports indicate the crash may have been caused by hostile fire. The status of the service members is unknown at this time," a U.S. military statement said.
The coalition and Afghan troops "quickly moved into position around the crash to block any enemy movement toward or away from the site" and coalition support aircraft were overhead, the statement said.
The helicopter was carrying forces into the area as part of Operation Red Wing against Al Qaeda militants, the military said.
"Coalition troops on the ground in this area came in contact with enemy forces and requested additional forces to be inserted into this operation," U.S. military spokesman Col. James Yonts told a news conference. "That is why there was an aircraft, that is how it arrived on the battlefield."
In Washington, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Peter Pace said the "tragedy ... appears to be a shootdown of one of our special operations helicopters," and was under investigation.
"We think it was an RPG (rocket-propelled grenade), but are not 100 percent" sure, Pace told a Senate committee during a hearing on his nomination to be chairman of the joint chiefs.
Yonts said the helicopter took indirect or direct fire from the ground. "Whether or not that caused it to crash, we do not know yet," he said.
The U.S. military knew from its contacts with local leaders and residents that "terrorist organizations" were operating in the area of the crash, Yonts said.
...Provincial Gov. Asadullah Wafa told The Associated Press the Taliban downed the aircraft with a rocket. He gave no other details.
Purported Taliban spokesman Mullah Latif Hakimi telephoned the AP before news of the crash was released and said the rebels shot the helicopter down.
He said the rebels filmed the attack and would release the video to the media. He also claimed that rebels killed seven U.S. soldiers in an attack in the same area, although U.S. spokeswomen Lt. Cindy Moore said no such attack had been made on an American convoy.
Hakimi often calls news organizations to claim responsibility for attacks on behalf of the Taliban. His information has sometimes proven untrue or exaggerated, and his exact tie to the group's leadership is unclear.
Nancy Pelosi is persistent in her complaints about Bush lying and not being honest with the American people.
That's particularly ironic, given the fact that Pelosi herself is being dishonest in a blatant attempt to score political points.
Simply put, Pelosi's a liar, an opportunistic liar.
In addition to being a liar, it is possible that Pelosi is incredibly stupid as well. She's the House MINORITY leader; yet she has no idea what's happening in Afghanistan.
THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN IS NOT OVER.
Today, the military is concluding that hostile fire was most likely involved in the downing of a U.S. helicopter. The fate of the Americans aboard is unknown.
Nevertheless, Pelosi believes the war there is over.
She should make it a point to contact the families of those aboard the downed helicopter. Maybe then she'll realize the war goes on.
She is so out of touch it's frightening. Pelosi should step down as House MINORITY leader.
--Nancy Pelosi, June 21, 2005
AP reports:
KABUL, Afghanistan — A U.S. Chinook helicopter that crashed in eastern Afghanistan was likely shot down by hostile fire, and the fate of 17 Americans aboard — including special forces troops — was unclear, the U.S. military said Wednesday. The Taliban claimed it attacked the aircraft.
The troops were on a mission against Al Qaeda fighters when the helicopter went down Tuesday in a mountainous region near Asadabad, in Kunar province.
"Initial reports indicate the crash may have been caused by hostile fire. The status of the service members is unknown at this time," a U.S. military statement said.
The coalition and Afghan troops "quickly moved into position around the crash to block any enemy movement toward or away from the site" and coalition support aircraft were overhead, the statement said.
The helicopter was carrying forces into the area as part of Operation Red Wing against Al Qaeda militants, the military said.
"Coalition troops on the ground in this area came in contact with enemy forces and requested additional forces to be inserted into this operation," U.S. military spokesman Col. James Yonts told a news conference. "That is why there was an aircraft, that is how it arrived on the battlefield."
In Washington, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Peter Pace said the "tragedy ... appears to be a shootdown of one of our special operations helicopters," and was under investigation.
"We think it was an RPG (rocket-propelled grenade), but are not 100 percent" sure, Pace told a Senate committee during a hearing on his nomination to be chairman of the joint chiefs.
Yonts said the helicopter took indirect or direct fire from the ground. "Whether or not that caused it to crash, we do not know yet," he said.
The U.S. military knew from its contacts with local leaders and residents that "terrorist organizations" were operating in the area of the crash, Yonts said.
...Provincial Gov. Asadullah Wafa told The Associated Press the Taliban downed the aircraft with a rocket. He gave no other details.
Purported Taliban spokesman Mullah Latif Hakimi telephoned the AP before news of the crash was released and said the rebels shot the helicopter down.
He said the rebels filmed the attack and would release the video to the media. He also claimed that rebels killed seven U.S. soldiers in an attack in the same area, although U.S. spokeswomen Lt. Cindy Moore said no such attack had been made on an American convoy.
Hakimi often calls news organizations to claim responsibility for attacks on behalf of the Taliban. His information has sometimes proven untrue or exaggerated, and his exact tie to the group's leadership is unclear.
Nancy Pelosi is persistent in her complaints about Bush lying and not being honest with the American people.
That's particularly ironic, given the fact that Pelosi herself is being dishonest in a blatant attempt to score political points.
Simply put, Pelosi's a liar, an opportunistic liar.
In addition to being a liar, it is possible that Pelosi is incredibly stupid as well. She's the House MINORITY leader; yet she has no idea what's happening in Afghanistan.
THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN IS NOT OVER.
Today, the military is concluding that hostile fire was most likely involved in the downing of a U.S. helicopter. The fate of the Americans aboard is unknown.
Nevertheless, Pelosi believes the war there is over.
She should make it a point to contact the families of those aboard the downed helicopter. Maybe then she'll realize the war goes on.
She is so out of touch it's frightening. Pelosi should step down as House MINORITY leader.
The Gitmo Cookbook
It's what you've been waiting for! Now, you too can eat as well as the detainees at Gitmo!
Soon, a cookbook with recipes for the delectable goodies served to the suspected terrorists being held in the prison at Guantanamo Bay will be available to everyone.
