Un-FREAKIN'-believable! Now we have a major metropolitan newspaper calling for the release of the little jihadi pig from California. I'll just quote the whole thing, as it is utterly beyond belief.

The president's power to grant clemency -- in the form of either a pardon or a commutation -- is much maligned and occasionally abused, as was the case when President Bush used it to keep his colleague, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, from facing even a day in prison for lying and obstructing justice. But the power has its appropriate uses as well, and the case of John Walker Lindh calls out for it.

Known unfortunately as "the American Taliban," Lindh became a symbol for fanaticism, even treason, in the early months of the nation's response to Sept. 11. He was apprehended in late 2001 in the mountains of Afghanistan, where, at the age of 20, he was serving in the army of a nation that harbored terrorists, including Osama bin Laden. Weak and wounded, he was blindfolded and duct-taped naked to a stretcher, kept incommunicado in an uninsulated shipping container and interrogated by intelligence and FBI agents. Once home, he was charged with terrorism in a 10-count indictment, deliberately sought by the government in the Eastern District of Virginia, then still reeling from the attack on the Pentagon.

Lindh was pilloried by officials at the highest levels of the government. Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft called him an "Al Qaeda-trained terrorist," and the charges against Lindh originally included conspiring to commit terrorism. Those charges were dropped, however, and Lindh today is serving time not for any act committed against the United States, but for violating a Clinton-era presidential order that prohibits providing "services" to the Taliban. Lindh, who converted to Islam as a teenager, joined the Taliban before Sept. 11, not after; he did so to fight the Northern Alliance, not the United States. Lindh never took up arms against this country. He never engaged in terrorism; indeed, his commitment to Islam leads him to oppose the targeting of civilians.

John Walker Lindh broke the law. He pleaded guilty to the one crime of which he was guilty -- aiding the Taliban -- and to carrying a gun and hand grenades in the service of that regime's war against the Northern Alliance. For that, he deserved to go to prison, and he should not receive a pardon. He is a felon, and his record should never be cleared.

The issue, then, is not Lindh's guilt but his sentence. He was ordered to spend 20 years in prison, far longer than comparably situated defendants. Maher Mofeid Hawash pleaded guilty to violating the same law, and, after he agreed to cooperate, the government recommended that he serve seven to 10 years in prison. Yaser Esam Hamdi, who fought with Lindh in the Taliban military, was released back to Saudi Arabia in 2004, having spent less than four years in custody. David Hicks, an Australian, pleaded guilty to terror charges before a military commission and was sentenced to nine months. Of all the suspects rounded up across the world in the administration's war on terror, only shoe bomber Richard Reid, who actively attempted to destroy a plane in flight, is serving a longer sentence than Lindh. And to deepen the inequity, Lindh's sentence also gags him, preventing him from protesting his confinement or discussing his interrogation and treatment.

Some will object that Lindh pleaded guilty knowing he could receive this sentence. His plea was entered, however, under what one can only call extreme duress. A poll of potential jurors in the Eastern District of Virginia at that time found that more than a third were ready to sentence him to death without even hearing the case against him. His lawyers cut the best deal they could, but Lindh has spent nearly a quarter of his life in custody for his foolish decision to pursue his religious convictions by aiding another country in its civil war. Without relief, he will spend another dozen years, at least, behind bars.

The concept of mercy spans testaments and faiths, and any system of justice requires the embrace of mercy for leavening and legitimacy. In this case, justice has been served by Lindh's time in prison. Now Bush is uniquely positioned to grant mercy, for while many will long argue over the effectiveness of his war on terror, none question his commitment to it. By giving Lindh a commutation, Bush could prove that his war is, as he often and properly asserts, not against Islam but against those who seek to harm America. Lindh never sought to harm his country; he has served long enough. Bush should send him home.

John Walker Lindh deserved nothing less than a bullet to the back of the head. So does every other terrorist. He was, in fact, involved in a prison uprising that resulted in the death of a CIA agent. His release even one second short of 20 years would be a travesty of justice even greater than the one that occurred when a jury was not allowed impose a sentence that would have sent him to join the rest of his ilk in Hell.

