American Crusade Trading Cards! DoublePlusGood!
I've linked to this before, but it always makes me laugh.
Wednesday, June 19, 2002
Tuesday, June 18, 2002
I wonder if this was the kind of abuse of power civil libertarian Glenn Reynolds was talking about.
In the nine months since last year's terrorist attack on New York and Washington, government officials estimate that 1,100 people, mostly Middle Eastern-born men, have been arrested or detained. Independent observers, though, such as David Cole, professor of constitutional law at the Georgetown Law Center, suggest the number stands closer to 1,500 or 2,000.
The dragnet was intended to disrupt any other potential terrorist cells operating inside America. "The Department of Justice is waging a deliberate campaign of arrest and detention to protect American lives," Attorney General John Ashcroft announced last November. "We're removing suspected terrorists who violate the law from our streets to prevent further terrorist attack."
Yet only a single man, Zacarias Moussaoui, has been charged with being a Sept. 11 conspirator, and he was detained for immigration violations even before the dragnet began. In the meantime, hundreds have been deported for routine visa violations. The U.S. Justice Department, under court order, reported last week that 147 detainees remain in custody -- 74 on immigration-related charges and 73 on separate criminal charges.
"They essentially arrested people first and then investigated," complains Cole. "Virtually all of them were cleared of terrorist charges, which illustrates how little accurate intelligence the FBI had if it was willing to arrest a large number of people who were innocent of any links with terrorism."
Of course, some of us liberalcommieamericahaters said this months ago.
Remember the other day George Bush said we'd arrested 2400 terrorists?
Wonder if they can file lawsuits for that...
In the nine months since last year's terrorist attack on New York and Washington, government officials estimate that 1,100 people, mostly Middle Eastern-born men, have been arrested or detained. Independent observers, though, such as David Cole, professor of constitutional law at the Georgetown Law Center, suggest the number stands closer to 1,500 or 2,000.
The dragnet was intended to disrupt any other potential terrorist cells operating inside America. "The Department of Justice is waging a deliberate campaign of arrest and detention to protect American lives," Attorney General John Ashcroft announced last November. "We're removing suspected terrorists who violate the law from our streets to prevent further terrorist attack."
Yet only a single man, Zacarias Moussaoui, has been charged with being a Sept. 11 conspirator, and he was detained for immigration violations even before the dragnet began. In the meantime, hundreds have been deported for routine visa violations. The U.S. Justice Department, under court order, reported last week that 147 detainees remain in custody -- 74 on immigration-related charges and 73 on separate criminal charges.
"They essentially arrested people first and then investigated," complains Cole. "Virtually all of them were cleared of terrorist charges, which illustrates how little accurate intelligence the FBI had if it was willing to arrest a large number of people who were innocent of any links with terrorism."
Of course, some of us liberalcommieamericahaters said this months ago.
Remember the other day George Bush said we'd arrested 2400 terrorists?
Wonder if they can file lawsuits for that...
Maybe if Instapundit spent more time worrying about Grover Norquist...
The target of an anti-terrorist raid in the United States last week provided funds for an Islamic group with close ties to the Republican party and the White House.
The Safa trust, a Saudi-backed charity, has provided funds for a political group called the Islamic Institute, which was set up to mobilise support for the Republican party. It shares an office in Washington with the Republican activist Grover Norquist.
The institute, founded in 1999 to win influence in the Republican party, has helped to arrange meetings between senior Bush officials and Islamic leaders, according to the report in Newsweek magazine. Its s chairman, Khaled Saffuri, and Mr Norquist cooperated to arrange the meetings.
The trust gave $20,000 (£14,000) to the institute, which also received $20,000 from a board member of the Success Foundation, according to the report. The institute has also received money from abroad, including$200,000 from Qatar and $55,000 from Kuwait. The institute says that none of the money came with strings attached.
Mr Norquist, who is a member of the institute's board, said that it existed "to promote democracy and free markets. Any effort to imply guilt by association is incompetent McCarthyism".
Poor Grover.
The target of an anti-terrorist raid in the United States last week provided funds for an Islamic group with close ties to the Republican party and the White House.
The Safa trust, a Saudi-backed charity, has provided funds for a political group called the Islamic Institute, which was set up to mobilise support for the Republican party. It shares an office in Washington with the Republican activist Grover Norquist.
The institute, founded in 1999 to win influence in the Republican party, has helped to arrange meetings between senior Bush officials and Islamic leaders, according to the report in Newsweek magazine. Its s chairman, Khaled Saffuri, and Mr Norquist cooperated to arrange the meetings.
The trust gave $20,000 (£14,000) to the institute, which also received $20,000 from a board member of the Success Foundation, according to the report. The institute has also received money from abroad, including$200,000 from Qatar and $55,000 from Kuwait. The institute says that none of the money came with strings attached.
