Sudden jihad syndrome?, LGF wonders. Which is what we all wonder when the police and MSM are less than forthcoming about the background of the latest mass-murderer.

In the comments, Zombie points out the name derives from Turkish (Muslim) conquerer Suleiman the Magnificent, who famously laid seige to Vienna. A defeat Osama bin Ladin still talks about today.

Doesn't prove anything, though it is suggestive, and it's not like non-Muslims haven't gone postal before.

But it is worrisome that we may be facing more sudden jihadist syndrome small scale terrorism in the future, and that we face Israel's fate of constant shootings and bombings.

Posted by: Ace at 06:17 PM | Comments (68)
Post contains 122 words, total size 1 kb.

CNN:

As details of the border closure with Syria became public, senior Bush administration officials were saying radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has been in Iran for the past two or three weeks.

Iraqi sources have not confirmed Sadr's departure, and a source close to the cleric told CNN that his presence in Iran is a "rumor."

As recently as Thursday, Sadr's office told CNN the cleric was in Najaf.

The U.S. officials said they did not know why Sadr had departed Iraq for Iran or how long he might stay. The officials suggested his departure was tied to the increase of American troops ordered by President Bush and that it could be a sign that he was in fear for his life.

Whatever the reason, it was not clear what effect Sadr's absence -- if he is, in fact, in Iran -- would have on his Mehdi Army.

More From ABCNews: A little bonus detail:

While members of the U.S. House of Representatives take turns weighing in on President Bush's planned troop surge in Iraq, the focus in Iraq is not on the arrival of more U.S. troops, but the departure of one of the country's most powerful men, Moqtada al Sadr and members of his army.

According to senior military officials al Sadr left Baghdad two to three weeks ago, and fled to Tehran, Iran, where he has family.

Al Sadr commands the Mahdi Army, one of the most formidable insurgent militias in Iraq, and his move coincides with the announced U.S. troop surge in Baghdad.

Sources believe al Sadr is worried about an increase of 20,000 U.S. troops in the Iraqi capital. One official told ABC News' Martha Raddatz, "He is scared he will get a JDAM [bomb] dropped on his house."

Sources say some of the Mahdi army leadership went with al Sadr.

Though he is gone for now, many think al Sadr is not gone for good. In Tehran he is trying to keep the Madhi militia together.

Thanks to JackStraw.

Posted by: Ace at 05:32 PM | Comments (27)
Post contains 367 words, total size 2 kb.

So let me get this straight. Edwards first fired them, then, under threats of "pretty vicious rants and important action alerts," un-fired them and/or re-hired them.

And then, within days, both independently and of their own accord decide to resign, thus sparing Edwards those pretty vicious rants and important action alerts.

I would like to make very clear that the campaign did not push me out, nor was my resignation the back-end of some arrangement made last week. This was a decision I made, with the campaign's reluctant support, because my remaining the focus of sustained ideological attacks was inevitably making me a liability to the campaign, and making me increasingly uncomfortable with my and my family's level of exposure.

In related news, there's a bridge connecting the boroughs of Manhattan and Brooklyn I'm selling on eBay, pre-war construction, sunny views, high ceilings, a real fixer-upper opportunity.

She blames "her" decision to "resign" on "individuals who used public criticisms of me as an excuse to unleash frightening ugliness, the likes of which anyone with a modicum of respect for responsible discourse would denounce without hesitation."

I'll take her at her word that she's getting a lot of ugly emails. The internet encourages such unhinged rants; it's easier to get vicious when you're not looking into the face of a real, living human being (and also not worried about being punched or slapped).

She says "veiled threats" were made against her, something I don't doubt for a second, because I've seen that sort of thing myself. There are a lot of people who would, prior to the Internet, never have had their dark threats broadcast about, but simply muttered them to themselves as they watched TV; now a threat against someone is just a mouse-click away.

Which is why I'm so paranoid about my anonymity, of course.

And that's a nasty part of this thing, and one I wish would stop. There really are a lot of people who don't seem to get this whole "free speech" thing, and believe the proper response to speech you despise is to threaten them into silence.

That said, I don't for a second buy that Edwards didn't throw, or at least nudge, and her buddy Amanda Marcotte under the bus.

Yes, veiled threats against you and so forth, but it's not coincidence that Marcotte and McEwan give up jobs they obviously really wanted at the same time John Edwards doesn't want them to have those jobs, but doesn't want to antagonize the nutroots by firing them.