UPDATE PoweLine details the crimes of John Walker Lindh

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, The Virtuous Republic, Is It Just Me?, Big Dog's Weblog, Right Truth, Stuck On Stupid, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, Pursuing Holiness, The Magical Rose Garden, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, Stageleft, Wake Up America, Pirate's Cove, Nuke's news and views, The Pink Flamingo, Wyvern Dreams, CommonSenseAmerica, Dumb Ox Daily News, Church and State, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, 123beta, DeMediacratic Nation, Adam's Blog, Webloggin, Cao's Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, , Conservative Cat, Jo's Cafe, Conservative Thoughts, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, High Desert Wanderer, and Public Eye, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 05:18 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 999 words, total size 9 kb.

And so we didn't get intel about bin Laden from the Brits in 1998.

Ministers insisted that British secret agents would only be allowed to pass intelligence to the CIA to help it capture Osama bin Laden if the agency promised he would not be tortured, it has emerged.

MI6 believed it was close to finding the al-Qaida leader in Afghanistan in 1998, and again the next year. The plan was for MI6 to hand the CIA vital information about Bin Laden. Ministers including Robin Cook, the then foreign secretary, gave their approval on condition that the CIA gave assurances he would be treated humanely. The plot is revealed in a 75-page report by parliament's intelligence and security committee on rendition, the practice of flying detainees to places where they may be tortured.

You see, the practice of rendition -- much condemned by terrorist-sympathizing liberals today -- was begun by one William Jefferson Clinton during his term as President. The British wanted assurances that the terrorist mastermind would not be subject to that practice before they would help the US capture him.

It is therefore fair to say (using the rhetoric of the deranged left-wingers who place the comfort of terrorists above the lives of innocents) that Bill Clinton's policy favoring torture was a proximate cause of 9/11.

I'm wonder what the position of the leading Democrat presidential candidate is on this revelation?

H/T Don Surber, Say Anything

Posted by: Greg at 04:53 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 248 words, total size 2 kb.

Even though the folks there have this funny tendency to be terrorists -- and return to terrorism after release.

AT LEAST 30 former Guantanamo Bay detainees have been killed or recaptured after taking up arms against allied forces following their release.

They have been discovered mostly in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but not in Iraq, a US Defence Department spokesman told The Age yesterday.

Commander Jeffrey Gordon said the detainees had, while in custody, falsely claimed to be farmers, truck drivers, cooks, small-arms merchants, low-level combatants or had offered other false explanations for being in Afghanistan.

"We are aware of dozens of cases where they have returned to militant activities, participated in anti-US propaganda or engaged in other activities," said Commander Gordon.

I guess we can just chalk that one up as another inconvenient truth for the Democrats -- one that the US media is likely to ignore because it doesn't fit with their skewed view on the crusade against jihadism.

H/T Malkin

Posted by: Greg at 04:39 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 176 words, total size 1 kb.

After all, we know that those folks at Gitmo are all innocent and being unjustly held. They were never terrorists, and would never engage in terrorist activities after their release -- right?

A former Guantanamo Bay prisoner wanted for the 2004 kidnapping of two Chinese engineers in Pakistan blew himself up with a grenade during a clash with security forces on Tuesday, officials said.

One-legged Taliban militant Abdullah Mehsud killed himself to avoid capture after troops raided his hideout, interior ministry spokesman Brigadier Javed Cheema told AFP.

The Islamic rebel's death comes amid intensifying US pressure on President Pervez Musharraf to take military action against Al-Qaeda and Taliban safe havens in tribal areas along the border with Afghanistan.

"Abdullah Mehsud blew himself up with a grenade and died when security forces raided his hideout. Three of his accomplices were arrested," Cheema said.

Mehsud, 32, became the leader of Pakistani Taliban insurgents based in South Waziristan in 2004, after Pakistani forces launched military operations in the troubled tribal region.

