RedState brings us a link to an article about what happens when 250 or so terrorists in Afghanistan brag that they’re so much stronger than the American military, and attempt to squash 30 Marines:
Thirty United States Marines were ambushed and, over the course of the subsequent eight hours, proceeded to teach 250 bady guys an extremely valuable life lesson: Don’t ambush United States Marines!
‘Nuff said. Click through to RedState to get the link and read the whole article.
Â ABC News, and just about every other mainstream media news outlet, thought they had their damning evidence against the war in Iraq:
It’s government report the White House didn’t want you to read: yesterday the Pentagon canceled plans to send out a press release announcing the report’s availability and didn’t make the report available via email or online.
Based on the analysis of some 600,000 official Iraqi documents seized by US forces after the invasion and thousands of hours of interrogations of former officials in Saddam’s government now in US custody, the government report is the first official acknowledgment from the US military that there is no evidence Saddam had ties to al Qaeda.
That’s not really what the report says, though. As usual, it’s been spun to make readers believe what they want you to believe, instead of believing the facts. The report does not state there were no links, only that there was no evidence, in the small percentage of files they had examined, of an “operational link” — which is to say, Saddam wasn’t giving al-Qaeda orders.
Richard Miniter, writing for Pajamas Media, goes into great detail on what links were there, and concludes:
No connection? Well, Al-Qaeda and the Iraqi state certainly had a lot of meetings, money changed hands, some terrorist training occurred in Iraq, and a lot of personnel â€” including Abu Musab al Zarqawi â€” moved freely through the Iraqi police state. In short, there are connections.
None of this means that Iraq ran Al-Qaeda or had foreknowledge of its most gruesome attacks. It certainly does not mean Iraq was behind the 9-11 attacks or even knew about them in advance. [emphasis mine -- P]
Still, for there to be â€œno connectionâ€ between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, it would mean no meetings, no money, no training and no movement of personnel. On the strength of much weaker evidence, Saudi Arabia is â€œconnectedâ€ to Al-Qaeda. Why is Iraq the one nation given the benefit of the doubt?
Have a read.
I don’t know all the details on this story, so I’m opening up to commentary on the issue.
Yesterday the US Senate rejected an amendment to S.2248 (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2007) that would have removed language from the bill granting immunity to the telecommunications industry regarding wiretapping of terrorist communications, thus, essentially, granting such immunity. The bill was passed shortly thereafter. This language did not appear in the House version of the bill, so this will be hashed out in conference committee soon.
The measure will, if I’m reading this right, close up any ambiguity as to the legality of the NSA warrantless wiretapping program that President Bush enacted shortly after September 11, 2001. The imminity language, again, if I’m following this correctly, would protect the telecommunications industry from prosecution if any laws were broken before this legislation comes into effect.
I’m not sure where to come down on this issue. Maybe my understanding of criminal law is flawed, but if this bill makes the program legal, doesn’t it no longer matter if their activities were against the law before? The Bush Administration and the industry both keep saying it was legal before anyway, so if that were the case, wouldn’t the courts find in their favor anyway?
I open the topic up to your discussion, as it’s confusing the hell out of me. Keep your comments civil, or I reserve the right to edit or delete them, and I will be the sole arbiter of such.
Surprisingly, a news publication has recognized the work General David Petraeus has done in Iraq to help improve conditions and make it a better place for Iraqis to live, naming him Person of the Year.
Unsurprisingly, it was not a U.S.-based publication.
…the reason for picking Petraeus is simple. Iraq, whatever the current crises in Afghanistan and Pakistan, remains the Westâ€™s biggest foreign policy challenge of this decade, and if he can halt its slide into all-out anarchy, Gen Petraeus may save more than Iraqi lives.
A failed Iraq would not just be a second Vietnam, nor would it just be Americaâ€™s problem.
Click through to read further.
TEHRAN, Iran â€” Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Wednesday that the U.S.-brokered Mideast peace conference was a “failure” and that Israel is doomed to “collapse,” lashing out at the Annapolis gathering that many saw as aimed at isolating Iran.
“…even if I have to whip out my A-bomb and do it myself!!!1!one!”
I don’t believe it.
Seriously, I can’t believe I’m doing this.
I have to commend Chuck Schumer, because he did the right thing.
The confirmation of Judge Michael Mukasey to the post of Attorney General of the United States shouldn’t have anything to do with whether he thinks waterboarding is torture or not. It has everything to do with whether he upholds the law.
Sen. Schumer may not like that Mukasey won’t explicitly define waterboarding as torture, but frankly, it’s not Mukasey’s decision to make, it’s that of Congress, which Schumer noted in his statement endorsing the nominee’s confirmation:
In his statement Friday pledging continued support for Mukaseyâ€™s nomination, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., offered this significant (and significantly under-reported) nugget. Mukasey, Schumer wrote, â€œmade clear to me [in private] that, were Congress to pass a law banning certain interrogation techniques, we would clearly be acting within our constitutional authority. And he flatly told me that the President would have absolutely no legal authority to ignore such a law, not even under some theory of inherent authority under Article II of the Constitution. He also pledged to enforce such a law and repeated his willingness to leave office rather than participate in a violation of law.â€
Mukasey’s viewpoint on it, then, boils down to this: “My job would be a legal one, not a moral one. I may or may not have a problem with waterboarding, but it’s not illegal as the law is written, and can’t recommend against it on those grounds. If you want me to tell the President not to do it, you make it illegal.”
It’s exactly the right viewpoint for an Attorney General to have. Sen. Schumer is doing the right thing by supporting the confirmation on the grounds that, while they may not agree on issues, the nominee would perform his job to the letter of the law.
I’m happy to report that terrorism, global climate change, health care and the economy are no longer hugely pressing issues facing the United States. Nope, all fixed.
In fact, Rep. Mark Udall (D-CO) has nothing better to do with his time in Congress, so he’s proposing a resolution condemning the words of a radio talk show host.
This is, quite frankly, none of Congress’s business, and they should really consider getting back to more important work.Â Like I told Ross yesterday (though I had my number wrong)…Â little wonder why they have a 26% approval rating.
’nuff said: Ahmadinejad to Visit Ground Zero, Or Vice Versa.
(2007-09-19) â€” President George Bush today said he would consider â€œalternative meansâ€ to accommodate a request by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to visit â€˜Ground Zeroâ€˜, the former site of the World Trade Center towers, during his trip to the United Nations next week.
â€œYou know the old expression,â€ Mr. Bush said. â€œIf Mahmoud canâ€™t come to Ground Zero, we may have to bring Ground Zero to Mahmoud.â€
The White House refused to clarify the presidentâ€™s statement.