Further evidence of unseriousness: the New York Times increasingly-loopy editorial page makes the case that female interrogators seductively touching Muslim terrorists (in an effort to break them down) are essentially prostitutes. And of course it degrades them to be forced, or whatever, to act in such a way.

This is just further evidence that when liberals whine that our boys are dying they really don't care about our boys dying. They care about our enemies dying, about us inflicting our military might upon another country, but they know that's a political loser so they cast everything in terms of "our boys."

I don't think the New York Times is really all that bothered by paid, trained, voluntarily-enlisted female interrogators doing stuff in the service of our national security that Heather and Autumn down at Vixxxens do for $20 an hour plus tips. I think they're offended primarily that we're "humiliating" terrorists by these methods, but they know it's impolitic to admit their true concerns, so now they're shedding tears about "our girls."

In case the New York Times wasn't aware of it -- female spies have had to do a lot of things in the interests of collecting intelligence and making our country safer, some of it sexual and abhorrent to them on a personal level. Yes, honey-traps are usually baited with paid hookers and call-girls, but actual intelligence officers have sometimes had to lower themselves to similar sorts of service.

It's a dirty part of the job but sometimes people are willing to do dirty deeds in the service of patriotism.

Liberals are simply not serious about intelligence, warfare, or national security. They can pretend all they like; they can bloviate about bioweapons detectors in subway tubes and more inspections of cargo containers 'till the cows come home in an effort to show they're "serious" about defending this country.

We don't believe them. And when I say "we," I don't mean just conservatives, I mean the majority of the American voting public. Too frequently they give themselves away, too often they accidentally let the pretense fall a little too far down and let us see their real beliefs.

They're not serious. They are against war even in the most dire of circumstances, and they're against any of the dirtier parts of intelligence-gathering. They cannot come right out and admit they oppose war and covert operations on principle, so they simply object to every conceivable part of warfare or covert ops or interrogation in their details.

Then they can claim they are not reflexively anti-this or anti-that, they're just very outraged by this particular practice.

Trouble is, they're outraged by every particular practice of war or intelligence-gathering.

It's like saying you have nothing against Western omlettes, except you despise eggs, loath ham, destest green peopers, and find onions gob-smackingly vile.

And also-- you're not too crazy about the toast and orange juice they give you on the side. And that you frankly find toast and orange juice "unAmerican" and "contrary to the spirit of our living Constitution."

Let's stop talking of eggs and ham and such and just admit you're anti-omlette.

And let's stop fucking about with these transparent pretenses and just have you admit, finally, you're against war or America doing anything meeeaaan to defend herself. You're not bothered by the particulars; you object to the very fundamentals. You are not outraged by specific practices; you're against all practices on principle.

But liberals know they can't admit their real beliefs. And hence this fifty-year-old Kabuki.

Posted by: Ace at 11:38 AM | Comments (30)
Post contains 604 words, total size 4 kb.

This vile terrorist-sympathizer muses:

[My new dog] Gudrun is named after the infamous Gudrun Ensslin who was the female leader of the Baader-Meinhof Gang, an art terrorist group from the 70s. Terrorism was different then. It had a chicness to it, which made it seem less like a dangerous menace and more like fashion.

Margaret Cho seems less like a comedian and more like a lunatic who has wrested a microphone away from a street-preacher.

"Art terrorism." Huh.

A while ago I wrote (on a forum) that I had always had trouble believing Batman stories where, for example, the Joker ran for mayor and nearly won. Or did win.

Ridiculous, I thought. There's no way that anyone would support a psychopathic terrorist -- and I think the Joker qualifies for that description -- for any public office, even in the comic books.

And then, after 9-11, came those who called the mass-murder of nearly 2800 innocent, unarmed civilians a work of art. And defended, or at least engaged in apologetics for, that mass-slaughter.

The Joker thought in those terms, too.

It's sick... but it's undeniably true. There are those in the world -- and they're not an insignificant minority -- who genuinely support mass-murderers.

Especially if they have a bit of "chicness" to them.

This analogy isn't as silly or glib as it might sound. Who didn't think, upon seeing the towers fall, "This can't be real... this is like some absurd comic book" or "This isn't reality, this is just a James Bond movie"?

