David Corn Online
 

December 15, 2005

Will Spielberg Be Crucified for Munich?

Should Stephen Spielberg be preparing himself for crucifixion? Last night I attended a screening of his new film, Munich, which is soon to open. It's a taut and engaging psychological thriller. Psychological in the sense that it examines the mental and moral tribulations of a covert Israeli assassin. It also explores the psychology of revenge, retribution and survival in the post-9/11 age of terrorism. And because Spielberg not only second-guesses the Mossad and glancingly gives Palestinians a say in the film but also dares to question the effectiveness of an eye-for-an-eye response in the struggle against terrorists, conservatives will pounce on him. (Question: who will be the first ideological critic to tie Munich--which is "inspired," not "based on" real events--to Munich, as in Neville Chamberlain?)

Here's the plot: Black September, a Palestinian terrorist group, takes Israeli athletes hostage at the 1972 Olympic games in Munich. There had been acts of terrorism before but this foul deed was the first episode, as I recall it, that gathered attention throughout the world, as people gazed at television sets or huddled around radios to see what would be the outcome. (I remember sobbing on my parent's bed when the news came.) The outcome was tragic. All the Israelis ended up dead, after a rescue operation at the airport went awry. Most of the Palestinian terrorists--or was it all of them?--were killed as well. This all happens in the first minutes of the film.

Spielberg is less intent on recreating that nightmare--though he does show scenes from it throughout the film--as is he is on reviewing what came next. An Israeli security agent is tasked to find 11 Palestinians who his superiors say were the intellectual authors of this attack and others. The agent, played soulfully by Eric Bana, and his team scour Europe looking for their targets and then eliminating them with bombs and bullets. Along the way, they debate and discuss the morality of their exercise--but not in any heavy-handed or didactic fashion. While the moral justification for their actions is a topic for their (and the viewer's) consideration, the more pointed conversation between them (and between Spielberg and the audience) regards a less lofty subject: is this working?

As the agent and his team--the muscle guy, the bombmaker, the forger, the cleanup man--pick off the Palestinian leaders, they see that these officials are replaced by others who advocate even more violent attacks on Israel and Jews and that Black September is stepping up its terror campaign. Are their assassinations prompting this awful response that is leading to the death of hundreds elsewhere? As one character notes, it is expensive to kill Palestinians--and not just because the team has to spend millions of dollars to locate and then kill their prey.

By the end, the Israeli agent assassinates a majority of the Palestinians on the list--as well as one of the targets' replacement and a beautiful Dutch female assassin. (Hey, this is a Hollywood movie). But he also loses members of his team. And he is tormented throughout. Back home, he is regarded as a hero. But he wants none of that. In fact, he rejects Israel and moves to Brooklyn--a damn serious step in a film in which the motivation driving all (the Israelis and the Palestinians) is the desire for a homeland. There the agent even comes to believe--with cause or not--that Mossad might be pondering his untimely death. And when his case officer--played by Geoffrey Rush--comes calling, the agent demands to see actual evidence that his victims were involved in killing Israelis. He wants to know--to believe--that he is not a murderer. The case officer can only provide that's-what-the-intelligence-says assurances. The agent is not assured. Still, he asks the case officer to come to his new home for dinner, clumsily citing a Jewish tradition of offering food to travelers. The case officer turns him down and departs. The agent--who killed to protect his homeland--has abandoned that home and has been rejected by its representative.

This film is not only about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which the screenplay, written by Tony Kushner (who penned Angels in America) and Eric Roth, deftly handles. The Palestinian thugs at Munich are never humanized, nor are their murderous actions and motivations explained. But later in the film another Palestinian speaks for the cause of a Palestinian homeland. Conservative pro-Israel hawks will be peeved by this. But what prowar hawks might find more offensive is the ambiguity that Spielberg assigns to the results of the Israelis' just-kill-them approach. The costs--including the alienation and disenchantment of the agent--are high, and it's clear that these actions, while perhaps morally justified, are not going to do anything to address the longterm and deeper challenges. Spielberg offers not much of an alternative. But at the minimum, he suggests this sort of work, even if necessary, is dirty and troubling business that cannot go unquestioned in both moral and pragmatic terms. It might even be too difficult for good people--or people who aspire to be good.

Such gray could well upset those who depict the war on terror in white-hats/black hats style. Spielberg's insistence on facing the difficult and hard-to-resolve ambiguities in the struggle against violent extremists will be read by some as a sign of weakness--or worse. New York Post columnist Andrea Peyser writes:

Spielberg proves two things in his film, due in theaters just in time for Hanukkah:

1. Steven Spielberg is too dumb, too left and too Hollywood (or is that redundant?) to tackle such complex and polarizing themes as Islamic fundamentalism and Jewish survival.

2. Spielberg is a decent enough filmmaker to persuade some people that Israel has outlived its usefulness and should--as enemies in Iran maintain--be wiped off the face of the earth.

The backlash has begun. The Jewish Action Alliance has already called for a boycott of "Munich."

Oh, it's going to be a pain to be Stephen Spielberg, in a way, for a little while. He's going to be accused of being a self-hating Jew and Israel-basher. The less hateful of his critics will see this movie and ask of the agent (and Spielberg), why all the handwringing? Why all the worry? It's us-versus-them. In a fight for survival, you do what you have to do. You kill them. You do what it takes. But Munich notes, it's just not that simple.

Posted by David Corn at December 15, 2005 01:39 PM

Comments

1

One small comment:
In fact the first terrorist spectacle to gain world wide attention may have been the triple hijacking of airliners in September 1970 that all ended up getting blown up on the airfield Jordan where they had been taken. (The passengers had been released, i believe)

and perhaps the beautiful Dutch female character is not so "Hollywood" as one of the leaders of the September 1970 operation was Leila Khalid --the "international pinup of armed struggle"-an interviw with whom was published by the Guardian in 2001. Here is a source to track it down:
http://irelandsown.net/leilakhalid.htm

Unfortunately, you are probably right about the reaction this will get. would be interesting to see what might be the attitudes of Palestinians to this.

Posted by: David Holden at December 15, 2005 02:11 PM

2

Mr. David Corn,

I think going after terrorists and murderers is the right thing to do. It's the idea that we needed to attack Iraq that does not fit a "war on terror" if there is such a thing. We need to be defensive about attacks and serious about fighting against killers but we had no good reason for the invasion of Iraq. No honest reason that would have gained support from the public so they trumped up the threat and lied us into becoming an aggressor nation and failing occupier.

Thanks!

Kirk

Posted by: capt at December 15, 2005 02:16 PM

3

Mr. David Corn,

I think going after terrorists and murderers is the right thing to do. It's the idea that we needed to attack Iraq that does not fit a "war on terror" if there is such a thing. We need to be defensive about attacks and serious about fighting against killers but we had no good reason for the invasion of Iraq. No honest reason that would have gained support from the public so they trumped up the threat and lied us into becoming an aggressor nation and failing occupier.

Thanks!

Kirk

Posted by: capt at December 15, 2005 02:16 PM

4

I have to echo coments made by Ebert & Roeper's (I think it was them) movie review. The biggest challenge this movie poses for the Right is that the movie does humanize the terrorists to an extent. This causes a cognitive dissonance they may not be able to handle because of their it's ok to kill them all because they are just animals attitude. Many can't process the idea that terroristic acts are in fact carried out by real people, not just unthinking souless animals.

Posted by: eyes_open at December 15, 2005 02:33 PM

5

Is this working? Obviously not. But that doesn't matter, because it feels so damn good, at least to the spectators.

I too remember Munich well. I cursed the terrorists for spoiling my beautiful Olympics (and Lasse Viren's first double was truly a thing of beauty). It was only later that I began to understand why they did it. Jim McKay certainly wasn't going to talk about that.

Ten years later, I visited the Olympic stadium in Munich. I swam in the pool where Mark Spitz won his 7 gold medals. I saw the dormitories. And I went to Dachau.

Why is it that brutality always seems to shadow the Jews, wherever they go?

Posted by: Drewp at December 15, 2005 02:39 PM

6

I did not realize that you were also a movie critic. Jack of all trades and master of none, Eh? Heh, heh, heh!

I guess you probably saw that movie about those homosexual cowboys buggering each other. I personally would not waste my money on that filth. Why can't they make movies like the older Western movies. John Wayne was no queer!

Posted by: Prof. B G D'Gre at December 15, 2005 03:00 PM

7

Ahh it must be nice to be a troll, knowing you can always fall back on the 3 Gs when you can't think of anything else to say.

Posted by: eyes_open at December 15, 2005 03:17 PM

8

Oh boy more offended special interest groups, Who cares? Its just a movie folks, take from it what you will. I prefer comedy, everyone here sure could use a good laugh. Save money and rent Blazing Saddles or Caddyshack, don't wallow in depressing films like Munich, lifes too short.

Posted by: DEN at December 15, 2005 03:23 PM

9

Speaking of offended "special interest groups"...

"Viewing Israel's response to Munich through the eyes of the men who were sent to avenge that tragedy adds a human dimension to a horrific episode that we usually think about only in political or military terms. By experiencing how the implacable resolve of these men to succeed in their mission slowly gave way to troubling doubts about what they were doing, I think we can learn something important about the tragic standoff we find ourselves in today."