From the LONDON DAILY TELEGRAPH:
NEW YORK -- The prison is known more for the accusation that it's a gulag than for goulash, but a new cookbook aims to counter the reputation of the detention center at U.S. Naval Base Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Several hundred recipes prepared for the inmates at the camp are to be published next month in "The Gitmo Cookbook," including dishes such as mustard-and-dill baked fish and honey-and-ginger chicken breast.
The recipes -- most of which use fewer than eight ingredients and originally were created to feed up to 100 persons -- were developed by the U.S. Navy cooks in charge of the camp's kitchens.
They must serve food that meets the Islamic halal requirements of the 540 detainees, who mostly are from Afghanistan, Iraq and other Arab nations. A halal meal adheres to dietary practices mandated by Islamic law.
...Laura Curtis, one of the book's editors, says the recipes would "make a point about how well we are treating these people." Freed prisoners are said to have put on an average of nearly 14 pounds during captivity.
"We feel that the word 'torture' is a serious abuse of the language when you apply it to what's going on at Gitmo," she says. "We're pretty tired of the military-bashing that we see in the news."
On testing the recipes, one member of the book team disliked the glazed carrots but says the carrots "did not sink to the level of torture."
...The Pentagon budgets $2.5 million per year for feeding the prisoners, which works out to $12.68 per person per day. Meals in federal prisons cost $2.78 per convict daily.
...Prisoners considered to be well-behaved or low security risks are allowed to serve themselves around open-air dining tables in the detention blocks. Military police serve food to the other inmates.
"The Gitmo Cookbook" will sell for $8.95, and profits will be donated to a military charity.
This is a great idea!
We all will have the opportunity to share in the mouth-watering creations of U.S. Navy cooks and the sales profits will go to a military charity. It's a win/win situation.
I would love to invite Little Dick Durbin over for dinner as soon as I get my copy!
Soon, a cookbook with recipes for the delectable goodies served to the suspected terrorists being held in the prison at Guantanamo Bay will be available to everyone.
From the LONDON DAILY TELEGRAPH:
NEW YORK -- The prison is known more for the accusation that it's a gulag than for goulash, but a new cookbook aims to counter the reputation of the detention center at U.S. Naval Base Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Several hundred recipes prepared for the inmates at the camp are to be published next month in "The Gitmo Cookbook," including dishes such as mustard-and-dill baked fish and honey-and-ginger chicken breast.
The recipes -- most of which use fewer than eight ingredients and originally were created to feed up to 100 persons -- were developed by the U.S. Navy cooks in charge of the camp's kitchens.
They must serve food that meets the Islamic halal requirements of the 540 detainees, who mostly are from Afghanistan, Iraq and other Arab nations. A halal meal adheres to dietary practices mandated by Islamic law.
...Laura Curtis, one of the book's editors, says the recipes would "make a point about how well we are treating these people." Freed prisoners are said to have put on an average of nearly 14 pounds during captivity.
"We feel that the word 'torture' is a serious abuse of the language when you apply it to what's going on at Gitmo," she says. "We're pretty tired of the military-bashing that we see in the news."
On testing the recipes, one member of the book team disliked the glazed carrots but says the carrots "did not sink to the level of torture."
...The Pentagon budgets $2.5 million per year for feeding the prisoners, which works out to $12.68 per person per day. Meals in federal prisons cost $2.78 per convict daily.
...Prisoners considered to be well-behaved or low security risks are allowed to serve themselves around open-air dining tables in the detention blocks. Military police serve food to the other inmates.
"The Gitmo Cookbook" will sell for $8.95, and profits will be donated to a military charity.
This is a great idea!
We all will have the opportunity to share in the mouth-watering creations of U.S. Navy cooks and the sales profits will go to a military charity. It's a win/win situation.
I would love to invite Little Dick Durbin over for dinner as soon as I get my copy!
Getting Away with Murder
It's been five weeks and there's been no sign of Natalee Holloway whatsoever--no body, not a shred of forensic evidence, and no cooperation from suspects as to what happened to her.
Early on, Paul van der Sloot coached his son, Joran, telling him not to talk. That strategy may prove successful, allowing him to walk out of jail free.
ORANJESTAD, Aruba -- The mother of an Alabama honors student missing in Aruba for a month said Tuesday she is devastated by the release of a Dutch suspect's father and convinced the high-ranking judicial official is hiding information.
"I know in my heart he has some answers," Beth Holloway Twitty told The Associated Press in an interview.
She said her suspicions were based on his behavior when she went to his house looking for those answers last week, and Paul van der Sloot, who's training to be a judge on the Dutch Caribbean island, could not stop perspiring.
"I've never sat across from an individual in a well-ventilated room who was sweating so profusely. His wife had to use napkins to wipe his forehead, and the sweat drops falling on the table" as they sat under a fan.
But his wife, Anita van der Sloot, insisted on her family's innocence in an interview Tuesday with The Associated Press...
"Why is the finger being pointed at Joran? Because he's the son of a judge?" she asked. "But there is no proof he did anything. Investigators have lost control [of the case] and don't know what to do anymore."
Van der Sloot said her family has been devastated since Natalee Holloway disappeared in the early hours of May 30.
"Our lives, and the life of a young teenager, have been destroyed," she said. "For us, the most important thing is Natalee and my son."
...Both the Holloway Twitty and the van der Sloots "are feeling like they are losing a son or a daughter," said Ricardo Yarzagaray, an Aruban defense lawyer not connected to the case.
Anita van der Sloot wants sympathy she doesn't deserve. I have no idea what happened to Natalee. I have no idea who's guilty in her disappearance. However, Mrs. van der Sloot has the comfort of knowing where her son is. Of course, she's upset he's in jail, but she knows he is alive and safe.
Beth Holloway Twitty does not have that assurance. In all likelihood, she really has lost a daughter, forever. There is no comparison between what Natalee's loved ones and Joran's parents are experiencing.
It's an insult to Natalee's family to even suggest that the van der Sloots are hurting in a comparable way. If they are losing a son, it's because he's a criminal, not a victim.
