FOX NEWS: Hezbollah attempting to transfer captured Israeli soldiers to Iran
Oh-oh.

(Ann Coulter) N.Y. Times: Better Dead Than Read
Yay! It's Wednesday!

When I told a New York Observer reporter that my only regret was that Timothy McVeigh didn't hit The New York Times building, I knew many would agree with me — but I didn't expect that to include The New York Times. And yet, the Times is doing everything in its power to help the terrorists launch another attack on New York City.

As with forced school busing, liberals seem to believe that the consequences of their insane ideas can be confined to the outer boroughs.

Last year, the Times revealed a top secret program tracking phone calls connected to numbers found in Khalid Shaikh Mohammed's cell phone. How much more probable cause do you need, folks? Shall we do this as a diagram? How about in the form of an SAT question — or is that a touchy subject for the publisher of the Times? "9/11 architect Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is to terrorist attacks as ..."?

Their reaction to al-Zarqawi's death was to lower the U.S. flag at the Times building to half-staff. (Ha ha — just kidding! Everybody knows there aren't any American flags at The New York Times.)

And most recently, ignoring the pleas of the administration, 9/11 commissioners and even certifiable liberal Rep. Jack Murtha, the Times revealed another top secret program that had allowed the Treasury Department to track terrorists' financial transactions.

We're in a battle for our survival and we don't even know who the enemy is. As liberals are constantly reminding us, Islam is a "Religion of Peace." One very promising method of distinguishing the "Religion of Peace" Muslims from the "Slit Their Throats" Muslims is by following the al-Qaida money trail.

But now we've lost that ability — thanks to The New York Times.

People have gotten so inured to ridiculous behavior on the left that they are no longer capable of appropriate outrage when something truly treasonous happens. It is rather like the rape accusation against Bill Clinton losing its impact because of the steady stream of perjury, obstruction of justice, treason, adultery and general sociopathic behavior coming from that administration.

This is a phenomenon known in the self-help community as "Clinton fatigue" (not to be confused with the lower back pain associated with excessive sexual activity known as "Clinton back").

In December 1972, Ronald Reagan called President Richard Nixon after watching Walter Cronkite's coverage of the Vietnam War on "CBS News," telling Nixon that "under World War II circumstances, the network would have been charged with treason."

No treason charges were brought, but we still have to hear liberals carrying on about Nixon's monstrous persecution of the press — which was so ungrateful of him, considering how nicely the press treated him.

Today, Times editors and columnists are doing what liberals always do when they're caught red-handed committing treason: They scream that they're being "intimidated" before hurling more invective. This is getting to be like listening to the Soviet Union complaining about the intimidation coming from Finland.

Liberals are always play-acting that they are under some monstrous attack from the right wing as they insouciantly place all Americans in danger. Their default position is umbrage, bordering on high dudgeon.

We've had to listen to them whine for 50 years about the brute Joe McCarthy, whose name liberals blackened while sheltering Soviet spies.

In 1985, Times columnist Anthony Lewis accused the Reagan administration of trying to "intimidate the press." Channeling Anthony Lewis this week, Frank Rich claims the Bush administration has "manufactured and milked this controversy to reboot its intimidation of the press, hoping journalists will pull punches in an election year."

Rich's evidence of the brutal crackdown on the press was the statement of San Francisco radio host Melanie Morgan — who, by the way, is part of the press — proposing the gas chamber for the editor of the Times if he were found guilty of treason, which happens to be the punishment prescribed by law. (Once again Frank Rich finds himself in over his head when not writing about gay cowboy movies.)

I prefer a firing squad, but I'm open to a debate on the method of execution. A conviction for treason would be assured under any sensible legal system.

But however many Americans agree with Reagan on prosecuting treason, we can't even get President Bush to stop building up the liberal media by appearing on their low-rated TV shows — in the process, dissing TV hosts who support him and command much larger TV audiences. American consumers keep driving CNN's ratings down, and then Bush drives them back up again. So I wouldn't count on any treason charges emanating from this administration.