...said Steven Spielberg

Both Palestinian terrorist Abu Daoud and Israel's former Mossad spy chief Zvi Zamir have gone public with their anger about not being consulted beforehand by Spielberg about the film. During the summer, Spielberg issued the carefully worded statement (above) to an Israeli paper, an Arab TV station and The New York Times.

Posted by: micki at December 15, 2005 03:33 PM

10

David, BTW, I forgot to mention, why the hell aren't you writing about more important things? Get the lead out, would ya. You keep distracting us with all this horseshit that no one gives a damn about. I want YOU to solve the world's problems, or at least write about ALL of them, so that you can prove to us that you're doing your job.

Got that?
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=


...Oh, I just had an out-of-body experience...my apologies

Posted by: micki at December 15, 2005 03:46 PM

11

I'm just happy the directors and producers are finally putting out movies that are challenging to the viewer.

Posted by: Jeanne at December 15, 2005 03:57 PM

12

Micki,
A Hollywood film by itself may not be that significant, but if it opens the eyes of a few people to what is happening in the real world then it has served a noble purpose. I still remember the impact the movie Three Kings had on me, showing some of the suffering of the people after GHWB urged the people to rise up against Saddam and then abandoned them. Every bit of information, even if presented in fictionalized form, helps.

Posted by: eyes_open at December 15, 2005 03:58 PM

13

#10
Micki,
I think you're right. The machine never sleeps.

Posted by: Jeanne at December 15, 2005 04:16 PM

14

#12 I was joshin' him in #10. Some think he doesn't do enough -- and what he does do, isn't quite what is on their agenda.

#13 Jeanne -- exactly!

Posted by: micki at December 15, 2005 04:43 PM

15

Micki,
Understood. Everyone seems so wound up nowadays I admit to difficulty distinguishing between anger and satire sometimes. I agree David Corn has a tendancy to play it on the safe side in his reporting at times but I don't think so many of us would keep returning to this site if he wasn't one of the best.

Posted by: eyes_open at December 15, 2005 05:07 PM

16

Off todays subject but very telling;The Rothschilds power

Posted by: DEN at December 15, 2005 05:14 PM

17

Try again;Rothschilds power

Posted by: DEN at December 15, 2005 05:16 PM

18

That humor I was talking about isHere

Posted by: DEN at December 15, 2005 05:23 PM

19

Ahhh Christmas humor:White Trash that is

Posted by: DEN at December 15, 2005 05:29 PM

20

I do not know if Spielberg will be crucified but searching for the truth is healthy and the truth shall set us free. I am 66 years old and for at least 55 or 60 years I had the impression that my country could do no wrong. Now, I AM FIRMLY CONVINCED THAT AMERICA IS AN EVIL EMPIRE!!!!!

I now believe that America is always wrong and they must prove to many Americans that they are not wrong.

Posted by: Gerald at December 15, 2005 05:30 PM

21

Ahhh Christmas humor:White Trash that isSecond attempt!

Posted by: DEN at December 15, 2005 05:34 PM

22

dares to question the effectiveness of an eye-for-an-eye response "Eye for an eye" is a limitation on revenge, as opposed to permitting e.g. "death for an eye". Insofar as way more Palestinians than Israelis have died in the recent intifada, one can only infer that Israel too has questioned the effectiveness of (only) an eye-for-an-eye response.

Posted by: Allen K. at December 15, 2005 06:16 PM

23

we might think that david doesn't go far enough or have a similar agenda, but this is the only mainstream media site that I know of that allows such unrestrained comments for all to see

Posted by: James Ha at December 15, 2005 06:16 PM

24

Another movie casting Palestinians as the bad guys, once again. Aren't most people in America already convinced that they are the devil incarnate? Isn't that what we have all been trained to believe? Israel has gained so much power that they are now able to inprison anyone who dares to question their version of history, while forbidding the defendant to use evidence they have gathered in their own defense. I would like to see a movie about the USS Liberty, the truth I mean, but I know that will never happen. Israel has insulated themselves from all question, they can do no wrong. A wolf in sheeps clothing, that is Israel, but the costume is getting ragged.

Posted by: Saladin at December 15, 2005 06:42 PM

25

James Ha,

OUCH! I had no idea this was a MSM site? (Kidding)

I have to change my bookmarks! HA!

"I don't think so many of us would keep returning to this site if he wasn't one of the best."

I could never get to that point with such clarity and brevity! (thanks eyes!)

The difference between a skilled writer and an unskilled writer is you are compelled to read the skilled writer even when you do not agree, an unskilled writer never captures the readers interest even when they do agree!

"The skill of writing is to create a context in which other people can think." ~ Edwin Schlossberg

capt

Posted by: capt at December 15, 2005 06:50 PM

26

"Americans believe that peace is normal, but that's not true. Life isn't like that. Peace is abnormal."

Michael Ledeen
-------------
THAT is Israel.

Posted by: Saladin at December 15, 2005 06:53 PM

27

Bush: Don't blame Israel for Iraq


Blaming the Iraq war on U.S. support for Israel is irresponsible, President Bush said.

"One of the blessings of our free society is that we can debate these issues openly, even in a time of war," Bush said Wednesday in an address to the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington. "Most of the debate has been a credit to our democracy, but some have launched irresponsible charges. They say that we act because of oil, that we act in Iraq because of Israel, or because we misled the American people."

Such charges "hurt the morale of our troops," Bush said.

*****end of clip*****

Saladin you are hurting the morale! (not serious)

If Bunnypants was worried about morale maybe he should bring the troops home. I guess he mean that as long as the troops know he was the one that screwed the pooch the troops are fine?

I do not blame Israel for the poor choice Bunnypants made. He started the illegal and unwise invasion all on his little lonesome!

capt

Posted by: capt at December 15, 2005 07:03 PM

28

'Task' is a noun, much as 'gift' is a noun. I realize it is popular to make the attempt to convert them to verbs by adding 'ed', but that trend has been a reflection of the inattention of the users while they were sitting through their high school grammar classes. You have no excuse.

Posted by: Greg Thomsen at December 15, 2005 07:18 PM

29

Capt, I believe that the powers that be in Israel are working in tandem with bush. The neocons, for the most part, are acting for the benefit of Israel. The only reason to continue this conflict, and in fact spread it across the entire middle east, is to secure Israel, and through them, our access to oil. The only problem is that Israel has turned on us many times in the past, they can't be trusted. Unfortunately, the citizens of that tiny nation state are as in the dark as most Americans. They are going to start WW3, maybe it has started already. Iran is goading Israel, and they are preparing to strike out on their own in the oil market. The US and Israel cannot allow that to happen. And our troops are right in the middle.

Posted by: Saladin at December 15, 2005 07:22 PM

30

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary

Main Entry: task
Function: transitive verb
1 obsolete : to impose a tax on
2 : to assign a task to
3 : to oppress with great labor

Posted by: No-Opinion at December 15, 2005 07:23 PM

31

Poor David. First he admits that Spielberg offers no alternative, then he claims "it's just not that simple." Most pro-human rights / anti-terrorist folk agree it's not that simple. Most conservatives understand that JUSTICE, the reaction to an INjustice, is a grey area. Like so many Leftists, David and Spielberg refuse to articulate the "alternative": surrender. Let the terrorists win, dominate, murder, rape, put women in veils and beat, if not kill, any who get uppity. Oh no, the Lefties don't want THAT -- but that's what they've got following the Kerry/ UN/ global test on genocide in Darfur. That's what they voted for when they voted for Clinton in 1996, after his "no-genocide" in Rwanda lie. That's what the Dem Party accepted when they stopped funding S. Vietnam -- genocide in SE Asia. Oh no, the Lefties don't want any of the bad RESULTS of following their policies ... life isn't so simple ... it's not our fault (it's Nixon, er, Bush, er, the Spanish Inquisition!). OK, besides surrender, there's running away -- the Iranian President is offering Europe back to the Israeli Jews. (Maybe we could confuse them by running away some more? Oh shut up and change...) "Such gray could well upset those who depict the war on terror in white-hats/black hats style. " The Bush-haters who are so certain Guantanomo is US = black hats could use a bit more gray -- the alternative is more Americans dying if we fight. If we don't fight, it's surrender. Fighting and remaining good -- that really IS a challenge. One the Left keeps failing to meet. What's the alternative?

Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at December 15, 2005 07:24 PM

32

The coward wretch whose hand and heart can bear to torture aught below, Is ever first to quail and start from the slightest pain or equal foe: Bertrand Russell

=
A man without ethics is a wild beast loosed upon this world: Albert Camus

=
Let those who would die for the flag on the field of battle give a better proof of their patriotism and a higher glory to their country by promoting fraternity and justice: Benjamin Harrison, 1889-1893: - Inaugural Address, 1889

=
Force is the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism: Thomas Jefferson

===

Thanks ICH newsletter!

Posted by: capt at December 15, 2005 07:24 PM

33

Blaming the country of Israel for the crimes of a few is like blaming all of America for what Bush has done.

IMHO

capt

Posted by: capt at December 15, 2005 07:26 PM

34

It's like blaming all of Iraq for what Saddam did?

Wait a minute, that is what they do!