There are some who are so shallow -- and frankly anti-human -- that they actually elevate a bit of charisma or style or theatrics above the core human value that human life shall not be viciously stolen away.

When I was younger, I thought it was crazy, a silly comic-book plot contrivance. Now that I'm older and wiser and much sicker about it all.

"Art terrorism." "Chicness." Killing people as artistic expression. Murder in the service of fashion.

How far have some sunk, and how much further is there to fall?

Thanks to the Divine Miss M, who has more on an important story I never got to, the Court of Appeals ruling that military tribunals satisfy the requirement of a "competent tribunal," overturning a liberal lower-court ruling.

Ridiculous Fiction Is Now Reality: And let's not forget something else I initially thought absurd. James Bond's arch-nemesis Ernst Stavro Blofeld was, in between acting as an Al-Qaeda-ish terrorist (save without the religious/racial motivation), a well-respected head of a charity relief agency for the aid and repatriation of political refugees.

Again, when I was younger and more innocent, I thought that was just plain dumb. Now I know better.

Posted by: Ace at 10:28 AM | Comments (41)
Post contains 463 words, total size 3 kb.

I keep running into this problem. I want to say that, for example, Dilpazier Aslan "aplogizes for" Muslim terrorism, but that doesn't sound right; that sounds like he's actually apologizing for the terrorism, rather than engaging in apologetics.

And so usually I resort to the clumsy "engages in apologias" or the like.

Is there a simpler way to say this? Preferably in one word? I'm stumped.

Language mavens, enlighten me.

Eh... Merriam-Webster seems to imply there's no such verb, or else they'd have mentioned it.

Posted by: Ace at 10:01 AM | Comments (59)
Post contains 105 words, total size 1 kb.

At the UK Guardian, an Islamicist "trainee journalist" Dilpazier Aslam is allowed to expound on the London Bombings.

His apologia:

If I'm asked about 7/7, I - a Yorkshire lad, born and bred - will respond first by giving an out-clause to being labelled a terrorist lover. I think what happened in London was a sad day and not the way to express your political anger.

Interesting that he explicitly admits his weak, obligatory "terrorism is bad" statement merely an "out-clause" to defend him against (as we shall see) the quite supported charge that he is, in fact, a "terrorist lover."

Then there's the "but".

There's always a "but." That's the problem.

Let's see how that "but" agrees with you, Chum:

I really didn't like it when British football hooligans beat that innocent Muslim to death, b-u-u-u-t...

See? An awful lot of wink-wink nudge-nudge support for the violent actions taken is implicit in that but.

If, as police announced yesterday, four men (at least three from Yorkshire) blew themselves up in the name of Islam, then please let us do ourselves a favour and not act shocked.

...

Shocked would be to suggest we didn't appreciate that when Falluja was flattened, the people under it were dead but not forgotten - long after we had moved on to reading more interesting headlines about the Olympics. It is not the done thing to make such comparisons, but Muslims on the street do. Some 2,749 people were killed in the 9/11 attacks. To discover the cost of "liberating" Iraqis you need to multiply that figure by eight, and still you will fall short of the estimated minimum of 22,787 civilian Iraqi casualties to date. But it's not cool to say this, now that London's skyline has also has plumed grey.

Hmmm... "not cool." I really appreciate he's using the language of youth to try to convince me!

How can I become an Islamicist terrorist supporter, Dilpazier?!

Shocked would also be to suggest that the bombings happened through no responsibility of our own. OK, the streets of London were filled with anti-war marchers, so why punish the average Londoner? But the argument that this was an essentially US-led war does not pass muster. In the Muslim world, the pond that divides Britain and America is a shallow one. And the same cry - why punish us? - is often heard from Iraqi mothers as the "collateral damage" increases daily.

...

The Muslim community is no monolithic whole. Yet there are some common features. Second- and third-generation Muslims are without the don't-rock-the-boat attitude that restricted our forefathers. We're much sassier with our opinions, not caring if the boat rocks or not.

...

Perhaps now is the time to be honest with each other and to stop labelling the enemy with simplistic terms such as "young", "underprivileged", "undereducated" and perhaps even "fringe". The don't-rock-the-boat attitude of elders doesn't mean the agitation wanes; it means it builds till it can be contained no more.

Yes, we shouldn't use those terms. They're as simplistic as they are accurate.