Mr Norquist, who is a member of the institute's board, said that it existed "to promote democracy and free markets. Any effort to imply guilt by association is incompetent McCarthyism".
Poor Grover.
Now Instapundit is arguing that Gloria Steinem has been inconsistent -- hated Taliban THEN, loves them NOW, via Bennett.
Actually, there is nothing inconsistent about signing a statement of support for the women of Afghanistan which calls for this:
Congress, the US Mission to the UN and other US policy-making entities must support:
1. The integration of this Declaration as a part of the process for a just, honorable and durable peace for the legitimate country of Afghanistan for eventual inclusion in the Constitution,
2. Pressure on Pakistan to end its military, political, and financial support which renders the Taliban militias possible,
3. The denial of recognition of the Taliban militias.
and this statement.
The worst Bennett could find is this:
We believe that peoples and nations have the right to determine their own destiny, free from military coercion by great powers.
Maybe you can argue Steinem is naive, but since she never called for military coercion before how is it inconsistent for her to be against it now?
UPDATE: Digby explains why I'm wrong:
Steinem's influence is so huge that her every utterance must be parsed in great detail so that we can predict how the political debate will be played on the world stage. As she is the premiere spokeswoman for the Mighty LeftistFeministPlayboybunny Fifth Column, it is incumbent upon us to expose the inconsistencies not only in her words but in overarching terms of her lack of moral clarity. How else will the nations of the world know how to interpret the Grand Leftist strategy and prepare to fight it to the last man, as they clearly must begin to do if we are to survive this left wing/Islamist conspiracy?
Some might be content to believe that signing a document calling for non-military action against the Taliban is not inconsistent with a later condemnation of military action generally. But that is old fashioned linear thinking.
One must read between the lines to understand that when Steinem was calling for protection and human rights for the women of Afghanistan under the Taliban, she was actually endorsing a full out invasion of the country. For Feminazi anti-family values she was clearly prepared to launch World War III. Nothing could be more obvious.
When it came to 3,000 dead Americans, however, it seems she's just brimming with love for her Islamic fundamentalist brothers in Afghanistan. To please the massive numbers of Leftist Americans who support the goals of al Qaeda, i.e. the destruction of the United States, she has done a complete 180 and is now a "pacifist" who claims she doesn't believe in any military intervention anywhere. My God. It's diabolical.
That's how these Leftist hypocrites do it. They tailor their arguments to whatever political consituency they need to favor on a given day, trusting that nobody will ever notice. It's our job to stay on top of this and expose them for the hypocritical megalomaniacs they really are.
I say thank you, thank you to all of those bloggers out there who are holding these dangerous power mad Leftists' feet to the fire on a daily, sometimes hourly, basis. It may be our only hope.
Actually, there is nothing inconsistent about signing a statement of support for the women of Afghanistan which calls for this:
Congress, the US Mission to the UN and other US policy-making entities must support:
1. The integration of this Declaration as a part of the process for a just, honorable and durable peace for the legitimate country of Afghanistan for eventual inclusion in the Constitution,
2. Pressure on Pakistan to end its military, political, and financial support which renders the Taliban militias possible,
3. The denial of recognition of the Taliban militias.
and this statement.
The worst Bennett could find is this:
We believe that peoples and nations have the right to determine their own destiny, free from military coercion by great powers.
Maybe you can argue Steinem is naive, but since she never called for military coercion before how is it inconsistent for her to be against it now?
UPDATE: Digby explains why I'm wrong:
Steinem's influence is so huge that her every utterance must be parsed in great detail so that we can predict how the political debate will be played on the world stage. As she is the premiere spokeswoman for the Mighty LeftistFeministPlayboybunny Fifth Column, it is incumbent upon us to expose the inconsistencies not only in her words but in overarching terms of her lack of moral clarity. How else will the nations of the world know how to interpret the Grand Leftist strategy and prepare to fight it to the last man, as they clearly must begin to do if we are to survive this left wing/Islamist conspiracy?
Some might be content to believe that signing a document calling for non-military action against the Taliban is not inconsistent with a later condemnation of military action generally. But that is old fashioned linear thinking.
One must read between the lines to understand that when Steinem was calling for protection and human rights for the women of Afghanistan under the Taliban, she was actually endorsing a full out invasion of the country. For Feminazi anti-family values she was clearly prepared to launch World War III. Nothing could be more obvious.
When it came to 3,000 dead Americans, however, it seems she's just brimming with love for her Islamic fundamentalist brothers in Afghanistan. To please the massive numbers of Leftist Americans who support the goals of al Qaeda, i.e. the destruction of the United States, she has done a complete 180 and is now a "pacifist" who claims she doesn't believe in any military intervention anywhere. My God. It's diabolical.