Edited: I took out a whine about nasty emails being used as a cudgel to pound those making legitimate criticisms because McEwan really doesn't do that here, and also because the "velied threats" thing rings true enough to me that it hardly seems necessary to invoke ulterior motives for her complaints about this. Such things are worth complaining about on their own, no hidden agenda needed.

UPDATE! The real reason they resigned/were asked to resign?

Bill O'Reilly.

He just said so.

Posted by: Ace at 05:15 PM | Comments (34)
Post contains 513 words, total size 3 kb.

Hot.

Honestly, zoos are offering Cinemax After Dark type shows for couples, wherein you get to find out which animals are better hung than you, so you know which ones to stalk and kill.

In related news, I feel vindicated. It was't wrong to take my ex-wife to that Tijuana Donkey Show; I was just a couple years ahead of the curve.

Posted by: Ace at 04:27 PM | Comments (23)
Post contains 98 words, total size 1 kb.

Thanks to Xoxotl.

Posted by: Ace at 03:00 PM | Comments (70)
Post contains 9 words, total size 1 kb.

Actually, that's a bit of an overstatement; he's criticizing Gore for lacking the "zeal" to fight the "special interests" on Global Warming -- e.g., activists who childishly block the endlessly renewable, carbon-neutral energy source we know as "nuclear power" (though he doesn't mention nuclear power explictly here. He knocks An Inconvenient Truth for lacking any real solutions, or discussing clean coal and ethanol.

And that's sensible enough. Even by global-warming-alarmist standards, Gore's presentation seems childish.

Still-- the rhetoric of it. Much of it is sensible*, but there's just something odd about Giuliani trying to run to Al Gore's left on global warming.

Who knows. Maybe it's actually brilliant.

Via Michelle Malkin.

* At least "politically sensible." It's just the case that almost all of the political class, especially those seeking national office, have to at least pay lip service to the theory of man-made global warming. Even Bush has "finally" admitted it exists, and has, in fact, "finally" admitted to this "fact" multiple times since 2001.

Ted Olson Endorses Rudy: Nice enough:

The support of Olson should help Giuliani in his quest to win over social conservatives who remain skeptical of his pledge to appoint strict constructionist judges.

"I've known him for 26 years and we've talked about this many times," Olson said. "He feels very strongly that people like Justice Scalia, Chief Justice Roberts, Sam Alito, Clarence Thomas, are the type of people that he would put on the courtÂ…I'm quite convinced that this is a genuine viewpoint that he has."

When asked about differences conservatives have with Giuliani on issues such as abortion and gay rights, Olson said: "Rudy's views on many, many issues are going to be very compatible with people in the conservative political community and the political legal community. Nobody's going to be able to find a candidate with whom they agree with 100 percent on every issue. Overall, Rudy's strength of character, his capacity for leadership in a time when a strong executive is important, his energy level, his ability to provide the kind of leadership that Ronald Reagan did -- I think that is going to be very persuasive with conservatives."

I have to repeat, again, that pro-lifers do seem willing to give Rudy a chance, so long as he continues repeating the mantra of Scalia, Alito, and Thomas. I didn't expect the pro-life right to be assuaged by this, so this is just some damnably remarkable good fortune for Giuliani.

And yet these unforced errors on other matters... embracing Bush/McCain style amnesty with no fence, talking up gun control at the federal level, which even Barney Freakin' Frank tries to avoid.... I guess Giuliani thought that with the religious conservatives giving him an extraondinary pass on abortion, things were turning out not challenging enough for him, so he's decided to try to make it interesting again.

Actually... On this video, I'm not coming around closer to "brilliant." Well, not brilliant, but very crafty.

Why shouldn't Al Gore and the environinnies be put on the defensive for their utter childishness? They seem to have only one answer to solving the world's energy needs -- magic beans.

If a politician is forced to address an issue -- and obviously Giuliani is so compelled -- why the hell not go on the attack with it? Why not expose Al Gore for the huckster he is and demand he offer some genuine solutions?

Other criticisms still intact, though.

Posted by: Ace at 02:20 PM | Comments (27)
Post contains 600 words, total size 4 kb.

You guys are blowing it. You're making the same mistake as your erstwhile rival Hillary! Clinton -- you're running a general election campaign before we've even entered primary season.