HA!


capt

Posted by: capt at December 15, 2005 07:29 PM

35

Conservatives have already started to critique the movie and David Brooks examined it very recently in his NY Times column. I recommend it, he touches on some interesting and compelling points.

Just a spot of trivia that most of you probably already know, but I was shocked to learn that Sirhan- Sirhan was a Palestinian terrorist who was furious with RFK over his support of Isreal.

Posted by: kaff at December 15, 2005 07:47 PM

36

Oh please get real #31, Tom Grey. The women in Iraq wern't in veils under Sadam's secular rule, but now they are. Such progress! The possibility of Iraq becoming a nation aligned with Iran is great and we could possibly be creating another radical Islamic state (Taliban). Please quit using the women issue in your arguments as though you care a flip about them.

Posted by: kaff at December 15, 2005 07:56 PM

37

kaff, Thanks for deciphering Mr. Grey's posting.

I do wonder how he would define "liberty" (Liberty Dad). bush tells us that "freedom" is on the march in Iraq -- but, voting under the cover of an armed camp doesn't look like freedom (or democracy) to me.

True liberty is a condition that frees one to do as he/she desires, free of any physical restraints or barriers, with positive privileges such as enjoyment of economic, social, religious, and political rights.

Does he REALLY think that is happening in Iraq?

Posted by: micki at December 15, 2005 08:51 PM

38

David,

Come again? On a day when it appears over 70% of eligible voters in Iraq walked for hours (probably even stood in line for one or two, what horror!) actually putting this country to shame by percentage of those voting to those eligible to vote and you come up with a post about a movie? I guess all I have to look forward now is to the day we capture or kill Bin Ladin and I can come here to find the latest gossip on celebrity marriage roulette!

drewp

I also had the opportunity to visit Olympic Village in Munich when I was stationed in Germany 86-88. Didn't get to swim in the pool but it was a nice visit. Also visited Dachau. Hard to classify that as a nice visit when all you think of when you are there is all the atrocities that were committed there. The German people have done a good job of preserving it for historical purposes and I commend them for that. It would have been a lot easier for them to bulldoze it over and pretend that it never existed. I was stationed in Neu-Ulm, which was about 180k west of Munich and 100k south of Stuttgart. My oldest son was born in Augsburg. Hope to take him there for a visit someday.

Posted by: TRH at December 15, 2005 08:54 PM

39

Andrea Peyser is just a complete jerk.


I look forward to seeing this movie now, David. Thank you for an excellent review.

Posted by: Joe Tully at December 15, 2005 08:58 PM

40

David,

How about posting regarding this blatant example of a CBS reporter injecting their bias into a story about a female skydiver who survived a freefall after her chute failed.

ÓWhen I hit the ground, my instructor ran over to me and he said I sat up, was talking to him, and tried to get up and get around. Of course, he made me stay down. But I don't remember any of that conversation. I just kept asking repeatedly if I was dreaming and if I was still alive."

Richardson now has 15 plates in her face for fractures after four operations. She also suffered two breaks in her pelvis, as well as a broken right fibula.

But there was one shock still to come.

Richardson learned in the emergency room that she was two weeks pregnant and, "The baby had survived the free fall as well, survived the free fall and the 50 mile-an-hour impact, and then, on top of that, survived all four surgeries that I've been through as well."

The fetus is said to be doing well. Richardson is due in June.

"You can't imagine how blessed I feel," she said. "To be alive, and then to have my baby be healthy is just more than I could ever have imagined or expected. I prepared for the worst and I got the best."
***********************
You actually have the reporter who is interviewing the survivor/mother-to-be who is describing how her "baby" survived the fall and the reporter referring to the "baby" as a "fetus." Talk about interjecting one's bias into an interview.

For the full story, link below

Baby Survives Fetus

Posted by: TRH at December 15, 2005 10:19 PM

41

You know, I'm rather enjoying this.

Fitzgerald forced to cancel grand jury for Conrad Black indictments

The special prosecutor investigating the outing of CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson canceled a scheduled meeting with his grand jury because he was called back to Chicago to deal with last-minute elements of a case involving erstwhile media tycoon Conrad Black, RAW STORY has learned.
--------------
Fitzgerald just goes about his business and Rove waits.

Posted by: Jeanne at December 15, 2005 10:38 PM

42

#40 Are you for real? The reporter was not showing any bias -- he/she was adhering to the accepted medical/legal/societal definition of the human fetus.

Fetus: The unborn offspring from the end of the 8th week after conception (when the major structures have formed) until birth. Up until the eighth week, the developing offspring is called an embryo.

Posted by: micki at December 15, 2005 10:53 PM

43

Capt, I didn't blame the country of Israel, did I? I said "the powers that be" and separated the general population with the statement that they are in the dark as most of America is. Come on Capt, you know me better than that! sharon is as evil as bushco, and vice versa, there is no difference.
TRH, how can you capture or kill someone who is already dead?

Posted by: Saladin at December 15, 2005 11:06 PM

44

Micki,

It may have been a fetus at the time of the accident, but it was certainly not a fetus at the time of the interview. Note the interview took place at least 2 months after the incident.
What would you say to an interviewer if they had referred to your "baby" as a "fetus." The mother to be said it twice in the interview. Why would the reporter feel compelled to refer to it as anything else if it were not for bias?

Posted by: TRH at December 15, 2005 11:10 PM

45

I have said it before on this blog, murder is murder. A civilized country would have captured these terrorists and tried them in an open court. I am shocked, Mr. Corn, that you have accepted the hit-man justice of the mob. What happened to rule of law? Did it die in Iraq? Poor America.

Posted by: Karen at December 15, 2005 11:11 PM

46

Saladin,

Okay, how about Zarquai or however it is spelled. I think you know what I mean. Just giving David a hard time. Didn't expect to see a movie review/observation for the post today. Maybe it could be the pajamas David was wearing.

Posted by: TRH at December 15, 2005 11:14 PM

47

TRH, PUHLEEEAAASSEE! 2 weeks? That is NOT a baby, that is a few cells thinking about becoming a baby! I had a miscarriage at 6 weeks, does that make me a murderer? I didn't even know I was pregnant, how negligent of me! You have no clue, no matter how many babies you can produce, what goes on in a woman's mind and body from conception. I assure you, reality doesn't hit until you start throwing up and have sore boobs. Before that, it is a non event. Why do you insist on projecting your own personal opinions onto every woman on the planet? It is not always a blessing! Many times it is a curse, as awful as that may sound. You have no right to force your judgement as to what is right and proper into the lives of people you don't even know. Millions of already born children are being tortured and slaughtered, children alive right now and aware, starving and brutally abused. Why don't you direct your empathy and efforts towards them? Worrying about what a stranger may think about two weeks worth of cell activity in the womb is a waste of effort when there are so many children that really need help, so many that our own country is responsible for, so many that we have made orphans, so many with no hope or future. WTF is wrong with the pro-life people? How do they reach these sick conclusions?

Posted by: Saladin at December 15, 2005 11:22 PM

48

TRH, what about him? They have killed and or captured him several times now! How gullible can you be? These terrorists are MADE UP! They aren't real! Just because they say so on TV doesn't make them real. Haven't you read any of the posts in the past couple days? We have a full fledged police state right in this country. Iran is ready to open the Oil Bourse in March, Israel wants to be ready to bomb Iran by the end of March. Our own citizens are threatened by military goons, guns being pointed at our heads. bush says the constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper. The Euro is set to override the dollar in the petrol market. Our own govt. tells us the best way to give the GOP a boost is with another terrorist attack. What is it about all this that you don't get?

Posted by: Saladin at December 15, 2005 11:29 PM

49

Micki,

I owe you an apology. I was referring to the time frame when you were speaking of medical terms. I guess I was wrong when, and many people around this world are wrong, to have baby showers. They should be fetus showers. I have never told any of my friends and family that me and my wife are going to have a fetus, somehow that just medically didn't make sense. I was there in the delivery room for the birth of all 4 of my children and what came out of their mothers birth canal certainly didn't resemble a fetus. Didn't exactly look like me or their mother at the time, but they were certainly a human being! You call a baby anything you want, Micki. I'll call it a a baby.

Posted by: TRH at December 15, 2005 11:32 PM

50

"Why would the reporter feel compelled to refer to it as anything else if it were not for bias?"

I'll say this and then I am done with your ridiculous position: The reporter showed NO bias -- he/she was reporting factually about the unborn/unhatched vertebrate at that stage gestation.

Man oh man, spare us women from certain men and their paternalistic, controlling attitudes!

I have no further comment to you on this subject -- you are OUT OF LINE.

Posted by: micki at December 15, 2005 11:32 PM

51

Saladin,

Okay, Arafat! Sorry, he's dead. My point is, David posts about a movie on a day when major media was focused on the election in Iraq. I was actually making a little bit of fun that I know you are aware that I can do from time to time. Thats all.

Micki,

We cross posted. If I am taking a statement in my job as a claims adjuster and the person I am interviewing refers to the barn as a shed, I do not call the shed a barn. There is no reason to because we are both talking about the same thing. The reporter was interviewing a mother-to-be who was referring to her baby in the interview by calling the baby a fetus. Why? The interviewer was interjecting their bias into the interview. Nothing more, nothing less.

Posted by: TRH at December 15, 2005 11:41 PM

52

Bush Secretly Lifted Some Limits on Spying in U.S. After 9/11, Officials Say From the NYT...

