What kind of video would these two make? Under a million dollar bail it’ll be centered around steel bars instead of the Steelers’ football stadium. More on this from Debbie Schlussel.
It’s good for the Iraqi people to see the rule of law in action, instead of the rules of torture, rape, and murder under Saddam Hussein. It can’t hurt Bush either in the sense that the Iraqi people would not have witnessed what they did today when Saddam got the noose thrown at him, were it not for the vision of George W. Bush.
The majority of Iraqis were dancing in the streets today in celebration of the verdict.
All except some Sunni Arabs that is. They protested Saddam’s conviction in the streets. The Sunnis, a minority of the overall population in the country, enjoyed privileged status during Saddam’s 30 years ruling Iraq. It takes a sorry lot of people to think that they are somehow better and entitled to privileged status over all others. Sort of like Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean and Harry Reid, but worse.
How long will it take before somebody starts calling for a retrial in an international court?
News of Saddam’s verdict has been tempered in the press. Some ‘fear’ that the news would be good for Bush. To which I say, to the victor goes the spoils. We have been hearing for years that Iraq is ‘Bush’s war,’ both he and the Iraqi people deserve some credit. One thing is certain, Democrats can’t take credit for prosecuting this war because they’ve been consumed with fighting to defeat Bush because of the war. I think I’ve said this before, but it bares repeating. If it’s good for America, it’s bad for the Democrats.
The Iraqi court is scheduledÂ November 5 to deliver a verdictÂ for Saddam Hussein over the killing of 148 Shi’ite Muslims in the village of Dujail, two days before mid-term elections in this country.Â If he is found guilty, Saddam could go to the gallows.Â Â So why would the court change itsÂ agenda based on the mid-term elections in the United States?Â According to Mariam Karouny in Baghdad,Â “A guilty verdict could reflect positively on Bush as a vindication of his policy to overthrow Saddam in 2003.”Â I’d like to think that Saddam’s conviction would be no small victory for the people of Iraq.Â Â And being witnesses to how a functioning democratically-elected government of Iraq will administer justice, I just don’t see themÂ delaying theÂ announcement of the verdict one minute.Â
We have been hearing for years that Iraq is ‘Bush’s war,’ so I say to the victor goes the spoils.Â They can’t take credit forÂ prosecuting this war because they’ve been consumed with fighting to defeat Bush because of the war.Â I think I’ve said this before, but it bares repeating.Â If it’s good for Bush, it’s bad for the democrats.Â
AÂ guilty verdict would be a correct verdict.Â And it wouldn’t hurt Bush if it came down on Nov. 5.Â Although Bush isn’t running for anything, the democrats’ anthemÂ has been all anti-Iraq war, anti-war-on-terror, anti-Bush, all the time.Â
Regardless of when the verdict is announced, the American people already understand which party is tough on terror, and which party wants to confer constitutional rights to enemy combatants.Â That Saddam will be found guilty is, IMHO, a forgone conclusion.Â
We’ve seen how events external to an election can flip the outcome, as in Spain.Â So what kind of message does this send to the people of Iraq, trying to get things together over there, to find out that the other political party in the USÂ wants to get out of Iraq at any cost, and leave them to the terrorists and death squads, and rape rooms, and torture rooms?Â Â With friends like that, who needs enemies?Â It makes being an ally of the US a risky venture at best.Â Another message that is sent around the world.
It will be instructive to see the democrat leadership’s reaction to a guilty verdict, after years of defending him.Â It’ll go something like this,Â but you ‘haven’t got Osama yet, where’s Osama?’
BAGHDAD (Reuters) – A court trying Saddam Hussein for crimes against humanity could delay its verdict by a few days, the chief prosecutor said on Sunday, in a move that would shift the announcement until after U.S. midterm elections. Read onÂ
The media has never been accused of being either ethically or morally upright in the way they carry out, some might say abuse, their journalistic responsibility.Â Just look at the speculation, or rather the eager anticipation, that Newsweek and MSNBC exhibit in this article.
Responsibility is sacrificed in favor of enabling the enemy.Â In their view, enabling the enemy will also enable Democrats to get elected.Â Given the chance to do either, they will.Â And if they can do both, all the better.
Watch for Al Qaeda’s press release at a mainstream media outlet near you.
CNN, the network that admits withholding news unfavorable to Saddam, is another example.
France is on the verge. On the verge of losing their country or of standing up to ‘immigrants’ who are not there to assimilate into French society. They want to be French society. The pain will be minimized because they will promptly surrender.
But what do you call, if not a violent uprising, a stat like more than 2500 French police officers were injured by Muslims and Muslim gang activity so far in 2006. The police are asking for armored cars to go into some neighborhoods.
And this. . .
France’s huge Muslim minority community has come under the influence of agents often influenced and financed by Al Qaida. These agents have recruited Muslim youngsters for urban warfare in which police and government representatives are injured daily.
Similar invasions are on-going in other European countries. Will Europe morph into something else? Will the United States morph into something else? How? Or better yet, why?
CNN demonstrates the synergy between the insurgents in Iraq and the media. If their ratings are so bad that they need to show videos of insurgent snipers killing our soldiers in Iraq, then theyÂ need to be expelled from the battlefield. Let the enemy do their own propaganda. But who thinks this is put out for ratings? It would fly well with terrorists in Iraq, and Iran, and Pakistan, and Afghanistan. So in that sense, ‘ratings’ could be a factor.
