I really, really hope this report is wrong in some way. But then, so far there hasn’t been a report of this nature that was ever proven “wrong”, just swept under the rug long enough that people forget. According to the story, the reason the two kidnapped journalists were released was because of giving into the kidnappers’ demands.

The announcement that the two journalists had converted to Islam as a reason for their release was only a camouflage to conceal the fact that the U.S. had agreed to the hostage-takers’ demands, according to the sources cited in the article. A few days ago the Rafah crossing was reopened for a few hours daily, and the Israeli forces stopped shelling residences of activists in the past few days, noted the paper’s sources.

It hadn’t occurred to me until now that the time span on this was a little shady. Jill Caroll was held for two and a half months, these two are out in two weeks. If it’s true that the government gave in to these guys’ demands, the situation is going to get a hell of a lot worse.

Reading the comments, though, and today’s biggest problem with understanding things comes to light:

In the name of investigative journalism, you and your team have effectively opened up the pandorean box to the likes of any terrorist organization. I am for the most part in favor of appropriate journalim but Brian Ross you and your investigative team do not know the real meaning of Patriotism!! Curse your ignorance.

How many problems can you find, kids? I got three:

1. People seem to have less of a problem with the government doing something blatantly corrupt than they do when the media reports on it. The mantra seems to be “the administration can do whatever it wants to endanger us, but don’t talk about it!”
2. The article says Ross didn’t write it, he’s just relating the previously Arabic report to us here.
3. Do these people actually think that the other terrorists wouldn’t know about this story until ABC said something? If the terrorists have ANY connection to one another, as soon as the deal went through word spread. The terrorists already know this, it’s only us finding out about it now.

As I said, hopefully this story isn’t quite the way it seems. If it turns out that our government is willing to negotiate with terrorists, I fail to see how we can ever trust them on anything. Hell it throws the last few years all into quite the nasty shadow. Plus that makes Rumsfeld’s accusation of war-opponents having “moral confusion” all the more laughable.

Also, am I being too cynical for suggesting that this is related to the fact that these two were working for FOX News?
[tags]terrorism, fox, journalism, corruption, government[/tags]

Just two days after Cheney claimed that “some people” wanted to appease terrorists so they’d leave us alone, a statement which I and many others heavily questioned, it seems the truth finally comes out. So who were those top democrats who suggested we appease terrorists?

Pressed to support these allegations, the White House yesterday could cite no major Democrat who has proposed cutting off funds or suggested that withdrawing from Iraq would persuade terrorists to leave Americans alone. But White House and Republican officials said those are logical interpretations of the most common Democratic position favoring a timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq.

“A lot of the people who say we need to withdraw from Iraq say we’ll be safer, and I don’t think that’s accurate,” said Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman.

How about that. Could not cite ONE major democrat who said that. Instead, Mehlman comes out with the claim that it’s a “logical interpretation”. Well I’ve got one for you Ken. There are some republicans out there who think that staying in the Iraq War, spending billions of dollars and running our military into the ground, until it can be passed off to the next guy is better than manning up and admitting you were wrong and you completely fucked it all up.

At least that’s the logical conclusion from the redcoat position.

[tags]iraq, war, republican, bush, cheney[/tags]

I’m watching CNN and reading Sweet Jesus, I Hate Bill O’Reilly, and suddenly a clip pops up showing Bush’s most recent speech. It’s a part of his “support the war, dammit!” tour. The clip they played went to this effect:

There are some in this country who would like to pull out of Iraq, regardless of the situation on the ground. These people could not be more wrong. If we were to do so, the results would be predictable, and they would be disastrous.

Somewhere in there he made a comment about not doubting they’re patriotism. Which is sort of implicitly saying “their hearts are in the right place, but they’re stupid”. I also took a fair bit of umbrage to Bush’s assertion that we want to get the hell out of Iraq regardless of the situation on the ground, when the reality is that we want to get the hell out of Iraq because of the situation on the ground.

But what really got to me was the fact that I found myself mouthing words right along with him. I’d never seen or heard this particular clip before, yet I knew what he was going to say. Look at that quote again, is there any part of it that seems new? Is there any part of it that sheds new light on the situation? Is there anything there that serves to convince war opponents to switch sides?

The man has been making the same speech for a long time. You could almost make a drinking game out of it, except you’d just be drinking nonstop for an hour. It’s pure rhetoric with no substance and nothing new.

That’s what the Iraq debate is. There’s no evolution, nothing changes. The talking points all stay the same. We aren’t leaving until the job is done. The terrorists want us to leave, so we won’t. If we left it would be a disaster and show that America isn’t willing to finish what it starts. Take your pick.
At least we’re avoiding the “stay the course”. Except all those other times.