So just remember, next time some liberal starts ranting about Guantanamo Bay -- there have been a number of released Guantanamo detainees who have returned to their terrorist ways. Why would we want the place closed -- or the remaining detainees brought into our heartland?

Posted by: Greg at 01:12 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 231 words, total size 2 kb.

The New York Post sums up the entire argument in favor of immunizing those who report suspected terrorist threats.

No American who reports suspicious activity to police - truthfully and in good faith - should ever have to fear a lawsuit. It's the most basic of civic duties, and it's desperately necessary.

Even if one ascribes the best, most benign of motives to the six imams removed from a flight last fall (something very hard to do, given the involvement of CAIR with this lawsuit), it is quite easy to see the problem raised by allowing such litigation. It reared its ugly head in the Fort Dix terrorism investigation -- the first reaction of an individual with information on possible terrorist activities was "will this get me sued?" If the answer is that it will, it is likely that the next successful terrorist attack in this country will be followed by reports that many were suspicious of the perpetrators but were too afraid of financial ruin to make a call to the authorities -- and that our own legal system will have become a tool in the hands of the jihadis.

Posted by: Greg at 11:22 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 207 words, total size 1 kb.

In an attempt to defend Islam from criticism by non-Muslims, scholar Karen Armstrong seeks to redefine the Western notion of tolerance.

But equally the cartoonists and their publishers, who seemed impervious to Muslim sensibilities, failed to live up to their own liberal values, since the principle of free speech implies respect for the opinions of others.

Excuse me -- since when does the principle of freedom of speech imply respect for the opinions of others? Indeed, I'd argue quite differently -- a commitment to the principle of freedom of speech implies respect for the right of others to hold and express an opinion that one does not respect, or even that one holds in contempt.

Posted by: Greg at 12:54 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 119 words, total size 1 kb.

I understand that confidentiality is sometimes a useful and responsible tool for journalists.

That said, does this example go too far?

A female survivor of this month's violent storming by Pakistani forces of Islamabad's Red Mosque has spoken of how she wanted to be a suicide bomber.

The 18-year-old told the BBC Urdu Service that she was not held hostage by militants but had willingly remained behind during the week-long siege.

The woman, who asked not to be named, said she was prepared to carry out a suicide attack to defend the mosque.

I'm sorry, but this does not strike me as a responsible application of the principle of confidentiality. You have someone who indicates that she wishes to engage in acts of terrorism. Shouldn't her name be proclaimed to the public, so that all decent people can shun her and governments can keep a close watch upon her?

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT The Virtuous Republic, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Perri Nelson's Website, 123beta, DeMediacratic Nation, Jeanette's Celebrity Corner, Right Truth, Big Dog's Weblog, Maggie's Notebook, The Pet Haven Blog, Webloggin, Stuck On Stupid, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, Cao's Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Phastidio.net, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, third world county, Right Celebrity, Woman Honor Thyself, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, stikNstein... has no mercy, Blue Star Chronicles, Nuke's news and views, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, CommonSenseAmerica, Dumb Ox Daily News, and Church and State, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 11:55 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 247 words, total size 4 kb.

That there is no al-Qaeda presence in Iraq, and that is why the Democrats are ready to withdraw.

But if that is the case, I really don't see how this could have happened.

The highest-ranking Iraqi leader of al-Qaida in Iraq has been arrested and told interrogators that Osama bin Laden's inner circle wields considerable influence over the Iraqi group, the U.S. command said Wednesday.

Khaled Abdul-Fattah Dawoud Mahmoud al-Mashhadani, who was captured in Mosul on July 4, carried messages from bin Laden, and his deputy Ayman al-Zawahri, to the Egyptian-born head of al-Qaida in Iraq, Abu Ayub al-Masri, said Brig. Gen. Kevin Bergner, a military spokesman.

"Communication between the senior al-Qaida leadership and al-Masri frequently went through al-Mashhadani," Bergner said. "There is a clear connection between al-Qaida in Iraq and al-Qaida senior leadership outside Iraq."

And it is also clear that one of the main terrorist groups in Iraq is an al-Qaeda front.