This is much more worrisome than the definition of a baby versus a fetus, because that fetus that may someday become a baby may not have much freedom if bush and his boyfriends continue on their merry march to destory our freedoms

Posted by: micki at December 15, 2005 11:49 PM

53

Yawn.

Posted by: micki at December 15, 2005 11:50 PM

54

Micki,

I thought you were done with this conversation with your post at #50, but I will quote a line from a Seinfield episode "I go out with theupper hand." My embryo/fetus now affectionately referred to as Mark Joseph needs a breathing treatment which is sure to wake him up, which means he will also want a bottle. Funny how life works. He fed off his mother for the first 40 weeks of life now he expects me to contribute. Some people refer to that as a paternalistic, controlling attitude. I call that being a Dad.

Posted by: TRH at December 15, 2005 11:57 PM

55

#54 THR - You're a tiresome drama queen.

Posted by: kaff at December 16, 2005 12:24 AM

56

Saladin,

I wrote at #27 "I do not blame Israel for the poor choice Bunnypants made. He started the illegal and unwise invasion all on his little lonesome!"

Becuase the title was of #27 was "Bush: Don't blame Israel for Iraq"

How could I have been commenting to your post when my comment was two posts before?

You wrote at #29 "Capt, I believe that the powers that be in Israel "

"Capt, I didn't blame the country of Israel, did I?" When did I post anything to you?

I always address you when I post to you. You do not have read too much between the lines?

#33 and #34 were side comments to my #27 and a bit tongue in cheek?

Are we having a bad day or just a "get curt with the capt day?". HA!

No biggie either way but I never addressed you?

I do not post much of anything to the regulars and when I do I always address them directly?

Where did you get the idea I was posting to you?
(two posts before your comment?)

All apologies if what I said got you ruffled but it was not directed to you, just about what I posted at #27.

capt

Posted by: capt at December 16, 2005 12:33 AM

57

I once read a story about a 10yr old Palestinian boy who was jumping on his bed while his dad was painting his bedroom. An Israeli sniper shot him dead. I never learned why (not that anyone ever needs to know why) but you can see the parallel that this has. Everyone is someone's son, dad, daughter, etc. When they are killed senselessly or accidentally and there is no recourse the violence continues. If it was my son I wouldn't rest until I had my revenge. I can only imagine that this is the scenario playing out in 'the homeland'. It takes a lot of balls for people to realize that nobody is absolutely right.

Posted by: Jay Severin has no pen1s at December 16, 2005 12:44 AM

58

Saladin your post #47
re my post #51

I didn't see your post before I posted mine. I am really sorry to hear about your miscarriage. I have never been through that experience but have had many family & friends who have. Hajji can attest to portions of that. A miscarriage is not an intentional act. I am sure, sore boobs or not, (wife had them, had to wrap ace bandages around them after birth to dry up mothers milk) that your gynocololgist never announced to you
"Congratulations, you are going to have an embryo/fetus!" They likely said that you are pregnant and your response was likely "I am going to have a baby." In all sincerety, I hate to hear that you experienced the joy of hearing that you were pregnant and had a miscarriage. And, I would be wrong in saying that I know how you feel. Because, I simply cannot know.

My simple point is this, what eventually is held up to a mother and hopefully a father in the delivery room is a baby. It may have been medically referred to as an embryo/zygote/fetus along the way, but it was in the beginning and in the end, a baby.

I respect your opinion a lot Saladin. I know I may come off as a "religious right" when it comes to abortion, but I am not. I don't go to church, never even plan to. I do not practice the faith I was baptized into, and have not since I was a teenager. I never have referred to people who have abortions as "murderers" if they actually have them per the constitutional ruling in Roe v. Wade. But, they do happen outside the 1st trimester and into the 3rd.

kaff#55

Posted by: TRH at December 16, 2005 12:51 AM

59

FBI Pressured to Gin Up Iraq-al-Qaeda Links

In the run-up to the Iraq war, FBI veterans say they were pressured by the Bush administration to come up with links, no matter how tenuous, between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda to help sell the planned military incursion.

They came up empty, however, and were told to redouble their efforts, scraping the bottom of the barrel, former officials say. When they still came up empty, the administration did not invite the bureau to the critical prewar National Foreign Intelligence Board (NFIB) meeting that produced the dossier on Iraq used by the White House to sway Congress.

The FBI normally has a seat at the NFIB. But in this case, it was not represented, even though the dossier makes judgments about the likelihood of Hussein launching terrorist attacks inside the U.S. Рa topic clearly within the FBI's realm of expertise.

John M. Cole, who retired late last year from the FBI as program manager for foreign intelligence investigations covering Pakistan and Afghanistan, says he and other managers were tasked before the war with exhausting all sources in the field for information tying Iraq to al-Qaeda.

"Everybody was tasked," he recalls in a exclusive interview. "Right before we attacked, my unit chief [in Washington] came over and said, 'OK, I want you to e-mail the field divisions and ask them to check their sources to find if they're aware of any connection between al-Qaeda or any terrorist groups and the Iraqi government.'"

*****end of clip*****

Keep this piece handy for the next time some pinhead says "there was no political pressure" in pre-war intell.

Liars, lies and more lying.


capt

Posted by: capt at December 16, 2005 12:55 AM

60

Asterisks Dot White House's Iraq Argument

By Dana Milbank and Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, November 12, 2005; Page A01

President Bush and his national security adviser have answered critics of the Iraq war in recent days with a two-pronged argument: that Congress saw the same intelligence the administration did before the war, and that independent commissions have determined that the administration did not misrepresent the intelligence.

Neither assertion is wholly accurate.

Judge Laurence H. Silberman, chairman of Bush's commission on weapons of mass destruction, said in releasing his report on March 31, 2005: "Our executive order did not direct us to deal with the use of intelligence by policymakers, and all of us were agreed that that was not part of our inquiry."

*****end of clip*****

See, the investigation did not misrepresent intelligence Judge Silberman says so? But the Judge differs? That would make Bunnypants and Hadley liars AGAIN.


capt

Posted by: capt at December 16, 2005 01:01 AM

61

Just saw a re-run of South Park. One of them was on the "bunny slope" at a ski-resort. Couldn't get the picture that Capt linked to of "bunny pants." Actually made it even funnier.

Posted by: TRH at December 16, 2005 01:06 AM

62

Bush cannot legally launch an attack on Iraq unless there is a UN Resolution to do so.

In October 2002, Congress passed House Joint Resolution 114, which gave Bush limited authority relating to Iraq. This has been described as legal justification for invading Iraq but that is not the case. Here is a complete text of the bill. Section 3(a) states:

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to-

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. This would seem to give him unlimited authority to launch an unprovoked attack. But HJR114 also states in Section 3(c)(2) that:

Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

This means Bush cannot ignore the War Powers Resolution of 1973 when determining what is "necessary and appropriate". So what does the War Powers Resolution say about this?

Section 9(d)(1) states:

(d) Nothing in this joint resolution-

(1) is intended to alter the constitutional authority of the Congress or of the President, or the provision of existing treaties; or So what existing treaties address the issue of attacking other nations? Two immediately come to mind: the UN Charter and the Nuremberg Charter.

The Nuremberg Charter says that it is a crime to plan a war of aggression. Many people believe that Bush is the agressor in this situation. Iraq has made no threats or attacks against the United States. They have simply built weapons to defend themselves from attack. They are also cooperating, albeit begrudgingly, with the United Nations. Bush, on the other hand, has surrounded Iraq with a huge military force and has threatened to destroy Saddam Hussein and much of Iraq in the process. Bush has also labelled the UN as irrelevant.

The UN Charter states that "All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means...". War can be used but only as a last resort and only under the direction of the UN Security Council.

So if Bush attacks Iraq without UN permission then he will be in violation of the UN Charter, the Nuremberg Charter, HJR114, and indirectly the Constitution. These are grounds for impeachment.

*****end of clip*****

Time to impeach the SOB. They DID put pressure in the intelligence community and he had no legal authority. That make it a war crime. Crimes against humanity. Crimes by American law.


capt

Posted by: capt at December 16, 2005 01:13 AM

63

Let Go, Let God

We are living in difficult times under a fascist regime and it will not be any easier for American citizens. More and more of our freedoms and rights will be taken away. In order to survive I suggest that we let go and let God take care of our destinies.

Most Americans have not created the problems but they are part of the problem. Whenever Americans distance themselves from God by accepting hatred, murders, torture, and war crimes, they are part of the problem. We perpetuate ongoing hatred, murders, torture, and war crimes.

I talk to God everyday and I let Him know that I am very tired and I need His strength to carry on. There is so much nonsense that we have to contend with in this country. This nonsense wears me out.

This cycle will continue endlessly and Americans will be at the tyrannical whims of a dictator who is well known for murders and war crimes. We find ourselves being accomplices and complicit in these endless murders and war crimes. We enter the exclusive club of murders and war crimes incorporated.

Placing our faith and prayers in God will mean that we are letting go and letting God direct our lives and our country. God will place us and our country in the right direction toward love, mercy, justice and peace. Thank God for love, mercy, justice, and peace.

