Busts all over Italy. The Italians, governed by a Socialist, have apparently been drafted in Bush's anti-Lamont Fakey Terror Scare.

The headline?

Investigators Tracing Terror Plot Money Trail

Yeah, it sure was a good idea to expose the SWIFT program.

Before anyone says "But we're still catching them!" -- simmer down, Francis. These transactions may have all been made before the NYT outed the program to Al Qaeda. It could be we're going on months-old transactions, when days-old ones would be more helpful.

Via Pajamas Media, which may not have created the original reportage network it had envisioned, but is doing a hell of a job as a news aggregator.

Posted by: Ace at 11:03 AM | Comments (9)
Post contains 130 words, total size 1 kb.

One of the AOL users whose info was leaked had a search history including these search terms:

17556639 how to kill your wife

17556639 how to kill your wife

17556639 wife killer

17556639 how to kill a wife

17556639 poop

17556639 dead people

17556639 pictures of dead people

17556639 killed people

17556639 dead pictures

17556639 dead pictures

17556639 dead pictures

17556639 murder photo

17556639 steak and cheese

17556639 photo of death

17556639 photo of death

17556639 death

17556639 dead people photos

17556639 photo of dead people

17556639 www.murderdpeople.com

17556639 decapatated photos

17556639 decapatated photos

17556639 car crashes3

17556639 car crashes3

17556639 car crash photo

Steak and cheese??!!?!! Sickie.

By the way, I began to edit out the AOL ID number that proceeds each entry, but gave up, because it's already out there, and furthermore, I'm not sure if I want to protect the anonymity of a guy searching for "how to kill your wife."

The Paradigm Shift notes that it's this sort of information Google, the Chicom Collaborators, fought so nobly and courageously to keep the government from accessing in terrorism cases.

Might be useful to know certain people are searching all day for "improvised explosives" and "nuclear reactor map," wouldn't it?

Via INDC Journal, where Dorkafork runs down a lot of different stories, including the poorly-named AmericaBlog's refusal to believe that Muslim terrorists really were planning to blow up planes.

Dorkafork, I think, misses the easiest respnse to this idiocy:

Do I sound as if I don't believe this alert? Why, yes, that would be correct. I just don't believe it. Read the article. They say the plot had an "Al Qaeda footprint." Ooh, are you scared yet? What that really means is that they found NO evidence whatsoever that the plot had anything to do at all with Al Qaeda, but the plot simply made them think "gosh, this is something Al Qaeda would do." That's what a footprint means. Nice, but no cigar.

Anti-AmericaBlog, you're an idiot. It doesn't matter if this was Al Qaeda, or Pakistan/Kashmir's disgusting D-Company, or the Jemaat Al Islaam (or whatever it's called) that blew up the beachgoers at Bali. It doesn't matter, in fact, if it's a "right wing Christian extremist" group led by a McVeigh type.

If someone's trying to blow up fucking airplanes, asshole, we act against them, whether they're Al Qaeda, or associated with Al Qaeda, or have received some technical assitance from Al Qaeada, or have nothing whatsoever to do with Al Qaeda at all.

Apparently Anti-AmericaBlog's "Let's fight Al Qaeda first" position is less nuanced than I imagined. He really means -- Al Qaeda first, and Al Qaeda only. If a group of Pakistani men are planning to blow up 10 (it's "up to 10," at last report) airplanes, some over major cities for collateral damage on the ground, killing 2000-3000 people over a few hours, Anti-AmericaBlog thinks iwe ought to ignore it. Because they're not necessarily Al Qaeda, and we haven't formally declared a war on them yet.

As for the rest -- that these guys weren't really guilty of anything except an LUI (Living Under Islam) misdemeanor-- well, that's so insanely stupid as to be self-refuting, and now even Anti-AmericaBlog continues squirming mightily to walk back from the edge of lunacy while still maintaining, in a fake-but-accurate way, he was essentially right.

Dorkafork also answers the question, "What's the harm of a little unhinged conspiracy theorizing?" Well, for the poor woman who took the photo of crashed Flight 93's smoke-plume, quite a bit-- she has been stalked and harrassed by TRUTHers who are sure she's a government plant who doctored her photo.

PS: I can now link INDC Journal without reservation, as Bill revealed a few weeks ago that Goldstein was just jerking my chain about Bills' book deal.

I got Punk'd.

By a punk.

The Punk, by the way, isn't nearly so forgiving of the ceasefire agreement as I am.