"Along with al-Masri, al-Mashhadani co-founded a virtual organization in cyberspace called the Islamic State of Iraq in 2006," Bergner said. "The Islamic State of Iraq is the latest efforts by al-Qaida to market itself and its goal of imposing a Taliban-like state on the Iraqi people."

In Web postings, the Islamic State of Iraq has identified its leader as Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, with al-Masri as minister of war. There are no known photos of al-Baghdadi.

Bergner said al-Mashhadani had told interrogators that al-Baghdadi is a "fictional role" created by al-Masri and that an actor is used for audio recordings of speeches posted on the Web.

"In his words, the Islamic State of Iraq is a front organization that masks the foreign influence and leadership within al-Qaida in Iraq in an attempt to put an Iraqi face on the leadership of al-Qaida in Iraq," Bergner said.

He said al-Mashhadani was a leader of the militant Ansar al-Sunnah group before joining al-Qaida in Iraq 2 1/2 years ago. Al-Mashhadani served as the al-Qaida media chief for Baghdad and then was appointed the media chief for the whole country.

Damn -- it must suck to be claiming that Iraq is where the terrorists aren't, only to find another one of them there. I guess they'll just have to find some other reason to cut-and-run -- maybe it is time for the Democrats to attack the troops again.

Posted by: Greg at 05:57 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 398 words, total size 3 kb.

A little example of Leftist moral equivalence.

<

I'm waiting for all the liberals who allegedly support our American troops to speak out and denounce Ted Rall over this one.

Unless, of course, they agree with Rall's depiction of the American fighting man.

Somehow, I expect that we will be getting a deafening silence from the cut-and-run crowd -- who, like Rall, are much more supportive of this.

More At Michelle Malkin, Q and O, I'm A Pundit Too, Pat Dollard, NewsBusters, Say Anything, MoxArgon Group

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Pursuing Holiness, third world county, Right Celebrity, Woman Honor Thyself, Wake Up America, Pirate's Cove, Nuke's news and views, The Pink Flamingo, CommonSenseAmerica, Church and State, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, guerrilla radio, DeMediacratic Nation, 123beta, Adam's Blog, Webloggin, Phastidio.net, Cao's Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, , Conservative Cat, Faultline USA, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, CORSARI D'ITALIA, Public Eye, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 05:36 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 190 words, total size 5 kb.

One could, however, ask why this is the case.

Analysts and intelligence experts say the speed and frequency with which Ayman al-Zawahri has been issuing statements recently does not reflect the actions of a man cowering in a remote cave, cut off from the outside world and unable to direct terror operations.

If anything, the video and audio tapes offer chilling evidence that al-Qaida's leaders are in greater command than previously feared.

"The notion of them hiding in a deep, dark primitive cave isolated from electricity and all communication with the outside is strongly misguided," said Ben Venzke of the IntelCenter, a U.S.-based intelligence group that monitors terrorism messages. "The speed which they have demonstrated (getting messages out) shows that they are far from cut off."

Personally, I'd argue that the reason that al-Qaeda leaders are more confident is the rise of world and national leaders less interested in fighting terrorism than in engaging with terrorists. After all, given the departure of tony Blair from Downing Street and the rise of the cut-and-run Democrats, prospects of an eventual al-Qaeda victory are looking brighter. Why not go on the offensive, in the hopes of forcing a US and British surrender much more quickly?

Posted by: Greg at 01:26 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 214 words, total size 1 kb.

Coming in from Syria.

Underscoring the threat, police searching a truck that had entered from neighboring Syria found 200 suicide belts and packs of explosives, the Interior Ministry said.

It was unclear who was behind the shipment, but U.S. commanders say al Qaeda is increasingly utilizing suicide vests because many vulnerable targets such as outdoor markets have been walled off to stop suicide car bombs getting in.

This should be front page news, not buried in a story. Clearly, al-Qaeda is after the civilians because they can have no significant impact upon the troops.

Posted by: Greg at 12:26 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 102 words, total size 1 kb.