Dilpazier Aslam is a member of the terrorist-supporting group Hizb Ut Tahrir, described by even the UK Guardian as being Britain's most radical Muslim organization.

And now the Guardian has hired him, and gives his defense of terrorism prominent placement in its pages. Now that's sassy.

Here's some more "sassiness:"

Sassy!

I'd like a double-shot of Sassy! And barkeep, keep 'em coming!

Sprechen Sie "sassy," anyone? Dilpazier tells us he doesn't care if he "rocks the boat" with his sassiness. Well, consider this particular boat well-rocked, sir!

Seventeen dead seamen... the cause of death was listed as AOSS, or "acute onset sassiness syndrome."

I feel like I'm the meat in a Sassy sandwich!

Looks like someone's out for a sassy little stroll on the main street of Sassytown!

Just like Superman... except with yellow-sun-enhanced super-sassiness!

The clothes-- pure Saville Row. The extreme make-over-- by Sassy Salon!

...

Why, it's not a clash of civilazations at all. It's just the natural friction between those with no sass and those with extra-super mega-sass!

Thanks for the links to the Daily Ablution to Tim Blair, who has more.

Pics taken from NoOpprtunity (questioning claim that Clinton had "no opportunity" to fight Islamist terrorism with photo evidence) and photo-duck and the September 11th photo archive.

Posted by: Ace at 08:50 AM | Comments (34)
Post contains 748 words, total size 6 kb.

Seems like LauraW and Dave from Texas started a haiku war without telling me:

Covert ops haiku

Valerie, you minx
I dare not breathe your secrets
C.I.A. vixen

Secret's safe with me!
And your neighbors, and your friends.
And the D.C. press--

No one else need know
What time you punch your time-card
nine-to-five ninja!

-- LauraW

"Untitled"

Judith Miller said
my source must have been coerced,
why is he giggling?

-- Dave From Texas

My own:

Double-Oh Mom

Top secret mission--
Get young daughters to soccer practice
Codenames: Unicorn and Pretty Princess

Posted by: Ace at 08:29 AM | Comments (28)
Post contains 99 words, total size 1 kb.

Well... I admit, some of us are starting to get there, Paul.

Keep it up:

Republicans, he said, "want to kill us.

"I was driving past the Pentagon when that plane hit" on Sept. 11, 2001. "I had friends on that plane; this is deadly serious to me," Begala said.

"They want to kill me and my children if they can. But if they just kill me and not my children, they want my children to be comforted -- that while they didn't protect me because they cut my taxes, my children won't have to pay any money on the money they inherit," Begala said. "That is bulls*** national defense, and we should say that."

This bit is from a story with a dateline of June 15. Any question that if a prominent Republican aide had said the same thing, the media would be endlessly replaying it and tut-tutting it?

Karl Rove's remarks about liberals not wanting to fight terrorism got a lot of play. So have Dick Cheney's various red-meat remark.

But this? I only see it on a small conservative web-based news service.

Want to know "what's the matter with Kansas?" Want to know why you keep losing, Paul?

The public understands that Republicans want to fight terrorists, but Democrats only want to fight Republicans.

Thanks to LauraW and The New Editor.

Posted by: Ace at 08:06 AM | Comments (12)
Post contains 238 words, total size 2 kb.

The same sort of alleged humans who wouldn't shake Ariel Sharon's hand:

Top terrorist Zakaria Zubeidi made“guest appearance” in video prepared by Reuters staff as “going away” gift for colleague, Ynetnews has learned

By Yaakov Lappin

TEL AVIV - Close buddies? Top terrorist Zakaria Zubeidi made a “guest appearance” in a video prepared by the staff of Reuters news agency in Israel and the Palestinian Authority as a “going away” gift for a colleague, Ynetnews has learned.

Zubeidi, who heads FatahÂ’s al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade in Jenin, has been named by security officials as a key figure in organizing terror attacks on Israeli civilians.

ZubeidiÂ’s al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades have claimed responsibility for more than 300 terror acts in the last five years.

A Reuters spokeswoman confirmed the video’s existence, but said the London-based news organization is “not associated with any group or faction in any conflict.”

Oh, obviously.

The screening, which occurred in a Jerusalem restaurant last March, involved the showing of a video during a private party.

