Post Reporters Linzer and Tate Buy Jihadist Jabour's Story Hook, Line, and Sinker

...And I should believe this guy because...?

New Light Shed on CIA's 'Black Site' Prisons

By Dafna Linzer and Julie Tate
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, February 28, 2007; Page A01

On his last day in CIA custody, Marwan Jabour, an accused al-Qaeda paymaster, was stripped naked, seated in a chair and videotaped by agency officers. Afterward, he was shackled and blindfolded, headphones were put over his ears, and he was given an injection that made him groggy. Jabour, 30, was laid down in the back of a van, driven to an airstrip and put on a plane with at least one other prisoner.

His release from a secret facility in Afghanistan on June 30, 2006, was a surprise to Jabour -- and came just after the Supreme Court rejected the Bush administration's assertion that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to prisoners like him.

Jabour had spent two years in "black sites" -- a network of secret internment facilities the CIA operated around the world. His account of life in that system, which he described in three interviews with The Washington Post, offers an inside view of a clandestine world that held far more prisoners than the 14 men President Bush acknowledged and had transferred out of CIA custody in September.

--------------snip------------------

After 28 months of incarceration, Jabour -- who was described by a counterterrorism official in the U.S. government as "a committed jihadist and a hard-core terrorist who was intent on doing harm to innocent people, including Americans" -- was released eight months ago. U.S. intelligence and counterterrorism officials confirmed his incarceration and that he was held in Pakistan and Afghanistan. They would not discuss conditions inside black sites or the treatment of any detainee.

First why should I believe this guy? Am I supposed to believe him because Human Rights Watch says so? Because these Post reporters say so? Second, I hope that we are doing all of these things and more to get what information is available about what terrorists are doing.

I support what the CIA is alledged to be doing. I support interrogation techniques which cause discomfort. There is a difference between torture-as in sawing the head off of a prisoner while he is still alive and awake or feeding your prisoners into a plastics grinder feet first-and using discomfort to elicit information.

The most pitiful straw man argument against the treatment and interrogation techniques that are alleged to be being used against our enemies is that our enemies will feel free to torture our POW's when they are captured. When have they ever done so? Did the Japanese treat our prisoners humanely? Did the North Koreans? Did the North Vietnamese? Have the terrorists? Talk about a sad excuse for an argument.

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Sharpton's Ancestors Owned By Thurmond's Relatives-Not What it Seems

Will Malven
2/27/07

You’ve read the headlines, how about a small dose of the truth? This story is another in a long line of object lessons in why one should not believe anything the Paleo-media tells you; this includes the Fox News Channel.

The headlines are intended to convey some intimacy of ownership of the Sharptons by the Thurmonds. Sharpton’s claim was intended to convey the same “truth” when he said to the [New York] Daily News:

"Strom Thurmond's family owned my family,"

Here’s the truth:

Reverend Al Sharpton’s great-grandfather Coleman Sharpton was owned by a man named Alexander Sharpton. Alexander Sharpton had a son named Jefferson Sharpton who married a woman named Julia Thurmond. Julia was Strom Thurmond’s first cousin, twice removed.

Translation: Strom Thurmond’s great-grandfather had a
brother whose daughter married into a family who owned the Reverend Sharpton’s
great-grand father.

Now that is about as tenuous a connection as a person could possibly have and still be related. To claim that Strom’s family owned Sharpton’s is a construct intended to generate a visceral reaction in the public. It is a LIE for all intents and purposes.

No one in their right mind condones what happened to Sharpton’s ancestors, or any of the rest of the slaves which were brought to America, but to use such a tenuous connection for sensational press is unethical and deceitful, particularly when coupled to the misleading headlines.

So now you know the truth. This is precisely the reason that the Paleo-media is dying out. The constant assault on the truth to advance their Liberal agenda has so compromised their journalistic ethics as to render them undependable as sources of information.

By the way, the source for this information is not some “Right-wing” racist nutjob website, it is from an editorial written by Eugene Robinson in the Washington Post today.