Animal rights terrorists.

A gasoline-filled device in a car bomb fails to go off. Authorities investigating another bombing incident find that after a first bomb exploded, a second bomb was timed to go off when first responders arrived. A recent event in the United Kingdom? Yes, but also in California.

Last week, the Los Angeles Times reported that a bomb was discovered outside the Westside home of Dr. Arthur Rosenbaum, the chief of pediatric ophthalmology at UCLA's Jules Stein Eye Institute. The car bomb failed to explode, despite apparent attempts to detonate it.

I'm curious -- why didn't the media in this country pick up the story and run with it, alerting the American public to the threat in this country and not just the jihadis attacking the UK?

And why aren't more of us familiar with this terrorist ring leader, who walks among us as a free man.

So far, animal rights activists have not killed anyone in the United States, but that does not mean Americans should not fear these extremists. In October 2005, Dr. Jerry Vlasak, a Southern California trauma surgeon who is a leader of the North American Animal Liberation Front, testified before the U.S. Senate and defended killing researchers in order to stop research using animals.

"I don't think you'd have to kill -- assassinate -- too many," Vlasak opined. "I think for 5 lives, 10 lives, 15 human lives, we could save a million, 2 million or 10 million nonhuman lives.''

And the threats of violence and intimidation work. Last year, UCLA researcher Dario Ringach sent an e-mail to Vlasak in which he proclaimed, "You win" -- he would stop research with animals. Vlasak sent out a triumphant press release.

Vlasak told the Daily Bruin that activists had tried to stop Rosenbaum's research by appealing to UCLA administrators but had failed. "All reasonable attempts have failed, so we're going to take it to the next level," Vlasak told the student paper.

Where is the federal action against Vlasak and his cohorts? Where is the media coverage? And when will the American people stand up and insist that a stop be put to this threat to American lives -- and scientific research that has the potential to save human lives.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Diary of the Mad Pigeon, third world county, Faultline USA, Stageleft, Big Dog's Weblog, Right Truth, Walls of the City, The Pet Haven Blog, The Pink Flamingo, The Bullwinkle Blog, Conservative Cat, Adeline and Hazel, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 05:49 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 430 words, total size 4 kb.

And they make no bones about it.

It is time for the United States to leave Iraq, without any more delay than the Pentagon needs to organize an orderly exit.

And for all the editorial attempts to whitewash it, the "negotiated settlement" to the war in Iraq is nothing more than a call to negotiate the terms under which the United States will surrender. And the editorial also fails to explain how withdrawal and retrenchment from Iraq proper will keep al-Qaeda from following the troops to wherever they go -- be that Kurdistan, Kuwait, or Kansas.

The only up-sides I can see to this outcome will be burqas for Maureen Dowd and Rosie O'Donnell.

Posted by: Greg at 01:06 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 126 words, total size 1 kb.

Sounds bad -- but I think I understand the reasoning.

A secret military operation in early 2005 to capture senior members of Al Qaeda in PakistanÂ’s tribal areas was aborted at the last minute after top Bush administration officials decided it was too risky and could jeopardize relations with Pakistan, according to intelligence and military officials.

The target was a meeting of Qaeda leaders that intelligence officials thought included Ayman al-Zawahri, Osama bin LadenÂ’s top deputy and the man believed to run the terrorist groupÂ’s operations.

But the mission was called off after Donald H. Rumsfeld, then the defense secretary, rejected an 11th-hour appeal by Porter J. Goss, then the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, officials said. Members of a Navy Seals unit in parachute gear had already boarded C-130 cargo planes in Afghanistan when the mission was canceled, said a former senior intelligence official involved in the planning.

Mr. Rumsfeld decided that the operation, which had ballooned from a small number of military personnel and C.I.A. operatives to several hundred, was cumbersome and put too many American lives at risk, the current and former officials said. He was also concerned that it could cause a rift with Pakistan, an often reluctant ally that has barred the American military from operating in its tribal areas, the officials said.