Yesterday, some more information came out about the relationship between Joran and Natalee. He was not someone she had just met that night. This flies in the face of growing sentiment among the locals on the island that Natalee is to blame for her fate, that she was a drunk and a slut, putting herself in a dangerous situation by behaving irresponsibly.
An NBC affiliate in Alabama, NBC13, interviewed Jamie Justice, one of Natalee's friends.
She said that "Joran van der Sloot, was no stranger to the Mountain Brook group. He'd been hanging out with them all week.
"Jamie Justice said she got to know van der Sloot at the Black Jack table.
"'The way he came off wasn't at all in a threatening way,' Justice said. 'He was really naive to everybody.'
"Justice and many of Holloway's friends thought van der Sloot was a fellow tourist.
"'He didn't look like one of the locals and he didn't act like one of the locals,' Justice said. 'He acted more like he was just down there vacationing.'
"...Justice said Holloway spent most the night with her friends, not van der Sloot. However, at about 1:30 a.m. Holloway and van der Sloot left the bar together.
"Justice says although Holloway is a sweet person she isn't overly trusting."
Also, Geraldo Rivera said yesterday there were reports that Joran brought Natalee to his home on the night of her disappearance.
Apparently, Joran has a room with a separate entrance from his parents' home. He could easily bring someone home without them ever knowing.
Furthermore, the ten days that Joran was set free obviously would have given him ample time to scrub the room of any trace of evidence that Natalee was there.
It sickens me to think of how badly the Aruban officials botched the investigation, maybe to the point of letting someone get away with murder.
Early on, Paul van der Sloot coached his son, Joran, telling him not to talk. That strategy may prove successful, allowing him to walk out of jail free.
ORANJESTAD, Aruba -- The mother of an Alabama honors student missing in Aruba for a month said Tuesday she is devastated by the release of a Dutch suspect's father and convinced the high-ranking judicial official is hiding information.
"I know in my heart he has some answers," Beth Holloway Twitty told The Associated Press in an interview.
She said her suspicions were based on his behavior when she went to his house looking for those answers last week, and Paul van der Sloot, who's training to be a judge on the Dutch Caribbean island, could not stop perspiring.
"I've never sat across from an individual in a well-ventilated room who was sweating so profusely. His wife had to use napkins to wipe his forehead, and the sweat drops falling on the table" as they sat under a fan.
But his wife, Anita van der Sloot, insisted on her family's innocence in an interview Tuesday with The Associated Press...
"Why is the finger being pointed at Joran? Because he's the son of a judge?" she asked. "But there is no proof he did anything. Investigators have lost control [of the case] and don't know what to do anymore."
Van der Sloot said her family has been devastated since Natalee Holloway disappeared in the early hours of May 30.
"Our lives, and the life of a young teenager, have been destroyed," she said. "For us, the most important thing is Natalee and my son."
...Both the Holloway Twitty and the van der Sloots "are feeling like they are losing a son or a daughter," said Ricardo Yarzagaray, an Aruban defense lawyer not connected to the case.
Anita van der Sloot wants sympathy she doesn't deserve. I have no idea what happened to Natalee. I have no idea who's guilty in her disappearance. However, Mrs. van der Sloot has the comfort of knowing where her son is. Of course, she's upset he's in jail, but she knows he is alive and safe.
Beth Holloway Twitty does not have that assurance. In all likelihood, she really has lost a daughter, forever. There is no comparison between what Natalee's loved ones and Joran's parents are experiencing.
It's an insult to Natalee's family to even suggest that the van der Sloots are hurting in a comparable way. If they are losing a son, it's because he's a criminal, not a victim.
Yesterday, some more information came out about the relationship between Joran and Natalee. He was not someone she had just met that night. This flies in the face of growing sentiment among the locals on the island that Natalee is to blame for her fate, that she was a drunk and a slut, putting herself in a dangerous situation by behaving irresponsibly.
An NBC affiliate in Alabama, NBC13, interviewed Jamie Justice, one of Natalee's friends.
She said that "Joran van der Sloot, was no stranger to the Mountain Brook group. He'd been hanging out with them all week.
"Jamie Justice said she got to know van der Sloot at the Black Jack table.
"'The way he came off wasn't at all in a threatening way,' Justice said. 'He was really naive to everybody.'
"Justice and many of Holloway's friends thought van der Sloot was a fellow tourist.
"'He didn't look like one of the locals and he didn't act like one of the locals,' Justice said. 'He acted more like he was just down there vacationing.'
"...Justice said Holloway spent most the night with her friends, not van der Sloot. However, at about 1:30 a.m. Holloway and van der Sloot left the bar together.
"Justice says although Holloway is a sweet person she isn't overly trusting."
Also, Geraldo Rivera said yesterday there were reports that Joran brought Natalee to his home on the night of her disappearance.
Apparently, Joran has a room with a separate entrance from his parents' home. He could easily bring someone home without them ever knowing.
Furthermore, the ten days that Joran was set free obviously would have given him ample time to scrub the room of any trace of evidence that Natalee was there.
It sickens me to think of how badly the Aruban officials botched the investigation, maybe to the point of letting someone get away with murder.
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
DEMS SLAM BUSH SPEECH
Democratic reaction to Bush's speech is no surprise. In fact, I'd bet most of the Dems prepared their responses to his address before he delivered it.
It's also to be expected that the leftist media would pounce on the Dems' criticism and splash it around the world, all part of their orchestrated effort to disgrace Bush. What I don't understand is how these Dems can live with themselves, knowing that through their Bush bashing, they succeed in demoralizing our troops and emboldening our enemies.
Some reaction:
"The president missed an opportunity tonight for straight talk to the American people," said Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic minority leader in the House of Representatives.
"The American people understand what is at stake in Iraq and in the Middle East. That is why it is so disappointing that the president failed tonight, as he has failed consistently since the war began, to lay out specifics for success, including performance benchmarks," she added.
______________________________
Senator Ted Kennedy, a frequent critic of the war, said the administration's policy on Iraq was "adrift".