Is the Daily Kos About to Implode?
An interesting read on Moonbat Central.

Rove: Hispanics are `real Americans'
Yes, all citizens regardless of origin are real Americans, Karl. So what's your point? And why the hell are you recognizing a racist group? Oh, I forgot, because fedgov already has legitimized them with millions of tax-payer dollars. Double-AARRGGHH!!

FOXNews.com - Raw Data: E-Mail From Dr. Nicholas Bartha - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News:
This is the email from the gas-explosion doctor in Manhattan. Poor sap, really depressing stuff.

Error Theory: Comment period now open for Flight 93 memorial: Keep the crescent-mosque off of the crash-site!
I cannot believe that this is still a topic of conversation! Paul Murdoch should have had his terrorist-kissing mug fired ages ago. AARRGGHH!

KILL, DON'T CAPTURE By RALPH PETERS - New York Post Online Edition: Postopinion
It's OpEds like this that remind me how much I reallyreally miss the Post's home delivery:

July 10, 2006 -- THE British military defines experience as the ability to recognize a mistake the second time you make it. By that standard, we should be very experienced in dealing with captured terrorists, since we've made the same mistake again and again.

Violent Islamist extremists must be killed on the battlefield. Only in the rarest cases should they be taken prisoner. Few have serious intelligence value. And, once captured, there's no way to dispose of them.

Killing terrorists during a conflict isn't barbaric or immoral - or even illegal. We've imposed rules upon ourselves that have no historical or judicial precedent. We haven't been stymied by others, but by ourselves.

The oft-cited, seldom-read Geneva and Hague Conventions define legal combatants as those who visibly identify themselves by wearing uniforms or distinguishing insignia (the latter provision covers honorable partisans - but no badges or armbands, no protection). Those who wear civilian clothes to ambush soldiers or collect intelligence are assassins and spies - beyond the pale of law.

Traditionally, those who masquerade as civilians in order to kill legal combatants have been executed promptly, without trial. Severity, not sloppy leftist pandering, kept warfare within some decent bounds at least part of the time. But we have reached a point at which the rules apply only to us, while our enemies are permitted unrestricted freedom.

The present situation encourages our enemies to behave wantonly, while crippling our attempts to deal with terror.

Consider today's norm: A terrorist in civilian clothes can explode an IED, killing and maiming American troops or innocent civilians, then demand humane treatment if captured - and the media will step in as his champion. A disguised insurgent can shoot his rockets, throw his grenades, empty his magazines, kill and wound our troops, then, out of ammo, raise his hands and demand three hots and a cot while he invents tales of abuse.

Conferring unprecedented legal status upon these murderous transnational outlaws is unnecessary, unwise and ultimately suicidal. It exalts monsters. And it provides the anti-American pack with living vermin to anoint as victims, if not heroes.

Isn't it time we gave our critics what they're asking for? Let's solve the "unjust" imprisonment problem, once and for all. No more Guantanamos! Every terrorist mission should be a suicide mission. With our help.

We need to clarify the rules of conflict. But integrity and courage have fled Washington. Nobody will state bluntly that we're in a fight for our lives, that war is hell, and that we must do what it takes to win.

Our enemies will remind us of what's necessary, though. When we've been punished horribly enough, we'll come to our senses and do what must be done.

This isn't an argument for a murderous rampage, but its opposite. We must kill our enemies with discrimination. But we do need to kill them. A corpse is a corpse: The media's rage dissipates with the stench. But an imprisoned terrorist is a strategic liability.

Nor should we ever mistreat captured soldiers or insurgents who adhere to standing conventions. On the contrary, we should enforce policies that encourage our enemies to identify themselves according to the laws of war. Ambiguity works to their advantage, never to ours.

Our policy toward terrorists and insurgents in civilian clothing should be straightforward and public: Surrender before firing a shot or taking hostile action toward our troops, and we'll regard you as a legal prisoner. But once you've pulled a trigger, thrown a grenade or detonated a bomb, you will be killed. On the battlefield and on the spot.