That's how these Leftist hypocrites do it. They tailor their arguments to whatever political consituency they need to favor on a given day, trusting that nobody will ever notice. It's our job to stay on top of this and expose them for the hypocritical megalomaniacs they really are.
I say thank you, thank you to all of those bloggers out there who are holding these dangerous power mad Leftists' feet to the fire on a daily, sometimes hourly, basis. It may be our only hope.
Tom Tomorrow parses the "Not In Our Name" statement and is SHOCKED, just SHOCKED by how much these people hate America.
Once upon a time Instapundit posted this:
Sure, you can criticize Israel without being antisemitic. But when you criticize Israel for things you ignore in others, it raises certain doubts.
I agreed with it at the time, and still do, although that doesn't justify taking it to its illogical extreme as he seems enjoy doing all too often. In fact, if I generalized the statement like this:
Sure, you can criticze X without being <...>. But when you criticize X for things you ignore in others, it raises certain doubts.
and applied it to his weblog, imagine all of the conclusions I could draw.
Or anyone's.
Sure, you can criticize Israel without being antisemitic. But when you criticize Israel for things you ignore in others, it raises certain doubts.
I agreed with it at the time, and still do, although that doesn't justify taking it to its illogical extreme as he seems enjoy doing all too often. In fact, if I generalized the statement like this:
Sure, you can criticze X without being <...>. But when you criticize X for things you ignore in others, it raises certain doubts.
and applied it to his weblog, imagine all of the conclusions I could draw.
Or anyone's.
MaxSpeaks on Instapundit, better than I could do it:
INSTAPUNDIT ON THE ISLAM-LOVING LEFT: "HOMINA HOMINA HOMINA . . . " Boy, that was fast. They don't call him InstaPundit for nothing. He responds to unnamed readers as follows:
" . . . some people dispute my assertion that there are lefties who like fundamentalist Islam. Well, there certainly seem to be a lot of people -- Chomsky, Kingsolver, Edward Said, etc., who miss no opportunity to criticize the United States' war against terror, while saying very little about the practices of our enemies."
Well, criticism of the US war against terror certainly seems to not be the same thing as "show[ing] an unaccountable affection for fundamentalist Islam." Are these weasel words or what? As IP's own example reflects, there is actual collaboration between fundamentalist Islam and fundamentalist Christianity, so using this as a point of departure for attacking the left is positively Orwellian.
IP's other bit of evidence is the Taliban's support for the "Not In Our Name" statement by U.S. anti-war liberals. The Taliban's motives for citing the ad are not complicated. If you read the statement you will find exactly zero "affection for fundamentalist Islam." So the inescapable conclusion is that Instapundit has insta-lied.
INSTAPUNDIT ON THE ISLAM-LOVING LEFT: "HOMINA HOMINA HOMINA . . . " Boy, that was fast. They don't call him InstaPundit for nothing. He responds to unnamed readers as follows:
" . . . some people dispute my assertion that there are lefties who like fundamentalist Islam. Well, there certainly seem to be a lot of people -- Chomsky, Kingsolver, Edward Said, etc., who miss no opportunity to criticize the United States' war against terror, while saying very little about the practices of our enemies."
Well, criticism of the US war against terror certainly seems to not be the same thing as "show[ing] an unaccountable affection for fundamentalist Islam." Are these weasel words or what? As IP's own example reflects, there is actual collaboration between fundamentalist Islam and fundamentalist Christianity, so using this as a point of departure for attacking the left is positively Orwellian.
IP's other bit of evidence is the Taliban's support for the "Not In Our Name" statement by U.S. anti-war liberals. The Taliban's motives for citing the ad are not complicated. If you read the statement you will find exactly zero "affection for fundamentalist Islam." So the inescapable conclusion is that Instapundit has insta-lied.
Avedon Carol wonders why everyone calls him "General Ashcroft." This is incorrect, of course. He is Attorney General Ashcroft, with the general not referring to any rank-like designation.
The correct plural form is Attorneys General.
The correct plural form is Attorneys General.
Brian Linse has his long-awaited post on the "gunshow loophole."
I was going to get around to posting on this eventually, but he basically makes the same point I would have made, only he isn't quite as lazy as me so he took the time to do more research to back it up.
It seems that, in the end, it depends on the meaning of the word "loophole." Instapundit and others have argued that there is no loophole, as federal law applies everywhere (duh), or that if there is a loophole it is simply an enforcement loophole - that the ATF is less likely to do their job at gun shows.
