Asked for comment, Yale Administrators said only, "Yes, we know all that. It was at the top of his application form. We awarded him six points for that."

In late summer of 2001, as Al-Qaeda was planning their murderous venture, the Taliban was spinning their "trial" of eight foreign aid workers, including two Americans, and sixteen Afghan Christians whom they accused of secretly proselytizing—and who, it emerged, faced the death penalty.

How could the Taliban possibly justify such a barbaric practice? They didnÂ’t really even try. According to Canadian Channel CTV, "Their priority was to propagate Christianity which they were not supposed to do here," as Sayed Rehmatullah Hashmi, an aide to the Taliban's foreign minister, told reporters.

Whoa, whoa, whoa! That name sounds familiar. Because the name of YaleÂ’s prized "freshman" and former Taliban ambassador, Sayed Rahmatullah Hashemi, is a pretty close match.

But it couldnÂ’t be the same guy. No, YaleÂ’s tame Talib is a "moderate", a man who regrets the harsh things heÂ’s said in his past (if not the ideology he embraced), a poor little lamb who "escaped the wreckage of Afghanistan", an earnest family man starting his life over. YaleÂ’s Hashemi was no blustering theocrat, but according to YaleÂ’s then-Dean of Admissions, "a person to be reckoned with and who could educate us about the world.'' Besides, the spelling is a little different, right? It could be some other Taliban fellow, right?

Yeah, it's the same guy all right. He also spun for Mullah Omar and Osama bin Ladin... on September 12, 2001.

Now, what sort of person do you get to do that sort of PR work the day after your regime is proven complicit in the deaths of 2800 innocent civilians? A "moderate" who's basically fed-up with the regime, or a true believer who'll say anything for a cause he believes in?

Why doesn't Yale admit James Byrd's killers in a special program, perhaps a correspondence program? If there's no amount of evil they can't forgive (or embrace), why not vicious race-murderers, too? Surely they can change the hearts of these three killers with their superior progressive ideals.

Posted by: Ace at 11:04 AM | Comments (59)
Post contains 379 words, total size 2 kb.

Recording equipment is Islamophobic. Now this vicious racism is even infecting our machines. I weep.

Imam Ahmed Akkari has issued death threats against Naser Khader of the Social Liberals. Naser Khader founded the organisation “Democratic Moslems” in February, as an organisation for moderate, Democracy-minded Moslems to join. See this article for biography and background on the enmity between Naser Khader and the Imams in Denmark.

Today Jyllands-Posten reports that Imam Ahmed Akkari was recorded on a hidden camera by journalist Mohamed Sifaoui of the French TV-Station France 2 which will show a documentary tonight detailing the doings of the Danish Imams. The documentary also reveals that the Danish Imams have been using the affair as a lever to go against their political opponents in Denmark.
Ahmed Akkari is quoted as saying:

If [Naser Khader] becomes the Minister of Foreigners or Integration, why donÂ’t we send out two guys to blow up him and his ministry?

The reaction from Danish politicians is what you would expect from virulent Islamophobic racists-- they actually accuse this Imam of being violent and bloodthirsty.

Posted by: Ace at 10:53 AM | Comments (9)
Post contains 207 words, total size 2 kb.

Democrats are afraid, the left wing of the party charges. I won't argue with them.

Russ Feingold, speaking about the party's flight from his censure resolution:

“Both Democratic politicians and pundits are afraid,” Mr. Feingold said on March 21 by phone. He was between constituent tours during the week’s Congressional recess. “Time and again, they allow themselves to be intimidated from taking a strong stand against the administration.”

A former DNC press secretary, Terry Michael, goes further:

“A voice like a Jack Murtha or a Russ Feingold literally cannot be heard,” Mr. Michael said, “when you have a so-called opposition party colluding with the party in power."

Jack Murtha cannot be heard? Yes, in the same sense that Cindy Sheehan couldn't get positive media coverage.

“The fear factor inside the Democratic Party is appalling,” he added. “You’ve got these small-minded Democratic-consultant-driven political leaders, and then you’ve got real neocons who refuse to listen to the base of the party …. You have these voices of unbridled ambition—Hillary Clinton first among them—who are asking the base to nominate them, when they’re not even listening to the base when it comes to the most important issue in American politics today.” Look at the 2004 convention in Boston, Mr. Michael said: “Ninety percent of the people in that nominating hall wanted to end this war, and they wound up voting in a ticket where both candidates voted for it—and said they still supported it.”