And look how well that's working out for her, huh?

Your enthusiasm for global warming theories and Schwarzenegger's "progressive" leadership on immigration are harmful to your fortunes.

Yesterday it was reported you favored a "highly technological fence" to help reduce illegal immigration. It does not take a genius to realize that is simply an alternate way of saying "virtual fence," which is itself a euphemism for "no fence." No one believes that a "virtual" fence can stop an illegal border crossing in progress; response times will be much longer than the relatively brief amount of time it takes to cross a border.

If a "virtual fence" is such a terrific idea, perhaps banks ought to move towards "virtual doors," "virtual locks," "virtual window bars," and "virtual vaults." After all, these "highly technological" means can surely prevent robberies in progress, especially given that cops are more likely to be closer than a bank being robbed than coyotes taking illegals across the border, right?

Americans are willing to support a pathway to citizenship for the illegals already here (grudgingly), but only with the assurance that the border will finally be controlled, and this will be the last mass amnesty, at least for a generation. Talk of "highly technological (non) fences" tells us you are not serious about satisfying your end of the bargain.

You also took time to defend your record on gun control, stating that gun control helped reduce crime in New York City. Let me tell you something surprising that I've gleaned from this blog: Your most ardent opponents in the Republican base are not pro-lifers, but pro-gun-rights'ers. You should never talk up your gun control record without emphasizing that this was a local solution to a local problem and that you emphatically do not intend to advance the gun control agenda in America at large.

Perhaps you did say that, and merely weren't quoted on that. In that case, you'd better start talking that up more so that the press can't avoid quoting you.

As a general matter, you'd probably do better to stop defending your gun control record entirely and simply talk up the Second Amendment. It is absurd that you seem to be hewing to a position on gun control that isn't merely left of the Republican Party, but to the left of the Democratic Party as well, which has all but abandoned gun control as an issue which kills them outside of the major coastal cities.

You're flying high in the polls now. But that's partly because Republican primary voters expected you to be somewhat more malleable on your previous positions than you're turning out to be. We expected you to tack towards the center; you seem determined not to do so. There's no doubt that you have leadership, brains, and determination, but these are actually negative qualities attributes as concerns a man who intends to thwart the political goals of the party -- quite frankly, we'd prefer a guy who intends to push back the Republican agenda to lack these traits, as he could do less damage.

You're implacable, and, some would have it-- unstoppable. But Republican primary voters may begin to question whether they want to nominate such a juggernaut, given that he should be equally unstoppable as President in pushing policies they strongly oppose.

You say you're "100% committed" to seeking the Republican nomination, and deadly serious about it. So far, you're not acting that way. You are leaving an enormous, inviting hole on your right for less socially liberal challenger, just as Hillary! -- also once believed to be unstoppable -- left an huge hole on her left for a challenger, and now she is almost certainly destined to be Barack Obama's running mate, at best.

You think John McCain is above tacking to the right to outflank you? I don't. It will be distasteful to him, but even more distasteful to him is losing the presidency. And Mitt Romney isn't sunk just because he gave a bad speech.

Just a note from an increasingly-distressed supporter, and a Giuliani booster since you were grabbing headlines chasing down the mob.

PS: I have no particularly strong opinion on guns myself, so I have no rooster in this cockfight. Actually, some of your proposals -- written tests for gun ownership, etc. -- strike me as sensible.

But they don't strike gun rights enthusiasts that way. Such proposals are read as code for "I will do everything possible to encumber, limit, and reduce gun ownership." And, given your take-no-prisoners, take-little-advice war on crime in New York, they see that as an especially threatening position coming from you.

Hillary! might fold under pressure. You won't. That's a problem for gun rights'ers.

Part of this can be cured rhetorically, by never talking about gun restrictions without strongly endorsing the basic Second Amendment right to own hunting and personal defense weapons. But if you're saying that, the press is not reporting it, and you'll lose a big chunk of the Republican base over this issue.

Which is, again, a simply bizarre political calcuation, as the Democratic Party itself has all but walked away from gun control as a losing issue.

A couple of months ago I was looking at Romney and McCain and Gingrich as acceptable alternatives to a Giuliani candidacy, which I felt was somewhat unrealistic. Then I started to get excited that I may have my first pick after all. But you're convincing me that my gut was right the first time -- you're not a very realistic or serious candidate for the Republican nomination, and the best I can hope for is another firecracker speech at the RNC as you support the actual candidate. So for me it's back to looking at Romney, and maybe even McCain, at least until I'm convinced you really are serious about winning this.