Long Live the American Republic!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Asteroid may strike Earth in 2036

By Will Malven

You know I have been struck by the apparent necessity for humans to have some disaster looming before them or they just aren’t happy.

Our society is rapidly devolving into an amoral, sybaritic, Narcisstic, fear mongering, conspiracy addicted mess.

We have somehow come to the bizarre conclusion that we are the most important thing in Creation and that we have the power to control the universe. Not only that, but that we should take it as our sworn obligation to exercise that control.

We have left God behind us, intent on instituting our will on the universe rather than His.
The latest craze is this asteroid which may or may not be going to strike Earth in 2036. Now we are being called to expend huge sums of money to intercept and deflect this asteroid [again which may or may not be going to strike the Earth] “while there is still time.”
Sounds like another case of Global Warming to me.

The real question for me is…if Algore is right and we only have 8 years, 342 days, and 10 or so hours until we are all destroyed by Global Warming, why should we worry about this Asteroid?
How is that logical? I mean, we already know that as was pointed out by Greg Strange that Global Warming is so absolutely certain, that Ellen Goodman compairs GW deniers to Holicaust deniers. So why should we worry about an Asteroid which is going to strike the Earth 20 years after we are all dead?

I mean, I’m cool with that…err..maybe “cool” isn’t the best choice of words…I’m okay with that.
See you in the next life…Oh wait, I got it maybe the Roswellian aliens will swoop in and take some of us off planet so that we will survive. I better go check out some of those conspiracy websites. WE might be saved afterall.

Hmm, maybe God’s doing a little target practice…ya think?

Got Tin-foil?

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Cragg Hines, Determined Enemy of American Success

I guess I would be surprised to find Cragg Hines ever saying anything resembling reason or intelligence in his absurd little rants on the pages of the Chronicle.

How is demanding a full and open debate on all proposed resolutions "blocking debate." It is readily apparent to anyone who isn't a Democrat Party shill that the Democrats are terrified of a real debate. They are even more terrified that the Gregg alternative proposal, which declared that Congress will not cut off funding for the troops, might pass and the anti-Bush, anti-war resolution fail.

GOP pyros richly deserve wrath of voters next year

By CRAGG HINES
Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle

Senate Republicans are playing with fire, and the House GOP probably would join in if its members could recover from their November shell shock and find the matches.

Blocking even debate on a mildly worded rebuke of President Bush's Iraq policy makes the mass of Senate Republicans look like their House colleagues whose fiscal folly in 1995 was chiefly responsible for shutting down the federal government.

That massive miscalculation was the single biggest factor in getting then-President Clinton up off the mat and headed toward an easy re-election in 1996. (So, OK, the incredibly lackluster effort of the ageing Republican nominee, Bob Dole, played some role.)

Voters properly fingered the Republicans' zealotry for the government-closing debacle.

The ultimate nightmare for Democrats and their MSM shills like Cragg Hines is for a positive outcome in Iraq. That is precisely why Democrats and Liberal Republicans have been fighting so hard to stop this troop surge. If the troops succeed and Iraq becomes a success story, the Democrats and their Liberal Republican allies are sunk for 2008.

Liberals need American troops and our allies in Iraq to fail. For them this is all about politics rather than the altruistic claims they continually make about saving lives and capturing bin Laden. The Warner resolution does nothing but provide cover for a bunch of cowardly old men who value their political careers over the lives of our troops and over the safety of our citizens.

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Amazing, A Balanced Editorial on Global Warming From the Post

Imagine that an editorial about Global Warming from the usually Liberal Post. Mr. Samuelson takes a realistic view on the hype which has been coming from the tree huggers and Chicken Little's about the urgency and calamatous impact of climate change. He hasn't gone so far as to dispute the poor science which is so often cited as proof of anthropogenic climate change.

Global Warming and Hot Air

By Robert J. Samuelson
Wednesday, February 7, 2007; Page A17

You could be excused for thinking that we'll soon do something serious about global warming. Last Friday, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) -- an international group of scientists -- concluded that, to a 90 percent probability, human activity is warming the Earth. Earlier, Democratic congressional leaders made global warming legislation a top priority; and 10 big U.S. companies (including General Electric and DuPont) endorsed federal regulation. Strong action seems at hand.