A picture of The Punk here. CONTENT WARNING: Naked Testicle Spiderman.

Posted by: Ace at 09:52 AM | Comments (26)
Post contains 680 words, total size 5 kb.

...and in a dishonest, cover-your-ass way to boot.

Basically Olbermann deliberately conflates two different timing-questions. One is relatively plausible. The other is absurd. But he drifts back and forth between suggesting each so that he is, in fact, suggesting Bush somehow got the British to move on suspects in a months-old investigation to coincide with the scary-important Connecticut primary. And yet, if he's called on it, he can always claim, "Oh dear no, I only meant the first conspiracy theory. The one that isn't over-the-moon insane.

The scam: Two different "interesting theories" floated out simultaneously-- and interchangeably.

1) That Bush and Cheney knew of the upcoming arrests, and so intensified their attacks on Democratic weakness on terrorism in the days before, so as to have maximum political advantage from it.

This is pretty dumb as it is -- Bush and Cheney are always complaining the Democrats are soft on terrorism, and Olbermann himself is always complaining about their complaints. So, for this theory to work at all, Olbermann has to suddenly forget the last three thousand times he's whined that Bush and Cheney are saying meeeeaan things about the Democrats' anti-terrorism credentials.

But fine. If Olbermann "forgets" that, this theory isn't entirely crazy. Actually, I'm not sure what's being suggested is blameworthy -- if one's political opponents are slamming surveillance and bank monitoring and you know that terrorists are about to be arrested due to information gathered from those techniques, well, why not make sure the public knows about it? Why not highlight their weakness on terrorism?

This is the more plausible question-the-timing theory. It could happen. I don't think it did happen, but it could.

The other theory is insane:

2) That Bush actually connived Blair into arresting these guys on trumped-up charges because he wanted to embarrass Ned Lamont. In this theory, the whole arrest is a conspiracy, a fabrication.

Read Olbermann's remarks. Notice how he sometimes speaks as if he means Conspiracy 1 but then begins talking about Conspiracy 2. Putting Conspiracy 2 out there, and suggesting to the lunatics that it's quite likely, while retaining plausible deniability that he only meant to discuss Conspiracy 1.

What a tool.

PS: The leftist conspiracy media keeps repeating the silly shit that "Bush was on vacation during the final days of this investigation."

They never seem to mention that Tony Blair was on vacation in the Carribean during the final days of this investigation too, and yet that doesn't seem to have prevented the British intel/law-enforcement apparatus from making a lot of arrests.

Correction: I mistakenly wrote that Tony Blair had returned from his vacation a day or two before the arrests. I'm told by JackStraw he was still on vacation for the arrests, and in fact placed the call to Bush informing him of the mass arrests from the Carribean.

JackStraw only lied to me once -- "No, a lot of guys do this together, doesn't mean anything, just some good guy fun" -- so he has solid (if not completely untainted) credibility as far as I'm concerned.

Posted by: Ace at 09:01 AM | Comments (45)
Post contains 520 words, total size 3 kb.

Maybe he can write the screenplay for the remake of Boys From Brazil:

Nobel prize-winning German author Guenter Grass has admitted for the first time that he served in the Waffen-SS, Adolf Hitler's elite Nazi troops.

In an interview with the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Grass, 78, said he volunteered for submarine service toward the end of World War Two. He was called up instead to serve in the Waffen-SS in the eastern city of Dresden.

The author, best known for his first novel "The Tin Drum" and an active supporter of Germany's Social Democratic Party (SPD), said his wartime secret had been weighing on his mind and was one of the reasons he wrote a book of recollections which details his war service. The book is out in September.

"My silence through all these years is one of the reasons why I wrote this book," the paper quoted Grass as saying in a preview of its Saturday edition. "It had to come out finally."

One of the most powerful organizations in Nazi Germany, the SS played a key role in the Holocaust, establishing and operating the death camps in which millions died.

The Waffen-SS grew into a force of 38 combat divisions with almost one million men and it was condemned as part of a criminal organization at the post-war Nuremberg trials.

Flashback: National Review trashes "The Tin Drum" as "pernicious" for engaging in Nazi apologism, where someone else is to blame for the rise of Hitler. The old "The Nazis Invaded Germany" theory.

Not a fan of America or the war to liberate Iraq, of course. Perhaps if we were liberating the Sudetenland he'd be more of a booster.

Thanks to Mark, who quotes him as previously saying "George Bush is a threat to world peace."