However, there is a Third Way in this, which is what I think Linse is getting at - that the law itself can make enforcement difficult if not impossible at gun shows. One can call it an issue of enforcement if you want, but it doesn't change the fact that would-be gun dealers can likely get away with doing things at gun shows that they couldn't do if they set up their own store. And, this isn't simply because the the ATF is choosing not to enforce the laws at gun shows, it's that the law makes it much more difficult to do so.
I also agree that this isn't necessarily the big deal that some gun control advocates make it out to be, but I also agree with Linse that this is one way for would-be terrorists to get arms without being tracked. But, important or not, the gun show "loophole" is not a myth, states can enact laws to "close" it, and it seems that some Clintonian parsing is required to argue otherwise.
I was going to get around to posting on this eventually, but he basically makes the same point I would have made, only he isn't quite as lazy as me so he took the time to do more research to back it up.
It seems that, in the end, it depends on the meaning of the word "loophole." Instapundit and others have argued that there is no loophole, as federal law applies everywhere (duh), or that if there is a loophole it is simply an enforcement loophole - that the ATF is less likely to do their job at gun shows.
However, there is a Third Way in this, which is what I think Linse is getting at - that the law itself can make enforcement difficult if not impossible at gun shows. One can call it an issue of enforcement if you want, but it doesn't change the fact that would-be gun dealers can likely get away with doing things at gun shows that they couldn't do if they set up their own store. And, this isn't simply because the the ATF is choosing not to enforce the laws at gun shows, it's that the law makes it much more difficult to do so.
I also agree that this isn't necessarily the big deal that some gun control advocates make it out to be, but I also agree with Linse that this is one way for would-be terrorists to get arms without being tracked. But, important or not, the gun show "loophole" is not a myth, states can enact laws to "close" it, and it seems that some Clintonian parsing is required to argue otherwise.
It just came to my attention that Dennis Kucinich was one of the ones who voted to begin impeachment proceedings against Clinton.
Screw you, Dennis.
Screw you, Dennis.
Hey you States' Rights fetishists, why don't you raise a little stink about this amendment to prevent states from going after firms that violate securities laws? (via TAPPED)
Stick a fork in this idiot...
Looks like Kathleen Kennedy Townsend's opponent for the Maryland governor's race, Robert Ehrlich, needs to get whacked with a cluestick.
First he unsuccessfully (and publically) courts a Democrat..
Then he sends out this fundraising letter:..
"Dear Friend," the letter begins, "If you don't want to see another 'President Kennedy,' I need your immediate support."
It goes on to explain why "common-sense Americans" should donate to his campaign.
"If you and I fail to defeat Kathleen Kennedy Townsend in this race, her next step will be to run for president against George W. Bush" in 2004, Ehrlich tells potential donors.
which is both ignorant and cruel, as explained here:
Matthew Crenson, a political science professor at the Johns Hopkins University, said the tone of Ehrlich's letter "takes my breath away."
Crenson said the letter breaks two political rules:
"You don't knock an assassinated president."
"You don't tout your opponent as a presidential candidate."
How many governor's races are we going to win this year?
Looks like Kathleen Kennedy Townsend's opponent for the Maryland governor's race, Robert Ehrlich, needs to get whacked with a cluestick.
First he unsuccessfully (and publically) courts a Democrat..
Then he sends out this fundraising letter:..
"Dear Friend," the letter begins, "If you don't want to see another 'President Kennedy,' I need your immediate support."
It goes on to explain why "common-sense Americans" should donate to his campaign.
"If you and I fail to defeat Kathleen Kennedy Townsend in this race, her next step will be to run for president against George W. Bush" in 2004, Ehrlich tells potential donors.
which is both ignorant and cruel, as explained here:
Matthew Crenson, a political science professor at the Johns Hopkins University, said the tone of Ehrlich's letter "takes my breath away."
Crenson said the letter breaks two political rules:
"You don't knock an assassinated president."
"You don't tout your opponent as a presidential candidate."
How many governor's races are we going to win this year?
Monday, June 17, 2002
So, let's sum up. We have a news story about the Bush administration cozying up with Islamic Fundamentalistish types used to pick on mythical fundamentalist-loving Lefties, as proven by Robert Fisk's comment that the Taliban built a road or two and Edward Said, a Christian Palestinian-American, throwing a rock towards Israel.
The thing is, I'm quite shocked you couldn't do better than that.
The thing is, I'm quite shocked you couldn't do better than that.
Josh Marshall is convinced that Deep Throat is Pat Buchanan.
Certainly one of the "fun" possibilities.
Certainly one of the "fun" possibilities.
According to Bob Nofacts on CNN, the rumor is that Tom Ridge will replace Norm Mineta as Secretary of Transportation and Andy Card will become the new head of Fatherland Security, or whatever we're calling it this week.
Now who will poor Annie blame for the Bataan Death March through airport security..
Now who will poor Annie blame for the Bataan Death March through airport security..
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)