"Our soldiers in Iraq need more than assurances of progress from the president," Kennedy said.
"They need an effective plan to end the violence, bring peace and stability to Iraq, and return home with dignity and honour. Unfortunately, the president did not level with our troops and the American people and offer an effective strategy for success," he said.
______________________________
Senator John Kerry, Bush's Democratic rival in the last presidential election, accused the US leader of creating a "third rationale" for going to war.
"The first, of course, was weapons of mass destruction. The second was democracy. And now tonight, it's to combat the hotbed of terrorism," Kerry told CNN.
"But most Americans are aware that the hotbed of terrorism never existed in Iraq until we got there, and it has in fact grown increasingly as we are there," he said.
He added that "we can do better" to help US troops fighting in Iraq.
"We owe them the leadership that's equal to their sacrifice. And I think we have yet to provide that," Kerry said.
_______________________________
Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean slammed Bush for failing "to show the same courage our troops and their families show every day".
_______________________________
Basically, the liberal media have rallied around the same interpretation, that Iraq policy is adrift--
US Democratic lawmakers have criticised President George Bush's nationally televised speech on Iraq, saying he had again failed to be honest with the American people.
Republicans, however, on Tuesday defended the refusal to change a strategy Bush said has yielded uneven but significant progress.
Battered by polls showing that most Americans disapprove of how he has handled the war, Bush said in his speech he would not send more US forces to Iraq and again rejected setting a timetable for ending the US military presence.
Source: Al Jazeera
It's also to be expected that the leftist media would pounce on the Dems' criticism and splash it around the world, all part of their orchestrated effort to disgrace Bush. What I don't understand is how these Dems can live with themselves, knowing that through their Bush bashing, they succeed in demoralizing our troops and emboldening our enemies.
Some reaction:
"The president missed an opportunity tonight for straight talk to the American people," said Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic minority leader in the House of Representatives.
"The American people understand what is at stake in Iraq and in the Middle East. That is why it is so disappointing that the president failed tonight, as he has failed consistently since the war began, to lay out specifics for success, including performance benchmarks," she added.
______________________________
Senator Ted Kennedy, a frequent critic of the war, said the administration's policy on Iraq was "adrift".
"Our soldiers in Iraq need more than assurances of progress from the president," Kennedy said.
"They need an effective plan to end the violence, bring peace and stability to Iraq, and return home with dignity and honour. Unfortunately, the president did not level with our troops and the American people and offer an effective strategy for success," he said.
______________________________
Senator John Kerry, Bush's Democratic rival in the last presidential election, accused the US leader of creating a "third rationale" for going to war.
"The first, of course, was weapons of mass destruction. The second was democracy. And now tonight, it's to combat the hotbed of terrorism," Kerry told CNN.
"But most Americans are aware that the hotbed of terrorism never existed in Iraq until we got there, and it has in fact grown increasingly as we are there," he said.
He added that "we can do better" to help US troops fighting in Iraq.
"We owe them the leadership that's equal to their sacrifice. And I think we have yet to provide that," Kerry said.
_______________________________
Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean slammed Bush for failing "to show the same courage our troops and their families show every day".
_______________________________
Basically, the liberal media have rallied around the same interpretation, that Iraq policy is adrift--
US Democratic lawmakers have criticised President George Bush's nationally televised speech on Iraq, saying he had again failed to be honest with the American people.
Republicans, however, on Tuesday defended the refusal to change a strategy Bush said has yielded uneven but significant progress.
Battered by polls showing that most Americans disapprove of how he has handled the war, Bush said in his speech he would not send more US forces to Iraq and again rejected setting a timetable for ending the US military presence.
Source: Al Jazeera
QUAGMIRE
Since the Vietnam era, "quagmire" has become part of the liberal media's lexicon.
From FOX:
"Quagmire" as a military metaphor began with the book "The Making of a Quagmire" — New York Times reporter David Halberstam's highly critical account of President Kennedy's early Vietnam policy.
"Once Halberstam had written that book, the label stuck because the book was such a powerful analysis. If that label is applied to Iraq or Afghanistan, it strengthens the Vietnam analogy and makes people believe the campaign is futile and fruitless," said retired U.S. Army Gen. Wesley Clark, a FOX News military analyst.
Ironically, Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., was among the first politicians to compare his brother's Vietnam quagmire to Iraq. But his office acknowledged Monday that he is one of three senators on the Senate Armed Services Committee who has not yet visited the country.
The record suggests that reporters often don't recognize a quagmire when they see it.
..."Some people are comparing Iraq to Vietnam and talking about a quagmire. Polls show that support for your policy is declining and that fewer than half of Americans now support it. What does that say to you, and how do you answer the Vietnam comparison?" asked Associated Press writer Terrence Hunt.
"I think the analogy is false," Bush replied.
As military operations continue in Iraq, the White House and Pentagon see only one persistent quagmire — the media's constant misuse of the term.
It's really very simple.
The liberal media and some Dems cling to the "quagmire" label because they WANT Iraq to be Vietnam.
They hate Bush and his administration so much that they're willing to go as far as sacrificing the national interest in order to embarrass the Republicans.
Isn't it sad that some put politics and power ahead of country?
From FOX:
"Quagmire" as a military metaphor began with the book "The Making of a Quagmire" — New York Times reporter David Halberstam's highly critical account of President Kennedy's early Vietnam policy.
"Once Halberstam had written that book, the label stuck because the book was such a powerful analysis. If that label is applied to Iraq or Afghanistan, it strengthens the Vietnam analogy and makes people believe the campaign is futile and fruitless," said retired U.S. Army Gen. Wesley Clark, a FOX News military analyst.
Ironically, Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., was among the first politicians to compare his brother's Vietnam quagmire to Iraq. But his office acknowledged Monday that he is one of three senators on the Senate Armed Services Committee who has not yet visited the country.
The record suggests that reporters often don't recognize a quagmire when they see it.
..."Some people are comparing Iraq to Vietnam and talking about a quagmire. Polls show that support for your policy is declining and that fewer than half of Americans now support it. What does that say to you, and how do you answer the Vietnam comparison?" asked Associated Press writer Terrence Hunt.