"The video's theme was what Israel would be like in 10 years," said an Israeli government official who attended the party and viewed the video.

"All of a sudden, at the end, there is Zakaria Zubeidi, playing the head of Reuters. Zubeidi was sitting in Reuters' Jenin office, saying he was Reuters’ chief,” the official said.

The party included guests from the BBC, ITN, the Independent newspaper, and French journalists.

"They all thought the video was hilarious," the official said. He added that only a few individuals did not seem amused during the screening.

Eh, f' 'em. Probably those damn humorless Jews anyhow.

"They were laughing; they thought it was very funny," he said.

Reuters spokeswoman Susan Allsopp said in a statement to Ynetnews that the film “was a spoof video put together for a departing member of staff by a few of his colleagues in Israel and the Palestinian territories. It was shown at a private farewell party and was meant to be humorous.

You know who's a scream? Charlie Manson, that's who. I tell you fellers, he does this Jack Nicholson impression that's an absolute howl.

Well, it's an impression of Jack Nicholson with a swastika on his head and ranting about "gutting the pigs," but I'm tellin' ya, it's uncanny.

“As soon as editorial management in Jerusalem became aware of the video they told the staff involved that Reuters found it to be inappropriate and in poor taste,” the statement said. “The member of staff for whom the party had been held has never met Mr. Zubeidi. Reuters would like to make it clear that it is not associated with any group or faction in any conflict.”

Clear as day.

What can you say?

Nothing, that's what.

Thanks to Eric.

Posted by: Ace at 02:24 PM | Comments (13)
Post contains 490 words, total size 3 kb.

His fellow inmates beat the shit out of him.

I guess a bra and thong on the head are soundin' pretty good right about now, eh?

Here's the obligatory disclaimer: I do not in any way approve of this sort of prisonhouse vigilatism against terrorists.

Oh, and I also don't approve of busty-vixen lesbians making out. Certainly I would object to them dancing for my pleasure.

I'm outraged, gob-smacked at the vileness, and in all ways overcome with "heart-ache."

You know, there aren't many blogs as independent and non-partisan as this one. I'm like some kind of f'n' superhero/saint or something.

Thansk to NickS.

Posted by: Ace at 02:16 PM | Comments (13)
Post contains 118 words, total size 1 kb.

Out on a limb speculation here. Complete bullshit off-the-cuff stuff. Discount greatly.

But:

What if it turns out that Judith Miller is not protecting any administration source, but another journalist, or her herself, or a Democratic source, or even Joe Wilson or Valerie Plame himself/herself...

....and the editors of the NY Times know this (usually anonymous sources have to be revealed to editors), and yet the New York Times continues to deliberately lie to the American people about facts it knows to be false?

The. End.

Gone.

It's such a high-stakes gamble, frought with likely disaster, as to make it very unlikely to be true.

But... they are arrogant.

But... they do think that everyone else is stupid.

But... they do believe their own hype, and may think they are untouchable, and get away with practically anything.

If Judith Miller's source is NOT an administration official, and the New York Times has continued running news articles and editorials suggesting, if not flat-out claiming, that Rove or Scooter Libby are the source for the alleged outing... fire sale on computers and printers at Herald Square.

And, Hey... I just find it strange that the New York Times would put "journalistic ethics" above finally bringing down its bete noir (bete noir is a French term meaning "black beet").

Possibly they're playing halvsies on this... they know it's an administration source, and they can't quite burn that source, so they just "speculate" in their editorials about what they actually know to be true-- i.e., someone in the Bush White House is dirty on this.

Maybe.

Or: Judtih Miller is sitting in jail because her testimony would actually exonerate the Bush Administration and destroy the New York Times as an institution.

Posted by: Ace at 10:15 AM | Comments (37)
Post contains 301 words, total size 2 kb.

An absolute, no-f'n'-foolin', if-I'm-lyin'-I'm-dyin' must-listen.

But wait: This was in 1999, when the Clinton Administration was revealing this information, so it was presumptively true.

Remember when all those journalists kept asking Bush what mistakes he had made in deciding to go war in Iraq?

Wouldn't it be fun to ask the major news organizations what errors they had made in making the exact same case?

Thanks to Traffic Non-Santa.

Posted by: Ace at 10:07 AM | Comments (4)
Post contains 115 words, total size 1 kb.