Don't be fooled. The dirty secret about global warming is this: We have no solution. About 80 percent of the world's energy comes from fossil fuels (coal, oil, natural gas), the main sources of man-made greenhouse gases. Energy use sustains economic growth, which -- in all modern societies -- buttresses political and social stability. Until we can replace fossil fuels or find practical ways to capture their emissions, governments will not sanction the deep energy cuts that would truly affect global warming.

Considering this reality, you should treat the pious exhortations to "do something" with skepticism, disbelief or contempt. These pronouncements are (take your pick) naive, self-interested, misinformed, stupid or dishonest. Politicians mainly want to be seen as reducing global warming. Companies want to polish their images and exploit markets created by new environmental regulations. As for editorialists and pundits, there's no explanation except superficiality or herd behavior.

-------------------snip------------------

Since 1850, global temperatures have increased almost 1 degree Celsius. Sea level has risen about seven inches, though the connection is unclear. So far, global warming has been a change, not a calamity. The IPCC projects wide ranges for the next century: temperature increases from 1.1 degrees Celsius to 6.4 degrees; sea level rises from seven inches to almost two feet. People might easily adapt; or there might be costly disruptions (say, frequent flooding of coastal cities resulting from melting polar ice caps).

Samuelson is, of course, correct about the wide variations in predictions coming from the alarmists. That is because it is a pseudo science and the predictions are based on models constructed by environmentalists who are convinced of the premise before they have even investigated the principles. That is what is commonly called "bad science."

The primary tenant of scientific investigation is to approach every hypothesis with a healthy skepticism and to be open to the possibility that their hypothesis may be wrong. That is why the investigative process is called "experimentation" rather than "proving."

There is more evidence that climate change is due to natural variations which occur in solar radiation, the Earth's orbit, and the precession of the axis during the Earth's rotation. Reinforcing this evidence is the recently observed climate change on Mars.

Congratulations Mr. Samuelson for imparting a little reason into the discussion.

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Deliberate Ignorance of Democrat Shill, EJ Dionne

Dionne never fails to shill for the Democrat Party. Mr. Dionne knows that the only effects of the proposed resolution will be the encouragement of our enemies in Iraq and elsewhere. The claim that it will "send a strong message to the President" is the single most idiotic statement to come out of the Anti-American, Anti-troop, Anti-victory forces of the Left. Mr. Dionne, are you by chance implying that the President has any doubt as to where the Democrats, who control Congress, stand on the war or on the troop surge? If so, you're an idiot, if not then what possible purpose would it serve except a political one?

The War To Save The Surge

By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Tuesday, February 6, 2007; Page A17

When political opponents tell you that to prove your seriousness you need to pursue a strategy they know is doomed to failure, shouldn't you be skeptical of their advice?

As the Senate considers a resolution to put itself on record opposing President Bush's escalation of the Iraq war through a "surge" of troops, Bush's backers are saying one thing and doing another.

They are saying that the resolution is meaningless and that true opponents of the war should prove their sincerity by cutting off funding altogether. But they are doing all they can to keep the Senate from even voting on a bipartisan anti-surge resolution that would send a powerful message to Bush that most Americans have lost faith in his bungled war policy.

If you doubt that the war's supporters would love its opponents to put all their eggs in the fund-cutoff basket, consider what it means for them to sound as if the administration's only serious foes were the likes of Dennis Kucinich and Cindy Sheehan.

The war's supporters are dead right. If you are opposed to the war then you have a moral and intellectual requirement to cut off funding immediately and force the President to withdraw the troops. The fact that you on the Left refuse to do so only speaks to the fact that this is a case of Liberals posturing for political effect, and not out of any real sense of concern over the lives of our troops or of concern that we are pursuing a wrong policy.