Isn't that common sense? It also happens to conform to the traditional conduct of war between civilized nations. Ignorant of history, we've talked ourselves into folly.

And by the way: How have the terrorists treated the uniformed American soldiers they've captured? According to the Geneva Convention?

Sadly, even our military has been infected by political correctness. Some of my former peers will wring their hands and babble about "winning hearts and minds." But we'll never win the hearts and minds of terrorists. And if we hope to win the minds, if not the hearts, of foreign populations, we must be willing to kill the violent, lawless fraction of a fraction of a percent of the population determined to terrorize the rest.

Ravaged societies crave and need strict order. Soft policies may appear to work in the short term, but they fail overwhelmingly in the longer term. Wherever we've tried sweetness and light in Iraq, it has only worked as long as our troops were present - after which the terrorists returned and slaughtered the beneficiaries of our good intentions. If you wish to defend the many, you must be willing to kill the few.

For now, we're stuck with a situation in which the hardcore terrorists in Guantanamo are "innocent victims" even to our fair-weather allies. In Iraq, our troops capture bomb-makers only to learn they've been dumped back on the block.

It is not humane to spare fanatical murderers. It is not humane to play into our enemy's hands. And it is not humane to endanger our troops out of political correctness.

Instead of worrying over trumped-up atrocities in Iraq (the media give credence to any claim made by terrorists), we should stop apologizing and take a stand. That means firm rules for the battlefield, not Gumby-speak intended to please critics who'll never be satisfied by anything America does.

The ultimate act of humanity in the War on Terror is to win. To do so, we must kill our enemies wherever we encounter them. He who commits an act of terror forfeits every right he once possessed.

UN guns meeting ends in disarray
I just love happy endings.

"Seldom have diplomats worked so hard for so few results."

Honestly, the UN should be used to that. It's practically their motto.

One of the sweetest military homecoming photos you will ever see
This thread is now full of 'em. Tissue alert.

Is Sheehan Fasting or Pulling a Fast One?
Good grief, this is actually from Pravda. I may actually be embarrassed for the loony. OK, not.

Stay of Soledad cross removal extended (to allow for potential review by SCOTUS as needed)

Saudis to promote kingdom as cultural and scuba diving tourist destination:
Scrappleface could not have done a better job.

Saudi Arabia seems an unlikely destination for fun in the sun.

Yet here was a Saudi prince at a tourism conference in neighbouring Dubai, busily trying to sell his country as a vacation spot - provided visitors don’t expect alcohol, women come robed and everyone refrains from eating in public from dawn to dusk during the holy month of Ramadan.

And swinging singles need not apply. Women younger than 40 must be accompanied by their brothers or fathers.

Undaunted, the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, until recently accessible to only a handful of non-Muslim tourists, is opening its doors, beckoning curious world travellers to its mysterious and hidden treasures.

The change springs from the new policies of King Abdullah, who ascended the throne last August after the death of his half brother, King Fahd.

Abdullah, a reformer, wants to show that his country is more than just the former home of Osama bin Laden and a breeding ground for Islamic extremism.

“He wants to show the world a different face to the kingdom. It’s all part of a greater plan to open up the country, to show that though it is Arab and Islamic, it is also modern and moderate,” said Mishari al Thaybi, a Saudi writer and analyst for the London-based newspaper Al Sharq al Awsat.

[snip]

*shakes head*

Feel free to read the ridiculous rest.

Truth, Justice and the American Whatever [Lileks]:
I love Lileks!

Outrage of the summer: The new 'Superman' movie edited out 'The American Way' from the Krypton immigrant's rally cry. The Daily Planet editor says Supe's now all about 'Truth, Justice and all that stuff.'

Makes perfect sense. Consider the foreign markets, where 'the American Way' means Abu Ghraib and McDonald's. Don't remind them! They might burn the theater. (If that's their way.) Besides, it makes sense to have a newspaper editor treat the line with gruff dismissal, since hard-bitten editors don't get starry-eyed over patriotic hogwash. Except when discussing the people's right to know the GPS coordinates of Superman's secret fort.