As one looks at that explanation, it become very clear why they didn't complete the operation -- it was too complex to complete successfully AND would have constituted an act of war against Pakistan, a putative ally in the War on Terror. What's more, the attack would have dangerously undermined the Musharraf government -- and possibly led to the establishment of an Islamist government that would have been less cooperative with the US and more cooperative with the terrorists.

Of course, this is one of those "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situations.

Having aborted the mission on sound grounds, the Bush Administration's opponents can question the seriousness and competence of the administration. Had the operation moved forward, the administration would be blamed for the negative consequences with regard to Pakistan -- not to mention the criticisms that would have been leveled had the mission failed.

Posted by: Greg at 12:46 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 379 words, total size 2 kb.

Didn't the terrorist leader get the latest talking points from the Democrats?

A new video by al-Qaida's deputy leader Thursday left no doubt about what the terror network claims is at stake in Iraq — describing it as a centerpiece of its anti-American fight and insisting the Iraqi insurgency is under its direct leadership.

But the proclamations by Ayman al-Zawahri carried another unintended message: reflecting the current troubles confronting the Sunni extremists in Iraq, experts said.

The Islamic State of Iraq, the insurgent umbrella group that is claimed by al-Qaida, has faced ideological criticism from some militants, and rival armed groups have even joined U.S. battles against it. A U.S.-led offensive northwest of Baghdad — in one of the Islamic State's strongholds — may have temporarily disrupted and scattered insurgent forces.

"Some of the developments suggest that it (the Islamic State) is more fragile than it was before," said Bruce Hoffman, a Washington-based terrorism expert at the Rand Corp. think tank.

Al-Zawahri "is trying to replenish the Islamic State brand," he said. "It's time to reassert its viability, but how connected to reality that is, is another issue."

In the unusually long video — at just over an hour and a half — al-Zawahri depicted the Islamic State of Iraq as a vanguard for fighting off the U.S. military and eventually establishing a "caliphate" of Islamic rule across the region.

But wait -- if al-Qaeda says there are terrorists in Iraq and that it is the central front in the war on terrorism, doesn't that mean that the Democrats are wrong when they claim that neither of those things are true? Furthermore, if the Democrats succeed in getting American troops out of Iraq, doesn't that mean that they are handing al-Qaeda precisely the victory that terrorist group is seeking?

Not, of course, that the Democrats would ever seek to undercut US troops in the field and hand victory to our enemies *cough!* Vietnam *cough*.

H/T Llama Butchers

Posted by: Greg at 12:31 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 339 words, total size 2 kb.

But then again, given the connections of the Council on American-Islamic Relations and its staffers to terrorist groups and activities, why should we expect them to support American values?

An Islamic advocacy group is urging its supporters to call a Washington, D.C., radio station to "express your concerns about the Islamophobic attitudes" expressed by conservative columnist and author Cal Thomas.

In a commentary on news-talk WTOP radio Monday morning, Thomas discussed the car-bomb terror attacks recently thwarted in the United Kingdom. The eight Muslims arrested in connection with the plot include several physicians.

"How much longer should we allow people from certain lands, with certain beliefs to come to Britain and America and build their mosques, teach hate, and plot to kill us?" Thomas asked.

He also compared Muslims to a "slow spreading cancer" that must be stopped.

CAIR calls the comments incitement, though there is no call for violence or any activity at all. Indeed, the only thing this speech might incite is a call to public officials demanding that reasonable actions be taken to safeguard our nation from terrorist attacks like those in the UK last week -- attacks that CAIR somehow managed to avoid condemning on their website, even as they went after Cal Thomas for daring to express a thought the group dislikes.

So here's what we need to do in response -- if CAIR is going to target Thomas with a campaign to pressure WTOP to get rid of him, we should be just as forceful in supporting Cal Thomas. Fortunately, CAIR has even provided us with the contact information.

CONTACT:
Jim Farley, WTOP Programming Vice President
Tel: 202-895-5071
Fax: 202-895-5088
Email: jfarley@wtopnews.com

And if you want, you can even include the requested CC to CAIR -- just to let them know what the overwhelming majority of Americans think about Islamic terrorism and those who support it.