Your arguments are completely disingenuous and furthers you credentials as a Democrat shill. If you truly believe that the strategy is "doomed to fail" then you are obligated to stop it at any cost. It is much more likely that the Democrats and RINO's are very concerned that the strategy will succeed and that real progress might occur in the pursuit of pacification of Baghdad. Those on the Left have become so heavily invested in our eventual failure in Iraq, that they are actively pursuing a path to ensure that it will occur.

Any Liberal who fails to vote to cut funding lacks the courage of their convictions and is guilty of playing politics with the lives of our troops in a crass attempt to curry favor with their constituencies. In other words they are traitors.

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Playing Politics, Liberals Get Handed Setback

It always fascinates me the way these Post reporters define words in their editorials/news articles. As was pointed out last night on "Special Report with Brit Hume," the debate is what has been occurring for the past week, this vote was an attempt to end debate.

GOP Stalls Debate On Troop Increase
Democrats Fall Short On War Resolution

By Jonathan Weisman and Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, February 6, 2007; Page A01

A long-awaited Senate showdown on the war in Iraq was shut down before it even started yesterday, when nearly all Republicans voted to stop the Senate from considering a resolution opposing President Bush's plan to send 21,500 additional combat troops into battle.

A day of posturing, finger-pointing and backroom wrangling came to nothing when Democratic and Republican leaders could not reach agreement on which nonbinding resolutions would be debated and allowed to come to a vote. The Senate's 49 to 47 vote last night to proceed to debate on Bush's new war policy fell 11 votes short of the 60 needed to break the logjam. Just two Republicans, Norm Coleman (Minn.) and Susan Collins (Maine), voted with the Democrats to proceed with the debate. Both are considered among the most vulnerable senators standing for reelection in 2008.

Republicans insisted that the impasse will soon be broken. But the leaders of the two parties appeared to be far from a compromise last night, and the White House has worked hard to block action on a resolution disapproving of the president's decision to boost troop levels.

"What you just saw was Republicans giving the president the green light to escalate in Iraq," Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said after the vote. Reid contended that Republicans "are trying to avoid a debate on this matter."

You may have noticed that the presses definition of "debate" is exactly the same as that of Senator "Land Shark" Reid. Now why do you suppose that is? Particularly when that definition is precisely the opposite of what is being considered. The debate is over what resolutions should be adopted. As long as the Republicans hold out, the debate continues over whether or not the President's policy is a good one or not. The debate also continues over whether or not the Liberals in Congress will vote to cut off funding for the troops.

What Democrats like Reid are really concerned about is that the Rogers resolution stating that Congress will not cut off funding will pass, and the other resolution, the Levin/Warner resolution will fail. That is the real concern, and it also reveals that this is strictly a political ploy, not a real expression of concern over policy decisions of the President.

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Party of Jihad? Democrat Party Joins the “Religion of Peace”

Well, for those of you who weren’t able to watch the Democrat Party National Committee meeting on C-Span this morning, it was most enlightening.

Each of the prospective Candidates for President were given time to lie…uh…speak to the audience. The lies and distortions were legion and Hillary won the applause poll, closely followed by Barrack Hussein Obama.

All were preaching the “I Surrender” strategy for winning the war in Iraq. Hillary’s proposal is the most delayed and Kucinich and Edwards vied for who could bail first.

Applause for Kucinich and Edwards was scattered and unenthusiastic. Osama-bama got an enthusiastic reception for saying his usual sweet nothings, and as I said, Hillary really set the group on fire.

The most interesting part of the entire affair was the closing prayer offered by Imam Hasham al-Husseini, Imam to one of the most powerful Mosques in Detroit. In his prayer to God in the name of “Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed” he called for Him to

“Help us stop the war and violence and occupation and oppression.”

Excuse me Imam, occupation and oppression? So now our troops are oppressors as well as occupiers. If that’s how the Democrats think, then no wonder they want us and the Iraqi people to lose this war.

It’s becoming clearer and clearer that the Democrat Party is seeking to become the party of the Jihadist faction here in America. I’ve heard of having a big tent, but this is ridiculous.

Americans have nothing to fear from a Democrat victory in 2008, just learn Arabic now so that you won’t be caught up in the rush.

Long Live the American Republic and Death to Our Enemies!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below