Hm. An important moral voice. The Nobel committee should be proud.

Posted by: Ace at 07:18 PM | Comments (107)
Post contains 324 words, total size 2 kb.

Cheshirecat and someone else (sorry) linked this. It's pretty damn funny. Funny because it's true. (Language Warning.)

It's obvious. But sometimes the truest and funniest stuff is so because it's so damn obvious.

One question: Did Allah write this?

Or is he just a fan?

(I know-- this must be more than old; it's probably ancient. So? It's new to me!)

Posted by: Ace at 05:17 PM | Comments (73)
Post contains 71 words, total size 1 kb.

This is a repost of an entry originally written at Splitters.*
Ace has generously allowed me to cross-post it here. I am hoping that with a wider audience, I and other females who are in platonic relationships with men might get the answer we really want to hear.

But I donna theenk eet gonna happen.

The Platonic

I have a male friend.

We were in the same class in school, have known each other since we were 13 years old. Our friendship solidified when we were both nineteen, shortly after graduation. We ‘clicked.’ Used to go out all the time, with or without my boyfriend.

We got high a couple times (I have never been much for pot), but mostly hung out and had a few beers, watch a movie, talk and laugh until the wee hours. I spent a lot of time with his very large and musical family, who are loads of fun. Quite a few times he slept on my boyfriendÂ’s couch after weÂ’d chat half the night.

It seems to me that girls and boys can learn a lot about each other through simple platonic friendship. Things that make the rest of life a little easier. Its like learning another language.

Since those young years, we both have accumulated homes and family; he has a wonderful wife who I talk to occasionally on email, and three great kids, one of whom is my Goddaughter. SheÂ’s a teenager now. Time flies.

We now live many states apart, and our visits are separated by years.

HeÂ’s a good man and I am proud to be his friend.

My question is;

Is this possible?

Hubby says that platonic relationships between men and women are bullshit. I can honestly say I have never wanted to ‘do’ anything with the guy. Hubby says he wants me.

Is this just husbandly jealousy, or is it true that men and women just canÂ’t really be friends?

I feel that I already know the answer, because I have lived it. But IÂ’m interested in othersÂ’ experiences.

Just donÂ’t bring up When Harry Met Sally. Please. DonÂ’t.

*Cross-posted without the permission of Splitters Head Administrator, and I feel so good about that.

Posted by: LauraW. at 02:29 PM | Comments (263)
Post contains 373 words, total size 2 kb.

Your professional and honest media in action.

How many frigging times is this building going to be destroyed before the war is over?

Four times so far. The same building has been destroyed four goddamned times, each time "overnight," since July 18th.

The Lebanese

The fastest effing building reconstructors in the history of the universe. They're like the Doozers from Fraggle Rock, except they work with concrete instead of beet sugar.

Posted by: Ace at 02:12 PM | Comments (16)
Post contains 115 words, total size 1 kb.

I can't even bother with this stupidity. It's little more than the typical ignorant cant.

But let cite this one squeaky little fart of nonsense:

Yesterday, Cheney bashed those who voted for Democrat Ned Lamont in the Connecticut Senate primary, claiming that these votes would encourage "al Qaeda types" to think that "they can break the will of the American people."

The idea is that since 18-year incumbent Joe Lieberman lost based on his support for Iraq, Americans opposing the war are waving a white flag of surrender to terrorists.

...

For Cheney - and other Republicans like GOP National Chairman Ken Mehlman - to suggest that those Americans are encouraging terrorism is reprehensible.

Dear, would that be "reprehensible" in the same way that constantly claiming that Bush is "creating more terrorists" than he is stopping, or that Bush is "provoking Al Qaeda to attack us through his belligerency," or that America is "the greatest recruitment tool Osama bin Ladin ever had" are each "reprehensible"?

Why should it be that suggesting that one policy encourages the terrorists is "reprehensible," whereas suggesting that a different policy encourages the terrorists is simply the standard liberal line (and, of course, "THE TRUTH")?

Is the Philadelphia Daily News guilty of such absurdly-obvious double-standards? Of course they are. These idiots can't even keep such suggestions out of the very editorial condemning this "reprehensible" practice:

The immoral and ridiculous claims coming out of the Bush administration's reign of error could ultimately be responsible for the kind of casualties that al Qaeda can only dream of.

Ah. Bush and Cheney's claims and policies can lead to massive casualties, but it's "reprehensible" to suggest that Lamont's might.