Via Riehl World View, who has more (including stuff about Reid threatening to filibuster the immigration bill). Riehl World opines:

The disjointed nature of the Democrat Party managed to survive for years, so long as it was only the inner city blacks they so often neglected in their national campaigns, knowing full well they were going to retain their votes.

But now they are facing a split much more difficult to bridge as a result of the Iraq War and the greater war on terror. If they adopt a cut and run strategy for Iraq to appease the Left, too many middle-class Americans will bolt due to their national security fears.

The left wing blogs, now the new home and growing platform for the Dems sometimes more lunatic fringe, is more likely to pull the Democrat Party into pieces which won't easily mend, than it is to propel them to victory on a national level.

The polls say the War in Iraq is unpopular. I actually believe those polls. I think they may be sweetened a bit in the liberals' favor, but I think they accurately reflect the fact that strong support for the war is at its lowest point ever.

But I also don't think those polls mean the public accepts the left-wing position on the war. I think the public has a more ambiguous, conflicted, and, well, nuanced take on things.

I tend to think that a lot of people answer these polls not really precisely in response to the question posed, but in a general way. When you ask them "Do you believe the war was worth its costs?," I think that most people are really answering the unasked general question, "Do you think the war is going well right now?" And I think most people don't believe that.

The public may not be happy now with the war's progress, but they're also not happy with the alternatives to continuing to fight. The Democrats really have no alternatives, except "Get other countries to fight for us through dipolmacy" or "Immediately leave Iraq while pretending we're not really leaving it because we're just 'over the horizon,'" and just a general "We're smarter, so we'll run things better. We can't really say how -- it's secret! -- so you'll just have to take our word for it."

Americans don't like losing, and they especially don't like losing wars. That's what accounts for the war's unpopularity-- the idea that we're losing or will lose. Surrendering to the enemy -- the Democrats' only real coherent "plan" for Iraq -- does not avoid that outcome but simply guarantees it, and will be rejected by the public.

The public wants what, well, we all want -- a victory, and swifter one, and a more decisive one, and one that isn't so costly in blood and treasure. They're upset that Bush can't deliver that. But first on the list of wants is "victory" -- real victory, not the liberals' substitute of "let's surrender and throw a parade" -- and the Democrats just aren't offering that, and can't offer that. Too large a portion of the base is determined to lose this war, because they fear an America that could successfully carry out such a grand military undertaking.

Posted by: Ace at 10:39 AM | Comments (58)
Post contains 796 words, total size 5 kb.

They're not for peace, they're just on the other side of assholish manners.

From their statement:

Harmeet, Jim and Norman and Tom were in Iraq to learn of the struggles facing the people in that country. They went, motivated by a passion for justice and peace to live out a nonviolent alternative in a nation wracked by armed conflict. They knew that their only protection was in the power of the love of God and of their Iraqi and international co-workers. We believe that the illegal occupation of Iraq by Multinational Forces is the root cause of the insecurity which led to this kidnapping and so much pain and suffering in Iraq. The occupation must end.

Their only protection was the love of God and their co-workers? I guess that didn't work out so well for them, did it?

Thanks to Slublog and Chris.

Posted by: Ace at 09:44 AM | Comments (37)
Post contains 162 words, total size 1 kb.

Brought to you via Jonah Goldberg

Posted by: Harry Callahan at 06:41 AM | Comments (50)
Post contains 14 words, total size 1 kb.

Get ready for the spin.

No, strike that. Get ready for the silence.

"Osama Bin Laden Contact With Iraq"

A newly released pre-war Iraqi document indicates that an official representative of Saddam Hussein's government met with Osama bin Laden in Sudan on February 19, 1995 after approval by Saddam Hussein. Bin Laden asked that Iraq broadcast the lectures of Suleiman al Ouda, a radical Saudi preacher, and suggested "carrying out joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia. According to the document, Saddam's presidency was informed of the details of the meeting on March 4, 1995 and Saddam agreed to dedicate a program for them on the radio. The document states that further "development of the relationship and cooperation between the two parties to be left according to what's open (in the future) based on dialogue and agreement on other ways of cooperation." The Sudanese were informed about the agreement to dedicate the program on the radio.