"I think the analogy is false," Bush replied.
As military operations continue in Iraq, the White House and Pentagon see only one persistent quagmire — the media's constant misuse of the term.
It's really very simple.
The liberal media and some Dems cling to the "quagmire" label because they WANT Iraq to be Vietnam.
They hate Bush and his administration so much that they're willing to go as far as sacrificing the national interest in order to embarrass the Republicans.
Isn't it sad that some put politics and power ahead of country?
The Lost Liberty Hotel
Justice Souter's vote in the "Kelo vs. City of New London" decision allows city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another if the government will generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner.
On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter's home.
Clements, CEO of Freestar Media, LLC, points out that the City of Weare will certainly gain greater tax revenue and economic benefits with a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road than allowing Mr. Souter to own the land.
The proposed development, called "The Lost Liberty Hotel" will feature the "Just Desserts Café" and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon's Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged."
Clements indicated that the hotel must be built on this particular piece of land because it is a unique site being the home of someone largely responsible for destroying property rights for all Americans.
"This is not a prank" said Clements, "The Towne of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter we can begin our hotel development."
Clements' plan is to raise investment capital from wealthy pro-liberty investors and draw up architectural plans. These plans would then be used to raise investment capital for the project. Clements hopes that regular customers of the hotel might include supporters of the Institute For Justice and participants in the Free State Project among others.
This sounds like a great idea!
Maybe it could be a chain. Additional sites could be built where the homes of Stevens, Kennedy, Ginsburg, and Breyer now stand.
On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter's home.
Clements, CEO of Freestar Media, LLC, points out that the City of Weare will certainly gain greater tax revenue and economic benefits with a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road than allowing Mr. Souter to own the land.
The proposed development, called "The Lost Liberty Hotel" will feature the "Just Desserts Café" and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon's Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged."
Clements indicated that the hotel must be built on this particular piece of land because it is a unique site being the home of someone largely responsible for destroying property rights for all Americans.
"This is not a prank" said Clements, "The Towne of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter we can begin our hotel development."
Clements' plan is to raise investment capital from wealthy pro-liberty investors and draw up architectural plans. These plans would then be used to raise investment capital for the project. Clements hopes that regular customers of the hotel might include supporters of the Institute For Justice and participants in the Free State Project among others.
This sounds like a great idea!
Maybe it could be a chain. Additional sites could be built where the homes of Stevens, Kennedy, Ginsburg, and Breyer now stand.
The Speech: As the Iraqis Stand Up, We Will Stand Down.
TEXT of President Bush's speech Tuesday night at Fort Bragg, N.C., as provided by the White House.
Highlights:
Some wonder whether Iraq is a central front in the war on terror. Among the terrorists, there is no debate. Hear the words of Osama Bin Laden: "This Third World War is raging'' in Iraq. "The whole world is watching this war.'' He says it will end in "victory and glory or misery and humiliation.''
The terrorists know that the outcome will leave them emboldened or defeated. So they are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to take.
We see the nature of the enemy in terrorists who exploded car bombs along a busy shopping street in Baghdad, including one outside a mosque. We see the nature of the enemy in terrorists who sent a suicide bomber to a teaching hospital in Mosul. And we see the nature of the enemy in terrorists who behead civilian hostages and broadcast their atrocities for the world to see.
_____________________________
The principal task of our military is to find and defeat the terrorists and that is why we are on the offense. And as we pursue the terrorists, our military is helping to train Iraqi security forces so that they can defend their people and fight the enemy on their own. Our strategy can be summed up this way: As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down.
_____________________________
To further prepare Iraqi forces to fight the enemy on their own, we are taking three new steps:
First, we are partnering coalition units with Iraqi units. These coalition-Iraqi teams are conducting operations together in the field. These combined operations are giving Iraqis a chance to experience how the most professional armed forces in the world operate in combat.
Second, we are embedding coalition "transition teams'' inside Iraqi units. These teams are made up of coalition officers and noncommissioned officers who live, work and fight together with their Iraqi comrades. Under U.S. command, they are providing battlefield advice and assistance to Iraqi forces during combat operations. Between battles, they are assisting the Iraqis with important skills such as urban combat and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance techniques.
Third, we are working with the Iraqi Ministries of Interior and Defense to improve their capabilities to coordinate anti-terrorist operations. We are helping them develop command and control structures. We are also providing them with civilian and military leadership training, so Iraq's new leaders can more effectively manage their forces in the fight against terror.
________________________________
After September 11, 2001, I told the American people that the road ahead would be difficult and that we would prevail. Well, it has been difficult. And we are prevailing. Our enemies are brutal, but they are no match for the United States of America and they are no match for the men and women of the United States military.
________________________________
The President really got choked up as he delivered the final line of his address, praising the men and women of our military. It's clear that he is not emotionally detached from what they and their families are doing and sacrificing in the name of all Americans.
Right now, the Dems are all over TV still spewing their negativity and talking about quagmires. The party of pessimism is countering Bush's remarks by spreading its typical message of doom, gloom, and failure.
Brian William's on NBC wanted to know if the military audience was given any instructions before the speech, such as refraining from applauding, etc. Kelly O'Donnell said that the applause that came 23 minutes into the speech was triggered by the President's advance team. She said applause is "contagious" and that explains why there was that burst of approval during the speech. Right. It was staged. The military audience was packed with robots, applauding out of reflex rather than agreement.
Overall, I thought Bush was clear and passionate and firm.
I know the talking heads say this speech was about boosting support among the American people for the Iraq war. Bush certainly was speaking to the nation, but I think his message was also intended for the Iraqis and people all over the world who might be questioning America's resolve.
Bush let it be known that he will not be influenced by poll numbers. That is not how he leads.
We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail.
Highlights:
Some wonder whether Iraq is a central front in the war on terror. Among the terrorists, there is no debate. Hear the words of Osama Bin Laden: "This Third World War is raging'' in Iraq. "The whole world is watching this war.'' He says it will end in "victory and glory or misery and humiliation.''