Posted by: Ace at 01:10 PM | Comments (41)
Post contains 1009 words, total size 6 kb.

The deficit keeps falling, falling, falling.

I seem to remember the media taking an interest in such things when they could be credited to a Democratic President.

Another blogger, TaxProf, notes the tax receipt bonanza.

Make sure you read each of the bloggers covering the story, because you damnsure ain't gonna see it on the network news.

Posted by: Ace at 12:20 PM | Comments (11)
Post contains 83 words, total size 1 kb.

Is it better to have taken a position, though wrong, on the war, or to have never taken a coherent position at all?

Here's Sullivan, knocking Giuliani:

He seems to believe that merely taking a stand in warfare, even if it is a wrong one, is some kind of virtue in itself. Surely Iraq proves how mistaken this view is. It is important not only to be strong in warfare, but to be smart as well.

So, it's not a virtue to "merely take[] a stand in warfare."

And yet a week ago Sullivan was singing a different tune:

Mickey Kaus accuses Joe Klein of having it both ways on the Iraq war. I'd say that's better than having no coherent position on the war at all, except fathomless bitchiness toward anyone who ever had the balls to take a stand. But that's Mickey - circling the drain of his own irrelevance. And bitchily attacking anyone who's trying honestly to do better.

Why the difference in a week's time? Why was "merely taking a stand in warfare, even if a wrong one" a positive virtue to be contrasted with Kaus' ambivalence a short week ago?

Why, because a week ago, it was Sullivan praising himself for "merely taking a stand in warfare."

I get this "politics of doubt" thing now Sullivan is always talking about. The upshot of it is that Sullivan is free to write contradictory statements mere days apart, and sometimes change his mind completely in a single day's postings... so long as the fundamental political principle that Andrew Sullivan is always wise, brave, and just is preserved.

Thanks to Kaus, who shows the patience of a saint in not noting that Sullivan is here calling someone else "bitchy."

And the notion that Sullivan has had a "coherent" position on anything besides gay marriage is simply laughable.

Posted by: Ace at 12:17 PM | Comments (7)
Post contains 317 words, total size 2 kb.

Oh, wait, that's not the Police. Pretty close though. Here's the real video.

"Jazz odyssey." That resonated with me because I was just talking about the Police getting back together, and I offered my opinion that they were great in their heydey, but I had a feeling Sting would insist on working in all that bad jazz crap people pretended to like on Dream of the Blue Turtles.

I am prophetic.

Actually, it's not that bad. If they have to throw Sting a minute of scatting with oboe accompaniment in the middle of every song, fine, as long as they don't botch the rest of So Lonely.

"We Never Hated Eachother:" So says Stewart Copeland. I don't believe him.

His bandmates kidded about Sting's demanding personality.

"We refer to Sting as our dear leader," Copeland said.

"On a good day," Summers added.

They insisted the disputes that broke them up were artistic, not personal.

"The nature of the arguments were all about music Â…. also hairstyles," Sting joked.

Copeland weighed in more earnestly.

"We never hated each other," Copeland said. "We fought tooth and nails over the music, but as human beings, we always liked each other."

How could you not hate him? He's a dick. He broke up the band because he didn't like the idea that you were equals and partners and wouldn't let him "expand the vocabulary of rock music" with crap like this:

So he hired a bunch of sessions musician who had to listen to him.

Regrouping with his old bandmates has been very healing, Sting said.

"There is a part of my life that I've sort of run away from for 25 years, but it's a very important part of my life, so to come back and be in the band and develop these relationships again we're more wise than we used to be," Sting said.

"Healing." Uggghh.

But this is funny:

While all are regarded as consummate musicians, the decades away from their old material was evident Monday as the band struggled at times, with humor, to get through some of the tunes.

At one point during "I Can't Stand Losing You," Sting who was reading his own lyrics said: "It's all coming back to me. I'm 24 and I'm mad."

Good news:

The group plans to stick to Police material and not include Sting's [three] solo hits.

I tossed that "three" in there myself.

Thanks to yls.

Posted by: Ace at 11:04 AM | Comments (29)
Post contains 410 words, total size 3 kb.