The truth is, this is merely another episode that helps to undermine the administration and the war effort, which has been the objective of the MSM and their friends in the Democrat party for years.
CNN’s David Doss, executive producer of Anderson Cooper’s show said:
“We also understood that this kind of footage is upsetting and disturbing for many viewers,” he said. “But after getting beyond the emotional debate, we concluded the tape meets our criteria for newsworthiness.”
“Whether or not you agree with us in this case, our goal, as always, is to present the unvarnished truth as best we can,” Doss said.
Consider this. We have been flooded with images, and videos, of our soldiers being attacked by IED’s in their humvees, trucks, and tanks. We see them in their hospital beds. We have all seen images of vehicles blown apart that had our soldiers in them. Now we get videos of an enemy sniper killing one of our soldiers.
OK fine. Lets recall images that they and the rest of the MSM thought differently about. Images that, from their perspective, were neither ‘newsworthy’ nor ‘unvarnished truth.’
- Our citizens, choosing to commit suicide by leaping from the upper floors of the WTC rather than be incinerated at the hands of the terrorists.
- The gruesome be-headings of Americans at the hands of the terrorists. If it was reported at all.
- We shouldn’t see the video of 9/11, because we, as a people, don’t have the mental toughness.
Where is CNN’s concern for the family of that soldier, not to mention the sensibilities of Americans period?
CNN’s Doss also said that they
understood that some critics might find that the tape had public relations benefits for the insurgency.
Well of course. And look at the choice they made. The media bias cannot be subtle any longer. Its in your face. You see, any unvarnished images of what our vicious enemy does to us, both here in the United States and overseas, would tend to underscore why we are in this war to begin with, and why the President is doing what he is doing to protect us, (Patriot act, military tribunals, effective interrogations, terrorist surveillance program) and is the reason they won’t show them. But, showing a video of one of our guys getting murdered tends to support their agenda of portraying this war as not winnable and that we should just get out of Iraq.
I haven’t seen anyone question when CNN got that video. On its face, showing the video is over the top, no matter when they got it. What if we were to learn that the video was held for a period only to show near election-time? And given recent history on this subject, who in their right mind would not suspect that?
Tune in to the al-CNN network for more terrorist propaganda, and Democrat talking points.
A staffer of Democrat, Rep. Jane Harman of California, who is the senior Democrat in the House Intelligence Committee, is looking like the one who shared the report to the New York Times, just weeks before the election. As an investigation begins in the committee, his security clearance is suspended. That, according to House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Peter Hoekstra of Michigan.
NewsMax article snippet:
Hoekstra acted after another Republican on the intelligence committee, Rep. Ray LaHood of Illinois, pointed out that the Democratic staff member requested and received a copy of the document from the office of U.S. intelligence chief John Negroponte just days before the leaks began to appear.
It’s about time that the Justice Department gets to the bottom of the leaking of top secret documents to the media.
In the you have to read it to believe it department, it is hard to believe that two of our border patrol agents will be serving time in prison for putting down violent drug smuggling illegals that violently attacked them.Â Debbie Schlussel has the details in American Tragedy.
It should be of no surprise to anyone that since the Patriot Act was passed, the vocal minority that wants it abolished will not shut up about it and get on with their lives. Well, unless you can propose something that can protect our lives better than that, you should just shut up. When you don’t like the law that you made, you change it. Pretty much the same way it was made. Meanwhile, about 63 percent of the country believe it is just fine.
This vocal minority spans party lines; it is the wacko ends of the democrat and republican parties. Talk about strange bedfellows. No, we won’t go there. I checked my thesaurus on wacko and it came up with crackpot, weirdo, lamebrain, nut, kook, dingbat, screwball, oddball, and ding-a-ling. So for lack of a more descriptive term, ‘wacko’ will do just fine.
The common thread in their opposition to the Patriot Act is their fear that it will be abused. If you follow this logic to it’s ultimate conclusion, they hold to the notion that we would be better off dead without the Patriot Act than to effectively deal with the real threats at hand. This perverse denial of reality defies reason. The reality is, there are people who want to kill us. The reality is, it’s going to take physical intervention to stop an attack from occurring. The reality is, shredding a document called the Patriot Act will pretty much guarantee that physical intervention will not occur.
How would these people answer this question? “Knowing that the enemy is in 68 countries and probably still in the United States, and knowing that they need money to operate, and knowing they use electronics to communicate, and knowing they fly airplanes, and have in fact used them to kill, and have hundreds of other ways to kill us, and will if given the chance: What would you do that would enable the government to pre-empt an attack here in the United States, better than what the Patriot Act can? You simply have to draw the line that yes, we are a free people, but we are not free to kill.
To Believe This
Is To Ignore This
Just a wild guess, but maybe if they got out in front of this issue by constantly denouncing any and all the terrorists attacks, instead of being mute, things might different. If profiling bothers you, get used to it. Expect it. If the terrorists matched a profile of a fat old white guy, I’d expect to be scrutinized more too. The silence coming from Mosques in our neighborhoods can too easily be misunderstood.
Poll: Muslims Face Bias in United States [NewsMax.com]