The terrorists know that the outcome will leave them emboldened or defeated. So they are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to take.
We see the nature of the enemy in terrorists who exploded car bombs along a busy shopping street in Baghdad, including one outside a mosque. We see the nature of the enemy in terrorists who sent a suicide bomber to a teaching hospital in Mosul. And we see the nature of the enemy in terrorists who behead civilian hostages and broadcast their atrocities for the world to see.
_____________________________
The principal task of our military is to find and defeat the terrorists and that is why we are on the offense. And as we pursue the terrorists, our military is helping to train Iraqi security forces so that they can defend their people and fight the enemy on their own. Our strategy can be summed up this way: As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down.
_____________________________
To further prepare Iraqi forces to fight the enemy on their own, we are taking three new steps:
First, we are partnering coalition units with Iraqi units. These coalition-Iraqi teams are conducting operations together in the field. These combined operations are giving Iraqis a chance to experience how the most professional armed forces in the world operate in combat.
Second, we are embedding coalition "transition teams'' inside Iraqi units. These teams are made up of coalition officers and noncommissioned officers who live, work and fight together with their Iraqi comrades. Under U.S. command, they are providing battlefield advice and assistance to Iraqi forces during combat operations. Between battles, they are assisting the Iraqis with important skills such as urban combat and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance techniques.
Third, we are working with the Iraqi Ministries of Interior and Defense to improve their capabilities to coordinate anti-terrorist operations. We are helping them develop command and control structures. We are also providing them with civilian and military leadership training, so Iraq's new leaders can more effectively manage their forces in the fight against terror.
________________________________
After September 11, 2001, I told the American people that the road ahead would be difficult and that we would prevail. Well, it has been difficult. And we are prevailing. Our enemies are brutal, but they are no match for the United States of America and they are no match for the men and women of the United States military.
________________________________
The President really got choked up as he delivered the final line of his address, praising the men and women of our military. It's clear that he is not emotionally detached from what they and their families are doing and sacrificing in the name of all Americans.
Right now, the Dems are all over TV still spewing their negativity and talking about quagmires. The party of pessimism is countering Bush's remarks by spreading its typical message of doom, gloom, and failure.
Brian William's on NBC wanted to know if the military audience was given any instructions before the speech, such as refraining from applauding, etc. Kelly O'Donnell said that the applause that came 23 minutes into the speech was triggered by the President's advance team. She said applause is "contagious" and that explains why there was that burst of approval during the speech. Right. It was staged. The military audience was packed with robots, applauding out of reflex rather than agreement.
Overall, I thought Bush was clear and passionate and firm.
I know the talking heads say this speech was about boosting support among the American people for the Iraq war. Bush certainly was speaking to the nation, but I think his message was also intended for the Iraqis and people all over the world who might be questioning America's resolve.
Bush let it be known that he will not be influenced by poll numbers. That is not how he leads.
We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail.
Clueless Nancy Pelosi
Immediately following the speech, Pelosi was interviewed by Brian Williams on NBC. Pelosi kept talking about how much she respects our military and then turned around and said what they're doing is disastrous and that they're failing in their mission.
She's nuts.
The House minority leader has lost touch with reality.
The Dems are still insisting there is no exit strategy and a timetable for withdrawal needs to be established at once. Kerry and Kennedy were blubbering about that earlier today.
Bush was very clear about the strategy, which is to hand control of Iraq over to the Iraqis as soon as possible. He said, "When Iraqis stand up, we will stand down."
The cry for a timetable is idiotic, but the Dems and some of the usual RINO suspects keep calling for one.
The timetable mantra alone is reason enough to drop to your knees and thank God that the Dems are out of power.
Pelosi and her party should show that they truly support the troops and stop making irresponsible remarks that put them in greater danger and undermine their mission.
It really bugs me when the Dems claim to support and admire the troops as they belittle their efforts and dismiss their accomplishments.
Pelosi claimed the President is not sincere, that he hasn't told Americans the truth. The new catch words for the Dems seem to be "truth" and "trust."She's nuts.
The House minority leader has lost touch with reality.
The Dems are still insisting there is no exit strategy and a timetable for withdrawal needs to be established at once. Kerry and Kennedy were blubbering about that earlier today.
Bush was very clear about the strategy, which is to hand control of Iraq over to the Iraqis as soon as possible. He said, "When Iraqis stand up, we will stand down."
The cry for a timetable is idiotic, but the Dems and some of the usual RINO suspects keep calling for one.
The timetable mantra alone is reason enough to drop to your knees and thank God that the Dems are out of power.
Pelosi and her party should show that they truly support the troops and stop making irresponsible remarks that put them in greater danger and undermine their mission.
Only Rumors
AFP reports rumors that the U.S. is keeping secret prison ships to hold terrorist suspects.
"The use of prison ships would allow investigators to interrogate people secretly and in international waters out of the reach of US law, British security expert Francis Tusa said.
"'This opens the door to very tough interrogations on key prisoners before it even has been revealed that they have been captured,' said Tusa, an editor for the British magazine Jane's Intelligence Review."
According to the article:
The UN has learned of "very, very serious" allegations that the United States is secretly detaining terrorism suspects in various locations around the world, notably aboard prison ships, the UN's special rapporteur on terrorism said.
While the accusations were rumours, rapporteur Manfred Nowak said the situation was sufficiently serious to merit an official inquiry.
"There are very, very serious accusations that the United States is maintaining secret camps, notably on ships," the Austrian UN official told AFP, adding that the vessels were believed to be in the Indian Ocean region.
"They are only rumours, but they appear sufficiently well-based to merit an official inquiry," he added.
Last Thursday Nowak and three other UN human rights experts said they were opening an inquiry into the US detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where Washington has been holding more than 500 people without trial, and into other such locations.
Is it a surprise that the UN must look into these "very, very serious accusations"?
Once again, the UN and human rights organizations jump all over the U.S. for suspected violations against alleged terrorists while turning a blind eye to known human rights abuses.