[tags]bush, iraq, war[/tags]

Hoo boy. Let’s see how this goes. Bush is apparently noticing that the public at large is still not behind his wars, so he’s going to go around making speeches to rally support.

“At the American Legion annual meeting, the president will put the violence that Americans are seeing on their TV screens and reading in their papers into a larger context,” [deputy Press Secretary Dana] Perino told reporters aboard Air Force One en route to Arkansas for a political event. “He will acknowledge that these are unsettling times in Iraq, in Lebanon and the unsettling news about the foiled terror plot out of London.”

They mention the word “impatience”. We’re not impatient. We’re just mad. “Impatient” suggests that we supported it for a while and it’s the length of time that’s causing lowered support. The lowered support is because people are starting to see what this war is all about and what it isn’t about.

Of course, I can understand his panic. With 1/3 of the country supporting him, and likely that same 1/3 being the only ones who approve of how he’s handling Iraq, he needs to get out there and do all he can to improve the situation. Except, y’know, improve the situation.

Well done! Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is often touted as a doctor, holding an MD and such. He brought this to the light during the Terri Schiavo case, where he made an amazing diagnosis just by seeing a video of her (which turned out to be wrong, of course).

Oh there’s a problem, though. He lied on the paperwork necessary to keep his license.

Tennessee requires its licensed physicians to complete 40 hours of continuing medical education every two years. Frist, a heart-lung surgeon who is considering a 2008 presidential run, submitted a license renewal with the Tennessee Health Department stating he has fulfilled that requirement.

Wuh-oh. But wait, there’s more!

A renewal application Frist filed with the Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners in February of this year specifically mentions the continuing education requirement and was signed on his behalf by his accountant.

Lehigh said Frist may have been unaware of the change.

Way to go, Billy. Either you consciously lied on the application or you aren’t bright enough to actually read and sign it yourself.

[tags]bill frist, doctor, medicine, senate[/tags]

There are two events that define the Bush Reign: 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina. While people use Katrina to prove Bush’s incompetence, 9/11 is often pointed to as his triumph. His strength in the face of unspeakable tragedy. Is said praise apt? According to a 9/11 commissioner: no, it’s not.

Lehman says reforms to the FBI have not yielded an organization capable of stopping the “Islamist infrastructure” in the United States, which he says is largely supported — unchallenged by the U.S. government — by Saudi money.

“Five years after 9/11, nothing has been done to materially affect this root source of jihadism,” he writes.

This point I agree with. As I dug up before, the Saudis are the greatest exporter of terrorism, yet so much focus is on Iraq. He then says we should stop giving human rights to prisoners we take in this war of sorts, which would be a true statement if there were any way to affirm that they’re actually enemy combatants.

[tags]terrorism, war, 9/11[/tags]

Tell me a story. What did you do to “celebrate” the anniversary of Katrina?

Oh lordy how I hope this is true. Two lawyers who are taking on the case concerning Bush’s unconstitutional spying program are going to bring the law suit right onto Pennsylvania Avenue.

Bruce Afran and Carl Mayer, who say they represent hundreds of plaintiffs in lawsuits against Verizon, AT&T, and the US Government, will announnce today that they are serving both the Bush administration and Verizon with subpoenas.

They were supposed to be delivered by 4:30 today, and it’s nearly five hours past that, but maybe something came up. I would really, really hate to watch what could be the best thing to happen to this nation go disappear in the fog. Cross your fingers, folks.

[tags]spying, bush, crime, aclu, nsa[/tags]

Kerry sat by calmly when he had the presidency pulled away from him, but now he’s speaking up. In a letter to the Ohio governor, he blames President Bush’s honorary Ohio campaign co-chairman and the state’s top election official for stealing the election. The response?

Blackwell, who is black [note: mentioned due to implications that minority votes were suppressed], says the election was run fairly, citing 1 million more votes cast than in 2000 and record turnout among black voters.

“People will say anything for money,” said Blackwell campaign spokesman Carlo LoParo. “Fortunately, the historical record contradicts Senator Kerry.”

Damn right. It’s not like Ohio had massive voter irregularities, more votes than voters, huge amounts of votes added after all precincts reported, etc. Take a look at Warren County.

[tags]election, kerry, bush, ohio, president[/tags]

I’m not really sure what this would accomplish, but there you go. President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says he wants a live debate with Bush uncensored, accusing him of being too secretive.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called on U.S. President George W. Bush to participate in a “direct television debate with us,” so Iran can voice its point of view on how to end problems in the world.

“But the condition is that there can be no censorship, especially for the American nation,” he said Tuesday.

Meanwhile the deadline looms closer for Iran to stop its uranium enrichment. I don’t predict anything good coming from that.

[tags]iran, nuclear, bush, debate[/tags]