Posted by: Gerald at December 16, 2005 01:17 AM

64

Bush and Rove: Collaborators in the Theater of the Moral Lie


by Andrew Bard Schmookler


If evil were to take over America, it would have to do it with a smiling face and postures of righteousness.

Most of the evil rulers in history made no pretense to moral virtue. Maintaining their power through terror, they simply intimidated people into submission.

But in a democracy, evil can rise to power only with the people's consent at least in the first stage. And this means that deception replaces brute force as evil's route to the throne.

Evil has thus ascended to power in America disguised as the good.

This is why the partnership between George W. Bush and Karl Rove has proved so fatefully dangerous for America, for the two men bring profoundly complementary talents to the theater of moral deception.

*****end of clip*****

"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear." ~ Marcus Tullius Cicero - (106-43 B.C.) Roman Statesman, Philosopher and Orator.

capt

Posted by: capt at December 16, 2005 01:20 AM

Posted by: Gerald at December 16, 2005 01:31 AM

Posted by: Gerald at December 16, 2005 01:31 AM

67

Cicero deserved losing his tounge, because it too was a murderer.

Posted by: ripple at December 16, 2005 01:39 AM

68

from Nick Lampson...

Dear Alan,


Contribute to our End-of-Year fundraising drive. Help us raise $100k!

Over the last few weeks, I've been speaking with thousands of voters across Southeast Texas. It's been great to travel far and wide across the 22nd Congressional District, a part of the world my family has called home since my grandparents settled here in 1913. And I'm really looking forward to representing NASA again.

Simply put, I can't get enough of TX-22 just the way it is.

But Monday's Supreme Court decision to look more closely at the redistricted map engineered by Tom DeLay, and the process he architected to redraw it, gives even more insight into the underlying problem with the former Majority Leader. A memo from the Bush Administration's own Justice Department showed changes to the redistricting map had no purpose other than to serve DeLay's political needs, at the expense of the voters, and likely violated the Voting Rights Act.

Each day, it's becoming clearer and clearer to Southeast Texans that instead of working on the war on terror, border security, and cutting our federal deficit (which has hit record levels under DeLay), and making it more affordable for small businesses to offer their employees health care, Tom DeLay was more focused on this redistricting scheme and his endless pursuit of power.

I'm in this race to ensure the people of TX-22 have someone who will fight for their interests. I will put the needs of Southeast Texans above partisan politics. I will fight to cut the budget deficit, reduce the national debt, increase homeland security at our ports and borders, and work to reduce health care costs on small businesses -- which will be good for employers and good for employees.

These are all ideas that everyone in TX-22 can agree on Ð- so why isn't Tom DeLay delivering on them?

As if DeLay's ethics problems, indictments, and endless pursuit of more power aren't enough to distract him from doing the people's work, he now has two opponents in the Republican primary. And as expected with anything involving DeLay, it has already devolved into a series of negative attacks just five days into the primary. One candidate dismissed the chances of another because her husband is Muslim, while DeLay's campaign called another candidate "delusional" and a "joke."

Tom DeLay is going to have his hands full just getting through the primary Ð- and we're going to be waiting for him in the general election.
Sincerely,

Nick Lampson
=========================
I think we have a winner!

Posted by: Alan at December 16, 2005 01:48 AM

69

UN Highlights Desperate Plight of World's Invisible Children


The United Nations said that hundreds of millions of children across the globe were suffering exploitation and abuse, invisible to the eyes of the rest of the world.

In its flagship annual report on the state of the world's youth, the UN Children's Fund (UNICEF) said such children live in dire circumstances and the picture painted by its report was "staggering" and "not a pretty one".

The report "takes you into the lives of hundreds of millions of children who are hidden from view, lost to statistics, programs and budgets and growing up beyond our reach," said UNICEF executive director Ann Veneman at its London launch on Wednesday.

"They are the world's most vulnerable children, trapped in circumstances that push them to the margins and shadows of society.

"They are children who are not registered at birth and grow up without an identity. They are children who suffer the death of one or both parents.

*****end of clip*****

"Then He will answer them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.'" - Matthew 25:45

This is what we get when multinational corporations run the planet. Poor children have nothing to offer the bottom line. No profit in feeding the hungry and starving.

Business is a heartless sociopath that serves one master - profit. Now governments sell influence to the multinationals so there is nothing left for the people.


capt

Posted by: capt at December 16, 2005 01:59 AM

70

The Idiot King Admits Iraq Isn't Our War


Witness the Witless One's self-dramatizing description of his decision to invade Iraq:

"I remember the day we committed the troops, or I committed the troops, there's no `we' to it. I committed the troops to combat in Iraq. And I left here [the Oval Office], walked out that door, walked around that South Lawn there with my trusty dog Spot, just thinking about the consequences...."

It must first be said that a guy who'd actually name his dog "Spot" (and actually use the word "trusty" to describe the hapless critter) is obviously not prone to lengthy bouts of reflection. Good grief, that's practically a default name for a pet canine; the kind of guy who'd settle for "Spot" would probably join an occult fraternity, be given the temporary secret name "Temporary," and never bother to change it ... oh, never mind.

More to the point: Bush, in his effort to create an "uneasy lies the head that bears the crown" moment, inadvertently delivered the definitive indictment of his foolish, unjust, needless, unconstitutional war: There is, to use his eminently quotable phrase, "no `we' to it."

The American people didn't go to war through our elected representatives in Congress. We didn't commit our troops to that invasion. This war is his, and his alone. Every American and Iraqi who dies as a result is being sacrificed on the altar of Bush's vainglorious ambition, and to advance the demented designs of the neo-Trotskyites who play Edgar Bergen to his Mortimer Snerd.

Like most people who suffer from megalomania, Bush preens in history's mirror, and refers to himself in the third person when he's not planting a forest of singular vertical pronouns:

"I hope that when it's all said and done, people will say that George Bush knew how to make a decision and to stick by it. You know, not let the polls or the focus groups determine the course of history, but he made decisions based upon principles and things I firmly believed in. I'll tell you one thing I firmly believe in: I think I believe liberty is universal. Freedom is the deep desire of every human being and that a country with influence like ours ought to do things to free people.... I meant what I said in my inaugural address, we ought to end tyranny in this century. And so long as I'm the president I'm going to follow through on what I said I would do."

This narcissistic peroration has more "I's" than Argus. We are invited to believe that George W. Bush Рa pampered son of privilege who is a stranger in the house of sacrifice Рis somehow being brave and bold when he sends the sons and daughters of others to kill and die for no defensible reason (and without constitutional authority to do so).

Granted, there is one thing Bush could do to help roll back tyranny. He could resign immediately and surrender himself to be prosecuted for his crimes against our Constitution. His trial could wait until after he had brought our troops home and personally visited the home of every family РAmerican, ally, or Iraqi Рthat has been deprived of a child or a parent to plead, on his knees, for their forgiveness.

*****end of clip*****

Yeah right, like that will ever happen. That would take some stones and monkey-boy has no stones.

capt

Posted by: capt at December 16, 2005 02:28 AM

71

After the reneged contract for billboards, retaliation was sweet with a mobile billboard and newspaper ads. hey hey

Democrats savage Ohio Rep. who called anti-war Democrat and ex-marine a coward

The ads, including a 10-by-20 foot mobile billboard, full-page ads in 10 newspapers throughout Schmidt's district and online ads, were unveiled this morning in Cincinnati.

The DNC said in a statement they "purchased the ads after Lamar Advertising refused to run billboards near Schmidt's district office in Portsmouth, Ohio."

"Today, thousands of people from all across the country sent politicians like Jean Schmidt a clear message," said DNC Spokesman Damien LaVera. "By supporting this effort to hold Jean Schmidt accountable for her outlandish, out of line attacks on Congressman Murtha, people all across America showed that any politician who attacks the brave men and women who served our country for political gain will pay a political price."

The newspaper ad follows; above is the billboard ad.

Posted by: Alan at December 16, 2005 03:01 AM

72

The Enemy of Our Enemy Is Our . . . Enemy?

Saddiq Ahmad Turkistani was freed from a Taliban prison in the early days of the Afghan war. He'd been wrongly imprisoned, he told reporters--though he had indeed helped hatch a plot to kill Osama Bin Laden. He despised the Taliban and al Qaeda, and was an eager supporter of the U.S. war on terror.
---
---
It remains a mystery why Turkistani was sent to Guantanamo Bay at all. Some officials and his lawyers speculate that he has been held by mistake. Or, they say, some officials may have believed he had intelligence value because bin Laden accused him of trying to plot his killing in 1998. U.S. officials have offered no public explanation.

Turkistani's detainers have certainly cleared up one thing, though, according to one of his lawyers, Susan Baker Manning: "The enemy took away his life for 4 1/2 years, and we reward him for that by taking away his life for another four years. He clearly opposed al Qaeda and the Taliban, and he still feels that way. He's not a huge fan of the U.S. anymore."


Clearly, we needed to do a better job of explaining to him we were just staying the course. -- HOLLY MARTINS

Posted by: Alan at December 16, 2005 03:26 AM

73

Claims of new bin Laden tape
15/12/2005 - 20:33:53

US officials are treating a report on an Afghan news website about a new video showing Osama bin Laden with scepticism.

The story from Pajhwok Afghan News, dated Tuesday, describes a new 30-minute tape with a message from Taliban commander Mullah Dodallah and the al Qaida leader, according to the IntelCenter, a US government contractor that works for intelligence agencies.