Nevertheless, these prison ship rumors demand immediate attention according to the UN.
Why doesn't the UN get freaked out over the human rights violations under Castro in Cuba?
Why doesn't the UN insist that the Shura Council of the Mujahedin of Iraq stop kidnapping civilians and threatening to kill them?
Why doesn't the UN condemn Muntada al-Ansar and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi for beheading INNOCENT people?
Why doesn't the UN take the genocide in Sudan seriously?
All of these human rights violations and atrocities aren't rumors; they're real. Nonetheless, the focus is on rumors of U.S. abuse of criminals.
The United Nations is a disgrace.
"The use of prison ships would allow investigators to interrogate people secretly and in international waters out of the reach of US law, British security expert Francis Tusa said.
"'This opens the door to very tough interrogations on key prisoners before it even has been revealed that they have been captured,' said Tusa, an editor for the British magazine Jane's Intelligence Review."
According to the article:
The UN has learned of "very, very serious" allegations that the United States is secretly detaining terrorism suspects in various locations around the world, notably aboard prison ships, the UN's special rapporteur on terrorism said.
While the accusations were rumours, rapporteur Manfred Nowak said the situation was sufficiently serious to merit an official inquiry.
"There are very, very serious accusations that the United States is maintaining secret camps, notably on ships," the Austrian UN official told AFP, adding that the vessels were believed to be in the Indian Ocean region.
"They are only rumours, but they appear sufficiently well-based to merit an official inquiry," he added.
Last Thursday Nowak and three other UN human rights experts said they were opening an inquiry into the US detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where Washington has been holding more than 500 people without trial, and into other such locations.
Is it a surprise that the UN must look into these "very, very serious accusations"?
Once again, the UN and human rights organizations jump all over the U.S. for suspected violations against alleged terrorists while turning a blind eye to known human rights abuses.
Nevertheless, these prison ship rumors demand immediate attention according to the UN.
Why doesn't the UN get freaked out over the human rights violations under Castro in Cuba?
Why doesn't the UN insist that the Shura Council of the Mujahedin of Iraq stop kidnapping civilians and threatening to kill them?
Why doesn't the UN condemn Muntada al-Ansar and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi for beheading INNOCENT people?
Why doesn't the UN take the genocide in Sudan seriously?
All of these human rights violations and atrocities aren't rumors; they're real. Nonetheless, the focus is on rumors of U.S. abuse of criminals.
The United Nations is a disgrace.
Aruba PM Nelson Oduber: "HELP!!!"
In an interview with FOX, Aruban Prime Minister Nelson Oduber said that he will ask the Netherlands for help in the case of Natalee Holloway's disappearance.
"We are doing our utmost and everything we can to find her," Oduber told FOX News' Geraldo Rivera.
He said he was going to appeal to officials from the Dutch government for their help in solving the case.
"I'm going to call the Dutch government. I'm going to try to reach one of the Dutch ministers to convince him of the necessity for all Aruba and our relation with the U.S. that we have to cooperate ... to try to find Natalee," Oduber said.
...On Monday, Aruban police freed Steve Gregory Croes, 26, one day after releasing the father of a 17-year-old suspect who remains in custody. A judge had ruled that there wasn't enough evidence to hold the men.
With the release of Croes and 52-year-old Paul van der Sloot, a judge in training in the Dutch protectorate, three people remain jailed: Van der Sloot's 17-year-old son Joran and his friends, Surinamese brothers Deepak Kalpoe, 21, and Satish Kalpoe, 18. No one has been charged.
A judge on Sunday ordered their detention extended another week. Under Dutch law, a suspect can be held for up to 116 days without charge if a judge decides police have good reason.
"The son (Joran) is clearly the center of suspicion and the assumption is that he knows what happened," said Ricardo Yarzagaray, an Aruban defense lawyer not involved with the case. "The problem is, if a crime was committed, they have no body" to prove it.
Aruban officials say a murder conviction is possible without a body, but requires strong evidence, such as a confession, reliable statements and forensic evidence of wrongdoing.
...Attorney General Caren Janssen declined to say whether the judge's decision to free the two men harmed the case.
"We are still hoping to find the truth," Jannsen said.
Dave Holloway, the missing teen's father, said the release of Paul van der Sloot was a "disappointment."
"Finding out what happened to Natalee is like putting together a puzzle, and unfortunately that piece was taken out too soon," he said.
Natalee Holloway's mother, Beth Holloway Twitty, has been on the island since her daughter's disappearance. She told FOX News that after meeting last week with Paul van der Sloot, she is convinced he knows more than he is letting on.
"What I walked away with was a confirmation that he definitely has some information and could be very instrumental in helping us find out what happened to Natalee and where she is," Holloway Twitty told FOX News on Tuesday.
She said that during the 90-minute meeting, Paul van der Sloot was "sweating profusely," so much so that his perspiration was dripping onto the table.
Will help from the Netherlands make a difference? I doubt it. If the suspects don't cooperate, continue to change their stories, lie, and lie again, what assistance can the Dutch government offer?
Beth Holloway Twitty's assumptions have been correct so far. She was sure from the beginning that Joran van der Sloot and the Kalpoe brothers had information about Natalee.
I think her belief that Paul van der Sloot is sitting on information about Natalee is correct as well.
It seems like the van der Sloot strategy is to wait out the 116 days.
One can get caught up in the twists and turns of this mystery. Step back for a moment and think of the anguish Natalee's family is experiencing. Her disappearance is not an abstraction to them. It's real. She's gone, and each passing day it seems less likely she will be found unharmed.
In the final analysis, all that matters is that this bright, talented eighteen-year-old American girl is missing and may never be found.
At this moment, someone holds the answers Natalee's family is searching for. That someone is too self-centered to come forward with the truth.
For a Natalee Holloway wristband to benefit her trust fund click here.
John Kerry Pretends to be President
Much like Al Gore after his failed bid for the presidency in 2000, John Kerry is a pathetic figure. I admit I feel sorry for him. He keeps trying to be relevant on the national scene and asserting his significance; but it falls flat.