The report then states that "Saudi opposition figure" bin Laden had to leave Sudan in July 1996 after it was accused of harboring terrorists. It says information indicated he was in Afghanistan. "The relationship with him is still through the Sudanese. We're currently working on activating this relationship through a new channel in light of his current location," it states.

Although the ABCNews editor attempts some spinning, he's surpisingly upfront about the document's implications:

(Editor's Note: This document is handwritten and has no official seal. Although contacts between bin Laden and the Iraqis have been reported in the 9/11 Commission report and elsewhere, (e.g. the 9/11 report states "Bin Ladn himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995) this document indicates the contacts were approved personally by Saddam Hussein.

It also indicates the discussions were substantive, in particular that bin Laden was proposing an operational relationship, and that the Iraqis were, at a minimum, interested in exploring a potential relationship and prepared to show good faith by broadcasting the speeches of al Ouda, the radical cleric who was also a bin Laden mentor.

The document does not establish that the two parties did in fact enter into an operational relationship. Given that the document claims bin Laden was proposing to the Iraqis that they conduct "joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia, it is interesting to note that eight months after the meeting — on November 13, 1995 — terrorists attacked Saudi National Guard Headquarters in Riyadh, killing 5 U.S. military advisors. The militants later confessed on Saudi TV to having been trained by Osama bin Laden.)

Emphases added.

Another document -- one I'm pretty sure I already noted on this site -- notes that (gathering intelligence from Afghanistan) an "Afghani consul heard about the issue of Iraq's relationship with "bin Laden's group" while he was in Iran."

That doesn't seem to prove a lot to me... except that Bush wasn't the only one who believed Bin Ladin and Hussein had a "relationship."

In related news, Chris Matthews just called in sick for tomorrow's Hardball, complaining of "menstrual cramping."

No, of course not. He'll be on the show tomorrow, same as ever. The topic? What else-- Valerie Plame.

Thanks to James.

Posted by: Ace at 08:17 PM | Comments (82)
Post contains 555 words, total size 4 kb.

John From WuzzaDem really explores the studio space with bickering church signs.

Posted by: Ace at 05:47 PM | Comments (66)
Post contains 20 words, total size 1 kb.

These pictures are graphic, in the sense of "graphically filthy." You would not want to live here.

But if you've ever wondered what it looks like inside the home of the crazy lady with 53 cats, here's your chance.

Let's just say it's hard to keep a tidy house with that many crap-and-piss-machines running around.

Compulsive hoarding disorder. Animal hoarding. Again: Who knew?

I'm going to start throwing some shit out double-quick.

Thanks to Greg in Philly.

Posted by: Ace at 03:02 PM | Comments (40)
Post contains 85 words, total size 1 kb.

A few weeks ago I linked Chris Bliss juggling to the Beatles Golden Slumbers/Carry That Weight/etc. medley.

With three balls.

So now this guy does the same act, basically, but with four balls.

Kind of cool, except there are a lot of cuts in this, and he's not performing before an audience, making me pretty damn sure he dropped a few times.

A juggling commenter at YouTube slams:

hris bliss's juggling skill is crap. The most impressive thing he did was juggle for a long time and not drop. The juggling was not difficult at all and it's not surprising that he did not drop, so it's not that anyone should be amazed that he didn't drop. But if you're looking for the most impressive thing that he did in a routine chock full of unimpressive elements, it would be that he didn't drop. He calls it the big finally [sic]. I don't even understand why he juggles at all. His 3 ball skill is fair, good enough to make it three or four minutes without dropping. The world record for juggling 3 balls is over 11 hours, and the most difficult thing about that is staying awake and peeing.

Well, yeah, but I think the reason he did it with three balls instead of four was so that he wouldn't drop, you know? It's all well and good to juggle with four or five balls, but if you're dropping them a bunch of times before an audience, it sort of looks bad.

Lucianne the Chris Bliss thing today; I just clicked on it and found this "juggler controversy" brewing.

Jugglers have pissing matches. Who knew.

Posted by: Ace at 02:56 PM | Comments (36)
Post contains 280 words, total size 2 kb.

Bumped, because it's fun.

You can make your own at www.churchsigngenerator.com, and then link your masterpieces in the comments. Assuming you can upload them somewhere.

Just saying, a real Savior should look like he can swim a couple of laps without having to take a cigarette break.

Posted by: Ace at 12:37 PM | Comments (127)
Post contains 57 words, total size 1 kb.