Gotcha.

Can't have it both ways, assholes. It's either reprhensible to suggest such a thing or it's not. If it is reprehensible, than stop doing it yourselves. If it's not-- then keep doing it, but stop whining about it all the time.

Grown ups -- not including the Philadelphia Daily News' editorial board -- disagree on what the proper way to fight terrorists might be, and of course the wrong way to fight terrorists will encourage them and allow them greater freedom to commit mass murder.

Obviously different people believe their preferred policy to be optimal, that is, leading to the fewest terrorist-inflicted casualties. That means all other policies are sub-optimal, and lead to greater terrorist-inflicted deaths.

There is an important policy dispute here. Personally, I think Cheney has the better of it, but opinions may vary. Either way, I will not be shouted down by preening, tantrum-throwing children every time I try to advocate for my preferred policy solution.

This is just a constant refrain from the left. Free speech for me, but not for thee. And yet we're the ones guilty of "chilling" speech.

I ain't chilling your speech, morons. I'm posting it. Disseminating it. Because I happen to think your speech is self-refuting.

Meanwhile, you're the thugs attempting to mau-mau anyone who disagrees with you into silence.

Won't work. Keep on trying, though. This tactic has be so very effective for you these past five years.

Has Cheney completely lost it?

Has the Philadelphia Daily News completely lost it?

You be the judge.

Thanks to Confederate Yankee.

Posted by: Ace at 02:06 PM | Comments (39)
Post contains 545 words, total size 4 kb.

A former worker for AP Television News (APTN) sent LGF an explanation of the built-in bias of the news-gathering operation that provides so many pictures to so many television networks throughout the world.

Money:

...there is another significant part of their business model that affects the rest of the business. While most of the world takes news pictures with minimal interpretation beyond editing, the Arab Gulf States have asked for and receive a different and far more expensive service. These states pay for a complete news report service including full editing and voice overs from known journalists. The news organizations in the Arab countries donÂ’t do anything (beyond verify that they are appropriate for local tastes) before broadcast.

What this means is that while there are around 50 people producing news pictures for the whole world working in Camden at any time, there are a further 50 Arabic speaking staff producing finished stories exclusively for the Arab states of the gulf. This has a tremendous effect on the whole feel of the building as these two teams feed pictures and people back and forth and sit in adjacent work areas. The slant of the stories required by the Gulf States has a definite effect on which footage is used and discarded. This affects both the Gulf newsroom and the main global newsroom.

Forgive the broken record, but while lefties stew over "corporate management of the news" and the like, they seem uninterested in another money-driven bias in newsgathering and dissemination.

And let me ask another question. Does AP believe the news should be the objective, unslanted truth or not?

If they do-- what the hell are they doing preparing a special package of news for the particular tastes of the Arab world, different from the package offered to the rest of the world?

Is the news the news, or is the news what "local tastes" demand?

Posted by: Ace at 01:48 PM | Comments (17)
Post contains 338 words, total size 2 kb.

Many will object to this, but I think it's wise.

First of all, Israel, more than anyone else, knows how difficult it will be for them to conquer and occupy all of southern Lebanon.

Second, while the odds of the 15,000 Lebanese troops really cracking down on Hezbollah aren't high, there is still a chance this could work, and it's worth trying. If the Israelis can get the Lebanse to do the job, that's better for the Israelis. And the Lebanese, too. Previously, the Lebanese would not act against Hezbollah, as they feared them. Well, now they fear the Israelis too. They no longer have the option of simply letting Hezbollah run wild in the south-- or at least that is no longer a low-cost option. Now it comes at a stiff price, and the new math of the situation may inspire the Lebanese to be tougher with the other invading army in their country.

Third, if nothing else, this buys goodwill. Oh, I know it doesn't really; the Arabs and French and Europeans will continue hating Israel no matter what. Still, if the Lebanese are not able to stop Hezbollah, Israel can always invade and occupy later. And then they can say, "We tried it your way. Your way failed."

I realize it's a little weird at this point to continue asking Israel to keep making futile gestures to the Arab/Muslim world that are never reciprocated. Still -- why not try it? It's not as if the IDF is entrenched and that a withdrawal will cost them tactically. They can always do this again later.

If the threat of military force achieves the goals of the actual use of military force, obviously it's more cost-efficient to use the threat.

Posted by: Ace at 01:29 PM | Comments (74)
Post contains 304 words, total size 2 kb.