A US counterterrorism official, who spoke only on condition of anonymity in compliance with office policy, said the government could not confirm the the tapeÕs existence, but said officials are aware of the media report.

US authorities are viewing it sceptically, the official said.

Bin Laden has not been heard from since a December 2004 audio.

That is the longest stretch the terror leader has been publicly quiet since the attacks of September 11, 2001.

Posted by: Alan at December 16, 2005 03:29 AM

74

Voting machines won't be retested, state officials say
State elections officials aren't ready to re-examine electronic voting machines -- even after a supervisor reported hackers could rig votes on some machines.

BY MARC CAPUTOmcaputo@herald.comTALLAHASSEE - Top computer scientists and voting experts said Thursday that Florida must re-examine the way it tests voting machines and needs to verify claims by a Tallahassee elections official who said hackers could alter some computerized election results.
But acting Florida Secretary of State David Mann, whose office oversees the state elections department, said Thursday that he has such ''confidence'' in his agency's certification process that he has no intention of doing any double-checking right now.
---
---
Over the past six months, Sancho gave two computer hackers access to his optical-scan voting machines, in which voters cast fill-in-the-blank ballots. Attacking different parts of the system from the inside, the hackers said they were able to easily bypass security codes, make losing candidates win, add or subtract voters -- and do it without leaving a trace.
---
---
The first hacker, Herbert Thompson, was able to break into the central calculator and disguise 60,000 hidden votes for a candidate. Thompson, a computer-security expert and professor at the Florida Institute of Technology, said he was surprised by how easy it was to outwit the system.
Next up was Hursti. Rather than attack the central calculator, he manipulated data on a small memory card that election workers insert into each vote machine in the morning. The memory card, which records votes, is fed into the calculator at day's end.
---
---
''Rigging elections is an age-old problem and is a threat to our very democracy,'' he said. ``Just that threat alone should be a call to action for the state.''

Posted by: Alan at December 16, 2005 03:41 AM

75

Voting machines won't be retested, state officials say
State elections officials aren't ready to re-examine electronic voting machines -- even after a supervisor reported hackers could rig votes on some machines.

BY MARC CAPUTOmcaputo@herald.comTALLAHASSEE - Top computer scientists and voting experts said Thursday that Florida must re-examine the way it tests voting machines and needs to verify claims by a Tallahassee elections official who said hackers could alter some computerized election results.
But acting Florida Secretary of State David Mann, whose office oversees the state elections department, said Thursday that he has such ''confidence'' in his agency's certification process that he has no intention of doing any double-checking right now.
---
---
Over the past six months, Sancho gave two computer hackers access to his optical-scan voting machines, in which voters cast fill-in-the-blank ballots. Attacking different parts of the system from the inside, the hackers said they were able to easily bypass security codes, make losing candidates win, add or subtract voters -- and do it without leaving a trace.
---
---
The first hacker, Herbert Thompson, was able to break into the central calculator and disguise 60,000 hidden votes for a candidate. Thompson, a computer-security expert and professor at the Florida Institute of Technology, said he was surprised by how easy it was to outwit the system.
Next up was Hursti. Rather than attack the central calculator, he manipulated data on a small memory card that election workers insert into each vote machine in the morning. The memory card, which records votes, is fed into the calculator at day's end.
---
---
''Rigging elections is an age-old problem and is a threat to our very democracy,'' he said. ``Just that threat alone should be a call to action for the state.''

Posted by: Alan at December 16, 2005 03:42 AM

76

The One that Got Away

CNN is reporting that Iraqi authorities had arrested Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian terrorist, in Ramadi, but mistakenly released him. Nic Roberts reported that Zarqawi had put on weight, grown a beard, removed a tattoo, and was using a Kurdish passport, making him unrecognizable to Iraqi security forces.

What I take away from this report is that if the Iraqis cannot recognize a Jordanian master terrorist, the American military has zero chance of fighting the Sunni Arab guerrilla movement in Iraq, because most of them don't even know enough Arabic to distinguish an Iraqi from a Jordanian accent. And if all it takes is putting on weight and growing a beard to disguise oneself, then we're in deep trouble.

Zarqawi dropped out of high school and went off to Afghanistan in 1989. He is not educated, though he has learned terror tactics and maybe at one point got some training in chemicals. I can't see that he is irreplaceable if he were killed or captured. Al-Tawhid wa al-Jihad, his organization, is a social movement among Jordanian and Iraqi Salafi (revivalist) Sunnis, and can recruit other leaders. Zarqawi is a shadowy figure, and some maintain that he was killed in Afghanistan and is no more than a symbol, used to refer collectively to the Salafi Jihadi leadership. Many bombings and other operations attributed to Zarqawi cannot possibly have been his work, since his organization is small, and it seems likely that when the Neo-Baath does something particularly heinous, they attribute it to him on the internet.

*****end of clip*****

Juan Cole's Informed Comment always informs!

capt

Posted by: capt at December 16, 2005 07:28 AM

77

US embraces Iraqi insurgents


By Gareth Porter

WASHINGTON - While US President George W Bush continued to claim a strategy for "victory" in Iraq in recent speeches, his administration has quietly renounced the goal of defeating the non-al-Qaeda, Sunni-armed organizations there.

The administration is evidently preparing for serious negotiations with the Sunni insurgents, whom it has started referring to as "nationalists", emphasizing their opposition to al-Qaeda's objectives.

The new policy has thus far gone unnoticed in the media, partly because it has only been articulated by US Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad and the spokesman for the US command in Baghdad.

The White House clearly recognizes that the shift could cause serious political problems if and when it becomes widely understood. The Republican Party has just unveiled a new television ad attacking Democratic Party chair Howard Dean for suggesting that the war in Iraq cannot be won.

Renouncing victory over the Sunni insurgents therefore undercuts the president's political strategy of portraying his policy as one of "staying the course" and attacking the Democrats for "cutting and running".

Until recently, the administration treated the indigenous Sunni insurgents as the main enemy in Iraq, measuring progress primarily in terms of the numbers of insurgents killed and captured, and areas "cleared" of insurgent presence. Administration officials portrayed Sunni insurgents as allies of al-Qaeda and referred to them as "anti-Iraqi forces".

*****end of clip*****

Well it is about time the insurgency is recognized as a nationalist movement and not terrorism. I could care less what the political cost to Bunnypants or the GOP might be. They should pay a very dear cost for their illegal and unwise hobby war.

"The new policy has thus far gone unnoticed in the media"

Unnoticed? I think it has just gone un-reported.

capt

Posted by: capt at December 16, 2005 07:41 AM

78

Arnie's terminated

December 16, 2005 - 11:11AM

The Arnold Schwarzenegger Football Stadium in Austria's second-largest city Graz is to be renamed as a sign of displeasure with the city's most famous son.

A majority of members on Graz City Council voted to rename the stadium after the Austrian-born governor of California approved the execution of Stanley "Tookie" Williams, according to newspaper Kleine Zeitung.

The Terminator-turned-governor was born six kilometres outside Graz in the community of Thal.

"It's getting on our nerves that we're again and again being criticised for Schwarzenegger's actions in California," said SP Vice Mayor Welter Ferk.

*****end of clip*****

Talk about the law of unintended consequences.

capt

Posted by: capt at December 16, 2005 07:46 AM

79

Bush and Blair as panto cow

December 16, 2005 - 11:51AM

Madame Tussauds has turned US President George W Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair into a pantomime cow for their Christmas display, the waxwork museum said today.

The world statesmen were dressed up as a cow from Jack and the Beanstalk in a new scene featuring characters from pantomime favourites at the popular London tourist venue.

Some other famous faces got a festive makeover.

Friends star Jennifer Aniston has been cast as Snow White, her ex-husband Brad Pitt as Prince Charming - while his new love Angelina Jolie is the Wicked Stepmother.

Former Spice Girls singer Victoria Beckham, dubbed Posh Spice, is clad in a tight cat suit and thigh-high boots as a Posh in Boots take on Puss in Boots.

Celebrity chef Jamie Oliver is servant Buttons from Cinderella.

The scene is on display until January 8.

Madame Tussauds were unavailable for comment on who landed the plum role of playing the back end of the cow.

*****end of clip*****

If they were dressed as a horse it would be a given which one was the rear half.

capt

Posted by: capt at December 16, 2005 07:54 AM

80

Capt 56, I thought you were referring to my #24 because it showed up right after my comment. I saw your post about bush instructing us not to blame Israel, I guess it was just a coincidence. I am touchy where Israel is concerned. I have become totally fed up with the protection they receive, and the brutal terrorism they get away with that they blame on the Arab people. I think the president of Iran has a great point, they should go back to Europe, the foundation of all their suffering, to set up their nation, and stop murdering the Palestinian natives! But I guess that has as much chance of happening as the American natives had of sending the white guys back to Europe, HAHAHA! PS, I never have a bad "Capt" day!