In today's New York Times, Kerry has a piece about what President Bush should say in his address to the nation tonight.
After reiterating the Dem party line about how disasterous things have gone in Iraq and how miserably the Bush administration has failed, he proceeds to explain his plan, one that includes timelines for U.S. troop withdrawal and a greater role for the UN and a multinational force.
He writes:
"The next months are critical to Iraq's future and our security. If Mr. Bush fails to take these steps, we will stumble along, our troops at greater risk, casualties rising, costs rising, the patience of the American people wearing thin, and the specter of quagmire staring us in the face. Our troops deserve better: they deserve leadership equal to their sacrifice."
Quagmire. Bush failure. Blah, blah, blah. Would you expect anything else from Kerry? Is this autumn 2004 or summer 2005?
The part I enjoyed most was this final line printed by the NYT:
John F. Kerry is a Democratic senator from Massachusetts.
Yes, he is a senator. Kerry lost the presidential election. The American people rejected him and all his substanceless plans.
He can pretend he's the president and the NYT can mistily dream of what might have been.
Thank God President Kerry won't be addressing the nation tonight.
Bubba and Bush
KENNEBUNKPORT, Maine - Bill Clinton joined his one-time political foe, former President George H.W. Bush, for a boat ride on the Atlantic Ocean after attending a book-signing Monday.
Clinton was seen kneeling to pet a dog when he arrived at Walker's Point, the summer home of George and Barbara Bush on Maine's rocky coast. Later, Clinton and Bush waved to onlookers as they boated up and down a river before roaring into the ocean for a short ride in Bush's three-engine boat.
The 1992 election rivals became good friends when they led fund-raising as part of the relief effort for victims of the Asian tsunami. Bush extended the invitation after learning that Clinton would be in Maine for a book signing.
A few thoughts came to me when I read this story.
First, how unusual for Clinton to be seen kneeling! I know he was petting a dog, but it still reminded me of how typically Clinton is not the one who's kneeling.
Second, I don't understand why some Republicans get all bent out of shape by the friendship that has developed between Bush 41 and Bubba. It's frequently said that it's like sleeping with the enemy. It's inappropriate, given how the Clintons have bashed the younger George. Maybe it's just me, but the way I see it, being friendly, extending an invitation to one's home, is a gracious thing to do. It's not like Bush has become friends with Osama bin Laden.
Cynics have said that the friendship between the two former rivals is all about helping Hillary appear more centrist. It's really just political strategy. Bill is cozying up to a Republican to give the impression, at least on a subliminal level, that it's OK for conservatives to like Hillary and support her for president. I think that's ridiculous.
Is it possible Bill is insincere, that he's really exploiting Bush 41 for political gain? Of course.
But let's be realistic. How many people would cast a vote for Hillary because they saw Bill with Bush in a boat at Kennebunkport or with him on a golf course somewhere?
I see nothing wrong with this odd couple. If anything, I think it works in the Republicans' favor. Bill can't exactly behave like a rabid attack dog after he's been treated so kindly by the Bushes. He can; but he would come off like a back-stabbing jerk.
I think the relationship between Bush 41 and Bubba is being over-analyzed. Let them enjoy each other's company and leave it at that.
Monday, June 27, 2005
Gitmo Revealed
WASHINGTON (AP)-- Two Democratic senators, just back from Guantanamo Bay, said Monday that Congress should come up with concrete rules for handling detainees at the U.S. prison there.
It's interesting that the AP leads the article with that piece of information. For all the attention abuse at Gitmo has received recently, you'd think that the focus of the story would be the impressions that the Dem senators had of the facility. The main news should be their evaluation of what's going on there. One can just imagine the torture, the gulag, that the senators witnessed while there.
Unfortunately, the news did not provide the type of headline AP likes to run with. The senators' story of Gitmo didn't embarrass the Bush administration. The best AP could come up with was stressing the need for "rules." Even that is very misleading, suggesting the absence of any "concrete rules" already in place.
Wyden, a member of the Select Committee on Intelligence, and Nelson, of the Armed Services Committee, said they were impressed with Brig. Gen. Jay Hood, commander of the joint task force at Guantanamo Bay. They came away from their visit convinced that prisoners are being treated fairly, the senators said.
"There was not torture, not deprivation," Nelson said, adding that he based on his comments on his own observations and on conversations with troops from Nebraska.
"I know I can trust Nebraskans to tell me the truth," he said. "I'm comfortable that the mistakes of the past have been corrected."
Wyden agreed, but he said Congress still has a responsibility to set standards for prisoner treatment into law.
The report of Wyden and Nelson doen't mesh with the Dem party line, that Gitmo should be shut down. No wonder the story is getting so little attention.
It's interesting that the AP leads the article with that piece of information. For all the attention abuse at Gitmo has received recently, you'd think that the focus of the story would be the impressions that the Dem senators had of the facility. The main news should be their evaluation of what's going on there. One can just imagine the torture, the gulag, that the senators witnessed while there.
Unfortunately, the news did not provide the type of headline AP likes to run with. The senators' story of Gitmo didn't embarrass the Bush administration. The best AP could come up with was stressing the need for "rules." Even that is very misleading, suggesting the absence of any "concrete rules" already in place.
Wyden, a member of the Select Committee on Intelligence, and Nelson, of the Armed Services Committee, said they were impressed with Brig. Gen. Jay Hood, commander of the joint task force at Guantanamo Bay. They came away from their visit convinced that prisoners are being treated fairly, the senators said.
"There was not torture, not deprivation," Nelson said, adding that he based on his comments on his own observations and on conversations with troops from Nebraska.
"I know I can trust Nebraskans to tell me the truth," he said. "I'm comfortable that the mistakes of the past have been corrected."
Wyden agreed, but he said Congress still has a responsibility to set standards for prisoner treatment into law.
The report of Wyden and Nelson doen't mesh with the Dem party line, that Gitmo should be shut down. No wonder the story is getting so little attention.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)