COPY TO: info@cair.com

Your choice on that one.

But regardless, we must make sure that this terrorist supporting organization is unsuccessful in silencing voices against terrorism.

Posted by: Greg at 02:38 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 352 words, total size 2 kb.

That is a question one has to ask as a result of reading this report.

The next terrorist assault on the United States is likely to come through relatively unsophisticated, near-simultaneous attacks -- similar to those attempted in Britain over the weekend -- designed more to provoke widespread fear and panic than to cause major losses of life, U.S. intelligence and counterterrorism officials believe.

Such attacks require minimal expertise and training and are difficult to prevent. Although British investigators have not claimed al-Qaeda involvement in the latest incidents, officials here said they may constitute a "hybrid" phenomenon, in which al-Qaeda inspires and guides local groups from afar but establishes no visible operational or logistical links.

The connection, several officials said, is made through a growing network of al-Qaeda intermediaries and affiliates who are far removed from the organization's leadership.

"What is a direct link?" asked one counterterrorism official. "Is it couriers? Messengers?" U.S. officials "from very senior folks" on down, he said, are watching as the British work to reconstruct the attacks and trace their origin.

And if we start seeing attacks modeled on this one, emanating from the Muslim community without direct links to al-Qaeda, then that will raise a much more serious question -- how do we stop these attacks? And perhaps just as pressing, how do we treat a community that will have become a metastasized cancer in our midst?

Posted by: Greg at 02:22 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 251 words, total size 2 kb.

Too bad he wasn't more forthright like this when he was still in office. It would have really put the jihadi Muslims and their supporters in the UK on the defensive.

'The idea that as a Muslim in this country that you don't have the freedom to express your religion or your views, I mean you've got far more freedom in this country than you do in most Muslim countries,' Blair told Observer columnist Will Hutton, who presents the documentary.

'The reason we are finding it hard to win this battle is that we're not actually fighting it properly. We're not actually standing up to these people and saying, "It's not just your methods that are wrong, your ideas are absurd. Nobody is oppressing you. Your sense of grievance isn't justified."'

Blair held out the example of the overthrow of the Taliban in Afghanistan - criticised by Islamists as an example of the heavy-handed imperial West oppressing Muslims - to highlight unfounded claims of grievance. He asked how it is possible to claim that Afghanistan's Muslims are being oppressed when the Taliban 'used to execute teachers for teaching girls in schools'.

Blair added: 'How are [we] oppressing them? You're oppressing them when you support the people who are trying to blow them up.'

But then again, since the US, UK, and Israel are the axis of evil in the eyes of those opposed to the war against jihadi terrorists, I don't know that we could ever convince them differently, even with appeals to common sense like this one.

Posted by: Greg at 01:46 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 265 words, total size 2 kb.

After all, they cannot let good news be seen as good news.

The number of civilians killed in Iraq fell sharply in June to the lowest monthly total since a U.S.-backed security clampdown was launched in February, Iraqi government figures showed on Sunday.

The data, obtained from the ministries of interior, defense and health, showed 1,227 civilians died violently in June, a 36-percent fall from May and the lowest level in five months.

U.S. military officials said it was premature to draw conclusions about the effects of the crackdown, which is seen as a last ditch effort to avert full-scale sectarian civil war between majority Shi'ites and minority Sunni Arabs.

"We continue to be cautiously optimistic, (but) we are still very early in this process," said U.S. military spokesman Lieutenant-Colonel Christopher Garver.

The rest of the article then seems more interested in "what's wrong" rather than "what's right". Maybe it is that this story otherwise wouldn't fit with the "America is losing" template that most of the media and the Democrats (but I repeat myself) have adopted, or maybe it is the failure of the news media to recognize that in war you very rarely have instant complete success.

UPDATE: Not that we can forget the real problem is the brutal nature of the enemy we fight.

Posted by: Greg at 01:19 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 239 words, total size 2 kb.