Posted by: Saladin at December 16, 2005 10:09 AM

81

Capt 56, I thought you were referring to my #24 because it showed up right after my comment. I saw your post about bush instructing us not to blame Israel, I guess it was just a coincidence. I am touchy where Israel is concerned. I have become totally fed up with the protection they receive, and the brutal terrorism they get away with that they blame on the Arab people. I think the president of Iran has a great point, they should go back to Europe, the foundation of all their suffering, to set up their nation, and stop murdering the Palestinian natives! But I guess that has as much chance of happening as the American natives had of sending the white guys back to Europe, HAHAHA! PS, I never have a bad "Capt" day!

Posted by: Saladin at December 16, 2005 10:09 AM

82

Alright you guys (and gals) JibJabs got a new video, check it out...HERE

Posted by: DEN at December 16, 2005 10:09 AM

83

David as a young person I too was shocked by the brutal murder of the Israeli athletes. But until I was older and read a fair amount about the creation of Israel and the treatment and deaths of Palestinians in the process, I did not have a true picture of what was taking place.

David this statement of yours tells it all "glancingly gives palestinians a say in the film".

When Speilberg or anyone else produces a film that actually tells the truth about the Zionist terroist that ran the Palestinians out of their homeland and killed many in the process.

If this were to happen we be sure to see extreme violence out of the right wing zionist in this country. ...ROOT CAUSE...ROOT CAUSE.

I have witnessed these radical zionist fundamentalist and Jewish fundamentalist on several occasions in action.

As Jimmy Carter has said over and over again until the U.s. and Israel are willing to deal with this conflict in an honest way...the cycle of violence will continue. ROOT CAUSE ROOT CAUSES...

Can not wait to see the film. The timing is interesting..AIPAC CONFERENCE COMING UP IN THE SPRING SURE TO BE FOCUSED ON MILITARY ACTION IN IRAN OR SYRIA.....THE FRANKILIN/AIPAC/ROSEN TRIAL COMING UP IN APRIL

WAS THIS FILM MADE TO STIR UP EMPATHY FOR THE MOSSAD AND ISRAEL OR TO BE HONEST?

David I do feel as others have expressed on this post....where is your focus?...LENNON/Guns..INternationaL Answer/Protest. The importance of these issues semm questionable at this time.

Posted by: kathleen at December 16, 2005 10:15 AM

Posted by: Gerald at December 16, 2005 10:17 AM

Posted by: Gerald at December 16, 2005 10:17 AM

86

TRH 58, there was no "joyous announcement" that I was pregnant, as I said, I didn't even know. It hadn't progressed to the point within 6 weeks that I could notice it since it is still pretty much invisible at that time. All the medical literature that I have ever read regarding pregancy,, and I read a lot, always referred to the developing "fetus." That is just a technical term, and doesn't imply bias in my opinion. There are many common terms to describe various body parts, I am sure you can think of a couple, that don't use the technical language, but everyone knows what you're talking about! Of course people expecting a child don't call it a fetus, but they don't get bent out of shape if the doctor does, or if they are given instruction material that does. Lighten up! At two weeks it is a zygote, hardly considered a fetus since it's very survival is up in the air, that I know from experience. I know your stand on this matter does not reflect any religious belief, and I respect that stand. I personally would NEVER have an abortion, but then I am in a good and secure position in which to raise a child in a happy and loving home. But I would never presume to afflict someone else with that decision, any more than I would allow someone to decide I couldn't have a baby if I wanted to. We don't have that right. No matter how we feel about life and exactly when it begins, we can only decide for ourselves what is right for our personal situation. Outlawing abortion will assure only one thing, that the well to do will continue to have them, but in a safe and hygenic environment, while the vast majority will get the coat hanger in the alley option.

Posted by: Saladin at December 16, 2005 10:25 AM

87

Last night I posted the link to the NYT article about bush's 2002 executive order allowing the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on conversations taking place within the United States without a warrant.

For those who read the article, you saw that the NYT held the story for a year due to "administration concerns" -- I wonder if the NYT knew about this prior to the November '04 election and if that had anything to do with their decision to hold the story.

Today Miss Con-di reassured all willing lemmings that bush has always acted lawfully. Yeah, right. Like we should believe her?!! SHE WAS NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR WHEN THIS CRAPOLA BECAME SOP.

Posted by: micki at December 16, 2005 10:29 AM

88

HOLY FROZEN WATER!!!

If anybody's interested/worried... We're ok... The goat's treehouse and the double-wide mansion survived a tremendous ice storm, but we're gonna be without power throught the weekend at least. (Christmas a week early is gonna drop back to "Plan B"...just gotta come up with one!)

The bad news is that the well pump demands electricity...so no running water. Looks like more freezing rain/snow/sleet tomorrow night, too!

It took the better part of yesterday to cut and drag frozen trees out of the road. Even small pieces of the tops of pine trees are surprisingly heavy when coated in about 3/4ths an inch of ice. My back and legs are quite..uhm...abused.

Jill had left for work before the worst of the storm hit. When she came out after 7 hrs of surgery, she was surprised at the damage. Trees of all sizes and ages are down everywhere. Grocery stores were running on backup generator power and were refusing to let anybody open up the cold sections...weird.

One gas station in d-town Easley was open.

I just stopped into the "Co.Kimberly Hampton Memorial Library" to drop a few notes...

Thanks for your words of encouragement!

-T

Posted by: Hajji at December 16, 2005 10:32 AM

89

Hajji,

Stay as warm and safe as you can!

Holy ice storm Batman!

capt

Posted by: capt at December 16, 2005 10:43 AM

90

Saladin,

It is all cool, I was just cracking up to hear Bunnypants even say such a thing. It is all so absurd. I am easily amused and have an odd sense of humor.

Did you catch the post (2-3 threads back) where Judas Miller was allowed to watch a little torture? She had (if I remember correctly) the Israeli PM ask to let her? What is that all about?

AIPAC has had the most nefarious creepy criminals all tied into the Abramoff payola. Influence peddling has been refined to high art.

I got the feeling that Bunnypants was making a left-handed effort to try to deflect some blame TO Israel by bringing it up.

I do blame the government(s) and these slugs that are shifting mountains of money and our state secrets and such. They give me the creeps! (and not in a good way) HA!


capt



Posted by: capt at December 16, 2005 10:55 AM

91

Capt, I vaguely recall that miller thing. I was cracking up reading the comments by the Iranian president, he seems to be goading Israel on purpose. I get this picture in my head of the schoolyard bully being set up by the little guy he is constantly harrassing. The little guy pays the biggest, baddest kid he can find to hide in the bushes while he taunts the bully. I think Iran has Russia and China hiding in the bushes! Maybe Israel has bitten off more than they can chew this time. One can hope. Just get our troops out of there before they jump out of the bushes.

Posted by: Saladin at December 16, 2005 11:03 AM

92

Capt, I vaguely recall that miller thing. I was cracking up reading the comments by the Iranian president, he seems to be goading Israel on purpose. I get this picture in my head of the schoolyard bully being set up by the little guy he is constantly harrassing. The little guy pays the biggest, baddest kid he can find to hide in the bushes while he taunts the bully. I think Iran has Russia and China hiding in the bushes! Maybe Israel has bitten off more than they can chew this time. One can hope. Just get our troops out of there before they jump out of the bushes.

Posted by: Saladin at December 16, 2005 11:03 AM

93

No warrants given for mass spying


David Nason and Patrick Walters
17dec05

GEORGE W. Bush has allowed the US National Security Agency to spy on hundreds and possibly thousands of American citizens since 2002 without the court-approved warrants that make such surveillance legal.

The covert operation, secretly authorised by the President in the months after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, has intercepted international telephone calls and email messages in a bid to identify links to al-Qa'ida.

But many of those involved in the operation believed they were acting illegally, according to a dozen past and present US government officials who spoke to The New York Times on condition of anonymity.

The revelations come a year after the newspaper was asked by the White House not to publish its information because it might jeopardise investigations.

The newspaper said it met "senior administration officials" and agreed to delay publication to conduct "additional reporting".

The actions of Mr Bush and the NSA represent a large shift in US intelligence-gathering protocols and are certain to be regarded by civil libertarians, immigrant groups and the president's growing number of Congressional critics as a sinister and dangerous abuse of executive power.

The New York Times said officials familiar with the operation had questioned whether the surveillance breached the constitutional limits on legal searches.

*****end of clip*****

Same story as seen here but interesting to read the perspective from "down under."


capt

Posted by: capt at December 16, 2005 11:06 AM

94

Saladin,


There is some major bad mojo afoot. That much is very clear.

They have said something like March is the deadline.

Between the liars and the MSM it is hard to get a handle on what and where but I think it is "when" not "if" something will happen.

Waiting and watching.


capt

Posted by: capt at December 16, 2005 11:10 AM

95

Torture

There has been much debate and talk about what constitutes torture. I can give you two forms of torture. Each one of us has our own ideas about torture. Here are my two forms of torture. If I look at Bush, that is one form of torture. My second form of torture is listening to Bush's endless lies. Seeing and listening to Bush are two forms of torture for me.

Posted by: Gerald at December 16, 2005 11:14 AM

96

NEWSWEEK: Torture or Coercion?
Sen. John McCain scored a victory in his battle to ban interrogation abuse, but the White House may not be giving up entirely on harsh interrogations.

_______________
Whenever the busheviks have a "change of heart" I wonder what trick they are up to now. Their "compromise" with McCain seems to be saying, wink wink, "Okay, we won't torture, but if we do, and we get caught, it cannot be challenged! Additionally, we can still use the "evidence" we gained from the interrogation. Okay, that's the deal!"