As it turns out, however, the omission was intentional. 'The American Way' sounds Krypto-fascist. The movie's authors are the usual moderns, serenely above rude jingo pride:

'We were always hesitant to include the term `American way' because the meaning of that today is somewhat uncertain,' said co-writer Michael Dougherty. 'I think when people say `American way,' they're actually talking about what the `American way' meant back in the '40s and '50s, which was something more noble and idealistic.'

Ah. Of course. Well, in the '40s, the American Way included incinerating German cities, nuking Japan, installing occupying armies with remnants to this day, and imposing our form of government -- all the while referring to the enemy with hurtful ethnic slurs. All this plus forced relocation. If these actions are deemed noble and idealistic now, it'll be a handy sentiment the next time the U.S. gears up for total war.

But the inconstant left doesn't believe any of this is permissible in the service of a noble goal. The right, after all, can't lead the war on terror because they don't 'walk the walk' on human rights: witness those POWs slaving away in the cane fields of Gitmo. Unless we lead by example, no one will choose the American Way. Never mind that the internment of the Japanese didn't keep the Germans -- or the Japanese, for that matter -- from following our example after World War II. (Note to the dense: The above is not an endorsement of internment. Just a reminder of which party has more practice.)

[snip]

Click the link to read the rest.

Congratulations, Krazy Kim!
I actually got a few giigles from this one. Worth the read.

Poor rittle Kim Jong-Mentally-Il. He's so ronery.

4th of July at the LA Times: Founding Fathers "A Bunch of Racist, Slave-Owning White Men"
Freaks.

N. Korea Holds onto Chinese Trains Bringing Aids(NK brazenly rips off China)
Some funny news out of NK today -- besides bum missiles...

Japanese Media, "(N. Koreans) say that trains are part of the aid package."

[2006-07-04]

Outdated N. Korean trains N. Korea refuses to return (Chinese) trains which brought aid supplies from China, even after the supplies were unloaded, leaving Chinese authorities increasingly frustrated, it has been revealed. Quoting sources inside China, Jiji Press of Japan reported in its July 4th dispatch, "China is sending materials and goods to N. Korea, but, in recent days, N. Korea frequently refuses to return these trains, raising frustration of Chinese authorities." According to Jiji, the sources speculated, "N. Korea appears to think that the trains are part of the aid package." It went on to explain that these recent incidents are indications of how imcomprehensible N. Korea is to outsiders.

Anti-Bush Pentagon officials leak military secrets to Iran

FrontPageMag.com ^ | July 2, 2006 | David Horowitz

If anyone doubts that the most serious threat to American security is the lack of fundamental loyalty on the part of significant segments of our population beginning with members of our intelligence and military agencies (egged on by irresponsibile leaders of the Democratic Party and the media), one has only to read this item from Reuters in today's news. Apparently some officials in the Pentagon, concerned that the White House might take action against Iran have leaked classified information to the press (which the press, of course, is all to eager to publish for our enemies to view). This particular tidbit of damaging information is that America actually doesn't have the military ability to destroy Iran's nuclear capabilities. If this information is true, it is invaluable intelligence to the fanatics in Teheran. If it is not true, why would anyone leak it, since leaking it only encourages Iran's nuclear ambitions?

The leaking of this information is espionage -- as clearly defined by America's espionage laws. It provides extraordinarily valuable informaiton for the enemy and at one time would have been considered treasonous and prosecuted. Of course the government is unable to prosecute traitors anymore, it can't even monitor terrorist communications from abroad without having half the country's political actors in an uproar.

The information published by Reuters endangers the security of every American. Obviously the betrayers of America's military secrets ensconced in the Pentagon no longer believe in our democratic process which elects a commander-in-chief. Instead, whoever leaked this information feels authorized -- probably by the New York Times and John Murtha -- to take authority over matters of war and peace into its own hands by leaking national secrets to the enemy (with the aid of a willing media) in order to tie the hands of the elected commander-in-chiefs. But why not, since the entire liberal community, beginning with the Democratic Party leadership and the New York Times is demanding just such behavior so that Americans can defend themselves against an un-elected president who has destroyed our Constitution and launched a useless war under false pretenses.