John McCain rolls over, goes to the WH photo-op, and tries to maintain his diminishing credibility...somehow I don't think the good guys won anything here. More bullshit. Different day.

Posted by: micki at December 16, 2005 11:20 AM

97

HILLARY SWINGING TO RIGHT?
Friday, December 16, 2005 - FreeMarketNews.com

Apparently, Hillary Clinton's crossover to the right wing is still very much a continuing process. Not content with supporting the war on Iraq, and waffling a bit on both abortion-choice and gay marriage, the Senator from New York is now adding flag-burning to her list of campaign issues.

According to a column by Richard Cohen in the Washington Post, the former First Lady turned Presidential hopeful had come out foursquare against the right to burn a flag as a political statement of free expression. As Cohen notes, even Justice Anthony Scalia has made it clear that such actions are constitutionally protected speech, and may not be banned. However, he says, apparently Hillary wasn't there to hear that presentation. Instead, she is co-sponsoring with Sen. Robert Bennett (R-Utah) a bill that would make flag burning illegal. Cohen acknowledges that there is no attempt to make this a constitutional amendment, and the bill is "written in a cutesy way that does not explicitly outlaw all flag burnings - just those intended to 'intimidate any person or group of persons.' That's a distinction without a difference to your average police officer. Not many cops belong to the ACLU."
-----------
Will it be hillary and another bush as our choice in 08? Doesn't she have anything better to do than crusade against flag burning? Is that the most critical issue facing us today? What a f**king idiot!

Posted by: Saladin at December 16, 2005 11:21 AM

98

Gerald, those are self-inflicted forms of torture. I do not look at or listen to him, so I don't suffer! I give him the same treatment as I give the trolls.

Posted by: Saladin at December 16, 2005 11:23 AM

99

Saladin & capt -- I think I may have posted this...at least I intended to. Saladin, you remembered correctly. Sorry, I do not have the link handy...

N.Y. Times reporter named in court filing

December 13, 2005

BY ANNIE SWEENEY Staff Reporter


An alleged fund-raiser for Hamas who claims a confession he gave the Israeli government was coerced during 1993 interrogations that were observed by Judith Miller named the former New York Times reporter in court filings Monday, questioning her credibility and professionalism.

Attorneys for Muhammed Salah, of Bridgeview, said two weeks ago they wrote a letter to Miller -- also recently embroiled in the White House leak investigation involving CIA operative Valerie Plame -- asking for information about the interrogation.

Miller has refused to cooperate, said Salah's attorney, Michael E. Deutsch.

Salah, along with Abdelhaleem Ashqar, of Alexandria, Va., are charged here with laundering millions of dollars in a 15-year conspiracy to fund Hamas. Hamas has taken credit for dozens of attacks abroad, including suicide bombings. Both have pleaded not guilty.

'Swirl of controversy'


Salah's attorneys are trying to have his confession suppressed because of the alleged torture at the hands of Israeli authorities. In a written response, the U.S. government refers to a news reporter's "own observations" of an "interrogation session."

Deutsch responded by raising questions about Miller, whose reporting on the lead-up to the Iraq war -- including whether Saddam Hussein was amassing weapons of mass destruction -- has been widely criticized.

"Curiously, the government does not reveal the name of that news reporter,'' Salah's filing reads. "She is the infamous Judith Miller, who recently left her position at the New York Times amidst a swirl of controversy and claims of highly unprofessional and politically motivated conduct."

Miller retired from the Times after spending 85 days in prison this year for refusing to testify in a U.S. government investigation into the leak of the identity of Plame.

'Special access'

Monday's court filing goes on to mention Miller's extraordinary clearance and access to the interrogations, which was arranged by the Israeli prime minister, according to court documents. Salah has asked for the government to provide written documents about what she witnessed.

"Given the suspect circumstances under which Ms. Miller was allowed to observe Mr. Salah, and given her history of being 'too close to her sources,' defendant is entitled to broad disclosure of the facts and circumstances surrounding Ms. Miller's role in Mr. Salah's interrogation," the filing reads.

Deutsch added on Monday: "We're asking for the [U.S.] government to get the documents from Israel which document how this reporter was given special access, allegedly, to our client. We wonder whether or not she was working with the Israeli government at that time. Why was she given this special leave to go in there?"

Miller's attorney could not be reached for comment Monday, and a spokesman for U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald refused to comment.

Posted by: micki at December 16, 2005 11:29 AM

100

Gerald,

I cannot watch Bunnypants on TV or video clips online.

I can read about his lies and BS after he makes a fool of himself.

Better for my blood pressure!

capt

Posted by: capt at December 16, 2005 11:31 AM

101

#96 micki, same shit, different day!

#98 Saladin, changing the TV stations will from time to time see Bush's face and the painful sight is torture. The nightmares are real when I sleep if his face flashes before me or the sound of his evil voice. I do not even have to be fighting in Iraq to suffer CTSD or Current Traumatic Stress Disorder. There is no health coverage for CTSD. In addition to the nightmares I face bankruptcy with the medical costs for Bush's presence.

Posted by: Gerald at December 16, 2005 11:36 AM

102

#100 capt, I must have a bad case of CTSD.

Posted by: Gerald at December 16, 2005 11:39 AM

103

#'s 58 & 86 Ugh, a little more information than we needed. Please save it for your self help group - this is a blog for pity's sake. Next thing you know you'll be posting the birth of your babies/fetuses or whatever you call them. Sheesh!

Posted by: creeped out liberal at December 16, 2005 11:41 AM

104

creeped out, the information was not for you! If you don't approve, don't read it. Unless of course you are Mr. Corn, in that case you have the right to monitor and control the posts.

Posted by: Saladin at December 16, 2005 11:45 AM

105

Micki!

Thanks that is the one!

WHAT IS UP WITH THAT? It just creeps me right out. Miller is a very scary person for many reasons but this? . .


capt

Posted by: capt at December 16, 2005 11:45 AM

106

hill has taken up the no flag burning gauntlet?
what a crusader! what are the penalties for flag burning I wonder? what if someone can't afford to heat their home but they just happen to have a box of flags - would they still be prosecuted for burning them? or is one only allowed to drape oneself with them? what happens if someone is caught burning the Israeli flag? is that illegal? - hillary clinton is pathetic as are most of the dems. and god help us if it comes down to a choice between hill and jeb -

Posted by: James Ha at December 16, 2005 11:46 AM

107

James, I doubt if the next round of corrupt politicians can possibly do more damage than the current crooks in charge. We are already screwed, no matter who moves into the WH, if we aren't bankrupt by then, in which case it REALLY won't matter.

Posted by: Saladin at December 16, 2005 11:55 AM

108

United States Flag Retirement

When the United States flag (Old Glory) becomes worn, torn, faded or badly soiled, it is time to replace it with a new flag, and the old flag should be "retired" with all the dignity and respect befitting our nation's flag. The traditional method of retirement is to incinerate the flag, but this does not mean that one should simply drop the entire flag (intact) into a fire. Though I disagree with burning a flag for a political statement and truly feel it is a dishonorable act, I also feel that freedom of speech must be protected. However, today we are not burning a flag we are retiring a symbol of America's honor, courage, and strength. Therefore we request that all remain silent during this ceremony.


*****end of clip*****

The very idea that flag burning is an issue of import is just bizarre.

I will not vote of any politician that is not anti-war/anti-death penalty. Never again.

Hillary lost my interest long ago and she has not made any effort to get me interested. Her fault not mine, I still listen but find her position offensive on many issues.

She is not the one. Not from where I stand.


capt

Posted by: capt at December 16, 2005 12:00 PM

109

The feelings of torture are so consuming that I have CTSD or Current Traumatic Stress Disorder. This is a new classification of a disorder that has come on the scene with the inception of Bush to the WH. As long as Bush is in the WH, this disorder will spread rapidly across America and the world.

Posted by: Gerald at December 16, 2005 12:06 PM

110

The Israeli / Palestinian conflict is not black and white or good against bad. It, like all things, is a mixed bag. Both sides are good, both sides are bad. Black and white are only found at the extremes, everything in between is shades of gray.

As long as people there, or in the U.S., continue to see the world in terms of good / bad and black / white, situations like this will never be resolved and our world will forever be doomed to an unending cycle of violence -- which is just fine by many people.

Posted by: Yehuda Cohn at December 16, 2005 12:12 PM

111

NORAD exercise planned for Washington D.C.

PETERSON AIR FORCE BASE, Colo. -- The Continental United States NORAD Region (CONR) will conduct Exercise Falcon Virgo 06-03 in the National Capital Region (Washington, D.C.) December 15-16.

Exercise Falcon Virgo 06-03 comprises a series of training flights conducted in coordination with the Federal Aviation Administration, the National Capital Region Command Center, the Joint Air Defense Operations Center, the Civil Air Patrol, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and the Northeast Air Defense Sector.

The exercise is designed to test intercept and identification operations. It will involve multiple Cessna aircraft, a Citation 550 (Learjet), and an H-60 Blackhawk helicopter --all flying at low altitudes along the Potomac River and around Washington, D.C., during late night Thursday and early morning Friday. In the event of inclement weather, the exercise will be extended to the following day.

CONR is a region