One of the least appetizing aspects of this liberal war on America's national security is how liberals rationalize their behavior as self-defense.Frank Rich in today's Times accuses the Bush Administration of attacking the media because it is losing the war in Iraq. In other words Bush is the divider and the aggressor. Only to a solipsist like Frank Rich. Half the difficulties of the war in Iraq stem from the interal war that liberals like Rich and the leaders of the Democratic Party have conducted against the Iraq war from its inception. A divided nation is a weak nation and everyone -- friend as well as foe -- knows it. The left's no-holds-barred assault on Bush is rationalized by the left as their noble reaction to the alleged illegality and false pretenses of the war in Iraq. But the war in Iraq has ten times the legitimacy of Clinton's war in Bosnia which received no congressional authorization and had no Security Council ultimatum and no violated truce to justify it. That didn't bother liberals at all because it was their war and solipsistic as they are, no principles other than their self-interest applied to it. As for the charge of false pretenses, the removal of Saddam Hussein by force was called for by Clinton as well as Bush, and was authorized by a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress with full access to the intelligence information on which the decision to go to war was based and which was assembled by a CIA whose director who was a Clinton appointee.

The opposition to this administration and this war is the most disgraceful in the history of this nation. Let's hope these betrayals don't result in another 9/11. Or worse.

Court finds a right to jihad in the Constitution
The Master(ful)-as-usual-Steyn.

There are several ways to fight a war. On the one hand, you can put on a uniform, climb into a tank, rumble across a field and fire on the other fellows' tank. On the other, you can find a 12-year-old girl, persuade her to try on your new suicide-bomber belt and send her waddling off into the nearest pizza parlor.

The Geneva Conventions were designed to encourage the former and discourage the latter. The thinking behind them was that, if one had to have wars, it's best if they're fought by soldiers and armies. In return for having a rank and serial number and dressing the part, you'll be treated as a lawful combatant should you fall into the hands of the other side. There'll always be a bit of skulking around in street garb among civilian populations, but the idea was to ensure that it would not be rewarded --that there would, in fact, be a downside for going that route.

The U.S. Supreme Court has now blown a hole in the animating principle behind the Geneva Conventions by choosing to elevate an enemy that disdains the laws of war in order to facilitate the bombing of civilian targets and the beheading of individuals. The argument made by Justice John Paul Stevens is an Alice-In-Jihadland ruling that stands the Conventions on their head in order to give words the precise opposite of their plain meaning and intent. The same kind of inspired jurisprudence conjuring trick that detected in the emanations of the penumbra how the Framers of the U..S Constitution cannily anticipated a need for partial-birth abortion and gay marriage has now effectively found a right to jihad -- or, if you're a female suicide bomber about to board an Israeli bus, a woman's right to Jews.

[snip]

WDSU.com - Irresistible Headlines - Jordanian Man Busted Using Brad Pitt Photo On ID

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates -- If he's telling the truth, a Jordanian salesman could be the only man on the planet who doesn't know who Brad Pitt is.

The 29-year-old man has been arrested for allegedly trying to use an ID card with an Arabic name and Pitt's photo -- which he allegedly downloaded from the Internet.

He allegedly forged the card with the Hollywood actor's picture and an Arabic name in an attempt to steal more than $22,000 left unclaimed at an exchange house where his brother worked as a teller, according to a report in the daily Gulf News.

He told police he had never heard of Pitt.

Dubai's public prosecutors charged the man with forgery and embezzlement.

*shakes head*

Singing Japan PM tours Graceland

BBC (UK) ^ | 30JUN06 | BBC

Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi has visited the home of his musical hero, Elvis Presley, as a guest of US President George W Bush.

The Japanese PM showed off his Elvis impression